So I kind of suck at shooting pistols

[stinkeypete]

In my opinion, if you can hit what you're shooting at with the first shot you don't need to shoot fast.

Long time ago, I started shooting air pistol in my basement as I got back into shooting handguns. It was a nice competition air pistol.

It was like throwing darts. I was relaxing, sending pellets one at a time diagonally across my basement... 9 meters was the farthest I could get. I was shooting at 10m NRA air pistol targets and keeping score.

After a while, I wondered "hey, am I doing good at this?" I talked to some guys online.. I was shooting in the mid 90s. "Even at 9 instead of 10 meters, you should go to a competition! You won't be the worst guy there!"

Well, I could not find an air pistol league near me, but there was a .22 league. I did not embarrass myself. But it did end up costing me a target .22 and soon a target grade .45acp. Then a hunting handgun, then.. ah, you know how it goes.

I don't know who sponsors these combat style, shoot really fast competitions. But I can see the fellows use a lot of ammo and throw perfectly good magazines by the fistful into the gravel at their feet like they are trash. That's stuff people can sell to shooters.

The guns don't need to be tuned to be highly accurate, these guns are just good enough and only a rare few cost as much as a bullseye .45.

But if you want to know how you're doing.. you can't tell your pals on the internet your speed.. unless you went to a competition first to get times. There are no postal idpa matches.

 

[natman]

When I say I suck what I mean is shooting a .25 inch group at 50 yards which seems to be common place in most gun forums or on YouTube.

I'm willing to believe that you may be able to improve, but a good first step would be to set more realistic expectations. A quarter inch group at 50 yards is pretty decent shooting from a 22 rifle. With a target scope. From a bench.

To expect similar results with a pistol freestanding is to guarantee frustration.

 

[TunnelRat]

I don't know who sponsors these combat style, shoot really fast competitions. But I can see the fellows use a lot of ammo and throw perfectly good magazines by the fistful into the gravel at their feet like they are trash. That's stuff people can sell to shooters.

Letting a magazine fall to the ground when it is ejected is not, to me, the same as treating it like it is trash. In the dozens of pistols I have owned I have yet to have a magazine actually take damage from doing so. Now I don’t doubt some have and will, but the idea that it’s some kind of especially harsh treatment is head scratching to me.

 

[JohnKSa]

In my opinion, if you can hit what you're shooting at with the first shot you don't need to shoot fast.

For bullseye that's right. For self-defense type shooting, that's not a great idea.

People are usually highly concerned about dying in gunfights and so they don't stand still, get into a perfect stance, take careful aim and make a perfect shot. They are usually moving (trying not to get killed), probably aren't in a perfect shooting stance, may not have taken time to get a perfect grip on the gun, may be focused so strongly on the threat that they don't see the sights. In those kinds of situations, even really good shooters can miss, and make less than perfect shots.

Some people soak up bullets surprisingly well. It's not for nothing that most experts recommend that you keep shooting until the threat is ended as opposed to just shooting one time. For one thing, it can be really hard to tell if you are making hits in the middle of a gunfight. For another, seconds count. The first shot may be fatal, but if the guy can keep shooting for another 30 seconds, you may die too. Better to keep going--maybe the next shot will end the festivities a little faster--and a little faster may be enough to keep you alive.

From what I've seen in real-world shooting videos, most people find it very difficult to not shoot really fast. In other words, when your brain starts screaming that you are about to die, your finger's going to go into turbo mode. At that point, if you haven't practiced shooting fast, the results aren't going to be very good. If self-defense is your goal, you'd better practice shooting fast because you WILL be shooting fast if someone's trying to kill you and it would be nice to have some solid experience under your belt.

 

[Shadow9mm]

Best advice? Get some paper plates for targets. If you can hit anywhere on the plate thats a great goal. You can put a target sticker in the center or draw a dot with a sharpie of thst helps.

