View Full Version : Accuracy standards for duty pistols
What accuracy standard should be considered a valid requirement a duty/CCW pistol?
The esteemed Larry Vickers states that a combat pistol needs a 2.5" mechanical accuracy at 25 yds in order ensure about 5" during a stressful lethal force encounter: http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/accuracy/.
When I used present the wound ballistics module at Camp Pendleton's Range 130, the USMC MEU-SOC .45 ACP 1911's in use there typically could shoot groups between 3 to 5 inches at 25 yards--this was considered quite acceptable by the Force Recon Marines.
Most folks consider the G17 to offer acceptable accuracy. Now the guys at TigerSwan are very dialed in shooters, yet in Brian Searcy's recent thread (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=98542), he describes how a stock G17 is not accurate enough for his needs so he replaces the barrel to tighten things up.
Stock G17 showing about a 4" extreme spread at 25 yds:
https://www.m4carbine.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=11089&d=1328478968
FWIW, this is inline with what my stock G17's shoot at 25 yds--typically all inside the black 9 ring on a B8 (around a 5" group at 25 yds), but not much better. In contrast, most M&P45's I've shot can keep much everything pretty much in the 10 ring (about a 3" group at 25 yds), while my old match grade 1911 could routinely drill out the X-ring (sub 2" group at 25 yds).
I am currently qualified on, carry, and am perfectly happy with the 9 mm Glock and .45 ACP M&P45; thus for me, acceptable accuracy for a duty/CCW pistol is between 3-5 inches at 25 yds.
How was the target shot? By whom?
To truly measure a pistol mechanical accuracy, you have to use a mechanical device, or a very gifted shooter with some sort of support. And 10 shot groups (or better, two or thee of them) are a much better yardstick than a couple of 5 shot groups.
If you cannot consistently shoot 10 round groups with "match" pistol and ammo into 3" or less at 25 yds, two handed without support, how can you really measure how much more accurate (or not) is another pistol?
I have friends that try different ammo or reloads, different pistols, etc. shooting offhand a couple of groups, and happily declare some load or gun better just because they were shooting better that day... and some people 10" shoot 10 shot groups at 25 yds and then think that is the pistol/ammo that makes the difference the day they get an 8" group.
If you were tp shoot a pistol/ammo combo with a mechanical 2" spread at 25 yds, and your wobble is 2", then your get 4" groups (now, who among you can really do this on demand?). If your wobble is 6" due to excitement, speed, etc. you'd get 8" groups. In this last instance, if the mechanical accuracy was 4", you'd get 10" groups, not much larger really. There is no perfect pistol that can solve your handling problems.
TiroFijo--The target is from Brian Searcy's thread; given that, I will assume he shot it--and he is a truly exceptional shooter, "very gifted" in every sense. Below is Brian Searcy's target from the same thread, but shot with a G17 using a match barrel, note that the extreme spread is less than 1.5" at 25 yds:
https://www.m4carbine.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=11087&d=1328478653
What accuracy standard should be considered a valid requirement a duty/CCW pistol?
On the street shooting encounters are rarely at 25 yards or more. In fact, the vast majority of police shootings are under 7 yards. Thus, the accuracy required for CCW use is not that stringent. Speaking of target/competition shooting, that is another story.
You are right on with mentioning the real world accuracy of different handguns. Stock Glocks have never been noted for their precise accuracy, and I was disappointed, to a degree, when our dept. switched over. On the other hand, no semi-auto pistol, is more dependable than a Glock, and for police work or CCW use they have more than enough accuracy.
I would love to see trusty, representative data on glock accuracy...
10 stock pistols, rested by a great shooter (or ransom rest), with 4-5 quality loads known by their accuracy
10 pistols fitted with aftermarket barrels, same test
I've read the "doing X cuts groups in half" and I don't quite believe it. I'm not a great shooter, but not a novice also, and I've also seen much better shooters than me shoot, a lot :)
I have been told by people more knowledgeable than I that 5" groups is satisfactory.
I would have to agree with this.
