Buying hits?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Texas10mm

Texas10mm

member
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
3,546
Location
Not DFW
I've been wondering about shooters in IDPA with the high dollar super tight, super accurate pistols. The target is mostly that 8" circle in the middle of the target. Why the need for such tight accurate pistols? I know they are shooting on the move and everything but I still don't understand the need for those pistols. It's like using a laser beam when a floodlight will work just as well.

My club shoots a monthly defensive pistol match that loosely based on IDPA. There's one shooter that is on his third pistol in less than a year. Started off with a Glock 19, dumped a ton of money into it and still couldn't hit the target. Got a S&W M&P and dumped a ton of money into it. Still couldn't hit the target. Now he's got a Tanfoglio Witness Limited. Guess what? Still can't get hits.

I keep telling him to practice more. About the only shooting he does are the monthly matches. Maybe one short range trip a month besides that. He was at the range earlier this week with the new Witness. I got to shoot it and it's a really nice gun. It shoots as well as my Canik TP9SFx does. Standing still at seven yards he can't put a mag into that 8" circle. His "groups" look like patterns.

He was just over at the house today because he wanted to learn to reload and our match was canceled due to weather. He was surprised that I wasn't sorting my headstamp, and brass length. I told him I wasn't a good enough shot to see the difference and neither was he. Anyway we loaded him up 500 rounds of 9mm bunny fart loads that I know work in his pistol because I shot some in it earlier this week. He couldn't believe the difference in the recoil.

He's about my age and I know his eyes aren't the best. I let him shoot my Canik with the red dot and he shot the best groups I've ever seen him shoot. I have a feeling next match he'll have another new pistol. I also let him shoot my backup gun, a S&W 1911 that the only thing I've changed is some bright orange paint on the front sight. He had never shot a 1911 or a .45 ACP. He couldn't believe how light the recoil was with my target loads. He actually shot it pretty well also. 25 rounds, only two out of the 8" circle. Of course I spent a couple of hours giving him what meager advice I could. We worked on his grip, found out even though he's right handed he's left eye dominant. With the red dot, keeping both eyes open solved that little problem.

He's a nice guy. I really hope I helped him out.
 
Obviously, he's an exception who lacks shooting skills and needs to work on that.

With respect to other shooters, they might need, and be able to utilize, the accuracy that a tighter gun can provide. If your A zone is 2" and you have to hit if from 25 yards, the gun (as well as the shooter and ammo) has to be capable.

At the same time, sometimes a change of ammo is all that's required for an improvement in accuracy. See this link for an example: https://www.ssusa.org/articles/2019/1/18/38-different-9mm-loads
 
Obviously, he's an exception who lacks shooting skills and needs to work on that.
Click to expand...
IMO, the shooters who don't need to work on their shooting skills are the exceptions while the ones who do need to work on their skills are more the norm.

There certainly are folks out there who can make use of the additional precision provided by match guns and match ammo. But most people dramatically overestimate the benefit they will achieve from a more accurate gun. They see a gun that shoots groups twice as accurate as their current firearm and assume that means their groups will shrink significantly. What they don't get is that their gun was contributing a relatively small amount to the group size and therefore reducing that small amount even further has almost no effect.

Here's an example:

Let's say we have a shooter that is able to shoot groups of 12" at 25 yards when using his normal pistol . Now let's say that the pistol, when shot from a rest at 25 yards turns in groups of 4". Running the numbers shows that the shooter's contribution to that 12" group is actually 11.3". Intuitively we think that if we're shooting a 4" gun at 25 yards and the groups are 12", that the gun is contributing 4" to the group size but that isn't correct at all. Both errors are random so you can't just add them up.

So 12" groups with a 4" accurate gun at 25 yards mean that the shooter would be able to shoot groups of about 11.3" at 25 yards with a perfect gun.

Now let's give the guy a gun that will shoot 1" at 25 yards. Right off the bat, we can tell that his groups won't be smaller than 11.3" because that's what he would get with a perfect gun. And the answer is that the combined group size of an 11.3" group shooter and a 1" group gun at 25 yards is 11.34".

