Accuracy

[jetfire]

Why, on this forum and others, in classes, and so on, is accuracy marginalized as a skill set by so many cognoscenti.

It's not. Like Todd, I've never been to a serious pistol class where accuracy was marginalized.

The problem is you're thinking of accuracy as an absolute, when it's really more of an abstract. Someone who's primary concern is defensive pistol shooting doesn't need to be able to shoot 2 inch groups at 25 yards. Would that be a cool and beneficial skill to have? Certainly. But it's not necessary to be adapt at using a pistol to defend your life.

Most instructors are bright enough to teach that there is a balance point between speed and accuracy.

[GJM]

Bill, when you say "accuracy marginalized," do you mean the importance of a mechanically accurate pistol, a shooter's ability to extract all the accuracy their pistol and ammo is capable of, or both?

[Erik]

Why, on this forum and others, in classes, and so on, is accuracy marginalized as a skill set by so many cognoscenti.

I don't agree with this statement. At least on this forum, I think statement's like Todd's below are much more the norm.

A more accurate gun is always a benefit. The question is one of degree and priority.

I've also read quite a few AARs on this forum and others in which the instructor's belief that accuracy is important was a central feature. Larry Vickers, mentioned above, comes immediately to mind. These types of threads always seem to devolve into a back and forth between folks who prioritize skills and tools differently. "Speed is fine, accuracy is final." "Nobody who was in a gun fight ever wished they were slower/had fewer rounds in the gun." I haven't read them all, but I don't think I have ever read any thread in which anybody argued seriously that, all other things being equal, faster/more accurate/higher capacity wasn't better. I have read any number of threads in which people prioritized these things differently, and were called to task by others with different views. I am interested in everybody's (well, manybody's) reasons for prioritizing the way they do. I have zero interest in being told I'm a moron if I make a thoughtful decision to prioritize things differently. I'm a pretty smart guy, and I think I know a lot about a lot, but I don't think I'm the smartest guy evar* and I know I don't have all or the only answers. I can respect somebody else's choice to do things differently from me even as I disagree with them. More than the marginalization of accuracy (or speed or capacity), the inability to do that is what I see in evidence among so many cognoscenti.

*ETA: ...or the fastest typist.

[GardoneVT]

JV - If you'll re-read what I posted, I am not driving at "gear based solutions." I was explicit in that. I asked why accuracy, which as Todd pointed out is additive of gear and shooter, is marginalized. By just about everyone. Is there even a single marksmanship class review on this site?

Todd - I intentionally wanted to steer clear of the "average" shooter. You're last point illustrates my question quite nicely, though. How many people take "Tactical Pistol Shooting 101 and 102" each year? Now then, how many take an actual marksmanship class? Who even offers a class like that?

That comment illustrates one of the problems with being on the outliers of the bell curve,as we are.

Shooters like us are NOT the norm among gun owners.The majority determines the market,and considering most shooters barely know the Four Commandments without advanced instruction, the priority for instructors is to get the typical gun owner to safely and competently defend themselves at close range.Once that difficult task is done, then long range accuracy can be built on. I'd personally say that if you cannot safely and accurately shoot a weapon at 7 yards,you've got no business trying for 25+.

Regretably, most shooters seem to plateau at 10 feet shooting rusted refrigerators.Last time I shot with friends I was treated like Apollo for hitting a B27 target at 25 yards-hardly an amazing feat,and I said so at the time.

[BLR]

I think I'm not doing a great job of conveying my thoughts. Take gear out of the equation totally.

Question to Todd and TC - the last two weeks of practice, how much of it was dedicated to accuracy fundamentals? By that, I mean out past 7yrds, where a group size was measured or bullseye type score was obtained? Compare that to how much time was spent on splits, drawing, and reloading. That is not to imply you would need to use a target grip, powder puff loads, and so on. When was the last time you shot at 50 yrds? Or did a FAST at 15/20/25yrds? In my experience, it's darn difficult to work on accuracy, especially at speed, with a taped and retaped IPSC/IDPA/Q target. Those and paper plates comprised 99% of all targets I've seen at a class.