I think where the rub occurs is when you, the shooter is better than the pistol you are shooting. This is of course an EXTREMELY rare occurrence. For those people, they will have to go to a fitted barrel or an entirely different gun.
For me personally, I don't get all that excited about it. I can shoot 2-3" groups at 25, but routinely shoot a gun that can't do any better than 6-7" groups (and am ok with that).
C4
TriumphRat675
02-23-12, 17:41
I've been playing around with this for a while and have adopted the 8" circle rule.
I have a goal of, for any given range, keeping all rounds fired within an 8" circle, off-hand and unsupported. At closer ranges I speed up, and longer distances I slow down, but all shots are within that circle. With my daily carry gun I can pull that off with maybe one or two near-miss fliers out to 25 yds, consistently. Given the amount of time and effort I am able to put into practicing, I feel this is an attainable and practical goal.
Interestingly, some of the most intrinsically accurate firearms I've used are not ones I'd choose to carry for defensive purposes. For example, revolvers have a high degree of mechanical accuracy - some of the best groups I've ever fired were from a 4" Smith & Wesson Model 19 .357 magnum. The stock single action trigger was fantastic, and the target revolver sights were certainly conducive to high accuracy.
Unfortunately, I was a disaster firing this handgun double action or in rapid fire. From a practical accuracy standpoint for defensive purposes, I am much more proficient with a Glock 9mm.
A high degree of mechanical accuracy (without compromising reliability) is certainly a desirable trait in a defensive handgun. But there are other factors, such as the configuration of the sights and trigger, which combine to affect practical accuracy in a defensive situation.
I've trained with the Glock pistols for years and haven't found a compelling reason to switch. The Glock is capable of mechanical accuracy meeting the LAV standard - Todd Green's GEN4 G17 recently turned in sub 2.5" groups at the 50,000 round mark - though the average Glock is probably sitting right on the outer edge of that performance standard, depending on particular combinations of ammunition and pistol.
I also judge that I'm more capable of getting a first round hit with a striker fired pistol with a consistent trigger pull. I started shooting with DA/SA pistols - some of which have considerable mechanical accuracy from the Ransom Rest. However, I've also seen many shooters throw the critical first round shot because of the more difficult DA pull. Most soldiers I observed qualify with the M9 would cock the hammer for the first shot - which hardly reflected how the pistol would likely be employed in combat.
To be sure, these are issues that can be overcome with training. I know very proficient DA/SA shooters. But I know far more who double the size of their group with a first round shot, despite the superior mechanical accuracy of their pistol.
I've certainly never been capable of turning in tight groups with my various Glocks at 25 yards, but I've consistently been able to make head shots on a IDPA target at that distance. Lately I've been experimenting with a Trijicon RMR equipped Glock 17, and I'm shooting the best 25 yard groups I ever have with this particular G17. The RDS is a game changer for shooting at longer distances.
I think some of the recent interest I've seen in discussing mechanical accuracy standards is tied to the unlocking problems exhibited by some S&W M&P 9mm pistols. I've fired a M&P pistol that displayed these problems - this particular specimen would fire 6-12" high at the 25 yard mark depending on the ammunition. The group size at this range was less important to me than the changes in POA/POI at different distances. Keeping the 10 yard sight picture at 25 yards caused the shooter to miss head shots, 8" steel plates, etc.
To be fair, I've also fired a S&W M&P 9mm that did not exhibit these problems, and found it shared many of the attributes of the Glock pistols. But the problematic example would not meet my requirements.
Bottom line, a defensive pistol at minimum must be able to consistently group on a 6"x6" IDPA head box at 25 yards. Even better, it should be able to keep all the shots in the black on a standard B8 bullseye (5.5") at 25 yards. Thankfully, there are a number of designs that are more than capable of meeting or exceeding this standard.
I really think Glock has it figured out for the most part - they can deliver pistols that will shoot sub-5" groups very consistently at a price point that works for them, and that puts you past two sigma for shooters.
