How Good Is "Good Enough"?

[Tom]

I hope I'm not asking a really stupid question here, but it is something that has been on my mind of late, and I'd like to gather a consensus from all you pistoleros out there.

I've read all these threads from people getting 1-2" groups at 25 or 50 yards from their full-size 1911's. I assume these results are obtained from bench rests or sandbags or some other method of stabilizing the gun during the firing sequence to ensure the greatest accuracy possible and eliminate "human error" when testing a new pistol or modification to an old one. I understand that perfectly. What I am asking about is just regular stand-up, two-handed shooting. What is "good enough"? What benchmark should I be aiming for - without the bench?

The range we frequent is a little indoor range. It's only 10 meters long (I'll round it to 30 feet), with markers at 9, 12, 16 and 20 feet where you can run out your target. I generally use a blue silhouette targets (affectionately called Smurfs) http://www.pistoleer.com/targets/pics/B27(blue).gif, though occasionally bullseye targets too. I start out around the 12-foot mark and can usually blow out the X and 9 rings, then run my targets out to the 16- and 20-foot marks where my shots get a bit wider but mostly stay within the 8-ring. Then if I'm feeling incredibly frisky I run the target out to the end where I can mostly place my shots within the center mass.

I'm not trying to win an competitions or become the next Robbie Leatham. I just want to be as good as can reasonably be expected from this type of shooting. I've seen "kids" come in to the range with their hot little plastic guns, pretending to be all "gangsta" with speed shooting and double-taps, and for the most part not hitting the broadside of a barn let alone their targets. The local sheriff's office also has their officers do their shooting requalifications at this range, and I've often watched them go through the drill - unholstering, firing several shots, reholstering, etc. - and they're only shooting at targets 16-20 feet away, and they don't seem to be any more accurate than I am (the fact that they probably don't get as much range time as I do is the frightening reason for that).

So what should I reasonably expect for shooting without aid of a rest? At what point can I look at my target as say confidently "Good enough"?

[wlambert]

It really depends on what you are happy with. At 25 yards, I want all my hits in a 5.5" circle. What I get is more like 8". That is with the .45. With the .22 I want 3" and get 5.5". That is one handed bullseye shooting.

Combat shooting I expect center of mass at 21 feet.

wlambert

[XavierBreath]

I'll don my nomex and give my humble opinion.

My primary purpose of gun ownership is self preservation, not competition. Therefore, I first do not want to get shot. To me, that is much more important than hitting an X-ring. The best way to not get shot is to move. Of course, most ranges will not allow you to draw from a holster, much less move around while shooting. So, I had to find a place that will allow this. Thankfully, I could. Next, I had to consider that my target will likely be moving as well. It's easy to hang a few paper plates on strings to move in the breeze, but I wanted lateral, eratic movement. Thus, I went to milk jugs strung on a clothesline affair with a second string to pull them along the clothes line. I tied knots in the clothesline to make the jug jump. A friend reels the jug along the line while I shoot, then I do the same for him. In competitions, the targets are stationary to maintain fairness in the competition. In life targets move and it is not fair.

So, my "good enough" standard is hitting a moving milk jug while I am moving myself at about 15 feet. If I hit it, I am happy. That is what I concentrate on.

I also shoot at 15 yards to determine accuracy of guns I am putting together. I do this both on and off the sandbags. I am more consistent on the sandbags. I can shoot accurately longer on the sandbags. I prefer to shoot off the bags though, and use the bags to eliminate my own errors from the equation. If I can ever shoot up to the capability of my guns I will be happy.

I'll post a couple of pics here to show what I am getting.
http://www.bayourovers.com/coltofficersmodel.jpg
http://www.bayourovers.com/Coltcombatelitefirstshoot.jpg
Note that the number of rounds is kept to an amount that can be easily counted. Note that I use index cards to keep the price of targets to a minimum. Note also that I am satisfied just to hit an area the size of a milk jug once or twice if movement is introduced. When you start talking defensive shooting, you have got to factor in movement. Movement in a defensive situation is the one thing that you cannot control, the one thing that will always be present, and the one thing that will destroy your marksmanship.

