Glock 17 - groups

[TDC]

"Shooting from the bag will as i mentioned before, eliminate the human error factor, which is what you're trying to observe and correct. Prone/supported shooting is the easiest and most accurate because it eliminates/mitigates the human error factor. Which makes diagnosing errors from a prone/supported position next to useless."

It sure helps to determine if your sights are aligned to the ammo you are using.

I have shot Winchester White Box from a rest that wouldn't hold 5" at 15 yards. It was the ammo not the gun.

Hardly a useless exercise TDC. For reloaders developing accurate loads is one of the major benefits of our hobby and such activities extend to handguns as well as rifles.

Take Care

Bob

The whole "find a load your pistol likes" comments are bullsh*t. Any variance in ammo will be so minute as to be covered up by the shooters inconsistencies. I will say the same for handloads, although my experience with them is limited( a buddy reloads, I don't). All rounds I've shot or my buddy has shot has performed as advertised. Different bullet styles, weights, and powder charges had zero effect on our abilities to put rounds where we wanted.

Check the link below. Not the be all to end all of testing and information but it flys in the face of "work up or find a load your gun likes" believers.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/edu6.htm

TDC

 

[PH Racing]

Lol maybe YOUR inconsistencies cover it up.

 

[Slavex]

You're quoting a website that went out to a whole 40ft? Wow, really? Then glossing over the fact that they admit to seeing an accuracy difference even at that short range? Awesome dude. The more you flap your gums the more you prove that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Canuck44]

TDC you really are a piece of work. Based upon your last post I now know you have zero knowledge of what you speak. You might want to spend more time listening then talking...you might learn something.

"Any variance in ammo will be so minute as to be covered up by the shooters inconsistencies. TDC Dec/10"

I think I'll print that one out and hang it over my reloading bench. Thanks.

Take Care

Bob

 

[TDC]

You're quoting a website that went out to a whole 40ft? Wow, really? Then glossing over the fact that they admit to seeing an accuracy difference even at that short range? Awesome dude. The more you flap your gums the more you prove that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

What kind of accuracy are we talking here? I didn't see any of the groups from the link I posted that wouldn't fit on a man's face or inside the A zone on a target with ease. The groups also looked to be quite similar to me. Perhaps sub MOA groups with a pistol is believed to be the norm? Lets not forget that I also put a disclaimer about the site as well. I know their range and methods are far from definitive but it has merit. I would like someone to do the same test with a ransom rest.

TDC

 

[PH Racing]

Lol...I see two things on that link:
1) They are shooting off of sandbags!
2) for only 35 - 40 feet there is a significant difference in the point of impact. At 25m that would likely be only slightly better than 50/50 on hitting the A zone and at 50m it could spell misses on poppers and C/D hits at best if you weren't sighted in for each load

 

[mackattack]

One of the things I like most about the internet is how some people know who various others are in person and some people don't, and so things like this come up. It's funny for those in the know.

It's like when you have a friend who's a doctor, and you're at a party where somebody is mouthing off about how modern medicine sucks. Your friend makes some crack, and the guy says, "what are you, a f**king oncologist?"

You friend could say, "Why yes, I'm the head of oncology at Vancouver General, actually." But he could also say nothing, and everybody who knows what he does for a living will just have a good laugh about it later.

Exactly. Furthermore, It would be a honour to hit the range with WP (or Tim Hortons! lol)

 

[misanthropist]

It was definitely that way for me...I shot a course with him and felt privileged to do so. He is a hell of a good shooter and I'm glad he does what he does for this country.

 

[canuckgunny]

The whole "find a load your pistol likes" comments are bullsh*t. Any variance in ammo will be so minute as to be covered up by the shooters inconsistencies. I will say the same for handloads, although my experience with them is limited( a buddy reloads, I don't). All rounds I've shot or my buddy has shot has performed as advertised. Different bullet styles, weights, and powder charges had zero effect on our abilities to put rounds where we wanted.
............
TDC

Without going into some of the previous off topic arguments....

The OP was asking about group sizes at the range. If you seriously think 'bullet styles, weights, and powder charges' have 'zero effect' on a guys' 'ability to put rounds where' he wants them, you really really really need to sit down with a few guys who know wtf they're doing when it comes to making tight groups using handloads.
I've got some pistol/load combinations that are so terrible they can make a seasoned marksman look like he did little more than 'spray and pray'. Using a good shooter (i dare not say me), and a well balanced load the same pistol will easily group under three inches at 25 yards.
If a new shooter or a shooter with a new pistol is not getting groups they are happy with, I most certainly hope they do not put any weight to your above post. It is absurd to the 'n'th degree for anyone who takes shooting groups with a pistol seriously.

 

[RememberTheSomme]

I think you guys are giving alot of good advice from both or maybe 3 camps. I'm a noob today with a pistol. However i was a pistolero many many moons ago. Everyone used the same ammo so no need to bench your gun, only if you think its crap with the load. When i buy my own factory ammo and handloads i do bench for Group/Gun accuracy as far as my ability. But only for this. Unless you don't understand what a proper sight picture looks like with patridge type sights (then take awhile to look through a perfect sight picture on the bag) , get that gun off the bag and shoot the firearm the way it was intended in the hand. You have to bring all the instruments of the orchestra together in the hand. Grip is everything. Conditioned hand strength and forearm strength add as well. Hand Gun grip consistently is like the consistent trigger squeeze in a rifle. Or that was my concentration and it worked for me. I do see alot more isoceles stances used today because of the type matches being shot so im not sure my modified Weaver with auto/ Isoceles with double action revolver still applies as the art form to be competitive. Handguns require 10 rounds to 1 compared to number of rifle rounds fired downrange to gain equal proficiency. Handgun is more or less instintive type shooting(Close Range "Tactical", LoL we called it Combat) not deliberate like accurate long range rifle fire. My first love was rifle so my overall scores were never the best at 7 meters. As we went back though 15 , 20 , 25 , then the prone at 50 well guess what the old instinctive rifle shooter with the strong grip and correct sight picture scores became better ,better ,best everytime on the 11/59. I found the best up close , quick , accurate shooters were the non trained, or practised rifle Marksman. So what i see in pistol matches today i wouldnt be a contender. To be honest that 50yd is not very pratical, with its slow deliberate perfect sight picture squeeze in the prone, but wouldn't have hurt LAPD during that AK-47 shootout. And if you are a good rifle shooter going "Dog Leg", its a different skill set that you definately will have to master.


Sorry guys thats long winded but i see so much good in everyone argument. Any old DCRA gun club combat shooters fround 25 to 30 years ago see pistol the way i do or has everyone evolved into what works o nthese matches today.