What do you consider a good group size

Status
Not open for further replies.
Really? The first time I shot a Glock 17, I was already terribly far-sighted at the age of 40+ at the time, with the bone stock trigger that resembles more of a staple gun than a firearm, I shot pretty consistent 2-2½ 10-shot groups offhand at 25m (27.3yd) all day long, no problem at all. An I'm definitely not a world-class shooter, just a decent amateur. No mag dumps but I wouldn't exactly call that slow fire.

Whenever I see people practising offhand slow fire at something like 30', I have a hard time trying not to laugh. For quick draw practise that might be appropriate but once you've familiarized yourself with the gun you should challenge yourself, at least to a degree.

I'm not talking about the benchrest competition ½" groups at 330yd or trying to halve the inch-groups of a hunting rifle at 100, but some reality checks of what's practical and what's good accuracy. A friend of mine (well... 2M+ round former pro) won a bet of $50 when I was sure he couldn't knock over a silhouette ram with a .357 snub offhand on the first try so there ARE different degrees of accuracy, but in general it seems to be exaggerated with long guns and underestimated with handguns these days.

IMO all the accuracy you'll ever really need is that your next group is smaller than the previous one and that you'll keep practising. Guns these days are plenty accurate, fewer shooters are, which is a a crying shame.
I think you mean near-sighted. I'm near-sighted and I can read but everything is blurred from front sight on. "near sighted" is when you ONLY can see near(reading etc), Far-sighted is when you can see far but you can't read a book, without your reading glasses. AND,if you shot 2-2.5" groups at 27 yards (10 shots groups-all day long), with a 5-6lb trigger, AND you had your GLASSES/CONTACTS on,
then"my man", you are a Natural". I have 7 Glocks and 4 of them have 3-3.5lb triggers, and when I shoot the ones with stock triggers, the group size is a lot bigger. I keep most of my targets and I have some 3-4" groups at 25 yards, but most are 6" groups at 25 yards.
 
When in my early twenties, had a friend come to my house, and my brother and I were lifting weights, and there was 160 lbs on the bar. My friend said he worked out with 320 lbs in school. So he sat down and lifted the 160 lb off the bar and it came down and hit my friend in the mouth. My brother and I were startled and ran over and grabbed the weight off of him. And IF I live to be a thousand years old, I will never forget what my brother said, he told my friend, "You need to keep working out with that 320 and leave that 160 alone".
 
the longer my shot strings the less likely I am to maintain trigger discipline, at some point I will begin making mistakes that show on the target.
The factory 10/22 with 2700 rounds I am currently testing has been broken in down to around 5 lb trigger.

I am shooting average 350 to 600 round continuous 10 shot groups as fast as I can reload the magazine (for "real world" plinking test with hot barrel). Throughout the range test, I do confirming 10 shot groups with known accurate ammunition which consistently produce tight groups. I figure if confirming groups consistently produce tight groups all the way to the end of range session, flyers I get are more likely from ammunition and not from shooter fatigue - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...lector-3-break-in.859106/page-2#post-11310458

What was your reference point?

It's just that when I see other peoples targets, there are bullseye, lines or some aiming point.
I typically use plain copy paper for my targets as I do slow fire and fast point shooting drills and for slow fire, I use the first hole as my aim point - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/trigger-control.834737/page-2#post-11244660

Good shootin though.
Thank you.
 
All I know is he worked on that load nearly every weekend for about 6 months filling out spreadsheets and stuff.

I don't doubt it. You can tune loads to a particular rifle to do that. Just takes a lot of work and a good rifle. Kudos to your friend. I'm thinking that may be his new standard, certainly wouldn't be mine. 2 MOA is my standard, 1 MOA my goal. ;)
 
Last edited:
Pretty much have my hunting rifles dialed in with handloads for years now. Other than confirming a zero or setting up new optic we rarely shoot from a bench anymore.

For a few years we mostly used clay pigeons for targets. They are cheap, small enough to be challenging offhand, and easy to confirm hits. The local range got rebuilt so it's paper and steel only now. We bring along shoot-n-sees for guests to give them a souvenir, otherwise it mostly steel. Generally shooting rapid fire offhand at 8" round AR500 gongs at 100 yards with rifles and 6"×10" rectangular plates at 25 yards for pistols. We do well enough that misses are subject to some ribbing about bent parts or cheap ammo. Lately I have been doing more longer distance handgun shooting/missing. The joke is I do a good job scaring the 10" steel Allen target I got at walmart. 4 hits out of a cylinder of 44 mag at 100 yards feels good. Maybe half/half with 9mm or 45 auto unless its a strikerfire like Glock then I'm lucky to get 1/3 hits. Think its a combo of sight radius, weight, and trigger.
 
for a hand gun, one ragged hole at 15 yards. for a rifle one ragged hole at 100 yards.
 
