What Constitutes "Acceptable Combat Accuracy"?

[ButlerFord45]

Killing time and looking through a few gun rags, I noticed when a gun doesen't shoot the best the authors frequently proclaim that the gun/ammo combination in question gives "acceptable combat/defensive accuracy".   Typical B/S suckup to the sponsor of the article being written.   However, it did get me to wondering what really IS acceptable combat/defensive accuracy.   Obviously one hole at 50 yards would be wonderful, but these pistols and ammo configurations are not what any of us would/did carry into combat and I'd bet a cup of coffee that none of us would be willing to carry them concealed on a daily baises.   Is 2" at 25 yards acceptable?   How about 4",  6??   How do you determine your "acceptable combat accuracy" standard?

[strider72]

With medium size 9/40/45/etc. I think 4" to 5" would be good at 25 yards. With a pocket gun like a P32/P3AT/NAA32/380/etc... center of mass hits at 10 to 15 yards would be good enough... However most defensive shooting happens up close and personal,so be as good as you can be at any distance. I have to work on my 40 yards anyway.

[williamlayton]

That target is going to be moving-acceptable would be to stop the BG so as to finish the scene if necessary.
Blessings

[Bikenut]

I don't know how anyone else decides what is acceptable or not but after understanding that self defense has nothing to do with regular/normal target shooting I put lots of thought into considering that the assailant would be moving and I would be moving so I settled on firing a full magazine as fast as I could pull the trigger while moving side to side and putting all 11 rounds (full mag +1) into center of mass at 21 feet (7yds). I figure that is as close to reality as I can make it under simulated conditions. If I and my gun can do that it should be good enough when needed... I think. The resulting "group" (if it can be called that) is everywhere but still somewhere in the chest/stomach/pelvic areas.

Using that formula I discovered anything more than a 9mm had too much recoil for me to be able to rapid fire and make good hits. I could slow fire larger calibers but I really don't believe I'll have time to slow fire during a bad situation.

The above is just what I personally decided was "acceptable" self defense accuracy.

[FWiedner]

25 yard groups aren't important.  Most "gun-fights" where a sidearm might be of effective use, even in combat, happen inside of 10 yards.  Outside that range, you're probably wasting ammunition.  The incredible sniper-like skill that you display at the range won't really shine through.

You'll be trying REAL HARD to find something to hide behind, your adrenaline level will go through the roof, and your heart will be beating so hard that you will believe that it wants to be somewhere else.

A "well-aimed" six inch group at 25 yards is about a 2.5 inch group at 10 yards, and in combat there ain't no such thing as a well aimed shot.  Lots of rounds get fired, and a very small percentage actually hit what they were intended to.  Your 2.4 inch group could realistically open up to well over 12 inches at 10 yards.

If it shoots straight and launches a round that has the capability of making a big hole every time I pull the trigger, it's good enough for combat.

Just my opinion.

[azmike]

Here's a little exercise our range officers introduced us to last year, and it was a real eye opener:

1.  Cover your rear sight with black electrical tape.
2.  Cover off on your target at 3 yards.
3.  Have a buddy with a stopwatch behind you.  Assume a relaxed stance, or a "field interview", whatever seems natural to you.
4.  When your buddy yells "fire", draw the weapon, and fire three rounds, all in three seconds.
5.  See how many actually hit center mass.
6.  If all is well at 3 yards, move back to seven yards and repeat.

The key here is to practice drawing and punching out from the holster enough that you KNOW you are on target at pistol combat range, just because you have done it so much that muscle memory takes over.  Odds are that when you really need to use your weapon, that first shot is going downrange FAST, and you probably won't be on your sights yet.
On occasion, I will simply stand facing a wall in my home with a clear, safe and empty weapon, and practice a clean draw 50 times slowly, indexing the sights.  Next, do it fast 25 times with your eyes closed, and once you  are punched out, open you eyes and see where your sights are pointed.
The point to all of this is that knowing your equipment and practice is the key to survival, as most quality self defense handguns will produce acceptable accuracy if we do our part.

[strider72]

Heck,I just shoot IPSC...if I am getting good center-of-mass hits at speed then I am happy.

[ButlerFord45]

I guess I didn't get the point of the question across very well.  More simply put, how poorly must a gun shoot before you trade it off because it doesen't  meet your "acceptable combat/defensive accuracy" criteria?

