How to document handgun accuracy

[mikemyers]

I posted a thread here in 2011 asking about handgun accuracy:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=618159&highlight=mikemyers

It's now 2014, and I went back to re-read that thread. I'm impressed - so many people responding to that thread were getting results that I can only dream of. Many of you guys are really, really good!


With some practicing since then, I've gotten my grouping down from 6" to 4", at 15 yards, so I'm glad it's improving, but I've got such a long way to go, I don't think I will ever get "there". At least I figured out a goal to shoot for - 3" diameter grouping at 15 yards using ordinary range ammo.

I've got four more months before I go overseas again, and one of my commitments while I'm back in the USA, is fifteen minutes of dry firing practice every day. I'm 70, and my arms get tired after that long, but with all the practice, they are doing better. Oh well, I'll find out soon enough if I'm getting any closer.


One thing I wanted, was a mathematical way to "rate" myself, to see if I'm improving, and if so, how much. After a lot of searching, I found this page, along with a printable target and the software to analyze results:
http://www.ctmuzzleloaders.com/ctml_experiments/accuracy/accuracy.html

Has anyone else tried this, and if so, what were your thoughts?

 

[il.bill]

Interesting -

Thank you!

 

[PPS43]

The article you linked to advocates CEP, and I agree that it's a good metric. Few people seem to know about it, so you'll need an easy way to convert from CEP to group size and back.

One rule of thumb is that CEP in centimeters is approximately the same as 5 shot group size in inches. Details on relationship between CEP, group size, and hit probability.

From practical perspective, speed is as important as accuracy. These days I always shoot with a timer, and track hits per unit of time rather than just accuracy.

 

[MCgunner]

Accuracy can be limited by the weapon. ALL of my carries will shoot under 4" from a bench rest at 25 yards. My favorite plinkers will mostly shoot 1" groups, some up to 2". I hit much better with those, of course.

Shooting 4" at 15 yards ain't all that bad and, with some guns, I'd consider it excellent! What can the gun do off a bench rest at 25 yards? That's how I quantify the gun's accuracy. With my eyes, 1" is about all I can do with iron sights, must go to optics to do any better. Mind you, this is off sand bags, not free hand.

I have a buddy that shoots bullseye a lot. I swear that guy is a human ransom rest. His favorite competition guns are a Smith 41 and a Smith M52. These guns are VERY accurate, also.

 

[rs7]

Keep shooting. It helps. Look at your target. Both eyes. SQUEEZE trigger. POP. That's about it.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Your 70? I hope I can still see the target when I'm your age. I'm 58, my eyes hold me back more than anything.
I just refuse to go to optics.

Accuracy starts with finding the gun's limitations. If your gun won't shoot 2'' groups in a ransom rest, you won't either.
Shooting tiny groups is fun, but I'd rather be able to put 5 shots in a 6'' circle @ 50' in 4 seconds.

 

[mikemyers]

Sauer Grapes - yeah, born in 1943. You mentioned that your eyes hold you back more than anything.... Have you thought about getting an extra set of glasses, with the exact prescription to see your front sight clearly?

It took me a lot of arguing with the people fitting me for glasses, but eventually I got it through to them that I was serious, and to not worry about my not being able to see things in the distance or close up. They made the glasses, and the front sight is now razor sharp. The target of course is all blurry, but that's what all the books and articles and posts say it should be.

I would very much like to determine the gun's limitations. I guess the only way I'll get close is to prop it up on the sandbags available at the range.



To PPS43, thanks for the information. I will check out the links in a few minutes. You mentioned that speed is very important, and I agree that for some people and some uses, that's certainly true, but until/unless I learn how to shoot well enough slowly, there's no point in my trying to go faster. The only thing I have the gun for is target practice - and I suppose if the Zombies ever take over....

 

[mikemyers]

To PPS43 - wow.... I just read, or should I say, tried to read, the link you provided:
https://github.com/lstange/mcgs

I will try again tomorrow, hopefully remembering more of my mathematics from school days. I'm sure it will be useful once I understand it better, but that's going to be a struggle!