I don't think anybody who can outshoot that wouldn't consider some match hardware to be a worthwhile investment, and I agree with JS that something that can't shoot to that standard needs fixing (be it ammunition, pistol, or shooter). I know I can only make 4" groups at that range when using a a top notch tack driver of a pistol, so at the moment I'm not looking into a pistol that barely shoots that standard without the detriment of me running it.
The TigerSwan instructors really opened me up to shooting for accuracy at 25 yards. However, because I don't own any pistols other than Glocks and 1 M&P9Pro, I don't know if I can even shoot 10 shot sub 3" groups at 25 yards. The one time I shot SD ammo for groups with 2 different G19s (124 grain +P HST), I managed 5 shot groups between 2.5"(once) to 3.5"(twice) offhand. Yes, I know 15 rounds isn't very much.
For example, I just started to realize how much quality ammo matters when trying to shoot B8s at 25 yards. I now use Federal American Eagle 115 grain for this and whatever cheaper ammo I have for speed drills. Using the Federal AE ammo I can usually score between 91-98, averaging in the low 90s, and keep everything in the black. Shots on the line get counted at the higher point value. This performance isn't as consistent with any of the budget oriented ammo (WWB, Federal Champion, Blazer Brass).
For you more accomplished shooters, do any of you find it necessary/worthwhile to replace your stock Glock barrels with drop-in offerings from KKM etc? How much of a quantifiable reduction in group size have you seen?
I own a G17 KKM drop-in barrel, but I haven't run enough of my own tests to verify that it matters. Frankly, I don't think I'm skilled enough to take advantage of it, but I'm curious if there have been measurable improvements noted by more skilled shooters.
when employing a handgun for self defense as long as i can make hits on a torso shaped target at 50 yards without a bench i am happy. the ability to shoot 2" groups vs 5" groups at 25 yards doesnt worry me and for me personally is a moot point but your taste may differ. if i had to use it to save my life and stopped the threat but later discovered the 3 rounds made a 7" pattern would that handgun be unacceptable for self defense ? i do have handguns with many aftermarket devices that make them more accurate but i dont feel it necesarily makes them better weapons. headshots within 10 yards and chest shots within 50 yards are my goals.
Yes, it's rare that anyone shoots a pistol for blood beyond 7m. But there are enough cases of far longer shots winning fights that ignoring the possibility seems unwise.
The best way to improve Glock accuracy is to use the ammo your gun shoots best. In my admittely limited testing, training-grade factory ammo (1 gun, ~15 loads) definitely showed a bell curve. The bad end was about 7" at 25 yards, while the good end was about half that.
I've also tried a Wilson barrel in a gun that shot 5" groups at 25 yards with 115-grain S&B FMJ in the OEM barrel. It now shoots 3" groups at 25 yards with that ammo, and 50-yard groups hover around 8 inches.
Some things to ponder...
Okie John
I know I can shoot 5" groups off hand with my M&P now, better with my G17, better yet from a bench. Put in some better ammo and things tighten up. If gun A is a 5" gun from a bench and gun B is a 1.5" gun from a bench, both with ammo that is the best for each gun, which would you pick? Gun B is selected 9/10 times, even by those who can't spell "B"...
Can most people notice? Hell no, but I spent a summer agonizing over my accuracy and found out it might not be me. Replace the gun and things got pretty real. I'll take the gun that will never hold me back. I would like to eliminate as many variables as I can.
Alaskapopo
02-24-12, 02:01
[
I am currently qualified on, carry, and am perfectly happy with the 9 mm Glock and .45 ACP M&P45; thus for me, acceptable accuracy for a duty/CCW pistol is between 3-5 inches at 25 yds.
I agree. I like 2 inch groups but have come to realize that 3 to 5 will do just fine. What matters is how well you can shoot it under stress. (practical accuracy)
Pat
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/PIstol%20targets/25yardgroupsGlock.jpg
operator81
02-24-12, 02:07
I've yet to shoot a handgun from the bench. If "I" and "it" can make consistent head shots on a silhouette offhand at 25 yards with quality defensive ammo then "we're" good to go in terms of accuracy in my book.
