Accuracy?

[Guest Red5]

I'm relatively new to this forum (and handguns in general) so I'm wondering, when posting about a particular handgun, people often state how accurate it is.

Is this based on tests with a Ransom Rest or something similar or is it more a statement of how accurate you were with said handgun? It seems that unless your talking some sort of match grade gun, the difference between one well made pistol and the next would be negligible, no?

[nightrunner]

Yes most times it is from a rest.

I think it is more to determine that the handgun itself it very accurate and you know if YOU arent getting good groups from it offhand its the fault of the shooter not the firearm.

[JAB]

In my case, if I refer to the accuracy of a particular handgun I am generally referring to shooting while standing with no rest and from self defense distances (generally ten yards or so.) I am also, generally, talking about usable accuracy in my hands. I don't do much shooting from a rest and, honestly, having not practiced doing so I find a rest, etc. often gets in my way and screws me up more than it helps. In fact, the same often holds true if I am shooting a long gun, as well. Not that I am some super-shooter with any kind of amazing accuracy - I simply don't have much experience shooting from a rest and so don't utilize that particular tool (a rest) very well. Of course, in my case and my way of thinking (which doesn't apply to anyone else), I figure I won't have a rest in my pocket if attacked or when hunting so what I can do when shooting from a rest really doesn't matter much, to me.

I do see the reasoning behind using a rest to find out what the actual, inherent accuracy of a particular firearm is like. That said, I figure that if I can get decent hits on a target shooting off-hand that probably means the gun is at least more accurate than I am (which isn't really saying all that much) and if I manage to get a fairly tight grouping then the gun, itself, must be darned accurate.

Edited March 14, 2012 by JAB

[Jonnin]

It depends on who is talking and what they are talking about. You should ask if you really want to know what the person did to justify calling a gun accurate or not, or to produce that 1 inch group target they showed you, etc.

Most of the casual discussions here are the shooter holding the gun and using the gun at a fairly short distance (under 25 yards).

If you are talking a 10 yard defensive shoot at a man-target and a success is hitting the guy in an 8 inch circle around the vitals, then all decent guns can do this, yes. But past that you get into the defination of "well made". A rugged (well made, in some definations) cheap 1911 may have a poor fit bushing for example, the barrel flopping around (not much but out at 20+ yards this becomes many inches) so every shot has the barrel in a new position. Is that a well made gun? It certainly is not as accurate as a good fixed barrel revolver with target sights is going to be. From here it becomes subjective off the terms (accurate, well made) what is really being talked about.

Remember that many "well made" guns have fixed sights and can never hit dead on (cannot be adjusted up down at all, and side to side takes a tool and a lot of effort and may not be doable). They can be precise (make a small group) but not accurate (group is in the x ring).

Got something in mind? Ask around, and if you explain what you want to do or know, people will answer in kind. If you just ask if a gun is accurate without any details, you will get useless answers for the most part Same goes for a trigger. There are people here who will say a 2 inch long 5 pound pull gun has an "awesome trigger". You have to be precise if you wanted a short, light pull gun instead or you will get "great trigger" as a response on everything from a DAO pocket rocket to a 1911. Same for any other gun detail discussed, just be as precise as you can be with questions if you want to really understand what is being said.

[kwe45919]

Most guns are accurate as is from the factory....far more accurate than the people using them. However, most people who talk about accuracy are speaking for themselves shooting the pistol. If they can produce thier version of an awsome "grouping" they state the gun is accurate.

[Will Carry]

You are on the Internet now. People can shoot 2 inch groups at 500 yards with a snub nosed revolver on the Internet. That's in the dark with a GPS to guide them to the target. I have heard so many people talk about tight groups with their handgun, that I pay no attention to them. It doesn't matter what some perfect stranger can shoot. It's what you can shoot that matters. That is what I like about shooting. It matters not what someone else can shoot, but what you can shoot.

Enjoy shooting! Keep'em in the ten ring brother.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Will Carry

[tnhawk]

When shooting a new pistol or developing a different reload, I use a rest to eliminate as many variables as possible.

[Dolomite_supafly]

When I shoot for groups I fire 10 shots then remove the 3 worst shots leaving 7. Hopefully this will remove inaccuracies induced by me, the shooter. It works well for me and it gives me more shots per group than most people shoot, which is 5.

This is for my rilfes, not my pistols. With my pistols I just shoot them.

