Pistol accuracy tests revisited

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.

S&WIowegan said:

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.

Click to expand...

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".

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

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...

BE Mike said:

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".

Click to expand...

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.

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...

The Rifleman tests involve three or more types of ammo, each contributing five strings of five rounds.

BE Mike said:

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...

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.

LVSteve said:

The Rifleman tests involve three or more types of ammo, each contributing five strings of five rounds.

Click to expand...

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.

Beauetienne said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Wise_A said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

BE Mike said:

My personal standard for a carry type pistol is around 3" groups at 25 yards from a standing, unsupported position.

Click to expand...

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.

LVSteve said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

"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?

BE Mike said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

mike campbell said:

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

Click to expand...

Of what?

Answer: one gun's performance.

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?

Click to expand...

When was the last time you saw an absolutely dreadful test done in a magazine?

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?

Click to expand...

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?"

Wise_A said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Wise_A said:

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.

Click to expand...

You lost me at “Remmy”.

BE Mike said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Have you ever used a Ransom Rest?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Wise_A said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

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?

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.

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.