How do you come up with a rating for how well you shoot?

[mikemyers]

Actually, for defensive shooting, you need the right balance of speed and accuracy and precision, and that balance will vary with the circumstances.

Thanks to Mr. Borland, that is now burnt into my memory in a way I'll never forget. If you are capable of being very accurate, and your gun is capable of being very accurate, and you know all you need to do is hit a steel plate, anywhere, you can get accurate enough in less time, allowing yourself to do that for each shot more quickly.

My own interpretation, is that if it took me some amount of time to hit within a 2" circle, in much less time than that, I should be able to shoot into a 8" circle, and do it reliably, time after time. I've never tried this yet, and I really should link to where Mr. Borland explained it, but I think I understand what he meant.

You're right - the word that fits best is "balance". Optimize the best combination to get the best result that a given person is capable of achieving.

 

[Ankeny]

No pistol discipline that I'm aware of really cares about group size.

Perhaps the group size isn't scored, but all of the shooting disciplines that I have participated in revolved around group size (and in many cases time). Afterall, it is really hard to hold the X-Ring if you don't shoot a dandy group.

 

[Jenrick]

People get bent out of shape when you seemingly flout their thoughts on something. Please note the word seemingly.

Shooting a precise group IS the foundation of any shooting sport. Doesn't matter if we're talking steel challenge, bianchi cup, bullseye shooting, 50m olympic free pistol, IPSC, whatever. How precise the group needs to be is determined by the competition. For 50m free pistol the 10 ring is 5cm in diameter, while in steel challenge the plate may be 8" across and still worth full value. The more precise you are able to shoot, the higher you are likely to score.

Now accuracy comes into play in the sense that to be able to score the target your rounds have to land on the scoring rings usually. Some disciplines such as benchrest rifle shooting, don't really care about accuracy in that sense. So long as the rounds lands on the target somewhere they can be measured you're good. As a matter of fact, most people don't want "accuracy" as they lose their aiming point if the round shoots PoA/PoI.

If you are happy shooting small groups then do so! If you want to shoot fast, and don't care if the group has a small CEP then do so! You're not wrong so long as you're having fun doing it. Now if you want to be an olympic athlete, win the Bianchi cup, etc. then you have to shoot in a manner that is appropriate to those competitions. For self defense purposes, you do need an accurate weapon, and you do need to be capable of a moderate degree of precision.

Personal opinion. If a shooter shoots small groups off their point of aim, and a sight correction puts them on their point of aim, they have good marksmanship skills. If they are still not on their point of aim after a sight change, then we have a problem as they probably have an issue with their fundamentals causing them to pull the round in a particular direction. If a shooter with good marksmanship skills doesn't want to shoot PoA/PoI for whatever reason, that's fine that's their decision to make. A real world example is PPC shooting, most shooters use a neck hold on a silhouette target, for the rounds to impact approximately CoM for the full point value. It's easier to have a repeatable sight picture (which promotes precision) at the neck then CoM. Also high power rifle shooting, with a circular bullseye, most folks shoot a 6 o'clock hold rather then center hold for the same reason. A 6 o'clock hold at 600 yards is 18" below the X-ring. Adjusting your point of impact is easy to do, where as holding EXACTLY center on the bull every shot is hard.

-Jenrick

 

[RustyShackelford]

Richard Marcinko....

I go by the metric set by ex SEAL officer & CO/founder of SEAL Team 06(AKA; DevGru or Development Group).
In Rogue Warrior, "Demo Dick" said he wanted his "shooters & looters" to consistently hit a 3"x5" index card at 30 feet with either hand at any angle.
It's not easy, but if I can nail a target 3" x 5" at 30ft I'm happy.

Rusty
www.DickMarcinko.com

 

[murf]

ankeny,

i totally agree. all shooting disciplines revolve around group size (unless you only shoot one shot) and time.

murf

 

[Sam1911]

Shooting a precise group IS the foundation of any shooting sport. Doesn't matter if we're talking steel challenge, bianchi cup, bullseye shooting, 50m olympic free pistol, IPSC, whatever.

Except for skeet, trap, sporting clays, steel challenge, steel safari type precision rifle shooting, biathlon, smallbore rifle, IHMSA, and any others where the shooter shoots no groups at all. Regarding the classical definitions of accuracy vs. precision, precision doesn't enter into it. Single shot accuracy is all there is.

