Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > Firearms & Knives: Other Brands & General Gun Topics
o

Notices

Firearms & Knives: Other Brands & General Gun Topics Post Your General Gun Topics and Non-S&W Gun and Blade Topics Here


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:20 AM
LVSteve's Avatar
LVSteve LVSteve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 19,827
Likes: 24,247
Liked 28,995 Times in 10,772 Posts
Default Pistol accuracy tests revisited

Not too long ago somebody on here was ranting that American Rifleman wasn't testing pistols out to 25 yards any more. I happened to notice that in the last couple of issues some 9mm pistols were tested to that range. Wow, are they accurate.

Stoeger STR-9, 4.17" barrel, 2.31" group average for $329 MSRP!!!

Springfield Hellcat, 3" barrel, 2.34" group average

Grand Power P11, 3.3" barrel, 1.82" (!!) group average

As far as I can tell none of the guns were shot using a Ransom rest to achieve these accuracies.

Now, I know that some here will be grinding their teeth because the guns are polymer and in two cases, full foreign designs. But let's be honest, sub 2.5" group average at 25 yards from production 9mm pistols that are not race guns tells me we are living in the golden age of firearms.
__________________
Release the Kraken
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-06-2019, 01:13 AM
rockquarry rockquarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,553
Likes: 4
Liked 8,885 Times in 4,121 Posts
Default

AMERICAN RIFLEMAN tests most handguns at 25 yards. Some guns just aren't practical for 25 yard testing, for example, one with very poor, coarse sights.

Five, five-shot, benchrested groups fired at 25 yards provides far more information on potential accuracy than groups fired at closer distances.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #3  
Old 11-06-2019, 10:08 AM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,575
Likes: 2,235
Liked 3,476 Times in 1,475 Posts
Default

You don't say how many shots were fired in the group or whether or not the writer decided to eliminate flyers. The American Handgunner started dumbing down testing to less than 25 yards. When I questioned the editor on this shift, he replied that he got a lot of hate mail from readers who said that those groups were either downright manufactured, the shooters said that their pistol couldn't shoot that well or it was stupid to test pistols at that range because it wasn't a practical distance. I like to see full size and compacts tested at that distance and as a matter of fact, many subcompacts, like the Sig P365 will perform well at that distance. I think most good carry pistols should print 10 shot groups at 3" or less. I like to see hunting and precision match handguns tested at 50 yards.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #4  
Old 11-06-2019, 10:37 AM
M29since14 M29since14 is offline
SWCA Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 11,907
Likes: 10,039
Liked 10,047 Times in 4,758 Posts
Default

I’d bet most of us old cave dwellers smirk a bit at testing anything except pocket pistols at less than 25 yards, and 50 yards (for target pistols). That said, I’d guess the tester at Rifleman is a pretty fair hand with a handgun if he gets that kind of accuracy with those guns. While it’s true, at least IMO, that pistols generally shoot better than the owner can, I remember a long time ago John Linebaugh told me he considered 1” per 10-yards was about as good as most shooters could do with their handguns. Since then I’ve kept that in mind and it seems pretty much the case, which is, of course, 2.5” at 25 yards, and that is not bad shooting.

The figures mentioned are good for short-barreled, inexpensive semi-autos, no question of that, but in the ‘70s, when I started shooting in a more organized way, any quality revolver that wouldn’t shoot a 1.5” group at 25-yards was considered deficient and was liable to get traded away. I’ll admit I routinely had trouble with that standard, but I did it often enough that I usually satisfied myself it was the shooter rather than the gun that was at fault when I didn’t. I often shot with two friends, both of whom might squeeze that down to 1” on a good day, with good ammunition.

I’m sorry but I really don’t see any sort of leap in accuracy, but the level of precision i expect is working it’s way down to a different sort of gun, and one that less expensive (comparatively).
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 11-06-2019, 10:39 AM
steelslaver's Avatar
steelslaver steelslaver is offline
US Veteran
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Central Montana
Posts: 13,625
Likes: 12,742
Liked 39,093 Times in 9,967 Posts
Default

I agree with BE Mike on the distance/ A good slingshot can get a small group at 10 yds. To really check the guns possibility 5 brands of ammo at 25 yds using a Ransom rest.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #6  
Old 11-06-2019, 11:42 AM
LVSteve's Avatar
LVSteve LVSteve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 19,827
Likes: 24,247
Liked 28,995 Times in 10,772 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
You don't say how many shots were fired in the group or whether or not the writer decided to eliminate flyers. The American Handgunner started dumbing down testing to less than 25 yards. When I questioned the editor on this shift, he replied that he got a lot of hate mail from readers who said that those groups were either downright manufactured, the shooters said that their pistol couldn't shoot that well or it was stupid to test pistols at that range because it wasn't a practical distance. I like to see full size and compacts tested at that distance and as a matter of fact, many subcompacts, like the Sig P365 will perform well at that distance. I think most good carry pistols should print 10 shot groups at 3" or less. I like to see hunting and precision match handguns tested at 50 yards.
The American Rifleman protocol is the average of five, five-round groups.