So going from a gun that would shoot 4" groups to one that would shoot 1" groups bought the guy less than 3/4 of an inch at 25 yards. At closer ranges the difference will be undetectable.

So, how accurate does a shooter have to be in order to take practical advantage of that kind of a change in guns? As a very rough rule of thumb--when a shooter's raw accuracy is pretty close to (or better than) the gun's raw accuracy, a more accurate gun will result in a practical improvement in accuracy.

Here are some 25 yard numbers from the specific case comparing a gun that is 4" accurate at 25 yards to gun that is 1" accurate at 25 yards.

When the shooter's intrinsic accuracy is 12", going from a 4" to a 1" gun provides an overall accuracy improvement of about 5%. (From about 12.7" groups to about 12" groups)
When the shooter's intrinsic accuracy is 8", going from a 4" to a 1" gun provides an overall accuracy improvement of about 10%. (From about 9" groups to about 8.1" groups)
When the shooter's intrinsic accuracy is 4", going from a 4" to a 1" gun provides an overall accuracy improvement of about 27%. (From about 5.7" groups to about 4.1" groups).
 
"Obviously, he's an exception who lacks shooting skills and needs to work on that."

I couldn't disagree more. The exception is the good shooter who takes the time to practice.

Texas 10mm, good for you helping the guy out.
 
JohnKSa said:
IMO, the shooters who don't need to work on their shooting skills are the exceptions while the ones who do need to work on their skills are more the norm.

There certainly are folks out there who can make use of the additional precision provided by match guns and match ammo. But most people dramatically overestimate the benefit they will achieve from a more accurate gun. They see a gun that shoots groups twice as accurate as their current firearm and assume that means their groups will shrink significantly. What they don't get is that their gun was contributing a relatively small amount to the group size and therefore reducing that small amount even further has almost no effect.

Here's an example:

Let's say we have a shooter that is able to shoot groups of 12" at 25 yards when using his normal pistol . Now let's say that the pistol, when shot from a rest at 25 yards turns in groups of 4". Running the numbers shows that the shooter's contribution to that 12" group is actually 11.3". Intuitively we think that if we're shooting a 4" gun at 25 yards and the groups are 12", that the gun is contributing 4" to the group size but that isn't correct at all. Both errors are random so you can't just add them up.

So 12" groups with a 4" accurate gun at 25 yards mean that the shooter would be able to shoot groups of about 11.3" at 25 yards with a perfect gun.

Now let's give the guy a gun that will shoot 1" at 25 yards. Right off the bat, we can tell that his groups won't be smaller than 11.3" because that's what he would get with a perfect gun. And the answer is that the combined group size of an 11.3" group shooter and a 1" group gun at 25 yards is 11.34".

So going from a gun that would shoot 4" groups to one that would shoot 1" groups bought the guy less than 3/4 of an inch at 25 yards. At closer ranges the difference will be undetectable.

So, how accurate does a shooter have to be in order to take practical advantage of that kind of a change in guns? As a very rough rule of thumb--when a shooter's raw accuracy is pretty close to (or better than) the gun's raw accuracy, a more accurate gun will result in a practical improvement in accuracy.

Here are some 25 yard numbers from the specific case comparing a gun that is 4" accurate at 25 yards to gun that is 1" accurate at 25 yards.

When the shooter's intrinsic accuracy is 12", going from a 4" to a 1" gun provides an overall accuracy improvement of about 5%. (From about 12.7" groups to about 12" groups)
When the shooter's intrinsic accuracy is 8", going from a 4" to a 1" gun provides an overall accuracy improvement of about 10%. (From about 9" groups to about 8.1" groups)
When the shooter's intrinsic accuracy is 4", going from a 4" to a 1" gun provides an overall accuracy improvement of about 27%. (From about 5.7" groups to about 4.1" groups).
Click to expand...

In IDPA we're not shooting bullseye. 8" circle on a cardboard target.
 
