Group size

I view that as a dichotomy - a "group" doesn't measure how accurate the gun & shooter are unless the gun is shooting right dead on to the point of aim.
If you shoot at a quarter sized bull, placed dead center in the middle of an 8X11 sheet of paper, and cluster 5 shots in a nice tight group - about 3 inches away from the bull, I consider that very poor. Yeah, the group is tight, but, it missed the target.
Now - tape a fender washer on a piece of paper and see how many bullets you can put through the hole - now we're talking. Or turn a spent 12 ga shell at you and shoot into it. Line up three or four. Staple a target to a piece of cardboard & instead of shooting "groups", shot the staples out.

Groups? Nah - like I said, they tell me nothing.

 

Groups may tell you nothing, but as you quoted me saying, for me (and most people) they "represent the capability for consistent accuracy." That is, unless one doesn't know how to adjust the POI to match the POA.
If you're shooting simply for groups to test the gun's accuracy, you may not want to shoot out your POA, so you intentionally adjust the sights/scope so that the POI does not match the POA. If you want POA and POI to match, such as if you're setting up a gun for certain types of target shooting, or for hunting, you may want to shoot one round per target if the gun is accurate enough to shoot out the POA.

 

Which IMHO is very much the norm. An "Inaccurate gun" is very much a rare thing.
The mechanics of a handgun, coupled with the close proximity of use, make handguns very accurate.
They are inaccurate, only because of user error.

This is something that has always puzzled me. Why are shooters so demanding when it comes to rifles, but, when it comes to handguns, they seem to throw up their hands and settle for these huge patterns (center mass) from nearly arms length.
Then turn around and celebrate a gun and shooting method as "accurate" when it clusters shots tightly together that happen several inches away from the intended target?

My only conclusion to the "why groups" is that - groups have become a way for one person to compare themself to another person as far as a measurement of skill.

 

The only reason that the cluster of shots is several inches away from the target is that the shooter intentionally, for a good reason, adjusted the POI to be away from the POA.

I wonder if what troubles you is the fact that, while the sights (usually a scope) are purposely set to cause the POI to be somewhere away from the POA, the gun in that configuration would not be sighted in for accuracy work in the sense that POA and POI match up. For example, it wouldn't be ideal for hunting. If that's what you're saying, I agree that one might not want to leave the gun set that way if his next outing might be for anything other than shooting groups and testing. But IMO, that doesn't make the gun inaccurate. Instead it's just not sighted in for POI to match POA. It's sighted in for testing purposes, load workup, etc.

Groups allow easy and precise measurement of the consistency. Here's a target from one of my CZ handguns where I put one round toward each POA. This is how I practice with guns that I keep sighted in for POI to match POA. I'm usually not a good enough pistol shooter to completely chew out the POA with 15 rounds on a single small dot, but if this were a rifle, and I would quickly chew out the red dot and then be guessing at the POA. That's fine if I just want the proof that the gun is pretty accurate, but if I'm testing loads or techniques, trying to reduce my 100 yard group sizes from say, .4" to .2", aiming into a chewed-out hole won't work.

That's what groups have always been -- a way to gauge consistency, to compare guns, to compare loads, compare shooting techniques, compare oneself to his own prior results, compare oneself to others, etc.

 

When I was in my late 30’s I could cut a kite string at 10 yards with a 45. Now, in my 70’s I do good to hit the 10 ring at 10 yards. And I have never owned a pair of tactical pants.

 

Now that meets with my approval of what I'm saying. That arrangement has many possible points to shoot at.
The intersection of the lines +, each square, the red dots, the lettering in the upper left & yes - the staples that hold the paper on a cardboard backer.

My way is to shoot a single round at each red dot. Not a string of more. If I take 5 shots and hit each red dot dead on, that makes more sense to me than shooting a string of shots at one and measuring the diameter of the group.

 

Find the t-shirt that says "Old Geezer" to inspire the young shooters..

 

I only shoot groups when I am doing load development and I want to see what the group size of a load is and where it prints relative to other loads and where the sights are adjusted to. Otherwise I judge how well I can shoot a gun by how well I can hit my plates on my range at different distances and how quickly.

I am in my mid 30's and I just wish I could see a kite string at 10 yards. My astigmatism is getting worse and worse, going to have to do something about it soon.

