Glock Talk banner

If you poo-poo pistol accuracy; I assume you are incapable of it...

15K views 300 replies 92 participants last post by  willie_pete 
#1 ·
I've been reviewing a lot of threads lately regarding accuracy in defensive pistols due to my participation in GSSF indoor matches, which require shooting a stock Glock at 25yds, off-hand.

I've noticed a lot of dismissive comments by a number of people whenever someone asks about accuracy.

The most common comments are things like, "Glocks(or any defensive handgun) are defensive pistols and there is no need for it to be accurate beyond 7-10yds..." "Glocks aren't accurate", "Glocks are more accurate than most shooters", "all ammo is more accurate than most shooters", "you need to practice and train rather than worry about accuracy", etc...

Of course common sense tells most of us that there are legitimate reasons for wishing to get the most accuracy out of our pistols as possible.

Common sense says that most shootings are at less than 10yds and that is the distance you should be most proficient at with your defensive handgun.

But common sense also says that defensive handguns are used for more than simply shooting quickly at 7-10yds and increased accuracy is a preferred trait in some applications. Some of us simply enjoy the challenge of making the smallest groups possible with their defensive handguns.

Which is why there are a number of threads focused on the accuracy potential of handguns and their ammunition.

And in every thread there are the previously mentioned comments.

I know that 98% of people posting here aren't mentally retarded and are able to read English and understand what has just been communicated.

So why make comments that defy common sense and in a lot of cases insult or attack the person asking about accuracy?

My theory is because those people can't shoot worth a damn and have such an inferiority complex about it that they feel the need to attack and belittle others.

Or they make excuses as to why pursuing greater accuracy is a waste of time.

Their excuses and comments are so transparent that it's laughable and pathetic.

So, when someone is asking about accuracy and you feel inadequate and your manhood threatened by your lack of shooting skills, please refrain from making idiotic comments in those threads.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I hear you, but I think there are some legit differences between the inherent accuracy of pistols and some are definitely harder to shoot well than others.

For example - I used to shoot a lot of fun steel matches where you had to shoot a 6" plate at distances up to 50 yards to stop the clock. Easy peasy with a 1911 (for me) - you may well starve to death waiting for me to hit the same target with my 19. Now that comparison is more about my comfort and skill with a 1911 and lack thereof with the Glock. However, it is also true that when shot off a bench and bags, the 1911 is much more accurate than the Glock. In this case and these pistol copies, it's not just me.
 
#3 ·
I too like pushing the limits of 25 yard accuracy. If you can shoot well at 25, you can shoot well at 7, but the opposite isn't necessarily true.

Think about it in terms of strength training - would you only lift 5lbs your whole life if you could lift more than 50lbs? How about working from 5 towards 50?
 
#5 ·
It is true that a defensive pistol need not be as accurate beyond 7 to 10 yards as a pistol designed to maximize accuracy. However, I see no reason why a pistol that is accurate at those distances wouldn't be accurate at a greater distance, provided the shooter does his part.

So while I don't see any great need to shoot my defensive pistol beyond 7 yards, I have no doubt that if I couldn't get a decent group at 25 yards, it would be my fault, not the pistol's.
 
#17 ·
I recommend shooting from contact distance out to at least 25 yards. Even if there was NO chance of ever shooting that far in self-defense, shooting farther improves your skills, shows problems with your fundamentals and give you confidence.

I recently participated in some rifle shooting, where we took stock, well worn M16A2's off the rack, got 10 rounds to zero them at 100 yards, then fired them at B27 silhouettes, with an x-ring smaller than your hand, ot to 500 yards. We may not have hit much (top score in the main match was 185 out of 500, but a 20-year President's Hundred tabbed shooter), but at the end everybody talked about the amount of skill they had gained for shooting 300 yards, like we usually do, and the confidence they had gained. This is just from doing it, with no real instruction involved.
 
#9 ·
I think it really boils down to experience.

If you've only owned and shot rack grade pistols, you simply wouldn't know, and don't know, how well you can actually shoot, if equipped with a more accurate hand gun.

Of course if you suck, a super duper target gun isn't going to help. Conversely, a rack grade gun in the hands of a master target shooter, isn't going to punch ragged holes at 20 yards.

However, the experienced serious target shooter knows the difference, and the average shooter doesn't.

Tony
 
#14 · (Edited)
If you want to test/confirm the accuracy of your pistol, remove the human factor and shoot it using a Ransom Bench Rest or the like. Then try to shoot to the pistol's capability.

Most guns are more capable than the shooter but then there are some guns that won't shoot right. You need to find out which pistol you have.
 