I think you mean near-sighted.
No. Far-sighted. +1.50 at the time to see the outline of the sights, to be exact. Simple bifocals work just fine.
then"my man", you are a Natural".
Not nearly as much as some of my family members. Some quarter of a million rounds during last forty years or so may have evened things out a bit with routine and muscle memory, though.

Mind you, keeping 10 offhand shots in the 10-ring (50mm + 2 x the diameter of bullet; in case of 9mm that's 68mm = 2.68") of standard 25m pistol target with most service pistols isn't that difficult for anyone who can be bothered to learn a proper shooting technique and practise a little.

Many people never bother and it's really sad. Then they buy guns like Glocks with horrible triggers that make learning the basics of accurate handgun shooting unnecessarily difficult. A few thousands of rounds with something like Walther GSP, Benelli MP90S or the like in the very beginning is a good "vaccination" against developing bad habits and techniques. Ie. not starting with a spongy staple gun triggers designed solely for avoiding litigation headaches from accidental discharges by law enforcement officers in high stress situations. They can be made to work when you already know what you're doing, but if they're all you've ever practised with, chances are you won't anytime soon.
 
If practicing self defense shooting at 25 yards, a fast 6" group is satisfactory to me. That group should shrink to 3" at 10 yards I think, given that the point is speed.

If slow shooting for accuracy is the point, I think 2" at 25 yards is pretty decent for an average joe. However, I really don't know if I can muster that kind of accuracy. My focus has largely been on speed over the last few years.

With rifles, I won't even comment. I'm not a rifle shooter really.
 
However, I really don't know if I can muster that kind of accuracy. My focus has largely been on speed over the last few years.
With handguns it's not really one or the other but the combination. As much of a cliché El Presidente has become, it's still a pretty good benchmark providing that you'll focus in shooting the 60 target score first and improving time score later. Jim Zubiena -style ultra quick mozambiques at point blank range are admittedly fun to practise, though... :)
 
With handguns it's not really one or the other but the combination. As much of a cliché El Presidente has become, it's still a pretty good benchmark providing that you'll focus in shooting the 60 target score first and improving time score later. Jim Zubiena -style ultra quick mozambiques at point blank range are admittedly fun to practise, though... :)
Sure, obviously if you aren't hitting your target where you intend or reasonably close, you are just spraying bullets and accomplishing nothing. You can't have one be great and the other be terrible.

All I mean is that my focus has been on hitting the center mass quickly, with what I consider to be reasonable accuracy. I now need to slow down and work on my accuracy and precision. I really do believe a 6" group at 25 yards is a great group size if shooting for speed for an average person, and by speed I just mean stopping an attacker as quickly as possible. If you shoot a 2 inch group versus a 6" group against a human sized target at 25 yards, will you stop it faster? Maybe. Maybe not. Don't know, and I don't feel it matters in reality. And like I have said before, I practice at 25 yards with self defense shooting because as the target gets closer, accuracy and speed both go up.

Personally, I see it as two different focuses, that once you hit the skill level you want on one, you are then free to work on the other. Then you mesh them together. The drills you mentioned really shine in that regard I think. But I'm self taught, and have had only a few training sessions that were geared toward self defense. Other professional trainers undoubtedly have a very different opinion and are going to be much more efficient that I.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hq
I really do believe a 6" group at 25 yards is a great group size if shooting for speed for an average person, and by speed I just mean stopping an attacker as quickly as possible.
[...]
But I'm self taught, and have had only a few training sessions that were geared toward self defense. Other professional trainers undoubtedly have a very different opinion and are going to be much more efficient that I.
6" at any distance is great accuracy on a live target. I used to be more or less self taught in handgun marksmanship until mid-80's, IPSC and metal silhouette craze and having to join a club to compete. Defensive aspect came a bit later, after a close call incident followed by stumbling across a Krav Maga group that practised firearm, firearm defence and armed subject disarming techniques extensively.

But I digress. Accuracy and speed are trade-offs to a degree but not necessarily as mutually exclusive as some people think. Combining them is matter of a lot of practise thus creating muscle memory to take care of most of the work for you when you don't have time to think consciously about shooting. Like the late Tom Knapp is rumored to have said, it takes a million rounds to learn to shoot, another million to maintain the skill. Few people ever reach those numbers but a hundred thousand in a timespan of several years is still doable.
 