It has been said that if a man cannot shoot good groups he will never be accurate in a combat situation. There is merit to this. Shooting groups is where marksmanship is born. I would like to submit that if a man cannot hit a moving target reliably while moving himself, he is ill equipped for a gunfight. My preparation has been for gunfights, not for competition.

Now let me zip up my nomex and strap on my crash helment. :p

[SAWBONES]

My $.02;
What you can do with a pistol in terms of precision and accuracy under best conditions at 25-50 yards is important if you're a bullseye shooter, and tells you something about your gun's mechanical tolerances and your shooting abilities, but is probably not very meaninful in terms of defensive capability.

Like you, much of my shooting is done on a shorter (33 feet to backstop) indoor range, and usually at about 7 yards. With concentration and slow fire, I can routinely manage "one hole" groups at this distance, that is, all shots go through the same bullet hole, for maybe 5 rounds.
My emphasis, however, is on "practical accuracy", that is, ability to keep all shots within about a 2-5" diameter, with lateral movement on the draw and lateral movement every 3-4 shots, at a reasonable speed.
I don't usually use silhouette targets; just too big. I usually shoot with the "chase the hole" method (shoot at the center of a plain piece of 8.5x11" card, then at the hole so made, with the intent of hitting the very same hole over and over when attempting best accuracy-precision, or getting close when shooting more quickly, a la "flash front sight picture". I don't do ANY unsighted firing such as true double taps.)

I too see the range fools who hang up B27 targets at 7 yards or less and shoot multiple fast shots, many off the paper and none with any precision or consistency. What's the point, I wonder?
Best.

[wichaka]

I usually shoot with the "chase the hole" method (shoot at the center of a plain piece of 8.5x11" card, then at the hole so made, with the intent of hitting the very same hole over and over when attempting best accuracy-precision.

This is what we call the "One hole drill". We usually do that after some intense training to see how well a shooter can settle down and do what they've been trained to do..........but its beneficial anytime.

Do it at 3, 5, 7, & 10 yards. Its very good good for practicing sight picture & trigger control. This is not a speed test, so take your time......

IslandersFan, to get to your question.........I teach for combat accuracy. Its the spread of your hand with your fingers fully extended, so about 6-8" max.
Remember, we're talking about defensive shooting. You need to know where you're gun shoots. If you're spending time to align you're sights etc., in a shooting situation, you're already dead.

Been in 3 shootings myself, only used the sights once, because that one time it was a 15 yard shot.

wichaka's rule of thumb..........for combat/defensive shooting;
If your target silhouette is larger than your front sight, better get ta shootin'
If your front sight is larger than your target silhouette, better get on them sights, and right quick.
I don't even use my sights until about 10+ yards.

XavierBreath, I'm with ya brother........very well said.

Shooting today is too much ego, and not enough common sense.

Hitting the bullseye will get you some looks at the range, but consistant groups no matter the range, will keep you alive.

[Sifu]

Draw, One shot, One kill, center mass regardless of distance.

Semper Fi

[MrsKey]

I too see the range fools who hang up B27 targets at 7 yards or less and shoot multiple fast shots, many off the paper and none with any precision or consistency. What's the point, I wonder?


After watching some of the young yahoos I have come to the conclusion that they are doing it for one of two reasons.

1 - To impress themselves with how fast they pull the trigger (without regard to actually hitting anything).

2 - To provide amusement for those of us who can actually hit the target.

I always get a kick out of seeing one of these young bucks run his target out to the back wall, firing 10 - 15 shots in rapid fire sequence or a series of double taps, bringing the target closer to find that he was no where near the target (let alone the center of the target) ... and then watching the look on their face when they see our daughter's X-ring punched out and they realize they were just out shot by a 9 year-old girl.

Thanks for all of the answers to IslesFan's questions. We've discussed that a few times ourselves and it is good to hear other opinions.

[wichaka]

and then watching the look on their face when they see our daughter's X-ring punched out and they realize they were just out shot by a 9 year-old girl.

Ya gotta love that!