American Rifleman | Troubleshooting Rifle Accuracy
__________________
Release the Kraken
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #7  
Old 11-06-2019, 12:45 PM
diyj98 diyj98 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WV
Posts: 2,427
Likes: 390
Liked 2,827 Times in 1,257 Posts
Default

I much prefer 25 yard testing with perhaps 50 feet for a snub nose with fixed sights. I've never really got those 10 yard and under tests or folks posting photos of all their rounds touching at 7 yards and bragging about how great their gun shoots. Train at those ranges if you're into that sort of thing, but I want reviews that shoot a distance where great shooting guns truly stand out from average or poor shooting guns.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:04 PM
S&WIowegan S&WIowegan is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 4,106
Likes: 14,444
Liked 3,763 Times in 1,784 Posts
Smile

I always smile when folks post groups on this forum but don't mention the distance. This is usually an indication of short range shooting in order to declare the gun a "tack driver".

I participate in many gun games where at least 25 yd. shots are required. If you can't do that, you can't finish very high.

I also go to private ranges to sight-in and test ammo. It is not unusual to see people firing at less than 7 yds. while spraying bullets all over a B-27 target

Magazine test results are generally fired off bags or Ransom rests so most can't match those groups off-hand.
__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 11-06-2019, 04:57 PM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,575
Likes: 2,235
Liked 3,476 Times in 1,475 Posts
Default

"The American Handgunner" will probably lose me as a subscriber. I'm getting really tired of the milk toast reviews. The one I read today has dumbed down to this sort of avoidance of saying anything bad. Here is a sampling. This of a thousand dollar pistol: "I kept accuracy testing to 15 yards and found it to be an easy 1.5" to 2" gun IF (my emphasis) you squeeze the excellent trigger correctly. It ran fine as long as I kept a firm wrist, not at all uncommon with any sort of pocket-sized auto. After about 300 rounds of assorted 9mm ammo, I honestly couldn't detect any issues."
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #10  
Old 11-06-2019, 06:42 PM
LVSteve's Avatar
LVSteve LVSteve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 19,827
Likes: 24,247
Liked 28,995 Times in 10,772 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
"I kept accuracy testing to 15 yards and found it to be an easy 1.5" to 2" gun IF (my emphasis) you squeeze the excellent trigger correctly. It ran fine as long as I kept a firm wrist, not at all uncommon with any sort of pocket-sized auto.
May I translate?

"I didn't care for the way the trigger operated compared to my other guns. When I demeaned myself enough to operate it as the designer intended, I was reasonably accurate out to 15 yards. However, this weapon is unforgiving to any kind of limp wristing".

Am I close?
__________________
Release the Kraken

Last edited by LVSteve; 11-07-2019 at 01:28 AM. Reason: Typing too fast!
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #11  
Old 11-06-2019, 07:31 PM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,575
Likes: 2,235
Liked 3,476 Times in 1,475 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSteve View Post
May I translate?

"I didn't care for the way the trigger operated compared to my other guns. When I demeaned myself enough to operate it as the designer intended, I was reasonably accurate out to 15 yards. However, this weapon is unforgiving to any kaind of limp wristing".

Am I close?
You're getting there. I thought it was something like: "I didn't think this pistol was up to grouping well at 25 yards so I limited my shooting to 15 yards. The trigger wasn't up to high standards, but I was able to sometimes keep my shots within a 2" group. I am too embarrassed to tell you how wide the "flyer" shots were. I had a number of malfunctions, but there were fewer after shooting 300 rounds. There are many production subcompact pistols out there that cost half as much and less that outperform this "custom shop" pistol."
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #12  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:01 PM
UncleEd UncleEd is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: May 2012
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 4,496
Likes: 2,830
Liked 9,063 Times in 3,181 Posts
Default

Perhaps it was in the 1980s but I remember a
gun magazine doing an accuracy test of the
guns themselves, using a Ransom rest.

The guns were revolvers, a Dan Wesson, a Python
and a Smith. Barrels were 6 inches.

Range was 100 yards.

Best I can remember groups were under three inches
with the Wesson first, Python second and Smith third.
But the differences were slight, almost meaningless.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #13  
Old 11-06-2019, 08:02 PM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Banned
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
Default

This is the part where I mention that accuracy tests are pretty much worthless, as they only test the precision of that one particular example with that one particular lot of ammo. About the only thing they do is look pretty and inspire confidence in folks that don't know any better.