I will never understand the logic of acceptable accuracy. LAV's take on this is pure common sense and the only logical way to look at it IMHO. I don't think this is an experience thing, but rather simple logic.
I'll often hear people talk about how shot placement trumps caliber but then I also hear how 5-6" groups are acceptable mechanical accuracy. To me this is contradictory. Could it not be the difference hitting a vital area and not?
I also think it is discouraging to newer shooters to try to learn on a gun that shoots 5" groups. You have no true frame of reference as to how good you are.
I've yet to shoot a handgun from the bench.
You have never been curious how accurate your pistols are...different ammo?
I will never understand the logic of acceptable accuracy. LAV's take on this is pure common sense and the only logical way to look at it IMHO. I don't think this is an experience thing, but rather simple logic.
I'll often hear people talk about how shot placement trumps caliber but then I also hear how 5-6" groups are acceptable mechanical accuracy. To me this is contradictory. Could it not be the difference hitting a vital area and not?
I also think it is discouraging to newer shooters to try to learn on a gun that shoots 5" groups. You have no true frame of reference as to how good you are.
Some good points. Personally, I found it very discouraging when first starting out with pistols when I was having accuracy problems and couldn't tell when it was me, or the pistol.
My accuracy experiences with pistols are very similar to what Doc posted in the last para of his orig post, especially the part about the difference between polymer platforms and certain types of 1911's. My 1911's can do 2" to 2.5" at 25 (my custom Springfield actually has a 1.5", 5-shot target using Win ball ammo that came from the Custom shop where it was done). My M&P pistols are significantly less accurate, and a couple of them are WAY less accurate. My CZ pistols have usually been quite a bit more accurate than the M&P's, but not quite up to the standard of a tuned 1911. When you consider that they're production pistols, the CZ's are amazingly accurate. However, due to size/weight and being all metal, I don't really consider the CZ's as viable CCW options for me any longer. They are mainly range/target pistols.
My plan with the M&P's that are showing much wider shot dispersion is to first send them so S&W and see if they will address the issue. After that, if no love, then I'll try Randy at Apex Tactical, where the solutions are either their forthcoming drop-in barrel, or their new locking block, or both.
Alaskapopo
02-24-12, 16:37
5 to 6 inches is the low end of accpetable and when I would be looking to get a new barrel.
Pat
John_Burns
02-24-12, 16:56
S&W MP 45 at 25yds from rest. Pretty safe to assume the pistol shoot better and the 2 flyers were me.
http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb428/GreybullPrecision/6b7b3a0f.jpg
If we look at accuracy as the combination of ammo quality, the intrinsic mechanical capability of the pistol and the skill of the shooter, practicing at 25 yards is a great way of identifying what areas either you or your equipment are lacking in. And though we would all likely agree that the shooter is most often the weak link in that combo, at the same time the other two factors are rather important to consider as well.
We have to remember that ammo quality and the mechanical capabilities of the pistol affect your accuracy on top of your own physical shooting skills, so using good quality ammo and a pistol that can group 3"-4" (or better) at 25 yards is obviously going to yield better results than a pistol that is only capable of 6"-7", irrespective of the individual shooter's skill.
If you are constantly training to get a better time on your draw or the FAST, bill drill or El Presidente...why not adopt the same mindset towards accuracy? Given LAV's observation that people only shoot to 50% of their normal capability when under stress, "settling" for sub-par accuracy in one's self or one's equipment sounds like a recipe for disaster in a self-defense or active shooter scenario.
Given LAV's observation that people only shoot to 50% of their normal capability when under stress, "settling" for sub-par accuracy in one's self or one's equipment sounds like a recipe for disaster in a self-defense or active shooter scenario.
Excellent point, but it's worse than that. Per LAV, "I have found that under conditions of stress a shooter will only be able to shoot to within roughly 50 % of the accuracy potential of a given weapon. And that is only for the best shooters; the majority will not even be close to that." In this case, LAVs “best shooters” are Tier I counter-terrorist soldiers, who are pretty much superhuman. The rest of us are nowhere near that good.
