How is handgun accuracy determined?

[had2]

As a relative newcomer to shooting, I often see posts regarding the diameter of groups shot. The gun is always mentioned, of course, and very often the ammo, and sometimes the target distance, but almost never does the shooter mention whether the group was shot offhand or from a rest. I don't think there's any question that shooting from a rest will yield much tighter groups at any distance as compared to free hand shooting. So how can accuracy possibly be determined from hand holding a pistol? The accuracy of the shooter plays a major part in the size of the group.

Are we to assume that when a pistol's accuracy is discussed, the shooting was done from a rest? If so, would this be a fixed rest where the gun is essentially held down, or rest where the gun is simply placed on a firm object such as a sandbag? So, what IS the standard for determining pistol accuracy? I assume most modern handguns are fairly accurate (aside from professional competition models), but how do these guns compare for accuracy if there is no fixed standard?

 

[krallstar]

pistol accuracy

I get tighter groups shooter offhand with pistols than benched. Benched with rifle gets me better groups than offhand.

 

[Twoboxer]

The measured accuracy of a pistol itself should only be determined after firing a series of shots where the POA has not changed. In theory, all other variables that could affect accuracy (the test conditions) should be quoted along with the stated accuracy. However, if accuracy is quoted as (eg) MOA, the distance used is not relevant. But atmospheric conditions must at least be constant (ie, indoors).

I don't know what pistol rest would be considered "laboratory standard", but a Ransom Rest is often mentioned as the gold standard.

As you mentioned, handheld measurements don't cut it. You can't tell if operator error led to a better or worse group. OTOH, shooting without human intervention from a fixed rest isn't the way the weapon is used in the real world and can also introduce its own impact(s) on accuracy.

When a manufacturer guarantees a specific accuracy (eg, LaRue Tactical, sub-moa on certain AR15s) my assumption is they have shooters who can do that with a specific cartridge from a tripod or normal benchrest. When someone else quotes accuracy, I assume nothing lol.

 

[OKFC05]

In my experience, 90+% of complaints about handgun accuracy means the person holding the gun can't hit anything. Which as you said, means nothing about the mechanical accuracy of the gun itself.
I have students shoot a foot low and insist the gun needs new sights. Sometimes even my shooting a small group dead center does not convince them.

An expert shot resting his hands on sandbags can often match the gorups obtained from a Ransom Rest. Resting a handgun itself causes it to shoot away from the object used for a rest (the gun vibrates when shot).

 

[RobsTV]

When most handgun shooters mention group size accuracy, they are usually referring to off hand unless stated that it was shot from a rest. Assume off hand unless told otherwise.

A rest can be used to confirm issues, but normal shooting of handguns is not from rests, and accuracy claims should not be either.

 

[silentflyer]

I use a rest for a new gun/ammo combination, after I figure out if a good load for it then my shooting moves to off hand.

 

[Fishinfool]

Most writers, when testing a handgun, shoot from a mechanical rest (Ransom), or a supported, sand bag type rest. The purpose is to roughly show what kind of accuracy that particular handgun / load is capable of delivering, under as close to ideal conditions as possible.

When it comes to off hand shooting, groups can, and will, vary with the shooters ability. Knowing what the weapon is capable of when fired from a secure rest is helpful when judging you own abilities off hand, and how much more practice you really need...

Larry

 

[RobsTV]

As a relative newcomer to shooting, I often see posts regarding the diameter of groups shot. ?

Normally posts you see will not be from professionals, but will instead be from normal shooters stating their results.

These "casual" group accuracy posts will usually be shooting off hand.

Many professional reviews state the method they use, and usually this is done from a rest (at least for part of the review).

Don't assume anything. Someone saying in a post they get 2" groups at 25 yards might be doing so offhand, while someone that says they used the same model gun from a rest and got 4" groups at 25 yards. Some guns will have rare issues that can skew results either way.

You can have a very accurate benchrest gun that shoots terribly with its sights, so while fixed benchrest testing might seem great, normal off hand shooting might be much worse than an average benchrest gun shot off hand with great sights.

Also, many modern guns are terribly inaccurate shooters. Don't assume modern = fairly accurate. Many get out of the accuracy ability by saying stuff like: "Its a gun designed for personal defense at close range of less than 10 feet, not as a professional target shooter". Funny how there are many more that are extremely accurate though. 2" groups off hand at 25 yards with a pocket gun is not a dream but is reality for many of them. Others have a hard time getting 8" groups at 3 yards.

