Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Training & Safety' started by ScottA, Dec 16, 2013.
Well worth considering...
Thanks ScottA, very informative!
Too many stress the "X" or Bull's-eye.
If a person can get a small spread, that's great, but if a "8" ring hit is the best one can do, then, yeah, that's great too!
Not everyone will get to be a ace shot. Know your expectations for each range session and strive for it. A golfer does not start out making par the first time, but they strive for it each time they go out. They set goals and work towards it.
I remember the first time my golf score was the same as my age. It was one of the happiest days of golfing ever. And that was on the first 9 holes. The next goal I had was to shoot my age on the 2nd nine.
I often ask folks looking for an "accurate gun" what job they need the gun to be able to do, and what level of accuracy they need. I have used the target match vs hunting accuracy illustration before for those purposes.
AK vs AR arguments, Glock vs 1911, revolver vs autoloader, bolt gun vs lever gun. This info on what the desired accuracy is, becomes very important when trying to make recommendations or when asking for recommendations.
Thanks for sharing the video.
Well I guess that was ok, but WAY over complicated.
Accuracy is placing the shot where you intended to place it, period!
As you said you need to decide 'where' you want to place it and then decide if it is accurate or not but remember:
"Aim big, miss big. Aim small, miss small."
If I can hit a pie plate at 100 yards I'm happy.
And then there's the accuracy you get when bullets are coming back at you. A completely different story no matter how cool your gun us or how well you shoot at the range
For me it would take a lot of practice and learning to be able to get a 1" group at 100 Yards however I don't care to dedicate that much time to it so 5" groups will do for me.
By expanding your goal target area to meet your ability, you are doing the same thing we are doing to our school kids. We are reducing expectations in order to maintain a warm fuzzy feeling. "I'm happy if all my shots go on the black." is accepting failure.
Getting all shots in the black is acceptable as a "stepping stone". Nobody can pick up a firearm and expect to hit the "X" every time.
A good supervisor will not expect the same from each employee, but expect each employee to do their best. So should it be with shooters.
"Once you set your level of precision, fire your shot and ask yourself, accuracy yes, or accuracy no."
Following that logic some of the less ambitious shooters could stand inside a closed barn and be thrilled that they hit something with their shot. They succeeded, even though their goal is set incredibly low.
Part of my problem with this theory, and I fully admit this is my problem, is that there is always the potential for someone else to be affected by a shooter that settles for less than the best. To go back to my statement about the school kids, how many students will be hindered later in life if the school board lowers the pass fail standard in the first five grades?
People around here tend to stress the bad side of over-penetration, yet nobody seems to mind the fact that you will miss. If you fire four shots, statistically you will miss with at least one, and probably two of them. By settling for less than tight center chest groups in practice, you are increasing the chance for misses in a self defense situation later on.
I feel the key is to have adequate classroom prep on the fundamentals of shooting. Safety, sight picture, breathing, trigger control, stance, and grip should all be covered. When you finally get out to the range, start close and slow fire. Strive for perfection instead of accepting a certain degree of failure.
If you were a chief of surgery, would you want all of your doctors to do their best, or would you want them to do it right? Dan, I don't want to argue this because I certainly see your point. I can also see where this can probably be a big confidence booster to the self-taught shooter. I just can't imagine an outfit calling themselves the Personal Defense Network essentially telling you that second best is good enough.
I agree that we should strive to get things perfect, but that may not be achieved in one or two range sessions.
I've seen people try to teach firearms to someone else, and because the student did not perform, the student quit because they could not meet the teacher's standard.
In competition (IDPA or IPSC), if one hits the "center of mass" all the time, then it is said that they are shooting too slow. But at the same time, if bullets are all over the target, then they are shooting too fast. There has to be a balance determined to establish a level of competency and improvement.
If that means that my spouse can group 10" at 75 feet every time, I will not say she is doing bad, but there is room for improvement. That is better than most who go out and shoot 50 rounds and don't look to improve, and lament that they do not have more rounds to hear the gun go "bang".
I want a firearm to be as accurate as possible to compensate for my inaccuracy. I can not consistently duplicate in the field what I can do on the bench. If the firearm is 3 moa and I am 3 moa, we could have a clean miss at 300 yards.
I think some are reading too much into this. It's not about lowering expectation in shooting exactly.
I would say you need to have an accuracy goal on mind and see if you meet that goal. A 5" group
Out if a pistol caliber carbine at 100 yds may be all that someone " needs" because that represents the outside edge of the distance they plan to shoot as well as accounting for the power level of the cartridge, and cost if gaining more precision.
Military sets accuracy requirements for mass produced weapons and ammo at one level, and another standard for specialized weapons and ammo, such as designated marksman rifles, sniper rifles, and ammo. They don't need every infantry rifle and round to meet a 1 MOA standard to take a combatant out of a fight at typical fighting distances. But when using scoped rifles to more precisely engage specific threats, the standards are higher.
A snub nosed revolver or pocket auto for pocket carry to be used inside of 15 yds does not have the same accuracy requirements as a bullseye pistol that is used to hit bullseyes at 50 yds. To get the standard of hits in the "9 ring" on a full size silhouette with a pocket gun under pressure at 10 yds mag still require someone to push themselves in a controlled circumstance with a pocket gun and defensive ammo.
Also, when considering speed, vs. precision, there can be room for some compromise in precision. Is it more important to get 1, 2, or three torso hits quickly, or to take too much time trying to hit a button on a shirt and take hits yourself?
So there are appropriate times to set "acceptable accuracy standards" that don't equate to lowering a persons performance standards.
I think that was the central point the video was trying to make. I wouldn't expect someone in a rifle match on the 600 yd line, to think that 5" 100 yd hits at going to get good results at 600 yds.
at no point should anyone accept failure, but realistically it happens. we should use failure to improve our methods and our performance.
placing shots where you intend for them to be is being accurate. not everyone can acheive the same level for many reasons.
personally, when i shoot a pistol at 10-15 yards, a 2-3" group is my measure of accuracy. anything beyond 4-5" groups at the same distance are unacceptable to me, and means i need to improve in some way. either my methods or my equipment.
My response to the video and the suggestions made in it are based on the fact that it was put out by The Personal Defense Network. From their name I am guessing they are in the business of training you for a potential life or death response. This is why I have a problem with the advice offered in the video. Going into it with an attitude that accepts 'good enough' just seems counterproductive.
Remember, the PDN is really no different than any other commercial entity.
The mission is to part you and your hard earned money. A couple of "teasers" on youtube and people want to attend.
Good point. Very good.
With that 2-3 inch group I'm going to assume they are also pretty close to where you want them. If that's so, that's pretty good shooting for a handgun, and you should be pleased with that. If that 2-3 inch group was up near the shoulder on a standard B27 target I'm betting you wouldn't be as pleased unless that was your point of aim.
Taking this guys acceptable limits, you could hit the 9 ring line top, bottom, and both sides, and call it accurate shooting. I doubt either one of us would be pleased with that at all. A few days of hitting like that and I would be down at the LGS looking for a new sidearm and some snap caps to fit it.
IMO, simply put, it's a personal standard for how you shoot, VS
how well you want to shoot.
I also find my accuracy with certain firearms to be
acceptable, and others, less than acceptable.
For crying out loud! Stop dismissing information because someone might make money of it. What do you do to "part" people of their hard earned money? Does that mean we get to ignore everything you do or say that you get paid for?
Ridiculous. I am so sick of that crap.