I am still having a reallllllly hard time visualizing a Glock producing 1-2" groups at 100 yds. Show me some please. Not one off groups. Consistent groups. I firmly believe that it just aint so.
Can a Glock be a Precision tool?
- Thread starter GunGuy34
- Start date
I am still having a reallllllly hard time visualizing a Glock producing 1-2" groups at 100 yds. Show me some please. Not one off groups. Consistent groups. I firmly believe that it just aint so.
I think that would be fairly uncommon. I don't think many Glocks would reliably print much better than 6-8" at that distance, although I could be wrong.
But that is far beyond the abilities of the average gun owner. Glocks easily exceed the accuracy requirements of most gun owners, and even most shooters.
But that is far beyond the abilities of the average gun owner. Glocks easily exceed the accuracy requirements of most gun owners, and even most shooters.
The real question here is, why? Who cares what a pistol can do at 100 yards. Thats far beyond its effective range, its outside nearly all shooters ability to make even marginal(50% or better) hits and even good ammo for a handgun is nowhere near as consistent as quality rifle ammo as there's no need for "precision" at normal handgun distances.
TDC
I didn't say it was possible, go back and read my first post in this thread.
The standard of 2-4" at 100 yards is, IMO, a reasonable standard to determine if a pistol is within the realm of a 'precision' instrument. I also mentioned that to determine if a pistol is a precision instrument, you'd really have to put it in some sort of vice and shoot it.
Is it just me, or does no one on CGN seem capable of reading/understanding anymore? No one seems to be able to understand the difference between a person being a precision shooter and a gun being a precision shooter. Your off hand groups at 15 yards have NOTHING to do with a pistols inherent accuracy.
Like I already said, the OP wasn't asking if glocks are 'accurate' he was asking if they were precision tools. Precision tools IMO means the highest degree of accuracy.
If the consensus is that shooting consistant groups at 100 yards of 1" or less makes a handgun a precision instrument then a Glock isn't going to be in that group, out of a vice, ransom rest or wrapped in grandpa Nick's underwear. Anyone here who claims to be able to do it with their Glock is on drugs or should be.
Out of a Ransom rest at 25 yards achieving an accuracy level of 1" is beyond the capabilities of most, (all) semi-autos with most, (all) ammunition. Handguns that will do that are IMHO precision instruments and those who can do it hand held are Olympic level shooters.
Hitting a 8" x 11" paper target at 100 yards isn't the same as shooting 1" group at that distance nor is hitting a large gong randomly at 200 yards the same, though both are impressive. More so if they are hand held.
Aside from the mechanical limitations on accuracy semi-autos bring to the table the ballistic coefficient shape of most handgun bullets are not condusive to accuracy over long distances. I suspect most here realize this or should. There is a reason why rifles are so popular.
Take Care
Bob
ps For those with ballistic tables take a look at what the drop is for a 125 gr 9mm bullet at 200 yards.
Out of a Ransom rest at 25 yards achieving an accuracy level of 1" is beyond the capabilities of most, (all) semi-autos with most, (all) ammunition. Handguns that will do that are IMHO precision instruments and those who can do it hand held are Olympic level shooters.
Hitting a 8" x 11" paper target at 100 yards isn't the same as shooting 1" group at that distance nor is hitting a large gong randomly at 200 yards the same, though both are impressive. More so if they are hand held.
Aside from the mechanical limitations on accuracy semi-autos bring to the table the ballistic coefficient shape of most handgun bullets are not condusive to accuracy over long distances. I suspect most here realize this or should. There is a reason why rifles are so popular.
Take Care
Bob
ps For those with ballistic tables take a look at what the drop is for a 125 gr 9mm bullet at 200 yards.
This is all so true and well said, unlike some.
A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both.
Accuracy would be in reference to a measurement system, measuring the value to the measure of "true" value. Precision is the measurement of accuracy, more so the ability to reproduce the same test with the same results repeatedly under the same conditions.
In absolute terms, your comparison is not valid at all because your not comparing rifle to pistol using the same methods, you are estimating based on results from 15/25 or 50 meters what the actual 100 yard results would be and not even considering the other factors that come into play IE ballistics, windage, humidity, speed, gravity... your essentially ruling out all concepts of ballistics with it. This completely undermines the concepts of the accuracy and precision.
Precision can be stated as being able to shoot an 8" gong at 180 yards, if you do that consistently with a glock than yes it is a precision instrument. Your sights being on the 10 ring, and putting a bullet there is accuracy, your ability to put 10 bullets in that same x ring is precision.
Minute Of Arc is an actual "valid" unit of measurement, it is extremely accurate and precise because it has an established criteria. Applying it to a distance of less than 100 meters is simply irrelevant, especially when talking about the instrument. Handguns were never designed or intended to take shots at 200 and 300 yards, just because they can doesn't mean we should start measuring them in c-hairs. The results become to vast to be accurate and precise, therefore they are not valid and can't be MOA. If a pistols test was to put 5 shots in a 1" group at 100 yards, and it can do this repeatedly, then you can claim MOA.
LOL
Last edited:
mudgunner49
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Wow - very un-cool. Try to show a modicum of class.
And you actually expected a discussion to stay on-topic throughout??? You got some pretty good answers, take Bruce Lee's advice and adopt what's useful and disregard the rest...
And you actually expected a discussion to stay on-topic throughout??? You got some pretty good answers, take Bruce Lee's advice and adopt what's useful and disregard the rest...
In what sense is it no longer a topic?
People are continuing to discuss the nature of precision shooting with a handgun. If you don't like or understand the discussion any more, that is your problem. Nobody needs your permission to continue the conversation.
ya know i really dont like you very much, i think your a mr know it all. However, your right, and i can admit when im wrong. Was having one too many last night, my apologies as it was inappropriate.
- Location
- santas workshop
Who cares about this thread in the end we all know 1911's are better...