 

[murf]

sam1911,

guns only shoot one round at a time, so any discussion of accuracy, precision, or group would be based on how precise that shot is delivered to the target. whether one shoots multiple times at one object, or shoots once at multiple targets is irrelevant to this discussion.

all shooting disciplines require one precise shot multiple times. how precise is called accuracy. shots made on one, or multiple, targets during one "session" are called groups.

murf

 

[mikemyers]

.......Regarding the classical definitions of accuracy vs. precision, precision doesn't enter into it. Single shot accuracy is all there is.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have been thinking that without the ability to shoot small groups (precision), Mr. Borland would have to take considerably more time to shoot what you see in this video he posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNFerCV3W4Y
(Watch this on YouTube, and slow the speed down to 25% to actually SEE what is happening.)

....and then read the second part of this response:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9601257&postcount=301


My interpretation, which may or may not be correct, is that IF you have excellent precision, so you KNOW where your shots are going to go, and IF you have an excellent firearm, meaning you KNOW how accurately you will be able to shoot, you can save a bit of time, by only making things "precise enough" and "accurate enough" to get a good time.

(Meaning, I think, that if you were less precise, and had less accuracy, you would need more aiming time to improve both, to still hit the target. The better you are, the less precise you have to be, which allows you to shoot more quickly. ...I think.)

 

[Sam1911]

guns only shoot one round at a time, so any discussion of accuracy, precision, or group would be based on how precise that shot is delivered to the target. whether one shoots multiple times at one object, or shoots once at multiple targets is irrelevant to this discussion.

Actually, the classical definitions of "accuracy" and "precision" disagree with you there.

all shooting disciplines require one precise shot multiple times. how precise is called accuracy. shots made on one, or multiple, targets during one "session" are called groups.

That's a common way of thinking about it, but not technically correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

"Accuracy is the proximity of measurement results to the true value; precision, the repeatability, or reproducibility of the measurement."

In other words, accuracy is hitting exactly where you were aiming. Precision is hitting in the same spot over and over.

 

[Sam1911]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have been thinking that without the ability to shoot small groups (precision), Mr. Borland would have to take considerably more time to shoot what you see in this video he posted:

Of course. Or at least, shooting precise groups is part of developing the skills he uses to shoot well, quickly.

My interpretation, which may or may not be correct, is that IF you have excellent precision, so you KNOW where your shots are going to go,

Well, that would be excellent accuracy, though the distinction isn't that big a deal to most folks.

... and IF you have an excellent firearm, meaning you KNOW how accurately you will be able to shoot, you can save a bit of time, by only making things "precise enough" and "accurate enough" to get a good time.

You're on to a very important facet of practical shooting. You might enjoy reading Brian Enos' book Practical Shooting: Beyond Fundamentals. He talks in it a lot about seeing exactly what you NEED to see to make the shot you need to make, and the corollary to that is developing an instant ability to recognize NOT to use more than the required focus/time to make a shot than you absolutely need to. In other words, not "wasting" any fractions of a second on dressing a shot more accurately than you need to. That's how good shooters can pull off 4-5 aimed shots a second at surprising distances. They know exactly what they HAVE to see, and how to not do any "better" than what they must, in order to make that shot.

(E.g.: Are you focused on the target, or on the sights? Are you seeing the front and rear sights perfectly aligned? Just the front sight on the target? Just the silhouette of the gun over the target? Only the target and not the gun at all? All will get you "A" or "Down 0" hits at different distances.)

(Meaning, I think, that if you were less precise, and had less accuracy, you would need more aiming time to improve both, to still hit the target. The better you are, the less precise you have to be, which allows you to shoot more quickly. ...I think.)

You've got it!

 

[mikemyers]

Thanks:

Kindle version:
http://www.amazon.com/Practical-Shooting-Beyond-Fundamentals-Brian-ebook/dp/B007T3ND0K

Paper version:
http://www.brownells.com/shooting-a...ctical-shooting-sku995100000-16668-37788.aspx

 

[JohnKSa]

Some simple answers:

1. Pick a competition that seems to emphasize the aspects of handgun shooting that you think are important and enter a match or two.

2. If you are concerned that the scoring on a particular target doesn't adequately assess performance to the accuracy resolution desired, you can either switch to using a target which does provide the desired accuracy resolution (i.e. to one with a number of scoring rings instead of one with just a few scoring regions) or just move the target in question out to a farther range to increase the difficulty level.

3. Introduce time constraints as an additional factor in the assessment process.

 

[MrBorland]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I have been thinking that without the ability to shoot small groups (precision), Mr. Borland would have to take considerably more time to shoot what you see in this video he posted:
.
.
.
My interpretation, which may or may not be correct, is that IF you have excellent precision, so you KNOW where your shots are going to go, and IF you have an excellent firearm, meaning you KNOW how accurately you will be able to shoot, you can save a bit of time, by only making things "precise enough" and "accurate enough" to get a good time.

