Lowering the Bar

[Ark]

Hot take, most shooters won't do that consistently offhand on a square range, let alone under stress.

I don't think I've ever encountered a handgun that I really thought was not 3" mechanically accurate at 10 yards. Everything I own shoots to my ability on that given day and I've never felt held back by the mechanical accuracy of the gun. Trigger, yes, grip size, yes, caliber strength, yes, but never mechanical slop in the actual gun. Degradation in accuracy always seems to track well with my shot calling.

 

[Hookeye]

To get a handguns true accuracy you would need a vise that will hold it in the same position every shot at the distance you want to test it. Is there such a thing with that capability? Ransom rest?

Yeah, and I have one w windage base and a few inserts.

You might also be suprised what good form and eyes w a sandbag can do.

When younger i didnt need a Ransom rest. My old Allen suede bag was plenty.

Alas it finally fell apart after 30 plus yrs.

 

[Hookeye]

Target type, lighting and who is shooting nearby....indoors is tough

But once you get good indoors, outdoors seems easy.

44 mags indoors is rough. Sweat rolls down your ribs. Everybody looking when you light one off. Your bud next lane shooting similar......it aint easy.

But you can push through and do well w practice.

And then youll look like a badass outdoors when everything is better lit and not as blasty.

 

[Hookeye]

So when i see folks shooting indoors i cut em a lot of slack.

However, some have been at it for a while and continue to suck.

And that is fine

But when your group is 6 or 7 inches rested, dont tell me how awesome your gun is. Had some guy w a Wilson talk about the great accuracy. His groups that big LOL

 

[kawtech87]

Huh? My P365 will put it through the same hole in the bullseye at 40 feet, it’s no slouch.

Does it have sights? Real sights? Possibly even a slide mounted red dot? Not the trench sight that's on the SAS model? Front sight focused close range shooting is impossible without a front sight. Longer ranges would be difficult at best. I have no doubt that the 365 is a decent defensive pistol. But a match winner most likely not

 

[wcd]

Does it have sights? Real sights? Possibly even a slide mounted red dot? Not the trench sight that's on the SAS model? Front sight focused close range shooting is impossible without a front sight. Longer ranges would be difficult at best. I have no doubt that the 365 is a decent defensive pistol. But a match winner most likely not

I was not familiar with the P365 that was absent sights? Mine has excellent sights Sig X-Ray night sights. Although Mine is a bug, I have full confidence in it. Understanding its not designed as high end Match gun, it will make consistent repeatable hits at 30 to 40 yards. Meaning it will hit a 4 inch steel plate with out issue. Again mine fills a back up role however as such it needs to perform, and that it does. Honestly I know several people that are using them for a primary carry.

 

[BE Mike]

Huh? My P365 will put it through the same hole in the bullseye at 40 feet, it’s no slouch.

How does it do at 25 yards?

 

[Route 45]

For a defensive pistol, the question should not be whether you can make small groups on a far away static target doing slow fire on a warm, sunny day. The question should be whether you and your equipment can put 3 shots in a 4" circle at a realistic self-defense distance in under 1 second. Everything else is irrelevant.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The question should be whether you and your equipment can put 3 shots in a 4" circle at a realistic self-defense distance in under 1 second. Everything else is irrelevant.

Interesting. How'd you come up with that particular metric? 1 second from what, first shot to last or from a stimulus to last shot? A draw and 3 shots in 1 second is a pretty tough standard, particularly with a pistol that's realistic and safe for self-defense (aka not a 2-lb trigger'd SA in a gamer rig holster)

 

[Route 45]

Interesting. How'd you come up with that particular metric? 1 second from what, first shot to last or from a stimulus to last shot? A draw and 3 shots in 1 second is a pretty tough standard, particularly with a pistol that's realistic and safe for self-defense (aka not a 2-lb trigger'd SA in a gamer rig holster)

Well, it's not an exact metric. Could be 1.5 seconds, I suppose. Could be from the draw, or from low ready. The general idea is that quickly putting multiple shots on target in a vital area at a realistic self defense distance is more important than taking a minute to put 3 shots into an X ring at 25 yards and then trotting downrange with a ruler.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, it's not an exact metric. Could be 1.5 seconds, I suppose. Could be from the draw, or from low ready. The general idea is that quickly putting multiple shots on target in a vital area at a realistic self defense distance is more important than taking a minute to put 3 shots into an X ring at 25 yards and then trotting downrange with a ruler.

I agree with the general premise, although I wouldn't say that's ALL that matters. I think easy to shoot well needs to be balanced with easy to not shoot accidentally as well, etc. I've personally come to believe that for the vast majority of issues, the time from the beginning of the draw stroke to the first shot is the most important metric that has a correlation to success. Split times aren't that important, reload speeds are all but irrelevant, but once you start the draw that starts a timer for the other guy and you better get a round off before his timer finishes the OODA loop.

 

[DadSmith]

Well, it's not an exact metric. Could be 1.5 seconds, I suppose. Could be from the draw, or from low ready. The general idea is that quickly putting multiple shots on target in a vital area at a realistic self defense distance is more important than taking a minute to put 3 shots into an X ring at 25 yards and then trotting downrange with a ruler.