 

[MCgunner]

Your 70? I hope I can still see the target when I'm your age. I'm 58, my eyes hold me back more than anything.
I just refuse to go to optics.

I can relate, but for hunting at least, I use optics. I do need to go get an eye exam, though. Been a while and I see things double at a distance, everything has a ghost image. I've learned to shoot at the right one, not the left. Sux, though. Glasses are expensive, but it's time, I reckon.

The double image malady doesn't affect me with optics, shoot as well as I ever did. And, at self defense ranges, no problems. Heck, I point shoot up close, anyway, quicker and no need for sights.

 

[mikemyers]

MCgunner.... Glasses are only expensive because one firm in Italy has bought up ALL the major places that sell glasses, and has raised the prices so they can make more money. Of course, if you are already wearing glasses, you can always put new lenses into the old frame....

This has nothing to do with an eye exam, which you certainly should get, as some conditions get much harder to treat if you ignore them. You need to see an Ophthalmologist, NOT just a shop where they sell glasses. I spend half a year, every year, volunteering at an eye hospital in South India, and SO many people lose their eyesight permanently from things that could have been so easily corrected, had they seen an eye doctor sooner.

As to glasses, I get my glasses and frames in India, but since you're unlikely to do that, I think it should still be possible to find reasonably priced frames. As for the eye examination, if you have health insurance, it might already be covered.


I'm in no way an eye doctor, but from what you've written, that you shoot so well with optics, but have trouble with regular sights, I suspect that the only way you will ever be able to see the front sight properly is if you get lenses for your glasses that have the correct prescription for THAT distance.

 

[wally]

I just refuse to go to optics.

Why? It is way more fun to hit than to miss! With a Trijicon RMR on my S&W Shield I can shoot 2" groups at 25 yards off sandbags (did it yesterday as my final sight in with my carry ammo after getting it "broken in" for carry).

The Burris Fastfire sights are a lot less expensive and what I use on most of my favorite range pistols.

Accuracy starts with finding the gun's limitations. If your gun won't shoot 2'' groups in a ransom rest, you won't either.

The ransom rest can give you a bogus indication with blowback guns having a fixed barrel and the sights on the slide -- with these accuracy will depend strongly on slide to frame fit and how consistently it returns to the same alignment. When clamped into a Ransom Rest the barrel maintains a fixed relationship to the target giving groups tighter than the gun will really do when actually using the sights.

My point is that with something like the Chiappa 1911-22 you may think you have a gun that will shoot under 2" at 25 yards based on a Ransom Rest, when in reality its such a POS that 4" off sandbags would be doing good because the slide to frame is so sloppy.


The main problem I have with "special" glasses tuned so you can focus the front sight clearly, is unless you also have good "walking around" vision with them you won't likely have them on in a SD situation, in a home invasion scenario stumbling around for the special glasses would likely be suicide. Lasik bought me an extra five or six years of using irons effectively, but time and presbyopia marches on I have great "walking around" vision and only need readers for close work (or to focus on the front sight) but I see another major advantage to red dot optics -- you look through the dot and focus on the target, its damn hard to focus on the front sight instead of the threat if the bullets might be flying both ways!

 

[mikemyers]

Wally, if you're saying what I think you're saying, it adds a new challenge.

The thread was intended to be about how to measure handgun accuracy. I guess I was wrong - I assumed that if you held a gun in place on sandbags, you could measure the accuracy of the gun, and when you stood up to fire it, you could measure the total accuracy, including your own ability as to accuracy. Subtract one from the other, and you can find out how well you're shooting.

You've introduced another concern - I guess I could call it the accuracy of the sights. If a loose slide creates considerable inaccuracy due to the sights not returning to the same position each time, that's a third concern. Thanks for pointing it out, as while maybe everyone else here is aware of that, I wasn't.

Is there any way to test for this?