Sorry.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #14  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:42 AM
alwslate alwslate is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 6,606
Likes: 3,693
Liked 7,175 Times in 2,997 Posts
Default

Years ago when I did all of my accuracy testing of handguns at an outdoor
club range I shot at twenty five yards. The reason was simple. They had
a set of covered benches and the closest bullet traps were twenty five
yards away. Woe to those who violated the rules and dared to move closer. Since I moved to the country and started shooting in my back
yard I seldom shoot handguns at any distance greater than about
fifteen yards from a bench. Fifteen yards or even less is really a much
more realistic and practical distance for accuracy testing, especially
with compact autos.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #15  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:10 AM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,575
Likes: 2,235
Liked 3,476 Times in 1,475 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
This is the part where I mention that accuracy tests are pretty much worthless, as they only test the precision of that one particular example with that one particular lot of ammo. About the only thing they do is look pretty and inspire confidence in folks that don't know any better.

Sorry.
I disagree. When I'm at the range and working on sight alignment and trigger control, I like to know at what point it is not me, but the gun and ammo. If I'm going handgun hunting, I like to know at what distances my gun is capable of making a humane kill on game. Anyone who gains confidence from looking at articles/ videos of tight groups is a fool. When I'm in the market for a new gun, those articles/ videos can give an idea which guns I might consider looking at (there are so many) in the first place. That is if they are well done and the distances are appropriate, i.e. 25 or 50 yards.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #16  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:36 AM
rockquarry rockquarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,553
Likes: 4
Liked 8,885 Times in 4,121 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
I disagree. When I'm at the range and working on sight alignment and trigger control, I like to know at what point it is not me, but the gun and ammo. If I'm going handgun hunting, I like to know at what distances my gun is capable of making a humane kill on game. Anyone who gains confidence from looking at articles/ videos of tight groups is a fool. When I'm in the market for a new gun, those articles/ videos can give an idea which guns I might consider looking at (there are so many) in the first place. That is if they are well done and the distances are appropriate, i.e. 25 or 50 yards.
You're comments are certainly right and I agree with them entirely, but I think there are few these days who have much interest in what you mention. 25 yards with a handgun is considered "very long range" and 50 yards "unthinkable" to many shooters today; mediocrity prevails.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #17  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:05 AM
malph malph is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Posen, IL, USA
Posts: 670
Likes: 1,788
Liked 987 Times in 388 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockquarry View Post
You're comments are certainly right and I agree with them entirely, but I think there are few these days who have much interest in what you mention. 25 yards with a handgun is considered "very long range" and 50 yards "unthinkable" to many shooters today; mediocrity prevails.
The more relaxed CCW laws put in place over the last 20 years have brought a lot of new shooters into the fold.

It's just my theory but I think a lot of these folks could care less about how a pistol groups at 50 yards or even 25 yards.

They are concerned about afforability, comfort, reliability and being able to shoot the gun well enough to pass the shooting portion of their CCW test (if there is one).

These guns are kind of disposable consumer items. They are affordable, lightweight, easy to maintain and easy to shoot "well enough" to deal with that mythical FBI average encounter of 3-5 yards; three shots in three seconds.

The guns being produced now are tailored to that market because it is a big market.

The manufacturers have done a good job of delivering to that market what it's asked for.

I just can't see these guns as heirloom type of guns though. Can you see today's 20 something, when he's a grandfather, proudly passing the Ruger LCP down to his grandson? It's hard to envision.

The guns do what they were designed for though. I just don't personally expect too much out of them other than reliability.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #18  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:24 PM
BB57's Avatar
BB57 BB57 is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: NC
Posts: 4,710
Likes: 3,527
Liked 12,557 Times in 3,342 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockquarry View Post
You're comments are certainly right and I agree with them entirely, but I think there are few these days who have much interest in what you mention. 25 yards with a handgun is considered "very long range" and 50 yards "unthinkable" to many shooters today; mediocrity prevails.
Sadly, I agree.

Most pistol and revolver shooters are confused when I show up with a handgun and set up 6" and 8" steel plates at 50 yards and 100 yards. They are dumbstruck when I then proceed to hit them 6 for 6 or 7 for 7 with a revolver.

Similarly, at one of the local ranges, there are two 2 ft sections of steel cut from the bottom of an 8" diameter welding cylinder up ended on a post just short of the backstop (109 yards) on each side of the 100 yard range. Some of the more skillful shooters will shoot at them with .22 LR rifles from an off hand position and be impressed when they hit one most of the time. I get strange looks when I hit them 6 for 6, or even 5 for 6 on a bad day, with one of my Model 17s.