[Mikey]

Butlerford45:  When I carry a sidearm for defensive purposes it must be accurate to point of aim at distances to 25 yds.  I believe the pistol or revolver must group 2" or less at that distance to accomplish that.  This standard is based on hostage rescue situations in which 'rescue shots' must be taken. It is basically means a 25 yd 'eyeball shot'.  My carry sidearms are capable of that with factory ammo.  

If I recall (correctly?) the accuracy requirement for the Government 45 auto was 2-3" at 25 yds with double that at 50 yds, the maximum effective range of the of the combat sidearm (1911 and 1911A1).  That would give you a 4-6" group at 50 yds.  How well most shoot one is something else.   However, a recent American Rifleman article on Sgt. Alvin York clearly described his use of the 1911, quite accurately as I understand, so there might be a good example.

Most of the more highly touted carry guns of the day, as you know because of your recent readings, indicate a lesser standard (don't shoot fer schmidt).  I do not consider a pistol or revolver that groups 4" or larger at 25 yds an acceptable defensive sidearm to my personal standards.  

Now, as to your cup of coffee bet - well,  when I consider the option, there is no option.   I think I can suck up a bit of the lower back pain I have become familiar with over the past 37 yrs, so that cup of coffee might be a nice way to wash down some ibuprophen.  Thankya.  HTH.  Mikey.

[volshooter]

I would have to say that with mouse guns my "sell it" point is anything that won't put all rounds in a paper plate at 20 feet as fast as I can pull the trigger. Like someone said, most of these encounters occur at very close ranges. Full size for me would be a minium of 4-6 inches at 25 yards under free hand conditions. ( 2-3 inch off a rest)  At my age and eyesight these standards will have to do. I know that once the ticker gets a-thumping most groups go to crap anyway. I shoot quite often with LEO pals and their groups are rarely as good as mine. This year I took a whitetail at 16 feet while he was running full tilt at me. What groups...just knock him down before he runs you over... it was self defense officer! Dang sure glad that buck met min. reqiurements. I may go back up in the stand next year.
Rick

[papajohn428]

Face it guys, most guns are a lot more accurate than the shooters that hold them, or Mr. Ransom wouldn't have bothered inventing the Ransom Rest.  Mechanical accuracy vs practical accuracy vs combat accuracy, it's the shooter that matters, not the gun.  I used to think combat accuracy meant 4-5 inches at 25 yards from a solid rest, now I think more about how the shooter deals with the shot.  While some guns are intrinsically more accurate, reliability is still my number one criteria.  Major calibers are still good, but no bullet can drop a bad guy unless you put it where it has to go.  And without regular training and practice, many people would be better served with a baseball bat.  

Personally, I prefer revolvers because I think they're generally more accurate, have better sights, and I shoot them better.  But were I limited to a 45 or Hi-cap 40, I'd not worry too much.  It's the singer, not the song.  :wink:

PJ

[Somerled]

If I can't get six bullets to group inside a 3" circle at 7 yards, it isn't good enough. Most U.S. made revolvers and quite a few semi-autos will do that without fail.

It a pistol shoots a 3" or 4" group from a rest at 25 yds. but does it with no malfunctions, that may be great. If it is tight, groups extremely well but doesn't function reliably, it definitely isn't great.

Of course, an accurate pistol is generally fit up well. A pistol fit up well will usually be more reliable.

[rockbilly]

:roll: In a defensive firearm acceptable accuracy is any shot or group of shots that takes the bad guy out of action.  I don't care if you are aiming for the head and hit him in the knee cap, thats acceptable.  From personal experience, in most cases when an individual is shot the will to continue diminishes somewhat.  A pop in the knee cap should make a fairly still target and allow for a more precise shot to take him out if necessary.

Course you will always find a few individuals that will continue to fight for what ever reason, drugs, booze or adrenalin.  That's the reason for hi-capacity mags.