JohnKSa said:
Here's an example:

Let's say we have a shooter that is able to shoot groups of 12" at 25 yards when using his normal pistol . Now let's say that the pistol, when shot from a rest at 25 yards turns in groups of 4". Running the numbers shows that the shooter's contribution to that 12" group is actually 11.3". Intuitively we think that if we're shooting a 4" gun at 25 yards and the groups are 12", that the gun is contributing 4" to the group size but that isn't correct at all. Both errors are random so you can't just add them up.

So 12" groups with a 4" accurate gun at 25 yards mean that the shooter would be able to shoot groups of about 11.3" at 25 yards with a perfect gun.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your math. Can you please explain it? Thanks.
 
The error of the shooter is random. It will be in a more or less random direction from the point of aim and it will be a random distance from the point of aim.

The error of the gun is exactly the same. It will have a random direction and random distance from the point of aim.

When combining two random errors like that, simply adding group sizes dramatically overestimates the resulting group size. That can only happen when there are two shots in the combined group that meet the following criteria:
  • On one shot the random direction errors for both the shooter and the gun align almost exactly and the distance errors for both the shooter and gun are near the maximum.
  • On another shot in the same group, the random direction errors for both the shooter and the gun align almost exactly again and the distance errors for both the shooter and the gun are near the maximum.
  • On both of those shots, the direction errors are in very nearly opposite directions.
The chances of that happening in a group of a reasonable number of shots are very small--very, very small. If you assume that the magnitudes need to within 95% of "maximum" and the angles need to align to within about 18 degrees then you would need to shoot a group of maybe 100,000 shots to have a good chance of seeing that kind of alignment. (The odds are 1 in 160,000)

A good way to estimate the combined group size is to take the square of both group sizes, add the squares and then take the square root of the sum of the squares.

So an 11.3" shooter group plus an 4" gun group turns out to be the square root of (11.3 squared + 4 squared ). 11.3 squared is 127.69 and 4 squared is 16. Add the two to get 143.69 and take the square root of that to get about 11.99.

Anyway, the larger error dominates the combined error. So until the shooter error gets fairly close to the gun error in size, the shooter error dominates the combined group size.
 
Maybe I'm different than most, but for me it's not the "quality" of the pistol that matters the most.

If it fits my hand well, has nice big sights, and a fairly light trigger, I can probably shoot it well (for me, anyway).

Those things affect my shooting more than if it is tight or loose, a Taurus or a Beretta, cost $200 or $800, etc.

For instance, my Star Super B cost something like $250 OTD. It is big and heavy and the SAO trigger is pretty good. The sights are kind of small, but not terrible. It is a run-of-the-mill early 20th century technology no-frills military pistol. On a good day I can shoot it as well as anything (other than my 22lr target pistols).

On the other hand, I have sold or traded away quite a few pistols, cheap and expensive, because their triggers were too stiff and/or they fit my XXL hands awkwardly. The most recent is a Ruger SR22. Lots of people like them. I tried to like it. But it is just an awkward fit for my particular hands and I can't shoot it worth squat. As soon as my LGS has something I want to trade it for, it's gone. It is doubtless a much more sophisticated example of design and manufacturing than my old Super B, but if it won't work for my hands, it won't work for me.
 
In IDPA we're not shooting bullseye. 8" circle on a cardboard target.
Click to expand...
Yup. So if a shooter is using a gun that will shoot 3" groups at 25 yards from a rest, then the shooter needs to be able to hold a group size of 7.4" at 25 yards when the gun contributes no error at all.

Said another way, if a shooter is managing 8" groups at 25 yards with a gun that will shoot 3" groups from a rest, then the shooter, with a perfectly accurate gun, would be able to shoot 7.4" groups at 25 yards.

If that shooter wanted to improve his groups by going to a gun capable of shooting 1" groups at 25 yards from a rest, the groups would indeed improve--but only from 8" to 7.5".
 
Texas10mm said:
Standing still at seven yards he can't put a mag into that 8" circle. His "groups" look like patterns.
Click to expand...
Then he's got a real problem. I agree, without a lot more practice this isn't going to be solved by looking for the one gun he can shoot.
 