Do dry fire. Shoot 5 rounds, dry fire 5 rounds, repeat. Work on that good trigger squeeze. And keeping your sights steady.

Focused on the front sight, not your rear sight or the target.

Keep pushing your distance out. 5yds, 10yds, 15yds, 20yds, 25yds.

Heres a great vid on pistol training for defensive use. Really good fundamentals. https://youtu.be/F8MvKIiXC2M

 

[cdoc42]

This may be an aside, and if so, I apologize. If defensive shooting is generally 10 yards or less, why do those who test the various handguns in the gun magazines always (it seems) do so at 25 yards? I often think that if I am ever in a threatening situation separated by at least 25 yards, my first thought (if possible) would be to retreat rather than engage.

 

[JohnKSa]

While the statistics say that it's more likely that a justifiable shooting will happen at short range, sometimes the range can stretch. When Elisjsha Dickens took down the Greenwood Park Mall shooter, some of the shots he fired were taken at 40 yards. When Jack Wilson took down the West Freeway Church shooter, he fired his shot at about 15 yards.

There are circumstances where justifiable shootings can take place at ranges significantly longer than 10 yards.

Second, the longer range makes the test a bit more informative. A firearm's group size increases with distance and by shooting groups at longer distances, the differences in group size also increase which makes the comparison a bit more informative.

For example, let's say we have two pistols, one that is capable of shooting 4.8MOA groups and one that can shoot 5.2MOA groups.

We test them both at 7 yards and record the group sizes rounded to the nearest tenth of an inch. Both pistols shoot 0.4" groups since 4.8MOA @ 7 yards is 0.35" and 6.0MOA @ 7 yards is 0.44".

On the other hand, if we test them at 25 yards and still record the group sizes rounded to the nearest tenth of an inch, the 4.8MOA pistol shoots 1.3" groups and the 6.0MOA pistols shoots 1.6" groups. The longer distance amplifies the accuracy difference and now the recorded group sizes, rounded to the same precision as the 7 yard groups, show a significant difference in accuracy between the two guns.

 

[TunnelRat]

The longer distance amplifies the accuracy difference and now the recorded group sizes show a significant difference in accuracy between the two guns.

When John says the group sizes now show a "significant" difference, that difference may now appear significant, but the relative difference never changed (you can do the math manually or use a calculator like this https://www.indecorous.com/bullseye/moacalc.html and see that one pistol shoots groups 80% the size of the other at both 7 yd and then again at 25 yd, which makes since as 4.8 MOA / 6 MOA = 0.80.)

I am aware the above seems pedantic, but in the work I do the word significant generally has a mathematical backing to it.

 

[Recycled bullet]

A self defense shooting sounds kinda scary[emoji33]

 

[JohnKSa]

When John says the group sizes now show a "significant" difference, that difference may now appear significant, but the relative difference never changed (you can do the math manually...

Of course--that's exactly the point. The MOA value (the size of the group measured in terms of angle) stays the same while the group size measured in inches show a larger difference. That larger difference, measured in inches, makes it easier to see differences in accuracy that might be harder to see if the targets are shot at closer range.

The point is that measurements are always made with some level of precision and are generally rounded as well. There's also always some error in any measurement. By stretching the distance at which the accuracy tests are performed, the differences, though the same in terms of angle, get larger in terms of group size measured in inches and that will help emphasize differences in accuracy which makes it easier to compare the sizes and also de-emphasizes any measurement accuracy.

In an extreme case, imagine testing two rifles at 7 yards, instead of the more common distance of 100 yards. One rifle is capable of 0.7 MOA groups while the other is only capable of 1.9MOA.

Measured at 7 yards, the difference in group size will be 0.09"--less than a tenth of an inch--but measured at 100 yards, the group size difference will be 1.26"--well over an inch.

Now, let's say that we can only measure group size accurately to the nearest 0.05". At 7 yards, 0.7MOA is 0.05"--right at the limit of our measurement accuracy and 1.9MOA is 0.14".

