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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

BE Mike said:

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.

Click to expand...

The American Rifleman protocol is the average of five, five-round groups.

American Rifleman | Troubleshooting Rifle Accuracy

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.

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.

"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."

BE Mike said:

"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.

Click to expand...

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?

LVSteve said:

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?

Click to expand...

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."

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.

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.

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.

Wise_A said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BE Mike said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

rockquarry said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

rockquarry said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

malph said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

rockquarry said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.