I think most people avoid accuracy discussions because once upon a time they tried it and were disappointed in their results. Nobody told them that bench shooting takes different skills, and that it’s just as important to master them as it is to master a solid draw stroke.
Should we shoot from the bench? Absolutely. That’s where you learn what a pistol will do. You’ll also learn a lot about ammunition, trigger control, and sights—stuff that comes in handy when you’re shooting from your hind legs.
Should you shoot at ranges beyond 25m? Absolutely. Most pistol fights happen inside 7m, but being in a pistol fight means that I’m already on the wrong side of the law of averages. I want every pistol skill I can get, including the ability to make torso hits across a Costco parking lot with a G19, which is not that hard IF you’ve done your time on the bench.
Do you need an accurate pistol to do these things? Yes, and suddenly, 10 shots in 2.5” at 25 yards from the bench starts to make a lot of sense.
It never ceases to amaze me that people who would refuse tolerate a carbine that only shoots 8 MOA will look down their noses at the entire issue of pistol accuracy.
Okie John
I think most people avoid accuracy discussions because once upon a time they tried it and were disappointed in their results. Nobody told them that bench shooting takes different skills, and that it’s just as important to master them as it is to master a solid draw stroke.
Should we shoot from the bench? Absolutely. That’s where you learn what a pistol will do. You’ll also learn a lot about ammunition, trigger control, and sights—stuff that comes in handy when you’re shooting from your hind legs.
Should you shoot at ranges beyond 25m? Absolutely. Most pistol fights happen inside 7m, but being in a pistol fight means that I’m already on the wrong side of the law of averages. I want every pistol skill I can get, including the ability to make torso hits across a Costco parking lot with a G19, which is not that hard IF you’ve done your time on the bench.
Do you need an accurate pistol to do these things? Yes, and suddenly, 10 shots in 2.5” at 25 yards from the bench starts to make a lot of sense.
Okie John
I agree on all points. I'm am contuously surprised at how horrible so many people are with a pistol....but think they are "good enough".
Other than the guys at my one club that shoot Bullseye, I rarely see anyone shooting out side of 15 yards. It's a shame because shooting at 25 yards will make you a much better shot at all distances. Plus I strongly believe that getting real good with a pistol will make you a better shot with all firearms.
I'm never really satisfied unless my shots are almost on top of one another....which keeps me perpetually dissatisfied and constantly wanting to shoot.
Plus I strongly believe that getting real good with a pistol will make you a better shot with all firearms.
Exactly! When I shot on military rifle and pistol teams, it was common knowledge that a pistol shooter could master the rifle far more easily than a rifle shooter could master the pistol. Something about trigger control...
Okie John
Exactly! When I shot on military rifle and pistol teams, it was common knowledge that a pistol shooter could master the rifle far more easily than a rifle shooter could master the pistol. Something about trigger control...
Okie John
I was in a Defoor Advanced Carbine course where a student asked Kyle what he should do to improve his carbine shooting. "Shoot more pistol." was the response from Kyle.
About the M&P and accuracy...how well does the .40 cal group at 25 yards? I read that the .40's don't have issues but have seen no figures.
S&W MP 45 at 25yds from rest. Pretty safe to assume the pistol shoot better and the 2 flyers were me.
http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb428/GreybullPrecision/6b7b3a0f.jpg
not necessarily. if you shot 20 or 30 rounds at the target those "flyers" might simply be part of a larger more rounded group.
10 round groups are acceptable as that is the minimum number that is statistically relevant while not using too much ammo...
I will never understand the logic of acceptable accuracy. LAV's take on this is pure common sense and the only logical way to look at it IMHO. I don't think this is an experience thing, but rather simple logic.
I'll often hear people talk about how shot placement trumps caliber but then I also hear how 5-6" groups are acceptable mechanical accuracy. To me this is contradictory. Could it not be the difference hitting a vital area and not?