But one of the best methods that will leave you with no doubts, is to simply watch a bunch of YouTube videos. The vast majority are done off hand, and you will see real life shooters shooting the gun you want to see.

 

[TSQUARED]

As a relative newcomer to shooting, I often see posts regarding the diameter of groups shot. The gun is always mentioned, of course, and very often the ammo, and sometimes the target distance, but almost never does the shooter mention whether the group was shot offhand or from a rest. I don't think there's any question that shooting from a rest will yield much tighter groups at any distance as compared to free hand shooting. So how can accuracy possibly be determined from hand holding a pistol? The accuracy of the shooter plays a major part in the size of the group.

Are we to assume that when a pistol's accuracy is discussed, the shooting was done from a rest? If so, would this be a fixed rest where the gun is essentially held down, or rest where the gun is simply placed on a firm object such as a sandbag? So, what IS the standard for determining pistol accuracy? I assume most modern handguns are fairly accurate (aside from professional competition models), but how do these guns compare for accuracy if there is no fixed standard?

the only real method for determining a oad and guns accuracy is with a Ransom Rest in which the handgund is held securely in a fixture designed for the particular handgun. That is the only method used by serious bullseye psitol shooters to evaluate either pistol or load accuracy. Most of them test their loads at 50 yards.
The second best method is off sandbags but that is still subject to some variation.
Shooting offhand provides purely subjective information since you have all of the variables of gun, load nad shooter.

 

[RobsTV]

Based on the above replies, it looks like most here that post messages about group size they get, are doing so with a rest. Yes, as the original poster mentions, of course that is an accurate way to compare strapped down firearms. But realistic as to what a shooter might expect to get?

I took this topic to mean what do people normally mean when they "post group size", not the most accurate method of getting a group.

 

[boatbum101]

Assuming that one has an accurate load for the gun being shot : 1) A rest determines the mechanical accuracy of the weapon with that load, 2) Offhand determines the skill of the shooter . This is why so many serious shooters handload . With a rest & chronograph we can find the most accurate load & performance we desire for that particular gun . Offhand the 2 most important tasks are keeping focus on the front sight & good trigger control period . Stance & grip also figure but IMHO aren't as important as the first 2 .

 

[Daimler1989]

Hi,

as a shooting instructor I quite often get the demonstration that there is a large difference between the mechanical accuracy of a handgun and the ability of a shooter to benefit from a given accuracy. Mechanical accuracy for most modern handguns of sound construction and without technical flaws should show groups not larger than 2" at 25 meters - and most often even unmodified guns group less than that. To proove this the best way is to use a mechanical device to fire the gun like a Ransom Rest. In most cases shooters are not able to benefit from the accuracy of their handgun, due to many different mistakes in handling like proper grip, proper trigger pull, stance, recoil handling etc. For example: I still haven't shot one Glock that wasn't accurate enough to punch one large hole at 15 meters with 15 rounds. Each one of their owners wasn't able to hit the same target with each of his 15 rounds, mostly because of the long and heavy trigger pull. I know of shooters who pay more than 2000 $ for a custom and thus particularly accurate semi automatic pistol but who are not able to hit a paper target 25 meters away with each of 15 rounds. So proper shooting technique is the real key to make the best of a handgun's accuracy.

regards from Germany
Ulrich

 

[M29since14]

I'm sure all major manufacturers have standards for their various products, but they are not likely to tell us too much about them, for obvious reasons.

Any handgun that is used in competition has to be more than capable of placing all its shots in the 10-ring at whatever distance is used, with some type of readily available ammunition. For a bullseye gun, that would be ~3.4" at 50 yards (10-shots) - better is much preferred. This sort of testing is usually done from a machine rest.

The equivalent of that rule of thumb (so called "10-ring accuracy") would hold true in any discipline, depending on the target, since no competitor wants to walk to the line with a hand tied behind his back before he even begins.

In field shooting, the procedure is reversed. The "range" the gun can be employed is a function of the size of the vital area of the target (ex., a squirrel versus a deer) and one's ability to maintain that dispersion from field positions. If the range is too great, the shot is not attempted. In this case, the skill of the shooter is almost always the limiting factor.