That means the error in our measurements is pretty significant compared to the measured group sizes. The difference in the two group sizes is 0.09" but the error on the two measurements that generated that difference is nearly as large as the difference itself. In other words, the difference may be significant, or it may actually just be mostly the unavoidable "noise" in the measurements we made.

But the difference at 100 yards is 1.26"--that's quite a bit larger than our measurement error of around 0.05"--so we have some confidence that the difference in group size is significant and that any contributions due to measurement error are not going to make a bid difference in the outcome.

 

[TunnelRat]

To be clear I understand how MOA works. And I get why firearms are tested at longer distances (and I think your most recent example does a better job at getting that point across).

My point was to emphasize for others that relative differences in MOA remain the same and that what is more easily to observe farther out still occurs closer in. I say these things because in my experience people don’t always get them, even if you do.

 

[JohnKSa]

...that what is more easily to observe farther out still occurs closer in.

That's not quite all of it. Because rounding and measurement errors play a part in the real world, what is easy to observe farther out may actually be completely obscured or "in the noise" at closer ranges.

It's still occurring, but it could get difficult to demonstrate that the measured differences are significant. The differences may not even show up at all in the final results--or what appears to be a difference could actually be affected more by random variation from measurement error than by a significant difference in the actual accuracy.

 

[Recycled bullet]

This is why I like twenty rounds groups when testing handloads in pistols. I do it to attempt analyze the targets that day under those particular conditions imposed,

"floating the wheat from the pebbles "

and to hopefully separate operator skill/error from equipment consistency/mechanical accuracy of the guns and loads.

You can always shoot better! How intensely do you want it?

That's how good you will get and no better!

It chaffes me to read and see pictures in the gun magazines of when 9mm handguns are shot three or five times for group at seven yards. That doesn't tell me anything useful.


That's a participation trophy.

I shot for the very first time a Taurus gx4 at twenty five yards at paper plates with federal HST and they all stayed the plate.
It's a start[emoji3]

 

[JohnKSa]

It chaffes me to read and see pictures in the gun magazines of when 9mm handguns are shot three or five times for group at seven yards. That doesn't tell me anything useful.

It tells very little. The longer distances and larger group sizes are far more useful.

 

[TunnelRat]

That's not quite all of it. Because rounding and measurement errors play a part in the real world, what is easy to observe farther out may actually be completely obscured or "in the noise" at closer ranges.

It's still occurring, but it could get difficult to demonstrate that the measured differences are significant. The differences may not even show up at all in the final results--or what appears to be a difference could actually be affected more by random variation from measurement error than by a significant difference in the actual accuracy.

Hence the “more easy to observe” part of my post.

If you want to refine that further and explain why it’s easier to observe that’s fair.

 

[Shadow9mm]

This may be an aside, and if so, I apologize. If defensive shooting is generally 10 yards or less, why do those who test the various handguns in the gun magazines always (it seems) do so at 25 yards? I often think that if I am ever in a threatening situation separated by at least 25 yards, my first thought (if possible) would be to retreat rather than engage.

25 yds is not much space, and it would be easy for the threat to follow you. 100yds, ok you might be able to lose them. But 25 is not much of a head start. Obviously get behind concealment and or cover. But thinking the threat cant or wont come after you will get you killed.

 

[Houndog]

A little off topic - but I think everyone should spend some time shooting at distances of at least 25 yards. Shooting at 12" plates at 7 yards is great if you are trying to improve your speed - and I suppose recreates the most realistic self-defense scenarios you could potentially find yourself in. But nothing exposes weaknesses in your fundamentals like shooting small targets at distance. Even a slight misalignment of the sights, a small flinch, a poor trigger press, etc. will absolutely be exposed at those distances.

 

[JohnKSa]

I agree 100%. I try to spend at least a little bit of time shooting at 25yards (or the farthest the range allows if it's not a full 25yards every shooting session. It provides a quick sanity check to make sure technique isn't slipping.