It's not very impressive as it's an 8" wide by 2 ft tall target. That 8 MOA in windage and 24 MOA in elevation - so much that you don't really have to worry about elevation. Yet, we'll have tactical matches in the summer and now and then a stage will involve ringing one of them at the end of the stage from about the 50 yard line. It amazing how many shooters can't hit it even after several shots.

I used to be just an average shot. Now I'm well above average because the average has seriously slipped.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #19  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:25 PM
rockquarry rockquarry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,553
Likes: 4
Liked 8,885 Times in 4,121 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by malph View Post
The more relaxed CCW laws put in place over the last 20 years have brought a lot of new shooters into the fold.

It's just my theory but I think a lot of these folks could care less about how a pistol groups at 50 yards or even 25 yards.

They are concerned about afforability, comfort, reliability and being able to shoot the gun well enough to pass the shooting portion of their CCW test (if there is one).

These guns are kind of disposable consumer items. They are affordable, lightweight, easy to maintain and easy to shoot "well enough" to deal with that mythical FBI average encounter of 3-5 yards; three shots in three seconds.

The guns being produced now are tailored to that market because it is a big market.

The manufacturers have done a good job of delivering to that market what it's asked for.

I just can't see these guns as heirloom type of guns though. Can you see today's 20 something, when he's a grandfather, proudly passing the Ruger LCP down to his grandson? It's hard to envision.

The guns do what they were designed for though. I just don't personally expect too much out of them other than reliability.
That's probably a very factual and realistic perspective. I guess it's also the reason I seldom have to share the 25 & 50 yard handgun bay at our gun club with anyone else, except for the occasional shooter trying to get his AR on paper before shooting at 100 yards.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #20  
Old 11-07-2019, 12:49 PM
malph malph is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Posen, IL, USA
Posts: 670
Likes: 1,788
Liked 987 Times in 388 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockquarry View Post
That's probably a very factual and realistic perspective. I guess it's also the reason I seldom have to share the 25 & 50 yard handgun bay at our gun club with anyone else, except for the occasional shooter trying to get his AR on paper before shooting at 100 yards.
It's funny you say that. When I'm shooting outdoors I tend to do the same thing. It's fun and a nice challenge but more doable than most realize. As you say, it's an added benefit that the 50 yard bays are almost always open.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #21  
Old 11-07-2019, 11:42 PM
S&WIowegan S&WIowegan is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Iowa
Posts: 4,106
Likes: 14,444
Liked 3,763 Times in 1,784 Posts
Talking

When I got interested in handgun games back 30 years ago, I soon realized I needed to get competent instruction. I signed up for a 4 1/2 day course at Chapman(RIP) Academy. We had intensive range time and had to hit a steel gong from 80 yds. before we finished the day.

We quickly learned to spot for each other and figure the holdover if any to hit the gong. If you can line sights up, hold steady and press the trigger, you can hit a gong at 80 yds. This taught it wasn't so much the gun as it was the shooter. Most people always blame gun and/or ammo if they miss.

I've had a person at the range ask me to shoot their gun to see if the gun was OK because they were shooting poorly. Don't be surprised if you don't get a thank you if the gun is fine.
__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #22  
Old 11-08-2019, 09:11 AM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,575
Likes: 2,235
Liked 3,476 Times in 1,475 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S&WIowegan View Post
When I got interested in handgun games back 30 years ago, I soon realized I needed to get competent instruction. I signed up for a 4 1/2 day course at Chapman(RIP) Academy. We had intensive range time and had to hit a steel gong from 80 yds. before we finished the day.

We quickly learned to spot for each other and figure the holdover if any to hit the gong. If you can line sights up, hold steady and press the trigger, you can hit a gong at 80 yds. This taught it wasn't so much the gun as it was the shooter. Most people always blame gun and/or ammo if they miss.

I've had a person at the range ask me to shoot their gun to see if the gun was OK because they were shooting poorly. Don't be surprised if you don't get a thank you if the gun is fine.
I knew a fellow who used to hang around the range quite a bit. He always had a pocket full of cash and according to him, he could sometimes pick up a nearly new handgun from a novice for a song because "it wasn't accurate".
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #23  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:41 AM
Beauetienne's Avatar
Beauetienne Beauetienne is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Acadiana
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 1,322
Liked 735 Times in 269 Posts
Default

Amen. Why wouldn't someone want to know the potential of their firearm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
I disagree. When I'm at the range and working on sight alignment and trigger control, I like to know at what point it is not me, but the gun and ammo. If I'm going handgun hunting, I like to know at what distances my gun is capable of making a humane kill on game. Anyone who gains confidence from looking at articles/ videos of tight groups is a fool. When I'm in the market for a new gun, those articles/ videos can give an idea which guns I might consider looking at (there are so many) in the first place. That is if they are well done and the distances are appropriate, i.e. 25 or 50 yards.
__________________
" I don't recall, senator."
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:43 AM
M29since14 M29since14 is offline
SWCA Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 11,907
Likes: 10,039
Liked 10,047 Times in 4,758 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
I knew a fellow who used to hang around the range quite a bit. He always had a pocket full of cash and according to him, he could sometimes pick up a nearly new handgun from a novice for a song because "it wasn't accurate".
I have seen this guy! - or one just like him.