[papajohn428]

Sorry, but I beg to differ, Rockbilly.  If I aim for the head and hit a kneecap, that bullet could just have easily missed the bad guy by three feet and hit an old lady or a kid down the street.  That's why police trainers stressed "Center of Mass" shooting for so long.  In the heat of the moment even good shooters can miss, and stray bullets are never a good thing.  I don't care if your favorite blaster can shoot 1" groups off a rest, what matters more is what YOU can do with that blaster on a moment's notice with a gallon of adrenaline trashing your motor skills.  Mindset and tactics are a lot more of a factor than "accuracy".  If the gun can shoot into a pie plate at 25 yards, it's good enough.  How you shoot it matters more!

PJ

[rockbilly]

Papajohn I agree with you 100 per cent on the importance of being able to hit a target.  My point is simply, any hit on the bad guy is a good hit.  I would be very hesitant to shoot if there were someone in the line of fire.  This would only happen as a last resort and me being fully aware that my (or a family member's) life was on the line.  I would like to think that any time I pulled my gun with bad intentions that everything would be perfect, I could hit the center of mass and take the threat out.  We all know that in most cases it is not a perfect world and sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do, if it hits the knee cap, oh well.

[rockbilly]

:cry: I discussed this issue with a friend a few days ago, yesterday he sent me the following.........It was taken from "The Clarion-Ledger, a newspaper from Jackson, Ms.

A nine year Jackson police officer was killed Thursday following a gun battle on a city street with a carjacking suspect who also died.

Thomas Catchings, a 41-year-old motorcycle patrol officer, died while in surgery at the University of Mississippi Medical Center.  He'd lost a large amount of blood from a gunshot to the abdomen.

Omar Hampton, 18 of 5551 Shaw Road had been pronounced dead about an hour earlier at the same hospital.  He was shot three times - once in the right shoulder, the left forearm and buttocks, said Hinds County Coroner Sharon Grisham-Stewart.

Catchings had just completed a training session and was on his way home when he heard the APB for the vehicle that had just been carjacked at gun point from a U.S. Postal Employee.  Catchings spotted the vehicle and radioed he was following it.

A short while later the vehicle ran in a ditch, as the driver exited the driver side window he fell to the ground  and started shooting, hitting Catchings in the abdomen with a singe .25 caliber bullet from a distance of approximately 50 feet.   Catchings returned fire hitting the carjacker.  Catchings was not wearing his vest since he had been in training all day.

I didn't wish to open up a bucket of worms with this, but simply to point out the fact that a .25 bullet can kill, even at a distance of 50 feet, and that it is not always necessary to hit center mass to take a bad guy out.  I would like to think I could hit center mass, if need be, and that I would have something larger than the .25.  I don't know what caliber gun Officer Catchings was carrying.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to Officer Catchings family and friends.

[sniperVLS]

sad story.

ofcourse a .25 can kill, but theres no way that id carry one. I wouldnt want to get shot by one, but everyone reacts differently to gun shot wounds, just as animals do. Some guys who are coked up can take several center mass hits to the chest, while others die instantly from smaller calibers.

My uncle and I just got into this argument last night about this. He carries his .32 with him and says I dont "need" to carry my Sig .40, and that I should get something smaller. I beg to differ. We learned that the #1 goal when using your concealed handgun is to stop the person youre shooting at, from doing whatever he was doing or about to do, as fast as possible. I'd rather use a .40 than a .32. But to each his own right?

[rockbilly]

:wink: As an old friend, fishing buddy, and former County District Attorney use to say, "If you have to pull your gun and shoot, then shoot to kill regardless of circumstances, a dead man can't testify against you in court."

[44 Man]

I find that IDPA is a good test of one's shooting ability under 'stress'.  Of course it is not life threatening stress, but you still feel it.  Back to the subject at hand.  My carry guns are for concealed defense but also get used for woods walking, etc, and must be able to handle 'targets of opportunity' also.  I consider that accuracy to be the ability to hit a bunny in the head at 15 to 20 yards; my gun, my ammo, my shooting.  If I don't feel confident with a gun's ability to do that, it goes down the road.  The old eyes are not what they used to be, so I don't sit and shoot little groups all afternoon, but I can still shoot get a fairly decent 3 or 5 shot group at 25 to 40 yards once or twice before eye strain kicks in.  I find that my groups are not as impressive to show my friends (open sights) as they once were, but I can still hit what I want to hit when I need to.  These magazine tester are also getting older and though most won't admit it, they don't shoot as tight of groups as they once did either.  When they report that a gun shoots 3 1/2" to 4" groups at 25 yard off sandbags, that probably isn't the gun's fault.  That same writer could probably shoot 2" or 2 1/2" groups with the same gun when they were in there 20's!  I don't take as much stock in their tests as I used to for that very reason.  If it is a gun I have a desire to own, all I can do is try it myself and see if it shoots accurately enough for me.  44 Man

[JohnClif]

There's just ACCURACY.