I've been practicing like mad on reloads, as that is what is killing me on my FAST times. 90% of my practice is going to that effort right now. But I make sure I spend at least 50rds a week on a honest to God NRA 25yrd center fire target just reinforcing fundamentals. How much time/how many rounds do you guys fire per week working on accuracy fundamentals? How much slow fire? How much timed at a scoreable target at 25yrds? Or 50?

I'm not calling anyone out here. I'm only saying I think there is a disproportionately larger amount of time spent by most on other things. I can't remember where I read it or who said it, but I believe someone at least a bit of credibility stated the further away an officer is from his opponent in a gunfight, the greater his odds are of coming out uninjured. A statistical "distance" is your friend.

A review of the recent threads here indicates a concern over time (faster/slower), but no one *that I saw* is addressing accuracy standards. I just find that odd. Not wrong. Just inconsistent with a drive to be better and better.

[BLR]

Bill, when you say "accuracy marginalized," do you mean the importance of a mechanically accurate pistol, a shooter's ability to extract all the accuracy their pistol and ammo is capable of, or both?

Both. But far more the ability side of the equation.

Again, I'm not talking about Joe Somedood. I'm talking about "us." Us, as in the guys who are honestly looking to improve. Who practice. Who strive for incremental improvement.

[BLR]

It's not. Like Todd, I've never been to a serious pistol class where accuracy was marginalized.

The problem is you're thinking of accuracy as an absolute, when it's really more of an abstract. Someone who's primary concern is defensive pistol shooting doesn't need to be able to shoot 2 inch groups at 25 yards. Would that be a cool and beneficial skill to have? Certainly. But it's not necessary to be adapt at using a pistol to defend your life.

Most instructors are bright enough to teach that there is a balance point between speed and accuracy.

I don't know that I'd agree with that.

Look at the North Hollywood Shootout. The ability to make a head shot at 25+ yards could have been a game changer, no?

*working from sketchy memory on that example

[Sparks2112]

As someone with pretty significant vision problems, shooting tiny groups isn't something I'm capable of. I'm still eagerly awaiting the Salient 226 however because as mentioned earlier, more accurate = more better.

[GJM]

Bill, I agree that you have something in your mind, as evidenced by your starting the thread, and based on my experience starting threads, that sometimes that doesn't translate into the discussion you were hoping for.

I am not Todd and Tim, but I have an absolute interest in achieving the best accuracy I am capable of with my chosen platform. Just as much as I am interested in absolute speed with a given platform. In the last week or so, I have done a bunch of shooting at an 8 inch steel at 50 yards, figuring out what I need to do with my HD sights and my eyes. I have shot more shots at the one inch square and two inch dot, then at the 8 inch circle, and I can't remember the last time I shot at something bigger than the 8 inch circle from any distance. On the FAM qual, I worked to doing the whole drill on the 3x5, and wanted to do the two inch dot but ran out of time. Just on Thursday, my limited practice session consisted of drawing to the one inch square at 7 yards, the two inch dot at 10 yards, and running the FAST at 25 yards. I have had an email exchange about trigger technique, and specifically pinning the trigger on low prob shots, discussed this on the phone with Origami, YVK and TLG, proposed a drill of the week to the one inch square and two inch dot to TLG, and asked TLG to add more one inch squares to the next revision of the PF target. I have run multiple practice sessions without a timer, just focusing on shooting to a sight picture. I also shot the 300 drill after that week's DOW until the ink jet printer at our remote cabin ran out of ink making targets. I spoke to Origami just yesterday about his shooting groups on the 3x5, pressing the trigger at a very brisk speed.

Other than the 3x5 FAM qual, I don't believe any of this ever made PF. I think the nature of PF drills and discussion tends to discuss time, because it is easy to describe and count speed. I suspect there are a bunch of us out there working accuracy, and just not discussing it.

[DocGKR]

I shoot all three Defoor drills just about every time I practice--that includes timed and scored shots out to 50 yds. I also shoot the 500 pt aggregate at least once a month or so, as well as the LAPD SWAT qual. My problem is that those are the areas I do best at. Where I need to practice is rapid shots and transitions at 15 yds and in. That is where I suck now. As a result, the majority of my practice now tends to be fast, close drills.