Dolomite

[TMF]

The differences in accuracy don't matter if you're using the pistol for self defense. Some disagree but at 7 meters anyone can accurately engage a man size target with a smooth bore pistol and no sights. Most kids can get 1 inch groupings with a slingshot at that distance.

For those folks that like to compete with pistols at distance and have the ability to utilize the pistol's accuracy to its full potential it matters, but there are not many people out there that have the ability to do that. Chances are the gun is more accurate than the shooter.

[JAB]

You are on the Internet now. People can shoot 2 inch groups at 500 yards with a snub nosed revolver on the Internet.

Sadly, I can't do that even on the Internet.

[JReedEsq]

When most people say "accuracy" what they really mean is what I'll call "shootability" which is how easy a certain gun is for them to shoot. This can be determined by a number of things other than the mechanical accuracy of the gun and might be different from one person to another. I also think Will Carry's comment is hilarous. When I shoot at the range and look at other people's targets I usually feel like I'm way better than the average person with an HCP. When I read online forums where people claim to shoot a 3" group at 20 yards with their carry gun, I'm reminded I suck.

[RWF]

Accuracy?

it always in the eye of beholder. if it not stated how they "they got that statement of say 4" at 25" then ask.

what maybe "Accuracte" to me, is piss poor to you.

as state before this the internet, and a public forum, some will post what they "think" as "fact".

[Jonnin]

When most people say "accuracy" what they really mean is what I'll call "shootability" which is how easy a certain gun is for them to shoot. This can be determined by a number of things other than the mechanical accuracy of the gun and might be different from one person to another. I also think Will Carry's comment is hilarous. When I shoot at the range and look at other people's targets I usually feel like I'm way better than the average person with an HCP. When I read online forums where people claim to shoot a 3" group at 20 yards with their carry gun, I'm reminded I suck.

I can do the 3 inches at 20 with a couple of my carry guns. My makarov can do it (trigger job FTW). My cz rami. What the shooters don't say is most of them took 30+ seconds to aim each shot --- its not defensive shooting at all. I would not say anyone sucks for being unable to do this. It just takes a lot of practice and time spend to develop the skill --- and its a skill of limited practical value. Most people have better things to do. Once you can do it, so what? Whoopity I can hunt a rabbit with a makarov... thats about as much epeen as I can get out of it, since I am not good enough to compete against anyone who is really, really good.

I am actually encouraged by most defensive shooters I see. Most hit their target with most shots at a solid rate of fire. A few need a lot of work, but most of what I see, I wouldnt want to be that piece of paper. It gets the job done. I agree with the smoothbore /slingshot comment as well. You just do not need a whole lot of skill (or gun) to hit a man sized torso at 10 yards or less. Lots of dead sailors and such from a single shot, smooth bore BP pirate type pistol.

[Guest hickok45]

"Accuracy" talk is one of MY pet peeves, I guess. I mean when folks talk about one handgun being more accurate than another, when all they've done is stand and try to shoot them both. What they mean generally is that they shoot one better than the other, when the one they shoot worse could actually be more inherently accurate than the other, of course.

I did a video called "Accuracy," a year or two ago and it was directed at this very topic. With defensive sidearms and close to moderate range combat accuracy, the term "accuracy" is almost goofy to talk about, in my opinion. Even with more precise shooting, possibly even rested, most people are less accurate than whatever handgun is in their hands, myself included. That imperfect human gripping the gun is the biggest "accuracy" variable! :-)

Hickok45

[R_Bert]

Me, I shoot one-hole groups, and sometimes I am so good the target is unscathed.

[enfield]

Accuracy is just a matter of sight adjustment. Precision is what puts all the bullets through one ragged hole, and is a function of the ammo, firearm and shooter.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I have neither precision nor accuracy. All pistols are about equally inaccurate in my hands. Putting most shots in 8" at 7 yards is about the best can accomplish.

I've been blaming a lot of it on not being able to see the sights, usually shooting from under shade at the range. Expecially in the afternoon with the sun in the eyes. Been meaning to take on the project of putting fiberoptic sights on most pistols. I painted all the sights dayglo but that really doesn't help with my eyes in my shooting conditions. Without backlight or toplight, the dayglo doesn't help much. Put a fiber front sight on the Mark II and it is lots easier to see. Shame that some manufacturer doesn't make fiber sights to fit ALL guns. Have to look around finding different brands for different guns, and a couple of guns apparently nobody makes a fiber sight.

[SonnyCrockett]

the more I practice the more accurate my guns get