What the best way to test pistol accuracy?

[1SOW]

"To test the pistol's accuracy" Taken literally, a form of ransom rest would have to be used.

Here's the rub: almost ANY pistol can be made more 'accurate' by improving the trigger, sights, grips, springs or a number of other factors including the ammunition where it interfaces with the "Shooter". Try adjusting the sights to agree with the ransom rest hits. I'd be willing to bet the sight adjustment will be way off for most shooters. The shooter interface/influence on the pistol is missing.

For me the pistol's accuracy is only as good as the interface WITH the shooter. Testing it in a ransom rest won't tell you if the pistol can be "accurate for your uses".

If you shoot "Bullseye", test it in bullseye.
If you shoot long range "sillhouette", shoot it that way.
If you shoot "action shooting", test it that way.
One handed, two handed, etc., etc, etc.

 

[SwampWolf]

Testing it in a ransom rest won't tell you if the pistol can be "accurate for your uses".

But it will tell you, as well as anything can, just how intrinsically accurate the pistol is which, if I understand his question correctly, the op wants to know. And if the handgun is determined to be inherently accurate, it will in all likelyhood allow the user to shoot more accurately than a handgun identical in all respects except for the accuracy potential.

Here's the rub: almost ANY pistol can be made more 'accurate' by improving the trigger, sights, grips, springs or a number of other factors including the ammunition where it interfaces with the "Shooter".

No pistol is made more "accurate" with "improving the trigger, sights, grips (or) springs" nor does ammunition make any pistol more innately accurate. Changes in the trigger pull, grips and sights might help the shooter to be more accurate with a given pistol but the accuracy of the gun itself is not affected by said changes. Similarly, different ammunition might (1) be more intrinsically accurate on its own merits or (2) correspond better with the interior tolerances, dimensions and/or finish in an accuracy sense with any particular handgun or (3) a combination of one and two, but ammunition, per se, does not make any firearm more accurate; it just allows it to be shot more accurately.
The intrinsic accuracy of any firearm is mostly accomplished at the time of manufacture and is largely a product of dimensions and tolerances of the barrel and chamber(s) and how they relate to each other. And to determine the intrinsic accuracy of any given handgun, the influence of human interaction with it (though impossible to eliminate entirely) must be limited as much as possible. A Ransom Rest best accomplishes this.

 

[w2fnt]

The gun doesn't make the shooter. The shooter makes the gun. There are days when I can't hit a darn thing and then there are days when I just can miss a darn thing with the same gun.

 

[SnowBlaZeR2]

Ransom rests aren't testing anything of value to me, so I just shoot off hand.

 

[springer99]

I believe that for most purposes, shooting a pistol over sandbags is probably the most practical method for testing accuracy. A Ransom rest is great; our club owns one) but not needed unless you're trying different loads for Bullseye, etc.

I do think that testing at anything less than 25 yards is a waste of time though. Errors in sighting or bad ammo won't really show up at much less than this. For .45ACP Bullseye shooting, testing various loads at 50yds seems to be the norm.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

Testing is an interesting activity as the test procedures can affect the results. You said you wanted to test the pistol's accuracy - what you're really testing is the mechanical repeatablity of the gun. HOWEVER, that is affected by the consistency of the ammunition - which is a combination of the potential bullet deviances (weight, concentricity, etc....) and the charge deviations which result in velocity / accuracy variations.

So, prior to testing the gun, one would probably want to investigate the ammunition being used first by weighing it and conducting chronograph testing to establish cartridge-to-cartridge and shot-to-shot differences to see if they carry through and influence gun accuracy.

What you are doing is trying to define all of the variables that can affect test results - if you can think of more things - then you try and define those so you can assess trends in test results.

After that you would start testing the gun itself with multiple shot strings of different types of ammunition as you will find that ammunition repeatability influences gun accuracy. Optimally, you would start each test run by thoroughly cleaning the barrel. That in-and-of-itself could affect accuracy so you would have to use exactly the same cleaning technique each time finishing with the barrel being as dry as possible.

After cleaning you would then put the gun in the rest and shoot a 3-5 shot string of the ammunition to be used for testing to condition the barrel and seat the gun in the rest, then retighten the rest and proceed with the remainder of the test.

What you will end up with is a set of targets that will give you a range of accuracy with different loads and allow you do extrapolate the standard deviation of accuracy and mean accuracy of the gun over the range of ammunition tested.

The test results will have no bearing on attempting to determine potential accuracy of ammunition that has not been tested.

What the test will give you is the performance you can expect from the gun with a range of ammunition...but not the performance of you shooting the gun - that's the one where you hold the gun and shoot it.

 

[Thompsoncustom]

Both guns have light trigger pulls so it should help me when I do the sandbag testing. Not gonna be really testing the mechanical accuracy but it will be close I hope.

I also plan on getting into reloading and handloading so that should help with the ammo part.

 

[1SOW]

SwampWolf, My first sentence agrees about testing the "gun's" accuracy with the ransom rest. I agree with you.
In my next next statements about "accuracy", I state factors that affect " how the gun interacts with the shooter"---not that the gun is more accurate.

Sorry if my wording/meaning wasn't clear.

 

[LiveLife]

Let's say you did do a ransom rest testing and got an "X" inch shot group at 10-15-20-25 yards. This would be the "mechanically repeatable" accuracy for your pistol.

But ultimately, what will matter when you are hunting, plinking, match shooting or defending your life is the accuracy you can produce with the pistol in YOUR hands as it is difficult to do these activities with a ransom rest strapped to the pistol. Anyone who may need to use their pistol in SD/HD situations should be very curious as to what level of accuracy they can produce off hand at realistic "defensive" distances.

I used to test pistol accuracy off sand bags, but moved to testing off hand when I started action pistol match shooting as what "realistically" mattered was the shot groups I was able to produce with my hands while engaging different targets at different distances while drawing/moving/changing magazines etc. For me, slow fire single shot accuracy is one thing, rapid double-tap accuracy while you are actively moving and engaging multiple targets brings true accuracy of the pistol to light.

We fight like we train. I want to know the "realistic" accuracy of my pistols ... just in case I need to use it to defend my/family's lives.

Another factor to consider when testing pistol accuracy is the accuracy of the ammunition used. Different factory ammunitions will produce varying levels of accuracy for the same pistol. If you are not getting anticipated accuracy out of your pistol, it may not be the pistol but the ammunition. You may need to try a range of ammunition to determine which produces consistently tight shot groups. For this reason, many match shooters reload their own "match grade" ammunition that has proven to be accurate in their match pistols.

 

[SwampWolf]

SwampWolf, My first sentence agrees about testing the "gun's" accuracy with the ransom rest. I agree with you.
In my next next statements about "accuracy", I state factors that affect " how the gun interacts with the shooter"---not that the gun is more accurate.

Sorry if my wording/meaning wasn't clear.

I got you. And I'm not disputing the fact that guns can't be made more accurate to shoot-as you say, how it "interacts with the shooter"-by changing grips, trigger pulls, sights and/or ammunition nor that shooting from a rest (be it sandbags or a Ransom) will necessarily translate to how well (accurately) a person will shoot the gun, sans a rest. As you pointed out:

If you shoot "Bullseye", test it in bullseye.
If you shoot long range "sillhouette", shoot it that way.
If you shoot "action shooting", test it that way.
One handed, two handed, etc., etc, etc.

But there's nothing wrong with learning how intrinsically accurate a firearm is and that's best accomplished shooting from a rest, with as much human interaction divorced from the testing as possible. I rest my case.