#22 ·
Many years ago I was teaching a new-hire/transition pistol familiarization class for some guys we'd just hired. All of them had come from agencies where they'd carried other pistols (and we'd not yet returned to authorizing various personally-owned weapons as optional duty weapons). Everyone we hired was issued a 59XX series 9mm and had to carry it.

During the range live-fire portion of the class a couple of the guys were having some minor difficulties in trigger control and accuracy. There was some good natured joking and grumbling about having to learn to use a "new" make/model of pistol, which is expected (and not necessarily a bad thing, if it doesn't get out of hand).

Well, it got a little much with at least one of the guys. He was producing at least volleyball sized groups at 7yds, when firing slowly, for accuracy/familiarization (and larger, when shooting out farther). As he experienced some ribbing from his peers, he started to blame it all on the gun, and he wasn't quiet about it, knowing I was listening to him. Now, from some questions I'd asked him, it seemed that he'd not had similar trouble with his previous duty weapon, and as a lateral-hire, it wasn't like he was a "rookie" who hadn't been required to qualify for at least a few years. He even seemed somewhat proud of his skill with his previous duty weapon (think plastic).

Okay, it's not impossible for a particular older service pistol to have become damaged, or have its sights knocked out of alignment, so I asked if I could examine his gun (while not yet disagreeing with his claims of it being the "gun"). I didn't see anything immediately obvious with the gun, nor it's sights, so I decided to fire it myself to see if it was "off" for me. It might be, as those guns were approx 12+ years old at that time, and they looked "well used".

It seemed to shoot reasonably accurately, in my hands.

We were all standing at about 7yds from the line of targets at that moment, which back then were hanging by malleable, somewhat thick gauge wire hooked in the cardboard backboards. I aimed at one of the wires holding up the cardboard backboard and pressed off a shot ... causing that side of the cardboard to fall, as the wire was hit and torn out of the cardboard. (I actually thought it would take at least another shot to hit the wire.)

Well, we weren't really there for me to show off, so I stopped shooting and handed the gun back to the young man, and told him the sights appeared to be adequate for a service pistol, for out needs. I think I even offered to exchange duty weapons with him, if he thought it would make a difference. Lots of folks seem to think instructors, especially those who are also armorers, get some "special" guns, or some such nonsense ... but we just take the time to clean, lube and generally maintain them as intended. Presuming a good quality gun, in good condition and repair, using good quality factory ammunition appropriate to the gun ... it's almost always the shooter who determines the "practical accuracy" of the gun's performance.

His friends really started teasing him, and his excuse, in a good way, and he started laughing, himself. We got back to business ... and the young man got down to business, and his accuracy began to quickly improve. He apparently just needed to pay some attention to applying his previously learned skills to the different gun. (As do we all, when first learning a new make/model.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: -JCN-
#23 ·
Pistol accuracy is somewhat important, but being able to shoot a 2 inch group at 25 yards is less important in a self defense situation than being able to draw and shoot quickly and accurately at closer distances. I carry a pistol for self defense, not to shoot tight groups at longer distances. Just my opinion.
 
#82 ·
Pistol accuracy is somewhat important, but being able to shoot a 2 inch group at 25 yards is less important in a self defense situation than being able to draw and shoot quickly and accurately at closer distances. I carry a pistol for self defense, not to shoot tight groups at longer distances. Just my opinion.
How close will a bad guy get to you before you decide to deploy the "Final Option"?

Bad guys improve their 'hit ratio' as you let them get closer. An acquaintance let a robber get too close and while the bad guy died the good guy took a round thru the neck and fortunately it missed the spine and the carotid.

Now when it comes to Situational Awareness the Glock Commander has a Masters and a PhD in it. An armed person should know how to survive, 'fight or flight', tunnel vision, mindset, etc, etc.
 
#25 ·
I don't believe in 7-10 yards as a maximum training distance for a pistol. I have been shooting outdoors for 6 years, now. Pushing my targets out, and adding multiple targets for transitions.

My friend with whom I shoot, pushes me to shoot my pistols further and further. 50 yards isn't out of the realm of possibility.

I have become complacent recently with shooting steel, and I have been frequently repainting steel/shooting paper to tighten my groups.

A Glock will still be more accurate than the shooter who wields it. That goes for any handgun. Same goes for Snubnosed revolvers which I have been pushing further and further away from me. That is not a 7 yard gun, either. I have been able to shoot one out to 50 yards, also.

People can tend to blame the equipment, though. Additionally, there is not enough emphasis on testing different ammunition to see what is most accurate in a particular pistol.


Instagram: MuzzleblastMD
 
#28 ·
I've been reviewing a lot of threads lately regarding accuracy in defensive pistols due to my participation in GSSF indoor matches, which require shooting a stock Glock at 25yds, off-hand.