Apparently the components that make up accuracy include:

• accuracy of the shooter (including his ability to "see")
• accuracy of the mechanical gun components
• accuracy of the sights (as you have just mentioned)
• accuracy of the ammunition

 

[MCgunner]

As to glasses, I get my glasses and frames in India, but since you're unlikely to do that, I think it should still be possible to find reasonably priced frames. As for the eye examination, if you have health insurance, it might already be covered.

See, that's part of the problem, but eye exams aren't that expensive. But an ophthalmologist might be. I'll be on medicare in 4 years, but I'll go for an exam and ot of pocket it before that. I'm gettin' friggin' tired of seeing double. I bought one of those gimmicky adjustable lens things from Walmart's "as seen on TV" rack for the one reason of seeing if dialing 'em in would do away with the ghost image and it did. The lenses on those are crap, but they served their purpose, told me I need a new prescription. Will do that soon, I reckon, since I just paid off my credit card. CHARGE IT! LOL

Thanks for the comments.

 

[wally]

The thread was intended to be about how to measure handgun accuracy. I guess I was wrong - I assumed that if you held a gun in place on sandbags, you could measure the accuracy of the gun, and when you stood up to fire it, you could measure the total accuracy, including your own ability as to accuracy. Subtract one from the other, and you can find out how well you're shooting.

You're not "wrong" you are just worrying about things that aren't all that important. How well you shoot off sandbags compared to standing is a great measure of your progress. You will not out shoot the mechanical accuracy of any quality handgun until you are competitive in 2700 Bullseye matches, then you'd need "match" guns, ammo, sights, and triggers to take it to the next level.


If you can't group well off sandbags you need more work on the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger pull.

I'm gettin' friggin' tired of seeing double.

MCgunner, I would strongly suggest doing whatever it takes to see an ophthalmologist ASAP! It might be something as "simple" as astigmatism (what I had, made it hard to read as I'd see a double line of text superimposed) or something more serious where waiting could be disastrous.

 

[mikemyers]

MCgunner, by "eye exam" I mean a lot more than checking your vision and seeing which eyeglass prescription would be best. In a proper exam, done with an ophthalmologist, you will get your vision checked, the internal pressure in your eye will be measured (to check for glaucoma) and the eye doctor will thoroughly look over your eyes. Someone will check your near and far vision for both eyes, and determine the proper prescription for your new glasses. You will then be given eye drops that cause your eyes to dilate (the eye[s iris opens up to allow more light, which allows the doctor to inspect the back of your eyes). You will then sit and wait for fifteen or 20 minutes as your eyes dilate. When ready, you will sit down in front of the doctor, who will use a "slit lamp" to inspect the back of your eye (the retina), as well as any signs that you are developing cataracts. When you leave, everything will be "blurry", and for several hours until the eyes un-dilate you'll need to wear dark glasses outside, as otherwise you will be extremely uncomfortable because of all the sunlight. By the next morning, things will be fully back to normal.

As 'wally' wrote above, things can be happening in your eyes, which if caught in time can be treated and/or corrected. If you ignore them, the damage they do to your eyes can be permanent. Cataracts can be removed, but damage to the retina can't be corrected - the best you can expect is that it will stop getting even worse.

Sorry for writing so much, and I won't say any more about it, unless asked.....

 

[mikemyers]

Wally, I know that everyone wants to get better, me included, which is why I started this thread. You wrote:

"If you can't group well off sandbags you need more work on the fundamentals of sight alignment and trigger pull."


Is there anything posted on THR that gives an indication of what "well" means?

I had a discussion with someone here on THR, along the lines of many people talk about shooting these wonderfully tight groups, but then I watch people at the range, or perhaps on TV, and in real life, live, hardly anyone seems to shoot that well. It's just like with fishermen, who talk about one thing, but the reality is a lot less.

 

[PPS43]

many people talk about shooting these wonderfully tight groups, but then I watch people at the range, or perhaps on TV, and in real life, live, hardly anyone seems to shoot that well.

There are two reasons. First is biased sample. Few people feel like posting average results. So if somebody says "my 1911 shoots 1 inch groups," it likely means "I shot this 1 inch group once with one of my guns, and I'm very proud of it".

