Accuracy Standards

[dross]

I asked a similar question before on this thread and got some great answers and info, but not exactly what I was seeking.

Here's my question:

What size groups does an average shot shoot from seven yards? Ten yards? Twenty-five yards?

How about a good shot?

An outstanding shot?


The reason I ask is that I'd like to have some benchmarks. I'm improving as I practice, but if I were playing golf, or tennis, I'd have something to measure myself by. With shooting I just don't know.

 

[s346k]

i am curious of this, as well.

at 25 yards i can shoot a 4" pattern with my carry gun. i see that as the equivalent to someone's face, that was always good enough for me. i doubt i'll have to rely on my 4.25" barrel to take someone out at 75'+. i've never shot for a pattern closer than 25 yards, i enjoy shooting stuff like golf balls, pool balls, etc. i might surprise myself haha.

at 10 yards i was 3 for 3 shooting arrows (stuck in the ground, standing up) with a 686+ (6"). i am proud of that. i love that pistol. my father was shooting the caps off of 20 oz bottles with it at 20 yards. we thought the first one was a fluke, so we kept going. he shot 6 for 7 when it was said and done.

 

[Joe Williams]

When I was at my best, I could shoot 1" groups offhand with my Ruger MKII Target model with 5 1/2" bull barrel at 25 yards. The gun would shoot better than that with target ammo and from a rest. Awesome gun! With my Beretta M92 I could do 2 - 2 1/2" inch groups, other guns 3" - 4" groups. I don't shoot like that any more Need to get myself another .22 pistol. Shooting that Ruger tightened my groups up quite nicely.

Far as I'm concerned, if you can keep all your rounds on a paper plate at 25 yards, you are doing ok. At 10 yards, you should be able to keep them under 4" without too much trouble. At 7 yards, you should be able to keep them within a couple inches.

If you are shooting bigger groups than that, don't stress. Just something to "shoot" for

 

[Joe Williams]

BTW, if you want to have some fun and REALLY learn how important trigger control and the sights are, set yourself a full sized silhouette target up at 100 yards or so, and have a blast. Have someone handy to tell you how badly you missed, and in what direction. You'll be able to use the same target for a while, most likely LOL. But once you manage to get a hit, it'll really float your boat. With practice, you may find that you can be surprisingly accurate even at that range. It's a really fun game for bragging rights with shooting buddies. You may also find that accuracy at combat ranges suddenly comes a lot easier.

 

[shooter521]

I don't know about standards, but I'd think that at 7 yards, your groups should be pretty much "one ragged hole" if you're shooting slow, aimed fire. Obviously when you start adding in hammers, NSRs, movement, retention shooting and the like, your groups are going to open up considerably.

To be honest, I've never really been too concerned with how tight a group I can shoot with my pistols, as my focus is more on personal protection, which isn't done slowly at 25 yards from a rested position.

 

[Joe Williams]

I found when shooting IPSC though that practicing bullseye accuracy made me shoot faster and better up close. I didn't have to think about hitting the target, acceptable accuracy happened without any conscious effort. I've no reason to believe that similar results wouldn't be obtained under the stress of a defensive shooting. Bullseye shooting builds the muscle memory needed for accurate shooting, so I think it's worthwhile to spend a lot of time doing it even if one's primary concern is self defense. Target/bullseye shooting is a lot of fun in it's own right. For us, self defense isn't the sole purpose of our handguns, we find target shooting a most satisfying pursuit in and of itself.

 

[dross]

To be honest, I've never really been too concerned with how tight a group I can shoot with my pistols, as my focus is more on personal protection, which isn't done slowly at 25 yards from a rested position.

I hear you, and while I don't disagree with that, I figure that when I add speed to the equation, my groups will get larger. Meaning that if I can't perform at a high level with no stress and slowly I'll never do it under stress and quickly.

When I teach tennis, I don't let the student incorporate movement until he/she has worked out major technique flaws without having to move. I've heard other instructors say that you "don't hit a tennis ball standing still" which is true, but to me, if you can't do it correctly when it's simple, how can you do it correctly when it's more difficult.

 

[JByer323]

I don't know about standards, but I'd think that at 7 yards, your groups should be pretty much "one ragged hole" if you're shooting slow, aimed fire. Obviously when you start adding in hammers, NSRs, movement, retention shooting and the like, your groups are going to open up considerably.

To be honest, I've never really been too concerned with how tight a group I can shoot with my pistols, as my focus is more on personal protection, which isn't done slowly at 25 yards from a rested position.

I found when shooting IPSC though that practicing bullseye accuracy made me shoot faster and better up close. I didn't have to think about hitting the target, acceptable accuracy happened without any conscious effort. I've no reason to believe that similar results wouldn't be obtained under the stress of a defensive shooting.

When I teach tennis, I don't let the student incorporate movement until he/she has worked out major technique flaws without having to move. I've heard other instructors say that you "don't hit a tennis ball standing still" which is true, but to me, if you can't do it correctly when it's simple, how can you do it correctly when it's more difficult.

I think all three of you have very good points. At 7 yards, standing still, shots should pretty much be one hole. Moving is a whole separate matter, but the fundamentals are the same. Goes back to that whole training thing.