 

With my .223/5.56 guns I can easily hold a 1 moa group at 100yds but my hunting guns as long as I can cover the 100yd group with my fist it's a good group. I figure while hunting there are a lot more pressures on me than at the range hitting targets, so as long as I can do a heart shot(about the size of a closed fist) it's good enough.

 

This is the best i can do with my old man eyes.That is my 45 1911 at 40ft

 

Thanks to the latest ammo/component shortage,I've been putting a lot more pistol rounds downrange than any other time in my life,and I've actually been able to see some good progress.I'm getting caught up with powder and bullets to feed my long guns now,so I'll be shooting them a little more.But I've been getting a lot of enjoyment out of pistol shooting because I can see my shooting getting better almost with every round fired.My eyes aren't as good as they used to be so I changed how I focus on the sight picture and it has really helped.Most of the time I shoot three shots each at different ranges from 7 out to 100 yards,all offhand.I've actually improved enough to say that I wouldn't want to have to face me in a gunfight,and that's what it's all about.To improve,to figure out ways to adapt to the unavoidable aging process.

 

Personally, I'm happy to see "bad" groups posted in public. At least you know they're probably telling the truth. For every "bad" group posted on the internet, there probably are a couple of dozen 4" groups shot at a hundred yards, offhand, with steel cased 9mm in a Glock.

 

I have never been a real accurate handgun shooter. I am “pretty good”. I shoot groups to test myself that I am shooting consistently. I do some some impressive groups sometimes, but many times they’re just “okay” I do not shoot to impress, or depress, anyone but me.
I nearly always shoot 10 shot groups. To me they tell a better story than 3 or 5 shot groups from a handgun. Rifles are a different story.
I do not get 3” groups at 25 yards with handguns. I am stoked with 6” groups.
I usually have 2 flyers for every 10 shot group. Why? Perhaps God is trying to make me humble. It doesn’t work. I smile at the flyers and load up for the next target.

Today I took my nephew shooting. A couple of memorable things occurred. I got to shoot with my nephew again. I got to be inside an indoor range when someone 4 lanes over was blasting away with a S&W 500 Magnum. Now that’s something, let me tell ya!
And the best part; 2 guys 2 lanes over were shooting targets at 10 yards. One guy was probably in his late 20’s. The other was younger, maybe 20 or 21. The young guy was not doing ado well at shooting. I am guessing they’re brothers. My nephew and I were shooting at 25 yards with my 2 Glock 34s and my G48.
The younger fella asked me how far out we were shooting. I told him 25 yards. He thanked me and walked away. I shot 17 rounds at my target at 25 yards. I brought the target in, looked at it. Nice group, maybe 6 or 7 inches. I turned to throw my target away and heard the young guy say to the older one “Man, I wish I could shoot like that guy.”
Wow…I have never heard anyone say that about my shooting before. I guess he is “new”, but it was nice to hear.

 

Target accuracy is good on a range, but bad in a dynamic situation. I'll explain the first sentence in the last portion. The only reason I shoot for small groups is to see the accuracy of the weapon and how it fits me. A Glock 17 I was issued, shot small groups to the left consistently. Glocks in general do that for me, due to my hand size and the grip. My 1911 needed a short trigger, but shoots accurately for me.

I enjoy shooting small groups like everyone else, but also know that I can put holes in a paper plate sized target at will and at speed, if necessary. I'm not saying this to boast, because most everyone who's on the forum can do so, and I am not making mention of range. Range comes with practice and time.

The point is, if I have a bullet hole in the bad guys left lung, and another one 5 inches away in his right lung, and another 3 inches away through his heart: as a surgeon, which do you repair first? As an EMT or paramedic, which do you plug first? Small groups aren't useful in a dynamic situation, though a single shot may be useful in certain situations.

 

Compared against what I've witnessed over the years, this would be fantastic shooting. I see a lot of misses on the 4" plates at 25 yards. For that matter a bunch of people don't do too hot on the 10" when the speed picks up. I would judge a lot of pistol shooters are challenged to keep some of their rounds on a B21 (or zombie equivalent) at 7 yards much less a couple of full magazines rapid fire.

