[kilogulf59]

For you, what constitutes acceptable combat accuracy?

Personally, for unsighted fire a 12” x 18” zone and for sighted fire an 8” circle at any given distance.

 

[EagleSix]

ac·cept·a·ble – adjective
~ meeting only minimum requirements; barely adequate: an acceptable performance.

During combat any shot placement becomes a “forced acceptance”. Assuming ( I know that is a dangerous word! ) you are talking about what is the minimum accuracy accomplished during training/practice…..I think what type of shot you are speaking of, has a lot to do with my satisfaction of the placement.

If we are talking about a cold draw from concealment with two hits on a oblique stationery paper silhouette target at 3-5 yards in 1.5 seconds, I would probably be happy if both shots were placed on the face and touching the nose. If both shots were touching (as in clovers) and both were touching the nose I would be even happier, but would consider this accuracy to only be barely acceptable.

If however I’m shooting on the move ( and if I’m not behind cover I’m almost always on the move ) and the target is on the move either as in rotating, ducting, or making lateral or forward/rearward movements, I would like those same two hits within the same distance and same time frame to be in-line with the internal organ I have targeted and within an inch of intended placement, and I’m going to be very happy.

Actually I have never been content or satisfied with even my best performance during training or combat. I know I am capable of doing better and strive to improve.

The more stringent I am during training and the more reality I include during training, the less my accuracy will suffer during a fight. During combat my accuracy is final and unrepeatable, and therefore is "forced to be acceptable", and the results I shall either live or die with.

.

 

[kilogulf59]

"Actually I have never been content or satisfied with even my best performance during training or combat. I know I am capable of doing better and strive to improve."

Nor should you be....however one does need a yardstick.

Pinpoint accuracy is something to strive for but many people don't have the time, money, or facilities (not to mention training) to achieve this. One shoots their various drills and sees where the problems lie then corrects them based upon their individual minimum requirements i.e. acceptable combat accuracy.

 

[EagleSix]

~snip~ Pinpoint accuracy is something to strive for but many people don't have the time, money, or facilities (not to mention training) to achieve this. One shoots their various drills and sees where the problems lie then corrects them based upon their individual minimum requirements i.e. acceptable combat accuracy.

Ken, I absolutely agree. Whatever standard or yardstick of performance an individual uses to evaluate their own acceptable level of hit performance is their choice. I don't judge or criticize them, I simply stated mine.

We all make decisions to allocate our available time and resources. I base mine on past experiences, reality based learning, and reasonable accomplishable goals. I don't expect others to accept my standards of performance, they should adopt their own. For me acceptability is a mindset driven by results as linked to reality based training or actual conflict outcome.

My combat accuracy is based on the probable damage to body organ(s), bofy parts or life sustaining functions for which any of the projectile(s) I fired during a given scenario would have likely accomplished in a given time frame during the progression of the conflict, as best could be determined.

When I first started shooting many, many years ago I would visit the range and shoot maybe 300-400 rounds in a session and remember the 75-80% of hits in center-of-mass and quickly forgetting the others. As I progressed in my training and gained more insight, instead of blasting away with little regard to foundation, I would fire 50 quality rounds striving for near perfection regardless of the time spent. Later when I had the opportunity ( or misfortune! ) to utilize my skills in combat I came to the rapid conclusion my effectiveness was based on a single projectile at a time, regardless of the rate of fire between single projectiles in the shortest time frame obtainable. Rather than think of the accuracy performance in zones, groups or areas, I think of a body organ, part or function which I want my projectile to destroy.

During training I setup a scenario and place a time limit based on the various elements. Some are simple and many are very complex. My combat accuracy is based on reaching my goals/results given the particular scenario I face. When finished, I evaluate my performance always giving my opponent(s) the benefit of the doubt. Getting several good hits in the “A” zone of a IDPA or silhouette target is not really considered. What I do consider and evaluate is the likely hood of organ damage, body part damage, or life function being disrupted, from each of the projectile(s) fired from what ever angle I was at when fired, during the various maneuvers of the scenario.

So my method and mindset to evaluate my acceptable combat accuracy may be different from others. I don’t feel my method diminishes the value of other shooters methods of standards, nor vise-versa. It simply means it’s different and I feel it works for me.

.

 

[Dgunsmith]

To Survive ?

5 rounds.....into 5 inches.....at 5 feet......in 5 seconds !

 

[45_Storm]

For a pistol, in a range of 5-25 meters, an 8" shot group (think body shot kill zone) is my minimum standard.

For a carbine, in a range of 50-100 meters, a 12" group is my minimum standard, and that's a very, very bad day.

Of course, these are rapid fire, 5-8 shots per group, standing, unsupported, and (when the practice area/range allows) while moving. I'm not a big fan of leaving myself as a still target.

For anything belt-fed or crew served, for every second of fire, something hits the ground dead. Any range, any caliber. Period. (I love belt fed weapons.)