When one is shooting fast and accurately, each shot is aimed, and the aiming area in the vid is the plate. One of my earlier points was that a better marksman theoretically has a bigger aiming area (they can aim closer to the edge of the plate and still likely get a hit); but the shooter with faster visual acuity will shoot faster, even if they're not the better marksman. As Sam1911 indicated, the real trick is getting the aimed shot off ASAP, taking no more time than it takes to get the hit, and this requires fast visual acuity.

This isn't to suggest that good marksmanship (e.g. shooting tight groups) barely matters in IDPA/USPSA competition. It does. For one thing, the shooter who starts off accurate but slow will continue to get better, whereas the inaccurate but fast beginner will quickly plateau. It's all about applying the fundamentals faster and better, so it certainly helps if your fundamentals are strong to begin with.

Also, in IDPA/USPSA matches, there are often shots long or tight shots that must be made, and made with one shot (particularly true for revolvers shooters), so good marksmanship skills pay huge dividends here.

 

[skoro]

40 years ago, the USMC rated me an expert with the M1911a1 and the M16a1.

In the 40 years since, I just tell myself that some days at the range are better than others. But I know for certain I'm not as good as I was back then.

 

[murf]

sam1911,

we will just have to disagree on this "accuracy/precision" definition. i don't want to derail the thread. but, i do disagree.

murf

 

[Sam1911]

Well, everyone's got that right. I can cite definitions, but really something means whatever any individual truly believes it means. Right?

 

[Jim Watson]

If the OP wants to draw his own target, specify his own figure of merit, and work to improve it, OK for him.
I like the social and competitive environment of matches shooting for accuracy, group, or speed by recognized standard scoring methods. And beating people. Or making excuses for why they beat me. I am just sure my mediocre performance yesterday was due to radiation from the CAT scan Friday.

 

[mikemyers]

......i don't want to derail the thread.......

If I already knew what you guys know, I'd probably not have needed or wanted to post the thread. Since I didn't, none of what you guys are saying is "derailing" the thread, as it never had any direction to begin with. I had no idea where it might lead. Just reading what you guys have written while debating this has added information, not confusion.

Jim Watson's post isn't derailing this either. I agree with him, that the competition might make everything more enjoyable.... it's just that in Miami Beach, there isn't an overwhelming number of places to go to for shooting competition. Of course, I haven't really looked all that hard either.

It's pretty obvious to me by now that this thread will never have AN answer. It will have many answers, all valid for different people and different goals.

 

[Radagast]

How do I rate myself? "I could a been a contender". Seriously. A decade ago I qualified for the Australian IPSC Production Division team. Had to give up my place on the team due to financial difficulties.
My viewpoint is colored by the fact that all of my competitive handgun shooting was in IPSC/USPSA style formats, so accuracy had to be 'good enough' - an A zone on an IPSC classic target is larger than the X ring on any bullseye target. Speed was also needed and smoothness was important too, target transitions are where a lot of people lose time.

So, in no particular order, I recommend:
a) Have a gun. I started with a Glock 17.
b) Have the best sights you can find for that gun. Installing Heinie Straight Eights halved my group size.
c) Have the best trigger you can use in your gun within the rules of your game. I changed to a 3.5 pound factory trigger connector and halved my groups again.
d) Shoot your gun. People who fire 50 rounds a month are not going to improve much. The firearm as magic talisman is still a factor in western societies. Realize you will need to put rounds down range regularly. I shot three times a week, 50 to 150 rounds at a time. That way I could try variations in grip, stance, which eye I used and find out what worked for me.
e) Shoot the best ammo you can afford. I used range reloads for practice, Winchester Silvertips for competition. There was a major difference in group size.
f) Hand load. When you are good enough to tell the difference in accuracy between loads, then hand load to get a good practice load. The last lot of hand loads I shot were noticeably more accurate than Privi Partisan commercial ammo.
g) Compete. This will get you out of any rut you fall into at your home range, create new friends and is fun. You will also get lots of free advise. Some of it will be mediocre, but if you help out at the range and are friendly, you will get advice from the people worth listening to. I was friendly & polite towards a woman who others had told me was unfriendly. Next thing I know I was getting some free advice from her husband, who was ranked third in the world at the time. Just watching how others do it will help. In a squad of 20 shooters, two or three will be contenders. See how they do it and apply that. Competition will push your abilities much faster than solo range work.
h) Dry fire. Look at Mr Borlands videos. I did something similar. I would balance a coin flat across the front sight of my Glock, raise it to aim at point on the wall, squeeze the trigger. When I could do that without dropping the coin, I started transitioning between points of aim without dropping the coin. This is how I developed 'smooth'.
i) Keep your general fitness up. Accuracy will deteriorate from caffeine, or other stimulants, so not needing them is good. I once had to RO the 3rd in the world guy I mentioned above. The stage involved 200m of running as well as 32 rounds. He was fit and had smooth down pat. Both feet would touch the ground, he was in a shooting position with no adjustment needed. rounds fired, he was again running with no extraneous movement. At the end of the stage he was breathing steadily. I on the other hand was "If" *pant* "you" *pant* "are" *pant* "finished"....