I run around 2 seconds to lift shirt or jacket draw and fire 2 shots. I highly doubt I can get much faster and hit properly. The farther back the slower I get for aim time say around 15-25 yards and really slow at 50 yards. 10 yards or less it's 2 seconds maybe a little faster, but slower if my hands are cold in 0 degree weather.

 

[Route 45]

I agree with the general premise, although I wouldn't say that's ALL that matters. I think easy to shoot well needs to be balanced with easy to not shoot accidentally as well, etc. I've personally come to believe that for the vast majority of issues, the time from the beginning of the draw stroke to the first shot is the most important metric that has a correlation to success. Split times aren't that important, reload speeds are all but irrelevant, but once you start the draw that starts a timer for the other guy and you better get a round off before his timer finishes the OODA loop.

Well, I didn't comment on any other factor. I agree with all of this. I was just commenting on the apparent emphasis on group size at extended range in this thread, which is way down the list of factors in a defensive encounter, IMO. Most modern handguns have sufficient accuracy for defensive purposes required of a handgun.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Well, I didn't comment on any other factor. I agree with all of this. I was just commenting on the apparent emphasis on group size at extended range in this thread, which is way down the list of factors in a defensive encounter, IMO. Most modern handguns have sufficient accuracy for defensive purposes required of a handgun.

I suspect you are right. 1st gen M&P 9mms being the only likely exception I can think of. Not every example, but many were absolute trash in the accuracy department. Oh, and some early P320s as well, some examples grouped well but not even remotely where the sights indicated the group ought to be.... I think both have sorted that out, though.

 

[700 LTR 223]

Smith and Wesson had an accuracy standard I had seen some years ago. Don't recall the numbers , but the standard was obviously different depending on firearm type with the K Fame and larger revolvers having the tightest accuracy standard among centerfire handguns.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Smith and Wesson had an accuracy standard I had seen some years ago. Don't recall the numbers , but the standard was obviously different depending on firearm type with the K Fame and larger revolvers having the tightest accuracy standard among centerfire handguns.

The French Manurhin MR73 revolvers had a pretty tight accuracy standard:

"Every MR 73 is match grade accurate, shipped with its own factory test target fired at 25 m (27.3 yd). Averaging 15 rounds, no group over 20 mm (0.79 in) diameter with selected ammunition is allowed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manurhin_MR_73

 

[wcd]

Interesting. How'd you come up with that particular metric? 1 second from what, first shot to last or from a stimulus to last shot? A draw and 3 shots in 1 second is a pretty tough standard, particularly with a pistol that's realistic and safe for self-defense (aka not a 2-lb trigger'd SA in a gamer rig holster)

Not intending to come across as sarcastic, but I used a Ransom rest, tape measure, a card table, and two sand bags on the table to keep it from moving around, and a paper target.

it took a bit of adjustment to get it to print where I wanted to but once adjusted, my results were repeatable, and I think a good representation of the fact that the pistol is more accurate Than many shooters.

initially this was done more for my own benefit to test my carry ammo.

understanding for me this is an in case of emergency break glass option, but it is more than capable.

 

[BE Mike]

Hot take, most shooters won't do that consistently offhand on a square range, let alone under stress.

I don't think I've ever encountered a handgun that I really thought was not 3" mechanically accurate at 10 yards. Everything I own shoots to my ability on that given day and I've never felt held back by the mechanical accuracy of the gun. Trigger, yes, grip size, yes, caliber strength, yes, but never mechanical slop in the actual gun. Degradation in accuracy always seems to track well with my shot calling.

My point is that it is helpful to start with a known quantity and the bar for accuracy should be reasonably high. 10 yards ain’t it!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Not intending to come across as sarcastic, but I used a Ransom rest, tape measure, a card table, and two sand bags on the table to keep it from moving around, and a paper target.

it took a bit of adjustment to get it to print where I wanted to but once adjusted, my results were repeatable, and I think a good representation of the fact that the pistol is more accurate Than many shooters.

initially this was done more for my own benefit to test my carry ammo.

understanding for me this is an in case of emergency break glass option, but it is more than capable.

I understand how to test for group accuracy. I think perhaps you've misunderstood the question, as ransom rest testing has nothing to do with split times, draw times, and their role in a metric for "what's good enough for a carry pistol". I was asking how he came up with his time limits, not how do you see how accurate a given pistol is.

 

[jwamplerusa]

Hot take, most shooters won't do that consistently offhand on a square range, let alone under stress.

I don't think I've ever encountered a handgun that I really thought was not 3" mechanically accurate at 10 yards. Everything I own shoots to my ability on that given day and I've never felt held back by the mechanical accuracy of the gun. Trigger, yes, grip size, yes, caliber strength, yes, but never mechanical slop in the actual gun. Degradation in accuracy always seems to track well with my shot calling.

^^^^ This!

I had a 22 that keyholed at 20 ft about 30% of the time. It was still mechanically more accurate than I am.