The one I knew was fairly successful at buying .44 Magnums, with about six rounds through them.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #25  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:09 PM
LVSteve's Avatar
LVSteve LVSteve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 19,827
Likes: 24,247
Liked 28,995 Times in 10,772 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
This is the part where I mention that accuracy tests are pretty much worthless, as they only test the precision of that one particular example with that one particular lot of ammo. About the only thing they do is look pretty and inspire confidence in folks that don't know any better.

Sorry.
The Rifleman tests involve three or more types of ammo, each contributing five strings of five rounds.
__________________
Release the Kraken
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:03 AM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Banned
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
When I'm in the market for a new gun, those articles/ videos can give an idea which guns I might consider looking at (there are so many) in the first place. That is if they are well done and the distances are appropriate, i.e. 25 or 50 yards.
They don't, though. They're conducted with one gun, with one batch of ammo. In other words, it would be like if I went into a truckload of ammo, plucked a single cartridge from one box, chronographed it, and declared whatever number I got to be the average velocity for the entire truckload.

Is it? Maybe. But the confidence factor--how reliable the statistic is--is very low.

To put it in other terms, suppose I tested a single Remmy 700, and got a .5-inch average group. It would be fair to say that that particular Remmy shot pretty good. It would not be fair to say that every single 700 shot that well, or that buying a $1900 Christiansen Arms Ridgeback was a waste since it only shoots as well as a $400 Remington. Or, for that matter, that you should expect that kind of performance with factory ammo out of whatever Remington you wound up with. You might very well get that, or you might not.

The magazine accuracy test also ignores one very conspicuous phenomenon. Frequently, they're conducted with pre-production or very early production examples (and sometimes, cherry-picked units). Some manufacturers are infamous for having very high quality and low initial production, but as soon as they realize they've got a winner, ramping up production big-time and sacrificing some quality along the way.

Take, for example, the Ruger Precision Rifle. Initial testing numbers and early buyers' reports were absolutely absurd--groups ranging from .15" to .3" were incredibly common. Buying an RPR was a no-brainer. Now that Ruger has increased production to meet the demand generated by those absurd numbers, not many people are seeing .3" guns. Frankly, for the price, they're still getting a good deal--great ergonomics and a sub-MOA rifle for under a grand--but later, high-volume examples just aren't as impressive as the early rifles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSteve
The Rifleman tests involve three or more types of ammo, each contributing five strings of five rounds.
Yes, I have read gun magazines before. Same thing--one gun, one lot of ammo. That they tried three brands is not significant, aside from weeding out a particular brand or bullet weight that that gun didn't like, and giving you a better idea of what the individual example in question is capable of.

Their gun tells you nothing about your gun, or the gun you're thinking about buying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauetienne
Amen. Why wouldn't someone want to know the potential of their firearm?
Then test yours.

And protip--what the gun is capable of is irrelevant. It's about what you and the gun are capable of that matters. Reading about what some fool in a magazine shot doesn't tell you much about your situation.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #27  
Old 11-09-2019, 09:25 AM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,575
Likes: 2,235
Liked 3,476 Times in 1,475 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
They don't, though. They're conducted with one gun, with one batch of ammo. In other words, it would be like if I went into a truckload of ammo, plucked a single cartridge from one box, chronographed it, and declared whatever number I got to be the average velocity for the entire truckload.

Is it? Maybe. But the confidence factor--how reliable the statistic is--is very low.

To put it in other terms, suppose I tested a single Remmy 700, and got a .5-inch average group. It would be fair to say that that particular Remmy shot pretty good. It would not be fair to say that every single 700 shot that well, or that buying a $1900 Christiansen Arms Ridgeback was a waste since it only shoots as well as a $400 Remington. Or, for that matter, that you should expect that kind of performance with factory ammo out of whatever Remington you wound up with. You might very well get that, or you might not.

The magazine accuracy test also ignores one very conspicuous phenomenon. Frequently, they're conducted with pre-production or very early production examples (and sometimes, cherry-picked units). Some manufacturers are infamous for having very high quality and low initial production, but as soon as they realize they've got a winner, ramping up production big-time and sacrificing some quality along the way.

Take, for example, the Ruger Precision Rifle. Initial testing numbers and early buyers' reports were absolutely absurd--groups ranging from .15" to .3" were incredibly common. Buying an RPR was a no-brainer. Now that Ruger has increased production to meet the demand generated by those absurd numbers, not many people are seeing .3" guns. Frankly, for the price, they're still getting a good deal--great ergonomics and a sub-MOA rifle for under a grand--but later, high-volume examples just aren't as impressive as the early rifles.