Second, there is really a lot of difference between a good shooter and an average one, just like there is a lot of difference between Olympic runners and people jogging in a park on Saturday.

The best way to do objective comparison is to attend local USPSA, IDPA, or bullseye competitions.

 

[ohbythebay]

bingo !!!

There are two reasons. First is biased sample. Few people feel like posting average results. So if somebody says "my 1911 shoots 1 inch groups," it likely means "I shot this 1 inch group once with one of my guns, and I'm very proud of it".

Second, there is really a lot of difference between a good shooter and an average one, just like there is a lot of difference between Olympic runners and people jogging in a park on Saturday.

The best way to do objective comparison is to attend local USPSA, IDPA, or bullseye competitions

Great advice and great view. I can shoot 1 inch groups. Sometimes. On a good day - not all day...LOL. I can easily stay in the 10 and 9 ring but 100 rounds in 1" ? Nahhh...and nobody at the range can either that I have seen. Now...competition shooters ? Different story...like playing basketball against an NCAA all star...

 

[wally]

Is there anything posted on THR that gives an indication of what "well" means?

For a good start, look up some NRA "slow fire" pistol targets for various distances, the 10 ring represents excellent shooting, the X-ring represents what a most excellent pistol and shooter will do off a rest. In rifle terms its about 2.5 moa.


From: http://compete.nra.org/documents/pdf/compete/RuleBooks/Pistol/pistol-book.pdf

25 yard slow fire - 7, 8, 9 and 10 rings black. Target No. B-16.
X ring......................0.67 in
10 ring.....................1.51 in
9 ring.......................2.60 in

 

[fedlaw]

I am 68 and have been shooting for most of my life from childhood on. I compete and have a wall full of trophies that attest to my ability to shoot accurately under time and competition pressures. That being said, I would add this to the discussion: find a gun friendly ophthalmologist. My guy was a former competitor, allows me to bring in my pistols when refracting my eyes so that the sweet spot of my bifocals is on the front sight and corrects my eyes to 20/5 rather than 20/20.

 

[mikemyers]

'fedlaw', great idea!!!! It wouldn't work too well for me, as my ophthalmologist is in India, at an eye hospital. Last year I made a trip there, and wanted one set of glasses made up with a prescription for the distance in inches between my eyeball and the front sigh of a pistol. The discussion between myself and the person doing the testing was almost comical, a she and her supervisor were both convinced I was crazy, and I knew they had no idea of why I wanted these glasses.

In retrospect, I should have just said I wanted a pair of glasses for my computer screen, that is ___ inches from my eyes. (It's interesting that my shooting glasses are perfect for working on my computer!!!).

The good thing about these glasses is that the correct my vision perfectly for "front sight". The bad thing is that I can't see what happened to the target without switching glasses. Since I am "right eye dominant", I was wondering what would happen if I had them put a lens in the left eye, which is for my distance prescription? Then I could easily use my left eye to see how well I had shot.... one eye for sights, one eye for target.

 

[wally]

I was wondering what would happen if I had them put a lens in the left eye, which is for my distance prescription? Then I could easily use my left eye to see how well I had shot.... one eye for sights, one eye for target.

This is called "monovision" It can work very well with contacts or lasik (a good lasik clinic will have you do it with contact lenses before doing the lasik). Problem is not everyone's brain can adapt to the essentially mixed eye dominance this requires which can cause severe headaches and even motion sickness. It usually doesn't work well with glasses, but it might be worth trying if your prescription is not expensive.

 

[mikemyers]

Thanks, Wally. Maybe I will give it a try - just have them make a new lens for the left eye with my distance prescription. If it doesn't work out, I can put the original lens back in.

My eyes don't work well with each other - I can see with my left or right eye, and can easily switch back and forth, selecting which eye I want to see with. I don't get "stereo vision", which is why I could never catch a ball thrown at me.

If this works out, I can shoot as I do now using my right eye, then switch to the other eye to see the target - can do this without even lowering the gun!