 

If you miss each dot then what's wrong? Is your pistol mechanically challenged? Your ammunition inconsistent? Are you palming the grip or jerking the trigger?

Using a group allows you to troubleshoot the problems and improve performance. They are a method of getting quantifiable data so you can work out solutions and improvements. Groups are only important if you believe in the science of firearms and shooting.

 

Accuracy is accuracy. It doesn't generally matter if a fellow is checking accuracy with ten shots into one group, or ten shots at ten separate aiming points. The latter may be slightly more fair, as the aiming point does not become obliterated. The former may allow easier comparison with accepted accuracy standards. Otherwise, who cares?

I will note that, as always, there is so much nonsense about accuracy posted on the internet that it can be difficult to discern reality from fiction. One side effect is that many people feel as though their shooting is sub-par, when in fact it may be just fine. For example, three inches at twenty-five yards approaches or even exceeds the mechanical accuracy of many common service pistols. Being able to shoot such groups offhand places one in very elite company, and no one should assume he is a poor shot simply because he is incapable of such accuracy.

 

@Varminterror
With that gray beard of yours growing, it won’t be long before your eligible to join us wise men.

 

Thanks. And by no means can I do that while rapid firing (aka mag dumps). I don't go super slow either while shooting either.

I saw plenty of people that had issues with keeping all rounds onto a B21 target at 7 yards back when I helped with Missouri CCW training courses. That kind of scared me that people had problems hitting a B21 target at 7 yards without any stress yet were going to be carrying a firearm daily.

 

I imagine I’d be pretty happy too hitting the 10 ring of a 25 yard bullseye target (3.5” or so). Add a little speed to that and that’s a pretty high standard.

 

I often have posted this picture with the intent of showing off a nice gun, but it's also sitting on one of my "bragging" targets, shot during a fairly intensive three-year effort to earn my "Master" rating in NRA Bullseye competition (I never did quite make it.)



This is a 25 yard "timed" target (ten shots in twenty seconds) and the score is enough to make High Master - if you can do it every time. The black is 5.5" and you can see I used most of it. Call it a 3.5" group at best, with a specially prepped match gun, optical sights, custom grip, negligible recoil, an utterly amazing trigger, and thousands of hours of focused training.

Obviously there are plenty of folks who are better at that game than I ever was, but I didn't exactly suck at it either. So my hat is off to anyone capable of that kind of accuracy. And for anyone who claims to be able to cut those groups in half, with stock service pistols, and yet is unknown to anyone in the competition world, I'll call him a damn liar.

 

Judging by posts I've seen over the years on a couple well-known forums there are an awful lot of us who can do that...

On a serious note, I'm sure most of us here take much of what's said (claimed) on the internet with a grain of salt when it comes to discussion about group size and accuracy. I've been involved in the shooting world, firearms training and shooting sports for more than forty years and have rarely witnessed those who are capable of the level of accuracy (with stock handguns) so often claimed on the internet. And when someone has to shoot a timed course of fire, drawing from the holster, it's usually a good lesson that one shouldn't brag about their shooting ability before shooting the qual course or the match.

Back on topic, I have found that as I get older (and my eyesight gets crappier) I enjoy ringing steel consistently much more than trying for smaller groups on paper. There's accuracy, and there's practical accuracy, and for what I would really need to use a handgun for, cleaning a rack of 8" falling plates at 25 yards is a better test of my abilities than trying for little-bitty groups on paper.

 

I'm probably getting too het up about it, but it does get on my nerves from time to time.

Most notably, I find myself being overly credulous and thinking to myself "Wow. That guy is pretty good. I've never been able to do that." Then I do a little figuring, realize the claimed group would make him roughly twice as good as the best guy who ever lived, and then feel foolish for being taken in.

The guy who's been more-or-less casually shooting for a couple of years, though, and is feeling pretty good now that he can keep most of his shots on notebook-sized paper at 25 may end up pretty discouraged, and that bugs me for some reason.

 

I've been thinking on this and finally figured out why I disagree with it: it's all too easy to line up a one inch target, hit it every once in a while, and then tell yourself "Hey, I can hit a one inch target!" The misses are easily forgotten, even if they missed by feet.

A group, on the other hand, tells a much truer story, as both the good shots and the bad shots are permanently recorded - even the ones that missed by feet.