[tpichet]

I'll chime in with what the officers teaching my CCW class had to say during the range portion. FYI: the target for the range portion is a life size picture of a gun pointing individual having a very bad hair day and wearing the traditional wife beater shirt. To qualify you have to put 8 out of 10 shots into an area defined by the torso (neck to belt, side to side) with 5 shots fired at 3 meters and 5 at 7 meters with no time limit.

I spread mine around and ended up with a grouping of probably 8 inches with 4 of them clustered near the heart in about a 3 inch group. The individual next to me placed all of his in what amounted to a single large ragged hole about 2 inches across dead center in the target area. The officer's comment was that for defensive shooting his pattern was probably too tight since after the first shot he wasn't really "damaging" the target any more. The shots were too close together. He pointed at mine and said I wouldn't win any bullseye competition with the shot placement I had but I had a better chance of dropping the target because the damage was more spread out.

I believe it all comes down to what type of shooting you're planning for. From my time at the CCW class and in the Army I learned not to group them too tightly so each shot can do as much damage as possible instead of only incrementally adding to existing damage. I also learned to shoot for center of mass with every shot. That won't get very far in bullseye shooting though where the goal is one nice small hole in the X ring.

[gottripletsNC]

and then watching the look on their face when they see our daughter's X-ring punched out and they realize they were just out shot by a 9 year-old girl.




SWEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!


on the original question I think combat accuracy is the size of your hand with fingers spread at 25 yards is correct which I think would equate to about 7 inches, and I usually do that free hand shooting.... and i use the word usually very casual...

[John]

... and then watching the look on their face when they see our daughter's X-ring punched out and they realize they were just out shot by a 9 year-old girl.

Is that Tom's kid, we were talking about elsewhere? Thank God she took from her mother!

[Tom]

Is that Tom's kid, we were talking about elsewhere? Thank God she took from her mother!

One in the same. The next Annie Oakley.

[Wes Janson]

Someone just made a very interesting point a moment ago that I think might deserve further attention.

Does it really do any good, if you shoot someone again within an inch or two of the first shot? I'd love to see studies done, particularly coroners reports, to see whether it has historically mattered. You kind of wonder, whether putting each shot into the same hole in someone at 5 yards would just mean the successive rounds traveling through more or less without doing anything (or slowing down...meaning damage/injury to anyone behind). Obviously not if it hits bone, but.. I've never heard any of the experts out there discuss this question, to the best of my knowledge.

[XavierBreath]

Someone just made a very interesting point a moment ago that I think might deserve further attention. Does it really do any good, if you shoot someone again within an inch or two of the first shot? I'd love to see studies done, particularly coroners reports, to see whether it has historically mattered. You kind of wonder, whether putting each shot into the same hole in someone at 5 yards would just mean the successive rounds traveling through more or less without doing anything (or slowing down...meaning damage/injury to anyone behind). Obviously not if it hits bone, but.. I've never heard any of the experts out there discuss this question, to the best of my knowledge.

You will not shoot a group on a live human being like you do on a paper target. The live human being will be moving. The live human being will be twisting. They are three dimensional. Multiple shots will be at all angles, regardless of what your groups look like on paper. A live human target will not hold still for you. As a matter of fact, if you shoot a one inch group of five into someone's chest, chances are things will go very badly for you. There will be a great suspicion you shot a dead man.

[Hawkmoon]

IMHO you don't have the luxury of thinking how to spread out your shots in a real-life shooting situation. It's hard enough to even hit an armed adversary, who is probably in motion and may be shooting at you. Look at police statistics, and overall what a small percentage of their shots even hit the intended target/perp.

The notion of trying to maximize the damage sounds great in theory, but I'll settle for hitting center of mass. If that puts four rounds in the same portion of the chest cavity, so be it. That's better than playing around, and missing the second and third shot because you wanted to be "smart" and spread out the impact.

You know the old saying: "In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is."

[garrettwc]

Hawkmoon and Xavier make good points about the difference between MOA and MOB where "B" equals bad guy.

The idea is aim small to miss small. Sure you're both going to be moving (if you are taking fire you better be) so they won't be as tight as on a paper range.

My personal goal is to be able to put 3-5 rounds on a 3x5 card using full power ammo in about 2.5 seconds at 5 yds. This is based on the FBI statistics about the average distance in a gun fight. You can adjust the time limit about a half second a yard if you want to practice further out. Once you can do it standing still, practice it moving forward, backward, and at odd angles.