Yes, I have read gun magazines before. Same thing--one gun, one lot of ammo. That they tried three brands is not significant, aside from weeding out a particular brand or bullet weight that that gun didn't like, and giving you a better idea of what the individual example in question is capable of.

Their gun tells you nothing about your gun, or the gun you're thinking about buying.



Then test yours.

And protip--what the gun is capable of is irrelevant. It's about what you and the gun are capable of that matters. Reading about what some fool in a magazine shot doesn't tell you much about your situation.
Comparing rifle accuracy to pistol accuracy isn't relevant. I've never heard of anyone cherry picking pistols for testing. It seems to me that new pistol designs actually improve with longevity, as the manufacturers work out reported bugs over time. With carry-type pistols, I'm really not concerned with accuracy of tenths of an inch at 25 yards. I'm concerned with inches in group sizes. When that rule of thumb is used, ammo isn't that great of a factor, as long as, it is high quality and hopefully suitable for self-defense. My personal standard for a carry type pistol is around 3" groups at 25 yards from a standing, unsupported position.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-09-2019, 02:48 PM
LVSteve's Avatar
LVSteve LVSteve is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lost Wages, NV
Posts: 19,827
Likes: 24,247
Liked 28,995 Times in 10,772 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
My personal standard for a carry type pistol is around 3" groups at 25 yards from a standing, unsupported position.
Damn, that's a demanding spec. I'd think I was doing well to achieve that off a bench. Guess you shoot more than me.
__________________
Release the Kraken
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #29  
Old 11-09-2019, 04:04 PM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,575
Likes: 2,235
Liked 3,476 Times in 1,475 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LVSteve View Post
Damn, that's a demanding spec. I'd think I was doing well to achieve that off a bench. Guess you shoot more than me.
You probably shoot better off the bench than I. Except for match shooting with a Tony Kidd accurized Beretta 92FS and loading for it, my 9mm loading and shooting (with plastic guns) hasn't regularly met my expectations. I'm still learning and experimenting with loads. Every once in a while I have to break out my .45 ACP 1911 to let myself know that I still can keep 'em in that circle at 25 yards.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-09-2019, 04:22 PM
mike campbell mike campbell is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 531
Likes: 90
Liked 1,518 Times in 365 Posts
Default

"They're conducted with one gun, with one batch of ammo." Never to be repeated with another?

Such tests aren't meant to be statistically representative of the whole population, but they are a good litmus test.

If the gun/ammo shot 1" in one test, does that guarantee the next will? Of course not. But if it shot no better than 5", would you be encouraged to run out and buy one? What to do? Who gets to test fire a new gun before buying it?


"And protip--what the gun is capable of is irrelevant. It's about what you and the gun are capable of that matters. "

And the only way to know if the lousy 5" groups are the limitation of the shooter or the gun is to eliminate the shooter. If a Ransom rest shows a gun is capable of 1" groups at 25 or 50 yards, and the shooter/gun combo is not...what does that suggest?

Does anyone believe that same shooter is likely to acquire a different gun that allows him to shoot 1" groups?
__________________
Carry.."hope" isn't a strategy
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #31  
Old 11-09-2019, 06:40 PM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Banned
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
Comparing rifle accuracy to pistol accuracy isn't relevant. I've never heard of anyone cherry picking pistols for testing. It seems to me that new pistol designs actually improve with longevity, as the manufacturers work out reported bugs over time. With carry-type pistols, I'm really not concerned with accuracy of tenths of an inch at 25 yards. I'm concerned with inches in group sizes. When that rule of thumb is used, ammo isn't that great of a factor, as long as, it is high quality and hopefully suitable for self-defense. My personal standard for a carry type pistol is around 3" groups at 25 yards from a standing, unsupported position.
Okay, so it's not exactly clear what exactly you want to see. Some numbers, I guess.

The same principle stands. Due to variance in manufacturing, the gun they test will not tell you very much about the gun you get.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike campbell
Such tests aren't meant to be statistically representative of the whole population, but they are a good litmus test.
Of what?

Answer: one gun's performance.

Quote:
If the gun/ammo shot 1" in one test, does that guarantee the next will? Of course not. But if it shot no better than 5", would you be encouraged to run out and buy one? What to do? Who gets to test fire a new gun before buying it?
When was the last time you saw an absolutely dreadful test done in a magazine?

Quote:
And the only way to know if the lousy 5" groups are the limitation of the shooter or the gun is to eliminate the shooter. If a Ransom rest shows a gun is capable of 1" groups at 25 or 50 yards, and the shooter/gun combo is not...what does that suggest?