 

[mikemyers]

........Installing Heinie Straight Eights halved my group size.........I changed to a 3.5 pound factory trigger connector and halved my groups again. ...........I used range reloads for practice, Winchester Silvertips for competition. There was a major difference in group size. .........The last lot of hand loads I shot were noticeably more accurate than Privi Partisan commercial ammo. ........

If you ever have time to add a bit more information, I think it would be interesting to read what distance you were shooting at, what the group size was before making the change, and what it was afterwards - actual numbers.

I have no idea what Heinie Straight Eights are (yet), but if they halved your group size, is it because the Heinie is so good, or whatever you had before was so bad? From the things you wrote, I would have expected the trigger improvements to make a far bigger difference in your group size than all the other changes combined.



I used to be very involved in radio control car racing, and almost everyone I knew was trying to buy the fastest motors, the best batteries, and the best speed control, none of which made them any faster, all of which just made them crash harder. The expert guys who really DID know just said "slower is faster", and "drive smoothly. To me, that's like reading where Mr. Borland and others say "learn the fundamentals". I've never met you, but from what you wrote, I suspect the REAL reason you got so good was "I shot three times a week, 50 to 150 rounds at a time" along with "Dry fire".

As I see it, people can't "buy performance". They have to "earn" it (as you did!). Only after they have the ability, will the other things you mention become so important.

 

[Sam1911]

http://www.heinie.com/

The "straight eight" name comes from there being two dots, one on the front sight and one on the rear. Put the front one on top of the rear one (so it looks like a number "8") and hit what you're aiming at.

 

[Ed Ames]

I have no idea what Heinie Straight Eights are (yet), but if they halved your group size, is it because the Heinie is so good, or whatever you had before was so bad?

I can't answer for anyone else but I absolutely loathed the Heinie Straight Eight sights on the one gun I ever had that came with them. If someone else likes them I think that is evidence that it is personal preference and not some innate quality of the sights (which to be fair isn't bad...my issue is with the stacked dot execution+idea gestalt, not the quality of the steel).

 

[MrBorland]

The expert guys who really DID know just said "slower is faster", and "drive smoothly.

Keep this in mind as you start picking up the pace: Fast will be smooth. Smooth might be fast, but it might be slow. And slow is slow. No one's gonna just pick up a gun and rip it well simply because they can shoot 25 yard slow fire cloverleafs. The latter demonstrates a good and necessary foundation, but to go fast, you need to work on going fast (smoothly), so be patient with yourself as you do the work.

As I see it, people can't "buy performance". They have to "earn" it (as you did!). Only after they have the ability, will the other things you mention become so important.

No, you can't "buy performance", but under-buying can certainly hinder performance and/or progress. I recall a series of threads on another forum by a frustrated shooter who wants to be a good rifle shooter. Trouble is, he seems to have some vague and romantic notion of just being some "Joe" with his milsurp rifle and milsurp ammo and wowing everyone with one-hole groups to win matches. Ain't gonna happen. At least if he's not already a world-class rifle shooter.

IMO, whether novice or expert, you need a reasonably accurate and reliable gun, good ammo, grips that fit, sights you can see and a trigger you don't fight. My advice for anyone serious about shooting well is to get good solid gear up front, then be satisfied and confident with it while you shoot and dry fire a whole bunch.

 

[murf]

mike/sam,

no worries. this thread about measuring sight alignment is muuuuch more important than a side-debate (and distraction) on the definition of two words.

sight alignment is one of the two keys to shooting well (the other is "time"). so, measuring sight alignment is, imo, very important for everyone to understand. that is why i won't debate definitiions in this thread.

so, chime in with your thoughts all you highroaders!



murf

 

[btg3]

Over the weekend, I shot Steel Challenge with an accomplished target shooter at his first "action shooting" event. After the first stage, he commented: "Being on the clock makes a huge difference!" On the last stage, he said: "I'll be coming back for more of this."

He scored rather poorly and his metric for measuring himself encountered a significant paradigm shift, but... he thoroughly enjoyed it.