[Wes Janson]

I'm not advocating nor would I ever, the idea of trying to specifically spread one's shots out.

I'm simply curious: what happens when two rounds go in the space spot?

[XavierBreath]

I've been a nurse with trauma work under my belt for the past ten years. Before that I was a Hospital Corpsman (note which one is capitalized.......). I've seen my share of multiple gunshot wounds and shrapnel wounds. So far I haven't seen a person shot twice in exactly the same area, even with full auto weapons. I have seen wound tunnels cross and intersect, but never a robin hood type follow-up shot where a second bullet went in the same hole and hit the first bullet.

[wichaka]

Been to a lot of autopsies over the years, and haven't seen more than one bullet in the same hole.

As XavierBreath mentioned also, I have seen the wound channels intersect.

[Joni Lynn]

How good is good enough is a multi faceted question when I think about it. Mostly it is based on the perspective of the person that is dong the shooting. I would say first that the gun should be capable of shooting better than you do so that learning takes place. If the firearms does what you want or need for it to do, then that is probably good enough. Remember when dealing with people, any of them, that their perspective is the most important thing to them and is also very difficult to truly change.

[Tom]

First, I want to thank everyone for their opinions thus far. I greatly appreciate everyone's input, and I'm pleasantly surprised at the rapid amount of response to my query. Again, thanks.

In sifting through all the responses, I've come to the conclusion that if I can consistently hit the center of mass of my "Smuft" targets at 10m, then I'm doing all right. And I will also continue to obtain 9- and X-ring shots at closer distances (16-20 feet). Since I don't have access to a range with longer distances, or a clothesline to suspend water jugs (an idea I like, but I bet the neighbors wouldn't appreciate), my "benchmarks" will have to suffice.

That'll still be better than most of the kids "rockin' & rollin'" as well as many of the cops.

Thanks again, everyone. And if there are more opinions I for one would like to hear 'em!

[primersinmyshoe]

So what should I reasonably expect for shooting without aid of a rest? At what point can I look at my target as say confidently "Good enough"?

At 25 yards, a group of five rounds that you can cover with your hand. But what is "good enough"? For me personally - five 45acp rounds in a 3" circle.

[texasbatman]

Good enough to me is to be able to put them all in the kill zone at 30 yards while still, moving, and weak handed. Otherwise I need more practice. I'm going to the range tomorrow. :)

Jim

[Joni Lynn]

Besides, how good do you have to shoot to kill a smurf?? you....you....smurf killer!!!!

[Tom]

All fine and good, but I'm limited to anywhere from half to one third that range.

And yes, I'm a Smurf killer and proud of it. No more "La, la, la-la-la-la"!

[Hawkmoon]

The reality is that 10 yards is 30 feet, and pretty much any defensive shooting will take place at less than 30 feet or a prosecutor will probably be asking why you didn't try to escape the perp before shooting him/her. If your purpose for shooting is to become more proficient in self-defense, IMHO practicing at three times the range at which you'll ever shoot for real doesn't make a lot of sense. Certainly not as the test of your proficiency in self-defense.

25 yards and 30 yards are good distances for target shooting. The range I use goes out to 25 yards and I shoot at that distance with a nice, round bullseye target. But I generally also run out a silouette target to about 15 feet (a typical self-defense distance) or 25 FEET (not yards) and practice center-of-mass and Mozambique (triple tap) shooting for self-defense proficiency.

[texasbatman]

Here is how I look at it. If I can be accurate at 30 yards then the close up stuff is a cinch. The reverse can't be said. At the first sign of trouble I will be looking to put as much space between me and the bad guy as is safely possible. Why heck.......my front and back yards are both longer than 50 yards.

I say to each their own. What are you going to do if you get in a situation where you have to shoot out to distances greater than 10 yards and you aren't efficient? I don't plan on finding out. Distance is safety in my opinion.

I also recommend that you practice with both hands and become efficient with each. The better you are with your weapon the better your chance will be if it ever comes down to it. Use the full size body targets and be concerned only about putting them in the kill zone. That's all that matters.

Jim