Does anyone believe that same shooter is likely to acquire a different gun that allows him to shoot 1" groups?
How are we onto Ransom rests? Which are pretty stupid in their own way.

And the answer to your question is--"Does that shooter shoot 1" groups (at whatever distance) with other guns all the time?"
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-09-2019, 08:57 PM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,575
Likes: 2,235
Liked 3,476 Times in 1,475 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
Okay, so it's not exactly clear what exactly you want to see. Some numbers, I guess.

The same principle stands. Due to variance in manufacturing, the gun they test will not tell you very much about the gun you get.

Of what?

Answer: one gun's performance.
Actually, I think you are dead wrong. Regarding pistols, I'd say that, for carry pistols of the same type, the accuracy from one to another is very close to the same at distances up to and including 25 yards. You are correct in one point that I think you are trying to make and that is in pistol shooting, the shooter is the weak link in the system, regardless of skill level. Have you ever used a Ransom Rest?

Last edited by BE Mike; 11-09-2019 at 08:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #33  
Old 11-09-2019, 09:33 PM
sigp220.45's Avatar
sigp220.45 sigp220.45 is offline
US Veteran
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,075
Likes: 27,790
Liked 33,581 Times in 5,253 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
They don't, though. They're conducted with one gun, with one batch of ammo. In other words, it would be like if I went into a truckload of ammo, plucked a single cartridge from one box, chronographed it, and declared whatever number I got to be the average velocity for the entire truckload.

Is it? Maybe. But the confidence factor--how reliable the statistic is--is very low.

To put it in other terms, suppose I tested a single Remmy 700, and got a .5-inch average group. It would be fair to say that that particular Remmy shot pretty good. It would not be fair to say that every single 700 shot that well, or that buying a $1900 Christiansen Arms Ridgeback was a waste since it only shoots as well as a $400 Remington. Or, for that matter, that you should expect that kind of performance with factory ammo out of whatever Remington you wound up with. You might very well get that, or you might not.

The magazine accuracy test also ignores one very conspicuous phenomenon. Frequently, they're conducted with pre-production or very early production examples (and sometimes, cherry-picked units). Some manufacturers are infamous for having very high quality and low initial production, but as soon as they realize they've got a winner, ramping up production big-time and sacrificing some quality along the way.

Take, for example, the Ruger Precision Rifle. Initial testing numbers and early buyers' reports were absolutely absurd--groups ranging from .15" to .3" were incredibly common. Buying an RPR was a no-brainer. Now that Ruger has increased production to meet the demand generated by those absurd numbers, not many people are seeing .3" guns. Frankly, for the price, they're still getting a good deal--great ergonomics and a sub-MOA rifle for under a grand--but later, high-volume examples just aren't as impressive as the early rifles.



Yes, I have read gun magazines before. Same thing--one gun, one lot of ammo. That they tried three brands is not significant, aside from weeding out a particular brand or bullet weight that that gun didn't like, and giving you a better idea of what the individual example in question is capable of.

Their gun tells you nothing about your gun, or the gun you're thinking about buying.



Then test yours.

And protip--what the gun is capable of is irrelevant. It's about what you and the gun are capable of that matters. Reading about what some fool in a magazine shot doesn't tell you much about your situation.
You lost me at “Remmy”.
__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-09-2019, 10:59 PM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Banned
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BE Mike View Post
Actually, I think you are dead wrong. Regarding pistols, I'd say that, for carry pistols of the same type, the accuracy from one to another is very close to the same at distances up to and including 25 yards.
Well, for one, this is called "moving the goalposts"--we start talking about accuracy tests, and now you're talking about carry pistols.

To be honest, most of those aren't just close by model, they're close across the board.

Yet another reason why they're a waste of time--the variation model to model is about the same as the variation within examples of a given model.

Oh, and most of the carry-size models are tested at either 10 or 15 yards.

Quote:
Have you ever used a Ransom Rest?
Never needed one. And if you look closely/at all, none of the accuracy tests done in most gun rags use them either. Mostly because starving gun'riters don't have the money to buy one or the time to use it, not to mention that you couldn't test every gun that came out, because you need handy-dandy inserts.

Since they can't uniformly test that way, they resort to the "10/15/25-yards off a sandbag" methodology. Which is really more of a test of the shooter's vision, sight alignment, and trigger control.

Although if you think any fool can slap a handgun in a Ransom rest and get uniform testing, you are mistaken.

Quote:
You are correct in one point that I think you are trying to make and that is in pistol shooting, the shooter is the weak link in the system, regardless of skill level.
Depends, sort've? When you blame the shooter, you're making it sound like it's all their fault. But really--so many guns come with just awful sights and miserable triggers. Worrying about mechanical precision is just irrelevant.