Constantly switching equipment in an attempt to chase that elusive something isn't uncommon. I've seen it in shooters, I've read about it with cyclists and I have no doubt it happens in other hobbies and sports as well. What you're describing in your new friend is a lack of fundamentals. My first guess is most of what he's learned about pistol shooting has been by trial and error up until now. Cross-eye dominance and vision issues certainly won't help matters for anybody.

What needs to happen is some good instruction, with lots of feedback. It won't be cured in a single afternoon, or even likely a long weekend. A stock Glock is more than capable of making head shots on an IDPA target from 25-yards. Easily. All of the pistols you've said he's been through are easily capable of that accuracy level. If he can be shown that his equipment can do it, that will help his confidence in trying to learn how he can do it.

Alternately, I'd spend an afternoon with a good shooting 1911, a bucket of softball or SWC target ammo, and take them time to repeat front sight, trigger press, front sight, trigger press, until it's automatic.

The most helpful advise I ever received about how to shoot well: "Put the sight on the target and don't move it when you press the trigger!" While the entire process is slightly more complicated than that, it does sum things up quite nicely.
 
It's not just the accuracy, there's also the speed to think about, it's an overall combination.

While the "0" pts down zone is 8" on the torso, the "0" pts down zone on the head is 4". Then you get into the positioning of threats and non-threats to make the "0" pts down zone smaller. Add to it some decent use of cover to get guys out of their "stance" and it gets challenging. Lot's of guys can make those sort of shots easily, right up until there's a timer and an audience. Add it all up and that's the reason it's rare to see someone go "zero pts down" for an entire match, unless of course they were timed using a sundial.

In this particular case, the shooter just needs to stick to a platform and practice.
 
I find it very hard to shoot well with iron sights while red dots make it a snap. Getting the front lined up perfectly in the rear notch is just hard for me. I bet that is his problem too. Is the top of the front perfectly aligned height-wise with the rear? Is the target centered over the front sight? And so on. With the red dot, the dot is either on the target or it’s not. Red dots cut my groups by half. Encourage him to stop getting new guns and instead to mount up a red dot on his favorite
 
Last edited:
I know a guy who has no less than 50 pistols, he constantly buys more looking for something that can help him shoot. He has trouble hitting a 12 inch target at 10 yards. I tried to explain his fundamentals are bad, he got mad at me. He got a s&w with an rmr and slicked up action and still cant shoot, so another pistol it is for him. Bob munden could hit a balloon at 200 yards with a snub revolver from the reflection in a ring, rip bob munden. Training is everything. Im not the best by a longshot but i have destroyed most of my shooting buddies with a nagant revolver in DA vs any pistol of their choosing cause mostly their collectors and not really shooters.
 
wanderinwalker said:
Constantly switching equipment in an attempt to chase that elusive something isn't uncommon. I've seen it in shooters, I've read about it with cyclists and I have no doubt it happens in other hobbies and sports as well. What you're describing in your new friend is a lack of fundamentals. My first guess is most of what he's learned about pistol shooting has been by trial and error up until now. Cross-eye dominance and vision issues certainly won't help matters for anybody.

What needs to happen is some good instruction, with lots of feedback. It won't be cured in a single afternoon, or even likely a long weekend. A stock Glock is more than capable of making head shots on an IDPA target from 25-yards. Easily. All of the pistols you've said he's been through are easily capable of that accuracy level. If he can be shown that his equipment can do it, that will help his confidence in trying to learn how he can do it.

Alternately, I'd spend an afternoon with a good shooting 1911, a bucket of softball or SWC target ammo, and take them time to repeat front sight, trigger press, front sight, trigger press, until it's automatic.

The most helpful advise I ever received about how to shoot well: "Put the sight on the target and don't move it when you press the trigger!" While the entire process is slightly more complicated than that, it does sum things up quite nicely.
Click to expand...

He shot a couple hundred rounds through my 1911. I loaded up another 300 rounds yesterday for him to shoot. Probably load up another 300 or so today. I've got 1000 rounds for the Canik loaded up ready to go.