My standards for a carry or GSSF match pistol is 2" or better at 25yds, 5-shot, with a rest. I also shoot for 5 rounds in 4" at 7ds in 3 seconds drawing from concealment.

rghJvPcFTsKZ9nXqFJhB2A.jpeg

The GSSF indoor matches I used to go to have set the holy grail of scores as a 500. I've gotten very close a few times with scores in the 490's, but have never earned the patch and my name in the magazine.

I consider a 1" group at 25yds with a defensive carry gun the holy grail of accuracy, only my G29 and G19 have achieved it so far...

7eSJkotlQ0m4-aGzFFcCEg.jpeg

3yW7qV0vS-y1oFajuYqrKQ.jpeg
 
What do you consider a good group size ?

"...only if do my part." Haha. If I don't, it doesn't matter anyway.

The question is just too broad. What is a good group for what? The A zone of an IDPA? The X ring at a certain distance? 22LR at 50yds? Hits on steel at 1000yds? Three shots that magically go through the same hole, while the next two land elsewhere so we call them "flyers"? Maybe we are preparing for a "CPX-2 (haha)" game hunt where a Chuck Hawks would say 4moa is no issue as long as you can hit the 8" kill zone of a deer?

Or think about the firearm. Is a SKS shooting steel cased ammo that groups 6" at 50yds mean that a shooter has no skill? About half of that 12moa is the ammo and half is the firearm, before we even take the shooter's skill into account.

So is 2" at 50yds good? We have no idea because it lacks context. Yes - if it is a handgun or safari rifle. Not really - if it is a rimfire, AR, target rifle, deer rifle. Yes, if you're standing. No, if it's benched.... etc.
 
And those submitted targets are "best groups". :eek::eek::eek:

Holes on target speak volumes. :D And reality sometimes sucks.

That's why I decided to do "real life" accuracy/comparison ammo testing where I post "every group shot" for transparency, not just the best groups (Round count 2700 and counting). ;) - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...lector-3-break-in.859106/page-2#post-11310458

If I posted smallest groups, I could "claim" 1/2" 10 shot groups at 25 yards and sub 1" 10 shot groups at 50 yards using cheapest bulk 22LR ammo but that's not "real life".

And 10 shot groups tell the "rest of the story" that smaller 5 shot groups hide. :) If I posted 5 shot groups, my 50 yard groups could be more around 1/2" :D
Yeah like Shimtup said after you post #48, the more rounds your fire the more chances you make a mistake and get a flyer or two. There is another component also that I saw happen doing 10 shots, that some of my guns started changing impact zone and spreading after the gun got warm. My best posted, I could have spent hundreds of rounds with many trips to the range to find that one awesome group or score and claim my Garand does 1 1/2 to 2 inch groups at 100 yards, but realistic with mil-spec ammo more like three or four inches .

Out of all the rifles I used in the challenges, I realize now for sure there are only two rifles I trust to actually produce tight groups "all day long" , that being a AR-15 and a Swiss K31. Love my FAL, love the Garand, love the M1A, love a lever action and surplus rifles, but those two even after shooting it warm are the only ones I experienced keeping it tight all day long as long as there wasn't user error. Of course I'm talking iron sights and factory or surplus ammo on a SR-1 bulls which is but the size of a bead at 100 yards, bring out hand loads and a scope which I don't do , takes it to another level. My rifle standing entries, I only tried once with each gun used, but I realized when actually trying to keep in on target is hard, which I need to work on more.

Handgun is a different challenge, 10 yards I shoot like a laser beam, bring it out to 15 yards still pretty good, going out to 25 yards groups open wide quick.

But what people consider a good group, well that depends on what they do and what they use, I don't think there is one real definition or answer just the challenges you make for yourself.
 
I could have spent hundreds of rounds with many trips to the range to find that one awesome group or score and claim my Garand does 1 1/2 to 2 inch groups at 100 yards, but realistic with mil-spec ammo more like three or four inches .

Most service grade Garands will shoot 3" or a little less with good M2 Ball, better with M72 Match. A really good, M1 will do moa groups w/H4895 & 168 gr. SMK's w/young eyes. Had to give up on iron sights and added a 3X Primary Arms scope to my service grade accurized M1. A tip for those using GI issue ammo: Some of the M2 and M72 bullets on '50's issue ammo have a tenedency to "weld" the bullets to case necks due to electrolysis. If you're not getting expected accuracy, "bump" bullets in seating die .001" or so, just to break the "weld" and accuracy will improve. You will hear a crack on those rounds which have "welded".
45430694655_ef38c02328_n.jpg 33965454328_eb95482782_n.jpg


But what people consider a good group, well that depends on what they do and what they use, I don't think there is one real definition or answer just the challenges you make for yourself.

