What is the most accurate 9mm ammo?

[74A95]

If you know for sure you made a mistake AND you know for sure which shot on the target was the mistake then I suppose it would make sense to discount that shot and shoot another one to make up for it. Except of course if the goal is to evaluate the worst case performance, in which case the mistake probably shouldn't be eliminated since it certainly contributed to a worst case performance.

If a shooter includes known fliers in their group measurement, then it's no longer an accuracy test, it's now an IQ test, and the shooter just failed.

If one is trying to evaluate their worst case performance, they should shoot blindfolded. That would fit the description.

I'm not really in favor of trying to pick and choose which shots to keep and which ones to leave out when shooting groups because....

There's also the situation where you know you made a mistake but you're not sure which shot on target it is. Maybe the "flier" that is high and right is the mistake you know you made, or maybe it's telling you about an ammo problem or a gun problem, and the actual mistake wasn't actually as bad as you thought it was. Once you start trying to pick and choose shots or groups, then you're never really sure if the numbers are telling you about how the shooting is going or if they're telling you how good you are at throwing away shots or groups to make the results come out the way you want them to.A simple and effective way to know if you have enough is to stop when the average isn't changing significantly any more. If all the groups are fairly consistent then it will stabilize very rapidly.

Only known, called fliers can legitimately be removed from group measurements. Guessing which one(s) might be the flier(s) is called cheating, and also fits the description of failing an IQ test.

There is variability even with multiple groups shot from a Ransom Rest, so stability in group size is a bit of a myth. In this article (https://americanhandgunner.com/exclusive-consistent-velocity-accuracy/) the author found up to a nearly three-fold difference in group size when shooting 15-shot groups (many more rounds than mere 5-shot groups) from a Ransom Rest.

Or, you could just pick a number of groups you want to shoot and pick the number of shots per group that seems reasonable to you and go for it. Five shot groups are pretty common for handgun accuracy evaluation and averaging a handful of those should provide decent results. You'll see that approach commonly used in published reviews.

Yes, multiple the 5-shot groups are traditional. But that does not mean there isn't a better way.

 

[JohnKSa]

If a shooter includes known fliers in their group measurement...

If one is absolutely certain that a particular shot on the target is a flier then shooting an additional shot in that group and discounting the flier could make sense under some circumstances.

If there's any doubt at all about which shot is the flier, or whether or not the shot really was a flier, then throwing it out might make the shooter feel better and the group smaller, but now there's something other than the shooter's ability, the gun and the ammo contributing to the results.

Just throwing it out without shooting another shot doesn't sense as now the group being evaluated is a smaller number of shots than originally intended which means it isn't comparable to the other groups shot.

And, of course, if the shooter's ability is a big part of what is being tested, then throwing away "fliers" doesn't ever make sense because fliers are clearly saying something about the shooter's ability.

If one is trying to evaluate their worst case performance, they should shoot blindfolded.

The comment I made about evaluating worst case performance was specifically in response to the comment that "the most important statistic is the largest group". The "largest group" is clearly the worst case performance for that shooting session. Of course there are really stupid things (like shooting blindfolded) that a shooter could do to make the worst case performance even worse--but I'm not sure what that would prove.

There is variability even with multiple groups shot from a Ransom Rest, so stability in group size is a bit of a myth.

Yes, of course there is variability even from a machine rest. However stability in group size isn't a myth unless one chooses to unrealistically define it as "absolutely no variability in group size". A gun/ammo/shooter combination that consistently shoots 5 shots into, say, 3" groups, plus or minus a quarter of an inch at 25 yards is shooting pretty stable groups even though they're not all identical.

But a shooter whose groups vary by a factor of 2 or 3 clearly isn't shooting stable groups. Could be an ammo problem, a gun problem, a shooter problem or a combination.

By the way, using a machine rest doesn't guarantee accuracy or consistency--it only eliminates shooter error. If the ammo or gun is the problem then there's nothing a machine rest can do to fix the problem.

The article is interesting--the author's main point is that even with very consistent ammunition velocities (and a machine rest), it is still possible to get inconsistent results.

That doesn't mean he's saying that stable groups are always impossible, he's just showing that one can't assume that consistent velocities = consistent accuracy.

But that does not mean there isn't a better way.

Correct. But it's certainly a better way for performing a typical handgun accuracy evaluation than shooting 25 shot groups by hand and then picking the largest one as being representative.

I do agree that for some kinds of testing (particularly from a bench or using a machine rest) larger group sizes can make a lot of sense.

 

[74A95]

My goodness, JohnKSa, we might be in near total agreement!

 

[JohnKSa]

Obviously there's something wrong! Let me re-read my post and try again.

 

[44 AMP]

for my purposes (and to borrow a southern phrase)...

"fellahs, ah think y'all are overthinking this a bit...."

 

[JohnKSa]

Interesting article in the May 2017 issue of SWAT magazine. The author tested a 9mm carbine with various ammo, shooting from the bench.

Average 5 shot group sizes at 50 yards were:

Atlanta Arms 115gr JHP--1.55"
Black Hills 115gr +P JHP--1.25"
Winchester 115gr FMJ--1.88"

These groups, scaled to 25 yards would be 0.78", 0.63", and 0.94".

 

[Metric]

I did this test about 10 years ago, with a P210-6 at a 50ft range. Premium 147gr hollowpoints tended to do the best (speer gold dot and whatever winchester was calling theirs at the time) -- I was able to get some 5-shot groups that could be covered with a quarter. I also recall that the 124gr gold dot load was very close to the same, so I ended up using that as a self-defense load. Bulk WWB 115gr practice ammo tended to do much worse, to the extent that groups looked about the same as those coming out of a Glock 19.