He really needs a red dot. While he did really well with my 1911 after some instruction I think the red dot will be the best thing for him. Our next match I'll let him shoot the Canik with the red dot and we'll see how he does.
 
I saw this a lot in the music business. "You sound so good, I need to buy the same $4k guitar you have, and I will sound like you!" No you won't.

This is why 'skillset' comes before 'toolset'. Buying good gear might help a little, but if you can't do it with basic gear, expensive gear won't keep you from jerking the trigger.
 
Texas10mm said:
He shot a couple hundred rounds through my 1911. I loaded up another 300 rounds yesterday for him to shoot. Probably load up another 300 or so today. I've got 1000 rounds for the Canik loaded up ready to go.

He really needs a red dot. While he did really well with my 1911 after some instruction I think the red dot will be the best thing for him. Our next match I'll let him shoot the Canik with the red dot and we'll see how he does.
Click to expand...
And needing a red dot is no shame. Just another type of sight that some will benefit from and some not so much. Just like any other.
 
Sounds like he needs to be buying cases of ammo. Time can't be bought, but he needs to spend
more, sending rounds downrange.
 
Good gear doesn't make you a good shot. Being a good shot by mastering the fundamentals through practice with gear that works makes you a good shot.
 
I’ve been down this road a few times with the statistics of precision - the problem really lies in how the assumptions are made. You’re quick to assume the 4” at 25yrds group from the bench reflects the mechanical potential of the pistol. For how many competition pistols is that actually true? None I have been sold, based on ransom rest groups. How many of your shooters, besides this one particular fellow who apparently can hit the side of a barn if he were standing inside it, really only hold 8” at 25yrds?

When you shrink the shooter potential to a realistic size, the RSS method’s favor of the larger shooter error shrinks considerably. If the mechanical rest potential of the pistol is 2” the shooter slowfire offhand potential is 4”, the statistical net RSS is ~4.5”, meaning >10% of the error is from the pistol. Say the pistol is 2.5” and the shooter is still 4”... now your net RSS is 4.7”, and the pistol contribution is 15% of your net. Give an exceptionally skilled 3” shooter a 4” gun - net RSS group shows 5”, meaning the shooter only contributes 1” to the pistol’s error. RSS favors the larger error as dominant, regardless of why it’s larger.

In parallel, I have rarely met a shooter of any modicum or practiced experience which had truly random 8” groups. Even a newbie struggling with 5 out of 5 fundamentals typically won’t shoot round groups, favoring one technique flaw. So the applicability of non-correlated error methods like RSS starts to fall apart. Their POA at break will follow a trend, sliding more criticality to the mechanical group size random error radius.

What a more precise pistol really means - the shooter doesn’t have to break the shots as accurately to still deliver the same net error.

A really precise pistol means the test is upon the shooter, not the shooter and his gun. Guys complain all of the time about shooting sports being nothing more than an arms race - while in fact, the opposite is typically true, as the better the pistol gets, the less it matters, and the contest becomes truly about the shooter, not the hardware.
 
Someone shooting 8 inch groups at 25 yards could benefit from lots of different things.

8 inch groups at 7 yards isnt the equipment at all. Either he isn't seeing the target, or he is jerking the guns around
 
Assuming quality ammo, I haven't seen any significant difference in accuracy between most of the better modern plastic pistols, and a high end $4000+ 2011.

Give or take the difference between a combat trigger and a race trigger. It's hard to mitigate a poor trigger, even with a ransom rest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
A Glock, my brother in law and a trip to the range (or, today I converted a Fudd)
Replies
6
Views
566
Majic
M
1KPerDay
  • Locked
My son just conned me out of my CZ75B Omega/Cajun
Replies
20
Views
840
Ernie Bass
Ernie Bass
V
  • Locked
Scary range guy and the USP
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
1911Tuner
1
S
  • Locked
Good Guns, Good People, Great Day!
Replies
3
Views
500
tekarra
T
TarDevil
  • Locked
This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased...
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
Officers'Wife
Officers'Wife
Back
Top