I also think it is discouraging to newer shooters to try to learn on a gun that shoots 5" groups. You have no true frame of reference as to how good you are.
When we speak of 5-6" groups, we are talking about 25yds. That same gun shoots 2" groups at 10yds (which far exceeds the distance of most LE and Civy gun fights).
C4
G34Shooter
02-24-12, 20:37
S&W MP 45 at 25yds from rest. Pretty safe to assume the pistol shoot better and the 2 flyers were me.
http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb428/GreybullPrecision/6b7b3a0f.jpg
If only the 9mm's shot as well consistently.
When we speak of 5-6" groups, we are talking about 25yds. That same gun shoots 2" groups at 10yds (which far exceeds the distance of most LE and Civy gun fights).
C4
Understood. But shooting at 10 yards doesn't improve marksmanship. At 10 yards you can point shoot and make good hits. You probably don't even need sights:eek:
Shooting at further distances improves marksmanship and a five inch gun is not usefull for that purpose.
The fact that any modern production pistol is only capable of 5" groups is discouraging. Especially knowing that a 1911 can be made to shoot quarter sized groups at that distance.
Especially knowing that a 1911 can be made to shoot quarter sized groups at that distance.
Can be made. Out of ten 1911s I've owned, only a TRP and Dave Sams Custom consistently beat the 3-5" standard. About half of the Colts and SA Loaded could meet that standard, with about half the Colts, and the Ithaca failing it. But I agree a modern design, well executed production gun should be able to improve on this.
Ten Gen 3 and 4 Glocks I have/had have all been consistently at the low range of that standard, and more than half of them have beat that range considerably down to 1.5 - 2.5. Gen 1 and Gen 2's not so much. Back to 3-5" from my experience with only three of them. My Avatar is a 25 yard 1.5" group from a Gen 4 G17 (rested). Our other Gen 4 G17 has matched it. Gen 3 G17s x 3 and a Gen 3 G21 RTF2 have just exceeded it into the under 3" range.
Alaskapopo
02-25-12, 06:09
Understood. But shooting at 10 yards doesn't improve marksmanship. At 10 yards you can point shoot and make good hits. You probably don't even need sights:eek:
Shooting at further distances improves marksmanship and a five inch gun is not usefull for that purpose.
The fact that any modern production pistol is only capable of 5" groups is discouraging. Especially knowing that a 1911 can be made to shoot quarter sized groups at that distance.
You can practice marksman ship at closer ranges. Just use a smaller target.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/PIstol%20targets/7yardtarget.jpg
(thats 8 rounds at 7 yards)
You can point shoot on COM at 10 yards easily I agree. But not head shots. The target (its size and distance) is what limits your speed and your need of the sights. I generally use just the front sight at 10 yards or less like using a shotgun bead. However if I am making heat shots even at 7 yards I use the sights same with body shots past 10 yards and that is assuming the target is not behind some sort of cover or concealment making it smaller. Some people only train for the average. Meaning 7 yards or less on full size targets shooting COM. That is not going to do you much good when you find yourself in a not so average gun fight.
This is a 53 yard group fired off hand. But I cheated by using my open gun.
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/PIstol%20targets/Caspiangroup.jpg
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g299/355sigfan/Semi%20auto%20pistols/Caspian.jpg
Can be made. Out of ten 1911s I've owned, only a TRP and Dave Sams Custom consistently beat the 3-5" standard. About half of the Colts and SA Loaded could meet that standard, with about half the Colts, and the Ithaca failing it. But I agree a modern design, well executed production gun should be able to improve on this.
I mention the 1911 because it is the benchmark for accuracy when properly build and when the tolerances are tightened. At least with a 1911 you can blame the variance in accuracy on inconsistent specs from manufacturer to manufacturer and part to part.
SW is the only company that makes M&Ps and their parts. They should be able to be more consistent without the need for hand fitting. Same with any other modern pistol manufacturer.
You can practice marksman ship at closer ranges. Just use a smaller target.
"Aim small miss small"
If only the 9mm's shot as well consistently.
Mine does.
G34Shooter
02-25-12, 11:21
SW is the only company that makes M&Ps and their parts. They should be able to be more consistent without the need for hand fitting. Same with any other modern pistol manufacturer.
I have a difficult time fully understanding your post, but there are many manufacturers that make parts for the m&p, if you meant barrels than there is also kkm. Will they show improvement over the factory barrel? Maybe. But the Apex fitted Bar-Sto will show an improvement.
G34Shooter
02-25-12, 11:23
Mine does.
Mine are in the acceptable range, but I meant across the board.
operator81
02-25-12, 13:31
You have never been curious how accurate your pistols are...different ammo?
Nope. If I am having trouble getting satisfactory hits with cheap practice ammo I'll swap brands/weights, etc. I use my accuracy ability with my carry load as the baseline. I'm not interested in how my pistol performs from the bench but how I perform when paired with it. The only time I think bench resting would interest me is if I were swapping the factory barrel for a custom barrel...but even then that'd be a stretch.
Understood. But shooting at 10 yards doesn't improve marksmanship. At 10 yards you can point shoot and make good hits. You probably don't even need sights:eek:
Depends on what you are shooting at. Put up a 3X5 card and you can really work on accuracy.
The fact that any modern production pistol is only capable of 5" groups is discouraging. Especially knowing that a 1911 can be made to shoot quarter sized groups at that distance.
There is always a trade IMHO. Want a gun that can shoot 1" groups at 25yds? I gurantee that you it won't be as reliable as one of todays quality polymer guns (that shoots 3-5" groups).
C4
DanjojoUSMC
02-25-12, 14:53
I have shot some old HK's in .45 that were pretty close to the $2,000+++ 1911's and still had unwavering reliability.
Depends on what you are shooting at. Put up a 3X5 card and you can really work on accuracy.
Also try the 2" circle drills at 7 yards from the draw. You can find them on the Pistol Training forum that Todd G runs.
There is always a trade IMHO. Want a gun that can shoot 1" groups at 25yds? I gurantee that you it won't be as reliable as one of todays quality polymer guns (that shoots 3-5" groups).
C4
Sure, but you can cut the center line. You can shoot a Glock with a match grade barrel or an older Sig P226 or an HK. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all these guns capable of 2" groups at 25 yards and reliable as well?
My point is why not shoot a gun capable of shooting 2" groups at 25 yards and is still reliable. And why not train to shoot groups that size. What are you losing?
Some have said that what matters is how well you shoot under pressure. I agree, but there isn't any way to introduce bodily harm threatening stress into firearms practice. Running with gear on makes you breath really hard and shooting against a clock, if you don't do it often, will induce some stress, but not like someone trying to hurt you will or, worse, induce the type of stress you'll get when you are hurt. My point has been and still is, why not train to the highest possible standard and use the gear that's capable of achieving that standard without giving up reliability. Then if you have to use the skill that you're trying to perfect, you're that much better.
I think every aspect is important, so I try to tilt the odds in my favor. It's just my opinion though and if you're program and pistol are working for you the way you want, rock on. Who am I to tell you you're wrong.
I have a difficult time fully understanding your post, but there are many manufacturers that make parts for the m&p, if you meant barrels than there is also kkm. Will they show improvement over the factory barrel? Maybe. But the Apex fitted Bar-Sto will show an improvement.
For every company making M&P parts there may be 20 making 1911parts. And that is EVERY part in a 1911. There is also only one manufacturer of the M&P pistol, not a dozen or so. How many companies make M&P magazines?...a key component of reliabilty in any firearm. FAR more people meddling with specs.
There is always a trade IMHO. Want a gun that can shoot 1" groups at 25yds? I gurantee that you it won't be as reliable as one of todays quality polymer guns (that shoots 3-5" groups).