True! I like the challenge of squeezing the last drop of accuracy out of a rifle/load combo and most will at least approach moa. If a rifle won't shoot 1 moa, it usually doesn't hang around long unless it fits a certain niche. :rofl:

Regards,
hps
 
No. Far-sighted. +1.50 at the time to see the outline of the sights, to be exact. Simple bifocals work just fine.

Not nearly as much as some of my family members. Some quarter of a million rounds during last forty years or so may have evened things out a bit with routine and muscle memory, though.

Mind you, keeping 10 offhand shots in the 10-ring (50mm + 2 x the diameter of bullet; in case of 9mm that's 68mm = 2.68") of standard 25m pistol target with most service pistols isn't that difficult for anyone who can be bothered to learn a proper shooting technique and practise a little.

Many people never bother and it's really sad. Then they buy guns like Glocks with horrible triggers that make learning the basics of accurate handgun shooting unnecessarily difficult. A few thousands of rounds with something like Walther GSP, Benelli MP90S or the like in the very beginning is a good "vaccination" against developing bad habits and techniques. Ie. not starting with a spongy staple gun triggers designed solely for avoiding litigation headaches from accidental discharges by law enforcement officers in high stress situations. They can be made to work when you already know what you're doing, but if they're all you've ever practised with, chances are you won't anytime soon.
Looked it up on wikipedia as defined: Near-sighted, basically you can see up close, but not far off.
Far-sighted, basically you can see clear at far distances, but not up close.
Been wearing glasses since I was 11, and contact lenses since 1980. I am near-sighted, which means, I can ONLY see objects with clarity, from 12-14 inches and closer.(with out contacts/glasses), You could be right, but that means that EVERY eye doctor in the last 50+ years was wrong.
 
The initial need/ purpose of firearms was to kill things; shooting for groups is a training exercise in discipline. When the initial purpose and the training exercise are combined, the only acceptable group is the first round.
 
Far-sighted, basically you can see clear at far distances, but not up close.
[...]
You could be right, but that means that EVERY eye doctor in the last 50+ years was wrong.
I know what I'm talking about. I am far-sighted ie. hyperopic as indicated by the "+" in eyeglasses, with negligible left/right astigmatism. Still solid 20/20 on the standard chart but, in scientific medical terms, can't see $#!% if an object is closer than 2-2½' or so. There seems to be a misunderstanding somewhere, and it's quite unlikely that it could be attributed to the eye doctors (opthalmologist/optometrist, I assume?) you're now referring to.
My near vision went down the drain in my early 40's. I can still shoot some of my former race gun platforms - mainly single stack and Para-type double stack 1911 - pretty well on muscle memory "feel" alone, knowing how the gun points properly gripped even if only see the target clearly. Some others I've done high-volume shooting with, to a degree too. Ruger Standard/Mk.I-IV, 2-3. gen Colt Woodsman, CZ75-derivatives, Beretta 92, Colt Python & Anaconda, S&W square butt revolvers etc. With anything of post-2000 design and plastics in general I'm lost and really need the sights to hit anything.

Then again, bifocal shooting glasses are common and cheap nowadays. Ask your eye doctors about this, every one of them if you like. :)
 
I normally practice defensive shooting at 10-12 yds. using 3" stick-on targets.
If I'm hitting the target, I'm happy.
 
Knocking the 5" plastic sphere into the air while it is tied loosely onto an Action Pistol berm-from 25 yards, with the VZ-58 or AK. Private club MSSA, in Lakeland TN.

I'm not kidding at all. Casual fun is all that matters.
When sighting in a rifle--* my guns have only iron sights--2" at 50 yds. is more than ideal.
 
Last edited:
if this forum is indicative, I have only met 1 shooter in my life that's "good", out of dozens. I can do 1" at 7 yards on a good day with a pistol, and about 5" at 100 with irons on a rifle. I have done 1MOA with the rifle once, and probably couldn't do it again. I have never seen anyone shoot less than 4" at 100 with irons, and never seen anyone (other than a real competitive, sponsored shooter) do under 4" at 25 yards. Neither have the rangemaster I have met.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top