One of my favorite cheap targets are little paper plates. They're cheap as hell, and I like to post several on different target backers and work on transitioning from one target to another.

 

[shooter521]

I think all three of you have very good points. At 7 yards, standing still, shots should pretty much be one whole. Moving is a whole separate matter, but the fundamentals are the same. Goes back to that whole training thing.

Well said. I didn't mean to imply that I was a fan of "spray and pray" or that I couldn't put a decent group together; it's just that with practice time limited and ammo expensive, I tend to work on skills/drills more directly applicable to the mission at hand. That said, slowfire drills are a great way to start and/or end a practice session, since they force you to slow down and master the fundamentals.

One of my favorite cheap targets are little paper plates. They're cheap as hell,and I like to post several on different target backers and work on transitioning from one target to another.

Oh yeah. Paper plates or an 8-1/2x11 sheet of paper turned longways are good approximations of "upper center mass" and a 3x5 index card turned longways works for the "occular window" - then you can turn any target backer into a "humanoid target" ... no need to buy the photo-realistic ones, IPSC/IDPA cardboard, or even B27s.

 

[turnandshoot4]

So why don't we see MOA ratings on handguns? That is one of the first things I look at when purchasing a rifle.

 

[mike8170]

So why don't we see MOA ratings on handguns? That is one of the first things I look at when purchasing a rifle.

My guess is since MOA is measured (loosely) as 1 inch at 100 yards, and handguns are not made for that range. I have only read an old army training manual that showed using the .45 at 100 yards.

Just my guess, someone correct me if I am wrong.

 

[turnandshoot4]

You can measure MOA at any range, just double for 50 yards and multiply by 4 for 25 yards.

How about a MOA for 25 yards? I'd love to see it. I just don't understand why there isn't one for handguns.

 

[JByer323]

So why don't we see MOA ratings on handguns? That is one of the first things I look at when purchasing a rifle.

I think the average accuracy of handguns has gone down, also. A new gun shouldn't take work to shoot one hole groups off a rest at 25 yards.

Oh well, I guess that's why I reload.



Rant: I'm not saying there aren't accurate handguns out there; Glocks, Sigs, 1911s, XDs, etc. But when reading write ups of new guns, how often have you read about 4"-5" groups? That's totally unacceptable, in my eyes. And yes, I understand "combat accuracy", but why does the shooting community accept this? I want "match accuracy" on everything.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Rant: I'm not saying there aren't accurate handguns out there; Glocks, Sigs, 1911s, XDs, etc. But when reading write ups of new guns, how often have you read about 4"-5" groups? That's totally unacceptable, in my eyes. And yes, I understand "combat accuracy", but why does the shooting community accept this? I want "match accuracy" on everything.

I completely agree here. Rep for you!! I think many handguns would not be popular if moa ratings were easy to find. This is why I think they aren't done.

 

[rcuhljr]

I think the reason you don't see much for MoA or match accuracy for pistols isn't because their intended range, it's their intended usage. Pistols are defensive weapons for close ranges, the vast majority of pistols are accurate enough for any standard defensive usage, at that point the important things become reliability, usability, form factor, and other similar features. I'm just getting back into shooting so I'm far from even an average shot probably but even I can keep roughly fist sized holes from 7~ yards.

The difficulty isn't finding a pistol that's accurate enough, it's finding one that's got the features you want for a price you'll pay. If the difference between 1.5 and 1.65 MoA is going to sell you on a gun it's likely that you're better off buying a full out target pistol which probably has that information available anyways.

 

[Agent 007]

Unless you are talking a dedicated target pistol, MOA isn't really an important consideration. It's kinda like putting a tow rating on a motorcycle. Yeah, you can tow a little trailer with it, but that's not the point.

Gunfights are quick, dirty and usually up close. As long as a pistol has acceptable combat accuracy, reliability FAR outweighs any incremental difference in accuracy at extended ranges. Tight tolerances are usually required for any kind of precision accuracy out of a handgun, and tight tolerances usually means a more finicky weapon. That is unacceptable for a fighting tool used as a last ditch weapon to save one's life.

 

[Glock Lover]

Maybe this has already been said, but it depends on what type of shooting you are doing. I like shooting in order to practice for defensive purposes. So I draw and shoot as fast as possible most of the time. I practice a lot of point shooting also. My point shooting would be a lot worse than you shooting from a resting position. Or should be. I'd focus on what you are trying to accomplish. Competition shooting or killing a bad guy as fast as possible before he kills you. This is my preferred method.

 

[JByer323]

Look. I understand defensive combat shooting. But who the hell decided that combat accuracy is 3-5" at 50 yards? If that was a rifle I just bought, it would be getting some major work done.

turnandshoot, thank you. I don't care if I don't need a super tight group in a defensive handgun. Why would you settle for less when your life is on the line?

 

[turnandshoot4]

Furthermore, if I am spending 500 bucks, why not get the most accurate pistol?

I think most of the "good" guns have the reliablility issue ironed out, why not get more accurate? Which would you want in a gun fight, an XD or an XDm? They both have the same reliability but one is more accurate. I would want the more accurate. Why not have the best of both worlds?

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Most defensive shots are 8-12 feet. As long as you can place every shot center mass then you are doing good in my eyes.