I once heard a custom pistolsmith say that his aim was to produce a gun that can reliably shoot into an inch per 10-yards, per 10-yards, given a proper gun-ammunition-shooter combination. He builds high-powered hunting handguns. At first, this sounded very simple. As I have learned a bit more about what he meant, I see his point. A man that can consistently shoot into 5-inches at 50-yards and 10-inches at 100-yards, on any given day, is a pretty efficient shooter and he has his equipment well sorted out. If you doubt this, try it sometime. Set up a paper plate (8-9" diameter) at 50-yards at fire off five or six rounds at it once a day for a couple weeks, from the various positions one might expect to use in the field, and not giving yourself unlimited time to do it. Then count the rounds that fail to hit the plate that is half again to almost double the size we are trying to maintain. It takes a good gun, perfect ammunition, and one heck of a shooter to be able to keep his missed shots to a minimum, say about 15-20%. Take that down to 5-inches, and that percentage will begin to go off the chart. Not an easy thing to do for most shooters with their 44 Magnums, not to mention the various .454s, .475s, .460s, and .500s. The bigger the gun, the harder it is to keep one's cool.

For defensive handguns, I remember one authority considered that a good duty-size pistol should put 5-rounds into 5-inches at 50-yards. He specified this from any one of three positions - machine-rest, benchrest, or "rollover prone."

Since handguns are used for so many different purposes, it is hard to generalize much about accuracy and have the notion apply across the board. What works with a target .22 is off the chart for an inexpensive snub-nose, and very few shooters can duplicate that with a big-game handgun, even though the gun itself might be capable of something close to it.

 

[Bengal07]

Just Like Fishing

I am quite certain that many of the 2 inch group stories at 25 feet are sort of like the fishing stories I have read and heard over the years. If I put two rounds in the same hole at 25 feet and then quit--my group is less than one inch. I do not know any infrequent shooter who could put a 17 round magazine all in the same 6 inch square at 25 feet--unless he quickly destroys the evidence. It's a guy thing!!!

 

[JJEH]

I think all gun-magazines shoot from a bench rest when they get their 5 or 6 rd. group. Honestly, that doesn't help me. Certain gun manufacturers even give a "acurracy warranty." It's also not really important to me.

I need a gun that works. I can have the best gun in the world, if I cannot handle it it's pointless.

Also, one shooter might love gun1 and dislike gun2. But maybe in my case it's the other way around... Therefore I like to see nice pictures of targets and reading nice "range stories." But I'm also aware of the "guy factor" to make everything more exciting

 

[Maddmax]

I am quite certain that many of the 2 inch group stories at 25 feet are sort of like the fishing stories I have read and heard over the years. If I put two rounds in the same hole at 25 feet and then quit--my group is less than one inch. I do not know any infrequent shooter who could put a 17 round magazine all in the same 6 inch square at 25 feet--unless he quickly destroys the evidence. It's a guy thing!!!

It's like any sport,golf,pool bow shooting.... The more you play,the better you are going to be at it..

 

[C4IGrant]

We use the Ransom rest for testing. Sandbags can be a close second though.

For a combat HG (M&P, SIG, Glock, etc) the standard is 4 inches or better @ 25yds.

We shoot four 5rd groups and take the average.



C4

 

[epj]

Keep in mind that a gun may display excellent mechanical accuracy from a machine rest, but have such horrible sights, trigger, or other ergonomics that a good shooter cannot hit a barn from the inside with it.

 

[RobsTV]

Also important to note is that many only feed jacketed bullets through their pistols, and may judge accuracy by those results. Simply switching to lead that is properly sized for their barrels can usually cut in half group sizes. A poor shooter using lead can have smaller groups than a decent shooter using jacketed.

For those that have only shot jacketed, highly suggest you try "properly sized" lead. You might be amazed at the results, and might change your tune about poor 25 yard accuracy in 3" or less barrels. As a side note, any loading, firing or ejection issues I have had were usually fixed by simply switching from commercial jacketed to lead. Have seen many people take there Carry weapon that is rarely fired, and have it fail with factory jacketed ammo. Reliability is not something only found when using jacketed.
http://smith-wessonforum.com/reloading/224064-cast-bullets-personal-defense.html