Frankly, ditto for the carry guns. Who cares how well it prints at 25 yards? What's more important is, how easy is it to keep the groups tight when it's being shot at speed, which is very individualized itself. Maybe the trigger breaks too late (close to the frame) for your hand.

But that's where the medium falls short--magazines can't express a lot of those things.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-10-2019, 08:58 AM
BE Mike's Avatar
BE Mike BE Mike is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indiana
Posts: 3,575
Likes: 2,235
Liked 3,476 Times in 1,475 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wise_A View Post
Well, for one, this is called "moving the goalposts"--we start talking about accuracy tests, and now you're talking about carry pistols.

To be honest, most of those aren't just close by model, they're close across the board.

Yet another reason why they're a waste of time--the variation model to model is about the same as the variation within examples of a given model.

Oh, and most of the carry-size models are tested at either 10 or 15 yards.



Never needed one. And if you look closely/at all, none of the accuracy tests done in most gun rags use them either. Mostly because starving gun'riters don't have the money to buy one or the time to use it, not to mention that you couldn't test every gun that came out, because you need handy-dandy inserts.

Since they can't uniformly test that way, they resort to the "10/15/25-yards off a sandbag" methodology. Which is really more of a test of the shooter's vision, sight alignment, and trigger control.

Although if you think any fool can slap a handgun in a Ransom rest and get uniform testing, you are mistaken.



Depends, sort've? When you blame the shooter, you're making it sound like it's all their fault. But really--so many guns come with just awful sights and miserable triggers. Worrying about mechanical precision is just irrelevant.

Frankly, ditto for the carry guns. Who cares how well it prints at 25 yards? What's more important is, how easy is it to keep the groups tight when it's being shot at speed, which is very individualized itself. Maybe the trigger breaks too late (close to the frame) for your hand.

But that's where the medium falls short--magazines can't express a lot of those things.
This whole thread started with a question about carry guns. It never was about dedicated target pistols. Since you have never used a Ransom Rest, I suppose you really can't speak with authority about their use and limitations, as well as, their benefits. You need not despair since you are relatively young, and have a long time to gain knowledge and wisdom!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-10-2019, 11:14 AM
Wise_A Wise_A is offline
Banned
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,121
Likes: 2,661
Liked 4,324 Times in 1,793 Posts
Default

Aside from the models listed--which are pretty much just indicative of what's coming out--I see nothing about "carry guns".

Point out to me where I'm wrong about the Ransom rest, though. Do they not require care in their setup and operation? Do they not require a frame-specific insert, or the user to fashion one from a blank? Do they not cost $435 each?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-10-2019, 06:11 PM
BigBill BigBill is offline
Absent Comrade
Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 13,869
Likes: 2,079
Liked 13,353 Times in 5,549 Posts
Default

I shoot all handguns at 25 yds minimum. Some handguns like my Cz85db dB I go out to 100 yds using 3’ of kentucky windage. I can ping small rocks on the 100 yd berm. Shooting my norinco project 1911 one hand at 25 yds I shoot clusters and cloverleafs. No rest needed. I shot 44 magnums all my life so smaller calibers are no problem.

It’s staying focused, practice, practice and more practice shooting one gun only at a time at the range. Don’t rush to shoot multiple handguns you can master them all. Just one at a time. Control your breathing.

Last edited by BigBill; 11-10-2019 at 06:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #38  
Old 11-11-2019, 12:43 AM
chief38's Avatar
chief38 chief38 is offline
Member
Pistol accuracy tests revisited  
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 17,759
Likes: 7,836
Liked 25,616 Times in 8,661 Posts
Default

First off I find that the modern crop of auto-loaders are just inherently super accurate! Secondly, I also find that many modern day shooters have caught the red dot or laser "bug" and can't hit well at longer distances with a bare bones pistol.

Note: The targets here were done shortly after getting the pistol. After moving the rear sight slightly and some practice I can shoot it even better now. At 50 feet one ragged hole is achievable and very respectable results are achieved at 25 yards. It's more about the shooter than the gun itself these days as they are more accurate than ever.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg fullsizeoutput_5ba.jpg (61.3 KB, 16 views)
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Pistol Reviews and Accuracy Rant Beauetienne The Lounge 45 08-08-2018 07:38 PM
Power Pistol Accuracy? 38SPL HV Reloading 16 07-15-2017 10:10 AM
F-35 Gun Tests Kevin J. The Lounge 8 08-02-2016 11:49 AM
The Bodyguard 380 has full size service gun accuracy in a pocket pistol!! TheMystro Smith & Wesson Semi-Auto Pistols 29 05-11-2013 07:27 AM
S&W and the US Service Pistol tests dsk Smith & Wesson Semi-Auto Pistols 5 01-30-2012 03:03 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:14 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)