 

[stephen426]

By the way, using a machine rest doesn't guarantee accuracy or consistency--it only eliminates shooter error. If the ammo or gun is the problem then there's nothing a machine rest can do to fix the problem.

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. Let's start by using the proper terminology. Accuracy is hitting your intended target. Precision is the ability to hit the same place repeatedly. Ideally, a Ransom Rest allows the maximum degree of precision (assuming that everything is done right) by eliminating the variation introduced by the shooter. The variance that remains comes from the gun's precision (how consistently the barrel resets to the same exact place), and the variation introduced from ammunition. Ideally wind, temperature, and humidity are consistent for the testing.

If a gun is improperly aimed (or the sights are off) when clamped to a Ransom Rest, the accuracy may be off, but the precision should still be good. If the is not properly clamped or the rig is allowed to move, more variation will occur (less precision).

Basically, I am arguing that a gun that is properly mounted in a Ransom Rest that is properly secured, should yield the maximum degree of precision allowed by the combination of the gun and the ammunition.

 

[74A95]

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. Let's start by using the proper terminology. Accuracy is hitting your intended target. Precision is the ability to hit the same place repeatedly. Ideally, a Ransom Rest allows the maximum degree of precision (assuming that everything is done right) by eliminating the variation introduced by the shooter. The variance that remains comes from the gun's precision (how consistently the barrel resets to the same exact place), and the variation introduced from ammunition. Ideally wind, temperature, and humidity are consistent for the testing.

If a gun is improperly aimed (or the sights are off) when clamped to a Ransom Rest, the accuracy may be off, but the precision should still be good. If the is not properly clamped or the rig is allowed to move, more variation will occur (less precision).

Basically, I am arguing that a gun that is properly mounted in a Ransom Rest that is properly secured, should yield the maximum degree of precision allowed by the combination of the gun and the ammunition.

Ransom Rest users aren't interested with hitting the X ring of a bullseye target. Most of them just shoot at a sheet of paper. At least, I do. The only thing of interest is group size.

 

[JohnKSa]

Let's start by using the proper terminology. Accuracy is hitting your intended target. Precision is the ability to hit the same place repeatedly.

The true technical definition of accuracy is that the statistical sample is unbiased with respect to the true value--that is, the average of the error of the sample set is zero with respect to the intended value.

So 'accuracy' isn't about "hitting the target" as much as it is about whether or not the group is centered on the target. A gun that spreads impacts into a group size of 3 feet at 10 yards is still perfectly accurate as long as the group is perfectly centered on the point of aim.

Using the technical definitions, any non-defective firearm with properly functioning adjustable sights can be made to be perfectly accurate by properly adjusting the sights. Barring fixed sighted guns or guns which need repairs, all guns are only a sight adjustment away from being perfectly accurate by the technical definition.

But all that is really neither here nor there as the technical definitions of those terms are not the accepted definitions in the field of firearms.

When people talk about firearm accuracy, they mean how small the groups are. When they talk about guns that don't center their groups on the target, they're not talking about inaccurate guns--they're just talking about guns that need their sights adjusted.

Perhaps, with a major concerted effort and a lot of time, it might be possible to win the firearm community over to using the technical definitions, but it seems to me that there are much better ways that level of effort could be expended.

Basically, I am arguing that a gun that is properly mounted in a Ransom Rest that is properly secured, should yield the maximum degree of precision allowed by the combination of the gun and the ammunition.

Insuring the "maximum degree of precision allowed by the combination of the gun and the ammunition" doesn't guarantee accuracy or consistency or precision or whatever one chooses to call it. If the ammo or gun is the problem then there's nothing a machine rest can do to fix the problem.

If I take the best machine rest ever made, clamp a .40S&W pistol into it, perfectly following all the instructions for the rest, and load the pistol with 9mm ammo, then even the " maximum degree of precision allowed by the combination of the gun and the ammunition" is still going to be miserably inaccurate, imprecise, or whatever one chooses to call it.

The rest can eliminate shooter error. It can't do anything to fix problems with the gun/ammo combination. In other words, using a machine rest doesn't guarantee accuracy or consistency, it only eliminates shooter error.

 

[David R]

How is this?

I shot these groups @ 7 yards with my Kimber Micro 9.
Checking out hand loads with the Chrony.

Center 10 shot group was 115 powder coated Lead@ 1182 fps
Bottom Right 10 shot was 124 FMJ @ 1127 Fps
Bottom left was 5 shots of 147 Gold Dot 919 Fps.

Blew my mind.

Accuracy!

Same day, same gun......

David

Sight was held where the red line is @ 6 o'clock. Gun is supposed to his where the dot on the front site is. I would have to cover the black with the sight, not good for analyzing groups. I am basically a bullseye shooter. This is the best group out of this gun in its first 1,000 rounds. 3.1" barrel.

 

[stephen426]

yield the maximum degree of precision allowed by the combination of the gun and the ammunition.

I think we may be saying the same thing here. A sloppy gun with crappy ammo will lead to larger groups, but it will be the best possible group for THAT SPECIFIC COMBINATION of gun and ammo since the variance introduced by the shooter is removed. A nice tight gun with match grade ammo should still have the best possible group out of a Ransom Rest compared to someone shooting hand held.

Someone shooting the same combination of gun and ammo should not be able to produce tighter groups than a properly mounted gun on a Ransom Rest. So given your example, the grouping of the .40 S&W firing from a Ransom Rest should still be tighter than a shooter shooting hand held. This is of course given a large enough sample size to eliminate flukes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision