Definition of a Good Shot With a Handgun

[rvb]

Hey RVB, maybe I should know this from reading other threads but what gun are you shooting?

G34. Stipple and sights, otherwise stock in the vid. This winter I added Taran connector kit and glue/grit to the grip.

-rvb

 

[Trigger Time]

You can really tell who's shot at people and who's shot at paper.

BBI said it all in my opinion.

 

[rvb]

Accuracy vs time. I can be "combat accurate" much faster than I can be "bull's eye accurate". When I do bull's eye type shooting I'm working on fundamentals, and of course it helps when you start speeding up. I think part of the trick in "real world" settings is knowing how much time you'll be willing to sacrifice for how much gain in accuracy, and at what distances.

why is "combat accurate" often used by the gun rags to describe crappy guns/shooters, even when shot slow off sandbags? Maybe shooting fast is what sloughfoot meant. Maybe that's the disconnect... Semantics, or what that phrase implied to me.

-rvb

 

[bwframe]

What is the definition of "combat accurate" ?

 

[VERT]

What is the definition of "combat accurate" ?

??? Apparently less then accurate. RVB pretty much summed it up.

Edit: Maybe "bullseye or target accurate" vs "practical accurate" is better terminology?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

why is "combat accurate" often used by the gun rags to describe crappy guns/shooters, even when shot slow off sandbags? Maybe shooting fast is what sloughfoot meant. Maybe that's the disconnect... Semantics, or what that phrase implied to me.

-rvb

I haven't picked up a gun magazine in probably 12 years or so. I figured out pretty quick that they were cover to cover advertisements, and few 'advancements' in handguns actually are. Might as well ask why things are "tactical" and why operators aren't women who connect phone calls for you and why every gun is a marked improvement over the one they reviewed last month, which displaced the month before that's reigning champion. Or why this month small single stacks are in because concealability but next month you'll be killed by ninjas if you don't carry a 19 shot double stack because that's what we're reviewing today. Probably because it sells guns, which sells advertising, which pays their salaries.

In short, I think basing any rational conversation on guns on what it said in gun magazines is like discussing dating using Hustler as your source.

 

[rvb]

I haven't picked up a gun magazine in probably 12 years or so. I figured out pretty quick that they were cover to cover advertisements, and few 'advancements' in handguns actually are. Might as well ask why things are "tactical" and why operators aren't women who connect phone calls for you and why every gun is a marked improvement over the one they reviewed last month, which displaced the month before that's reigning champion. Or why this month small single stacks are in because concealability but next month you'll be killed by ninjas if you don't carry a 19 shot double stack because that's what we're reviewing today. Probably because it sells guns, which sells advertising, which pays their salaries.

In short, I think basing any rational conversation on guns on what it said in gun magazines is like discussing dating using Hustler as your source.

Rhetorical question - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



(I haven't bought/read a gun magazine in, well, I can't remember when I ever did... Just indirectly explaining what the words meant to me. This idea that minute of plate @ 10 yds is accurate enough if you are training for 'combat', even in slow fire)

-rvb

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Rhetorical question - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



(I haven't bought/read a gun magazine in, well, I can't remember when I ever did... Just indirectly explaining what the words meant to me)

-rvb

....hmm. It appears there's no such thing as a rhetorical answer.

 

[cedartop]

You can really tell who's shot at people and who's shot at paper.

BBI said it all in my opinion.

Not from their opinion on combat accuracy you can't. There are people who have btdt and yet disagree vehemently on this subject.

 

[bwframe]

You can really tell who's shot at people and who's shot at paper...

How can YOU tell this?

 

[bwframe]

You can really tell who's shot at people and who's shot at paper...

How can you tell this?

 

[iChokePeople]

How can you tell this?

Usually by finding those whose opinions differ from those of the person who posted the comment.

 

[ccrubaugh]

I just started shooting handguns and I'm happy when I hit the target honestly

 

[cedartop]

why is "combat accurate" often used by the gun rags to describe crappy guns/shooters, even when shot slow off sandbags? Maybe shooting fast is what sloughfoot meant. Maybe that's the disconnect... Semantics, or what that phrase implied to me.

-rvb

I would say two forces at work there. One as you mention are gun reviewers who don't want to give a bad review so if a gun only shoots say, 5 inch groups at 25 yards they will call it "combat accurate".

The other would be instructors who believe the mantra of, any hit is good for me and bad for him. Sometimes this is just an excuse for **** poor marksmanship, others it is a statement born out of experience.

I have come to the opinion that even if the latter is true, we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that for numerous reasons. Ethical, practical, safety, etc..

 

[60Driver]

Concur with Cedertop on this one. But instead of listening to my dumb A$$ on what no BS accuracy means to a real BTDT gunfighter (I am only qualed to talk about aircraft from this perspective) let see what MSG(R) Vickers has to say...think he is "qualified" to have an opinion. Apologies for the long quote but it is relevant.

"As anyone who has taken one of my classes can attest I am very accuracy oriented. My classes always stress a high degree of accuracy. That is because in a gunfight accuracy will almost always suffer. There are many reasons for this not the least of which is you may very well be receiving fire from your assailant. In addition there is a high likelihood that you will be moving, your enemy may be moving, and it could be in an environment of limited visibility.All of these factors and countless others will have a negative affect on accuracy. The hope is that if you strive for a high degree of accuracy in your training that when your accuracy suffers in a gunfight, it will still be enough to get the job done. This approach has been used with great effectiveness in Tier One special operations units for years. I am a product of that school of thought, and I have trained a great many of these soldiers with that approach uppermost in my mind.

Whenever I teach drills, I always tell my students to shoot as fast as they can, but not at the expense of a reasonable accuracy standard. One of the techniques I use frequently is to place a 25 yd pistol bullseye center target on the chest area of an IPSC or IDPA target. I then tell the students to shoot as fast as they can on each and every drill but always strive to keep the shots in the black of the bullseye. On drills such as shooting on the move this is opened up to keep your shots on the replacement center paper. This is commonly known as the “aim small, miss small” approach. Part way through the first day I will peel off the bullseye and show the students the large ragged hole that inevitable results from this drill. This reinforces the teaching point that speed is fine, but accuracy is final – words that I live by.

Another question I get frequently asked is what is the acceptable mechanical or intrinsic accuracy for a service pistol or carbine. Meaning what should the weapon/ammo combination be capable of producing from a shooting device or rest that eliminates shooter error. Keep in mind I come from a surgical accuracy oriented special operations background with little margin for error. Based on this and years of experience I have concluded that a service pistol should be capable of head shots at 25 yds and a service carbine should be capable of the same at 100 yds – basically 5 inch groups. However there is a catch; 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. That means in order to achieve my standard of head shots (5 inch groups) at a given distance the weapon/ammo combination needs to be capable of at least 2.5 inch groups. I personally measure that accuracy standard with 10 shot groups. Many quality service pistols and carbines with good ammo will achieve this but there are many other factors involved such as sights and trigger pull characteristics. By these criteria it is not hard to see why a tuned 1911 pistol is so popular in selected spec ops units. Keep in mind that any effort to make a weapon more accurate almost always means tightening tolerances which can lead to a less than acceptable reliability standard for a combat weapon. A balance between accuracy and reliability has to be achieved. Surprisingly there are many pistols and carbines that do a good job offering an acceptable blend of both. In addition weapons of this type will require a higher degree of end user maintenance to keep them running. Don’t expect a pistol to shoot like a custom 1911 but be as forgiving about maintenance as a Glock 17; it just doesn’t happen that way.

In closing always strive to maintain a high degree of accuracy in your training sessions. It will serve you well in case you ever have to use your weapon for real. Remember the motto of this website: Speed is fine – Accuracy is final."

 

[VERT]

I must spread rep around before hitting 60driver again. Somebody get this guy for me.

 

[bwframe]

...instructors who believe the mantra of, any hit is good for me and bad for him. Sometimes this is just an excuse for **** poor marksmanship, others it is a statement born out of experience.

I have come to the opinion that even if the latter is true, we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard than that for numerous reasons. Ethical, practical, safety, etc..

You are absolutely right. I think too many settle for mediocre accuracy standards rather than training for precision under pressure. I want to be confident that I can make a shot over your shoulder and I want you to be the same with me.

IMHO, the idea of any hit is bad for them and good for me is flawed. It promotes throwing shots at your threat, which brings misses. Misses that have to land somewhere.

 

[rvb]

Whenever I teach drills, I always tell my students to shoot as fast as they can, but not at the expense of a reasonable accuracy standard.

"Shoot A's.... as fast as you can." -me

it's what I've told folks for years in the game struggling to ballance speed/accuracy.

before people jump on me about the size of the ipsc a-zone again... replace it w/ whatever your accuracy requirement is, eg like vickers and his 25yd target (which iirc is about the size of an idpa a-zone).

-rvb

 

[churchmouse]

I haven't picked up a gun magazine in probably 12 years or so. I figured out pretty quick that they were cover to cover advertisements, and few 'advancements' in handguns actually are. Might as well ask why things are "tactical" and why operators aren't women who connect phone calls for you and why every gun is a marked improvement over the one they reviewed last month, which displaced the month before that's reigning champion. Or why this month small single stacks are in because concealability but next month you'll be killed by ninjas if you don't carry a 19 shot double stack because that's what we're reviewing today. Probably because it sells guns, which sells advertising, which pays their salaries.

In short, I think basing any rational conversation on guns on what it said in gun magazines is like discussing dating using Hustler as your source.

I read gun mags all the time. They are Brownells catalogs. Never met an out of the box gun I could not make better.....

 

[BE Mike]

Must be a semantics thing, cause I still don't get it.
Everybody recognizes that combat accuracy is totally different from bullseye accuracy and games accuracy?

its shooting. Aiming and pulling a trigger. Accuracy is accuracy. Should a "combat" shooter or "gamer" not strive to be able to shoot bullseye groups, too? Couldn't that possibly help in combat or the game?

the topic is what makes a shooter "good?" So a combat shooter is "good" when he attains that level of accuracy (whatever that is)?

-rvb

I've personally witnessed "action" type pistol shooters shoot bullseye matches and post good, not great, but good scores. They were cross training to keep and refine the basic marksmanship fundamentals. I've read articles by top "action" pistol shooters who say that they do the same. I think most folks, who take their shooting somewhat seriously are never satisfied. That is why they train as often as they can and look for ways to improve. IMHO, the more one trains, the more likely he or she is to come out on top when the chips are down. I just hope that when and if that happens (Lord forbid) the bad guy didn't train at all.