For a carry/duty/defensive pistol, whats the minimum acceptable precision and why?
Not talking about competition use (bullseye, IDPA etc).
It would be helpful to get your thoughts expressed as follows -
# of shots in # inch group at # unit of distance
thanks!
Last edited by fishing; 01-23-2017 at 07:18 PM.
10 shots in four inches at 25 yards. Almost any decent service pistol and ammo can do that. Fewer shooters can.
Okie John
“The reliability of the 30-06 on most of the world’s non-dangerous game is so well established as to be beyond intelligent dispute.” Finn Aagaard
"Don't fuck with it" seems to prevent the vast majority of reported issues." BehindBlueI's
I'm one of the many shooters who can't often toss 10 rounds in 4" at 25y.
If I can shoot a pistol well enough and consistent enough to instantly recognize what I can and can't hit, I'm good with it.
Larry Vickers, the tactical luminary that he is, argues for a handgun capable of a 2.5" mechanical accuracy in a 10 shot group: http://www.vickerstactical.com/accuracy.html
I do think that's not a bad standard to meet.
Intrinsic accuracy is good for any shooter, although there are obviously diminishing returns. Even if you can't outshoot your gun, you still gain accuracy overall with a more intrinsically accurate gun.
Last edited by Default.mp3; 01-23-2017 at 07:39 PM.
DefaultMp3 hit the issue on the head as far as I'm concerned.
Vickers' concept of mechanical accuracy increasing your acceptable error range is a strong argument for as mechanically accurate as you can get while still being reliable.
This is a big reason that I have gravitated to HK and SIG in the last few years.
I'm not a great shooter. My personal requirement for accuracy at the moment is being able to hit an 8" circle at 25yds, in under 3 from concealment. With follow ups under 1. Admittedly, out past 15 has been my weakest point and my biggest focus this last year. I'm about 85% on that goal right now when shooting a P-series HK, and a couple points higher on a p226. My Glock shooting at 25 is a bit below 80% if memory serves.
Hard to argue with LAV's numbers.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
I wish there were some kind of service offered where someone would test a pistol's mechanical accuracy from a ransom or similar rest. Does such a thing exist? I'd be willing to shell out $100 for it probably.
Send it to me with 50 rounds of the ammo you want tested and a $100 bill and I'll let you know how it does!Originally Posted by LSW
But seriously look at this as a chance to get better with your group shooting. When I started exploring this on my M&P I quickly figured out I was causing too many errors even off a bench to be a reliable test. Get a bunch of dummies and load your mag up so that you only have 1 live round intermixed with maybe 10 dummies. You only eject a dummy when you have a perfect execution. If you wobble the sights or jerk the gun at all when clicking on a dummy you re-cock the gun without ejecting the dummy and try again.
Initially you may get 30 dry fires for one live fire but that repetition will teach you more about proper execution than anything else could. As you get better you can ween down the number of dummies. After a hundred rounds of live fire like that over a few range trips you won't need a Ransom Rest. You'll be the Ransom Rest!
Now off a bag I can hold 2" 10 round groups when I don't screw up and 4" 10 round groups freestyle at 25 yards. Still working on getting rid of that "when I screw up" part.
I just got an Apex Barrel fitted to my M&P so hopefully can get that shot for groups in the next week or two. Once that's done I'll do a report thread.
I think the best argument for as accurate a gun you can get that still has reliable function is that it helps you be a better shooter fundamentally, not just more accurate.
Despite my love for Berettas, when I switched from primarily DA/SA triggers to striker triggers I noted a dramatic increase in my accuracy. Further, because I had chosen to heavily practice with three pistols (G19, VP9, PPS-M1) noted for excellent accuracy potential, I was able to quickly and cleanly identify my weakest shooting trait (tendency for my shots to drift low-left from poor trigger finger placement and flinching) and address it consciously.
An accurate pistol, like any good tool, frees you from having to think about something - here, about the accuracy of the pistol, in the same way a good one-piece Estwing hammer or hatchet frees you from worrying if the head of your tool is going to fall off under a heavy load or a Japanese car frees you from worrying if the sucker is gonna start in the morning. The more you can throw out extraneous worries, the better you can become as a shooter. I think that's a huge reason Glock maintains such a strong market share even with so many options on the market. Since it's a known quantity, and we know with rare exception that a Glock will be reliable and accurate, we can focus on the good bits: accuracy and speed. Our own hands, rather than the tool in them.
Last edited by LockedBreech; 01-31-2017 at 03:52 PM.
State Government Attorney | Beretta, Glock, CZ & S&W Fan
To expand a little on my previous post, I whipped up a couple of graphics in Excel. I just used a uniformly random distribution for both shooter's muzzle alignment and the gun's intrinsic accuracy. The 95% group was calculated using the STDEV.S function in Excel, and multiplying it to get 4 σs worth of distance (which I think is the correct way to do it?).
Reply With Quote