That's exactly it - it's entirely possible to make a 1911 with tight tolerances that runs, but not one that will run when dried out and full of dust, dirt, and crap. Fixable with the right operator (more lube and good mags usually), but if it's possible to get comparable groups out of a pistol that requires significantly less care and fitted parts, then I think it's a pretty worthwhile goal - more importantly, something that can be shot well so that the shooter isn't in the equation as much.
A Glock (or soon M&P) with a match barrel is very capable of meeting even LAV's specified accuracy target with the right user, so I'm right back to thinking that for the majority of shooters for whom a 5" accurate pistol that is utterly reliable is adequate, the price point so they can acquire more magazines (greater long term reliability when those are viewed as expendable), better ammo, and mostly more training going with a stock pistol that 'only' shoots 4-5" at 25yd with duty ammunition is going to be an adequate arrow until the indian is really capable of producing something better than that.
Depends on what you are shooting at. Put up a 3X5 card and you can really work on accuracy.
There is always a trade IMHO. Want a gun that can shoot 1" groups at 25yds? I gurantee that you it won't be as reliable as one of todays quality polymer guns (that shoots 3-5" groups).
C4
I mentioned 1" at 25 because that is an accuracy benchmark for what is possible in a pistol. Of course when you tighten tolerances in any gun you may sacrifice reliability.
It is possible to get 2" guns that are reliable in both the 1911 formate and other. Many people mention H&Ks getting 2" groups at 25 yards.
Another point when discussing group size is how that average is determined.
Even on M4C, not many shooters measure pistol accuracy with an average of several large groups. Such as an average of 3, 10-round groups.
If you shoot enough 5-round groups with any gun, eventually you'll find one that stacks up the way you want, and finding a gun that shoots into <2.5" is much easier if you're only measuring an average of 5 round groups.
This is another data point I wanted to add as DocGKR mentioned the use of match barrels and we were all discussing accuracy of duty guns etc...
I decided to do a comparison with the same gun (Glock17) using 2 different barrels. All groups were shot with Federal American Eagle 115 grain 9mm ammo. The gun was bench rested with a Protecktor model rifle fore end sandbag. Sights were Warren Tactical Sevigny Carry 2-dot.
I shot a total of four 10 shot groups with my G17. Two groups with a KKM drop-in barrel and two groups with the stock G17 barrel. The gun was shot for 10 rounds, and I stopped for about 5-10 minutes to retrieve the target, take a breather :haha:, and document so nothing got hot (not that it really matters).
This particular KKM barrel has about 2K rounds through it. Some of it (a few hundred rounds) was with steel-cased bi-metal bullets so I don't know if it has affected the accuracy. This was before I knew better about the more delicate nature of SS barrels compared to the stock Glock barrels.
So here it is:
First group of the day: G17, KKM barrel, 25 yards
http://m4carbine.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=11329&stc=1&d=1330391676
Second group of the day: G17, stock barrel, 25 yards
http://m4carbine.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=11330&stc=1&d=1330391782
Third group of the day: G17, stock barrel, 25 yards
http://m4carbine.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=11331&stc=1&d=1330391880
Fourth group of the day: G17, KKM barrel, 25 yards
http://m4carbine.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=11328&stc=1&d=1330391880
Notice the different POI for the KKM barrel versus the stock. For the orange target, I was using a 6:00 hold on the bottom of the small circle. For the diamond, I was holding with the bottom tip of the diamond touching the front sight blade.
I mentioned 1" at 25 because that is an accuracy benchmark for what is possible in a pistol. Of course when you tighten tolerances in any gun you may sacrifice reliability.
It is possible to get 2" guns that are reliable in both the 1911 formate and other. Many people mention H&Ks getting 2" groups at 25 yards.
I had three different HK USP .45 Match pistols that were 1" guns with match grade ammo. No bullshit. They were also 100% reliable.
I ended up selling them off since they had the grip ergonomics of a 2X4
While sort of on topic, I have a G23 that I traded in to, it came with a Lone Wolf stainless 9mm barrel. While I am also switching calibers while switching barrels, with the LW barrel the gun shoots groups half the size of the factory barrel.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.