I've noticed a lot of dismissive comments by a number of people whenever someone asks about accuracy.

The most common comments are things like, "Glocks(or any defensive handgun) are defensive pistols and there is no need for it to be accurate beyond 7-10yds..." "Glocks aren't accurate", "Glocks are more accurate than most shooters", "all ammo is more accurate than most shooters", "you need to practice and train rather than worry about accuracy", etc...

Of course common sense tells most of us that there are legitimate reasons for wishing to get the most accuracy out of our pistols as possible.

Common sense says that most shootings are at less than 10yds and that is the distance you should be most proficient at with your defensive handgun.

But common sense also says that defensive handguns are used for more than simply shooting quickly at 7-10yds and increased accuracy is a preferred trait in some applications. Some of us simply enjoy the challenge of making the smallest groups possible with their defensive handguns.

Which is why there are a number of threads focused on the accuracy potential of handguns and their ammunition.

And in every thread there are the previously mentioned comments.

I know that 98% of people posting here aren't mentally retarded and are able to read English and understand what has just been communicated.

So why make comments that defy common sense and in a lot of cases insult or attack the person asking about accuracy?

My theory is because those people can't shoot worth a damn and have such an inferiority complex about it that they feel the need to attack and belittle others.

Or they make excuses as to why pursuing greater accuracy is a waste of time.

Their excuses and comments are so transparent that it's laughable and pathetic.

So, when someone is asking about accuracy and you feel inadequate and your manhood threatened by your lack of shooting skills, please refrain from making idiotic comments in those threads.
You may have already stated it, but what model of Glock are you shooting. I only shoot 9mm because of the standardized ammo theory. I'd rather have a stash of 10,000 of one caliber rather than some of this and some of that. Have just 9mm 5.56 and .308
 
#29 ·
Been shooting a long time and did most of my target shooting in my younger days in bullseye competition. Still do some bullseye even today. Once practiced with a competition grade pistol sub three inch groups off hand ( using only one hand) in the sub 2 inch range at 25 yards are well within the realm of possibility.
My testing of glocks shows they are 2-3" at 25 yard capable. While some other designs ( tuned 1911's, target grade 22's and most high quality revolvers) tend to continue to shoot good groups to fifty yards and beyond at least in my hands tight accurate groups out of a glock beyond 25 yards are very hard to achieve. While participating in a police match with a 50 yard stage keeping groups inside 5 inches at 50 yards was very doable with the 1911's and revolvers but the best I could do ( gssf master) with a glock at fifty was about 10" and it took every ounce of effort in concentration and trigger control to do it. While a perfectly adequate defensive pistol the glock is simply not the proper tool for any sort of repeatable accuracy beyond 25 yards
 
#31 ·
I've been reviewing a lot of threads lately regarding accuracy in defensive pistols due to my participation in GSSF indoor matches, which require shooting a stock Glock at 25yds, off-hand.

I've noticed a lot of dismissive comments by a number of people whenever someone asks about accuracy.

The most common comments are things like, "Glocks(or any defensive handgun) are defensive pistols and there is no need for it to be accurate beyond 7-10yds..." "Glocks aren't accurate", "Glocks are more accurate than most shooters", "all ammo is more accurate than most shooters", "you need to practice and train rather than worry about accuracy", etc...

Of course common sense tells most of us that there are legitimate reasons for wishing to get the most accuracy out of our pistols as possible.

Common sense says that most shootings are at less than 10yds and that is the distance you should be most proficient at with your defensive handgun.

But common sense also says that defensive handguns are used for more than simply shooting quickly at 7-10yds and increased accuracy is a preferred trait in some applications. Some of us simply enjoy the challenge of making the smallest groups possible with their defensive handguns.

Which is why there are a number of threads focused on the accuracy potential of handguns and their ammunition.

And in every thread there are the previously mentioned comments.

I know that 98% of people posting here aren't mentally retarded and are able to read English and understand what has just been communicated.

So why make comments that defy common sense and in a lot of cases insult or attack the person asking about accuracy?

My theory is because those people can't shoot worth a damn and have such an inferiority complex about it that they feel the need to attack and belittle others.

Or they make excuses as to why pursuing greater accuracy is a waste of time.

Their excuses and comments are so transparent that it's laughable and pathetic.

So, when someone is asking about accuracy and you feel inadequate and your manhood threatened by your lack of shooting skills, please refrain from making idiotic comments in those threads.
I am way more accurate if I use a bench rest.
I'm more accurate if I take a few seconds per shot and really focus on my breathing and trigger pull.
I'm more accurate if I use a pistol with a long sight radius and a full size grip.
I'm more accurate with two hand strong.

For a self defense application, I imagine there is a trade off of speed and accuracy. Speed without accuracy is pretty worthless. But accuracy without being able to get each shot off in under two seconds may not be a great self-defense application, no?

So like most things in life (IMHO) it's a balance of speed and accuracy for a particular application. Ideally you'd like both. Extremes of either alone may not be worth very much.

Been shooting a long time and did most of my target shooting in my younger days in bullseye competition. Still do some bullseye even today. Once practiced with a competition grade pistol sub three inch groups off hand ( using only one hand) in the sub 2 inch range at 25 yards are well within the realm of possibility.
My testing of glocks shows they are 2-3" at 25 yard capable. While some other designs ( tuned 1911's, target grade 22's and most high quality revolvers) tend to continue to shoot good groups to fifty yards and beyond at least in my hands tight accurate groups out of a glock beyond 25 yards are very hard to achieve. While participating in a police match with a 50 yard stage keeping groups inside 5 inches at 50 yards was very doable with the 1911's and revolvers but the best I could do ( gssf master) with a glock at fifty was about 10" and it took every ounce of effort in concentration and trigger control to do it. While a perfectly adequate defensive pistol the glock is simply not the proper tool for any sort of repeatable accuracy beyond 25 yards
^Great post. Some of the trade off of Glock accuracy is for reliability, I think. I'll gladly take that in a self defense pistol. So I wouldn't spend time working on trying to hit 2" groups at 50 yards. I'd be working on maintaining accuracy at faster speeds (which is a way of pursuing accuracy) at ranges I'd like to be proficient (7-20 yards).
 
#32 ·
I've been reviewing a lot of threads lately regarding accuracy in defensive pistols due to my participation in GSSF indoor matches, which require shooting a stock Glock at 25yds, off-hand.

I've noticed a lot of dismissive comments by a number of people whenever someone asks about accuracy.

The most common comments are things like, "Glocks(or any defensive handgun) are defensive pistols and there is no need for it to be accurate beyond 7-10yds..." "Glocks aren't accurate", "Glocks are more accurate than most shooters", "all ammo is more accurate than most shooters", "you need to practice and train rather than worry about accuracy", etc...

Of course common sense tells most of us that there are legitimate reasons for wishing to get the most accuracy out of our pistols as possible.

Common sense says that most shootings are at less than 10yds and that is the distance you should be most proficient at with your defensive handgun.

But common sense also says that defensive handguns are used for more than simply shooting quickly at 7-10yds and increased accuracy is a preferred trait in some applications. Some of us simply enjoy the challenge of making the smallest groups possible with their defensive handguns.

Which is why there are a number of threads focused on the accuracy potential of handguns and their ammunition.

And in every thread there are the previously mentioned comments.

I know that 98% of people posting here aren't mentally retarded and are able to read English and understand what has just been communicated.

So why make comments that defy common sense and in a lot of cases insult or attack the person asking about accuracy?

My theory is because those people can't shoot worth a damn and have such an inferiority complex about it that they feel the need to attack and belittle others.

Or they make excuses as to why pursuing greater accuracy is a waste of time.

Their excuses and comments are so transparent that it's laughable and pathetic.

So, when someone is asking about accuracy and you feel inadequate and your manhood threatened by your lack of shooting skills, please refrain from making idiotic comments in those threads.
Whew, I'm glad you got all that off your chest...
 
#34 ·
I use all handguns I own for hunting and general purpose sidearms.
If they are not accurate enough for hitting my intended target they will be sold /traded period!
For me they must be able to to place the bullet where the sights are when trigger breaks.
Isn't accuracy the name of the game with any firearm?

Ammo can make a HUGE difference in accuracy in any firearm.


I would wager a guess that the guys complaining of this or that handgun not being accurate would also say same thing shooting a specialty pistol capable of under .5" groups @100 yds.

There are also the " if i can't do it ... no one can" group.
I'm sure lots of handgun shooters cannot hit a gong at 80 yds much less 240 yds with a Glock or any handgun as hickok45 demonstrates is possible.
IIRC he does not do better with a 1911 vs Glock either.

Glock as well as most all handguns are capable of accuracy beyond most shooters ability.
 
#35 · (Edited)
Accuracy, both shooter accuracy and the accuracy of the pistol are very important if you are trying to hit the off switch of a determined adversary.

The spine is what, 2 inches wide?

I have no choice but to be limited by my skill. I do choose not to be limited any more than necessary by my equipment.

Secondarily, I probably won't get to choose my fight, someone else will do this, whether it's at 3 yards or 33 yards.

Regards,
Happyguy :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top