Owning a large indoor range and retail gun shop for a decade, I got the chance to shoot nearly every modern handguns (and lots of no-longer-made ones, too!). I have yet to see a brand-new modern handgun that was not defective (in other words, what we'd expect when we'd buy one) have unacceptable accuracy for defensive use out to 50 yards... meaning they'd all shoot within 8" at that distance and do considerably better at closer range. I've never shot a 'first-tier' handgun from one of the industry leaders (Colt, S&W, HK, Glock, Taurus, Beretta, Sig, etc.) that couldn't put 5 shots into a nickel at 7 yards, slow fire. That's intrinsic accuracy. BTW, those first-tier handguns will usually shoot palm-of-hand-sized groups at 25 yards, offhand, slow fire... certainly good enough for that all-important first shot at extended range. But if you're planning on hitting a bad guy with a hostage in the eyeball at 25 yards in real life with your defensive handgun, you need to stop dreaming and come up with a better plan.

Now, intrinsic accuracy and usable accuracy are two different things. Some guns are more ergonomic than others, and some guns are better-suited for defensive use than others. For instance, it will be hard for any shooter to obtain the intrinsic accuracy of, say, a super-light titanium .44 Magnum with full power loads, in a defensive situation. The gun will kick too much, it will hurt too much, and you will flinch too much. That's why such guns-and-ammo combos don't make good self-defense weapons against man or beast. As Dirty Harry said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."

Re some people's reported 'accuracy' tests (shooting as fast as they can and blaming the gun if they miss), that is really a shooting SKILLS test. Don't blame the tool if the user isn't capable. Nevertheless, such a test does point out some valuable information.

First, choose a gun for self-defense that has a minimum level of acceptable power and that you can hit with, under stress, repeatedly. For some, that may be a 10-shot S&W 617 revolver (which, with CCI Stingers, isn't a bad home self-defense gun). For others, that may be a Glock 17. For others, that may be a 5" 1911 shooting 230gr hollow points. And for others, that may be a S&W Airlight shooting .38 Specials. The point is, only hits count. And, it's better to hit with a .22 than miss with a .45... just as it's better to dump a magazine of 9mm into a bad guy than to get one shot off with a .44 Magnum.

Second, if you can't hit when you're firing deliberately in non-stressful conditions, do you think you have a chance of hitting when it's dark, you're scared, and someone's trying to kill you?

Here's a good routine to use when going to the range with one 50-round box of ammo. Fire in 5-shot strings (that gives you ten 'relays'). The first two relays (10 shots) should be spent doing slow fire at 10 to 15 feet, aiming for the center of the bullseye on a standard pistol target. If you can't shoot a one-hole group at this distance, then either your gun is woefully deficient (doubtful) or you are flinching (probable). Line the sights up, press the trigger slowly, and be surprised when the gun goes off. What these two relays do is verify that your shooting technique is solid. Then, start shooting faster. The next two relays, bring the gun up from the low ready position and try to fire five AIMED shots as fast as you can, at 10 to 15 feet, at the center of the bullseye. Your goal should be to get to where you can fire each shot less than 1 second after the previous shot and get one ragged hole. This is important: only shoot fast enough to get center hits, and no faster! After two or three relays (and half the box gone) you should start feeling a rhythm developing and your speed should start increasing. Keep this up, pushing the speed slightly for each additional relay, but NO faster than you can get CENTER hits. For the last relay, bring the gun up from the low ready position and fire five shots just trying to keep them in the center of the paper with a flash sight picture (the bulk silhouette of the gun aligned with the center of the target -- how you'll probably shoot at 10' in a real defensive situation anyway -- but try to at least pick up the front sight).

You'd be surprised at how doing this for a few weeks will help your shooting.

[Don Fischer]

I've alway's had handgun's around but can safely say I'm a rifle shooter. The thing that rifle's and handgun's have in common is that you can't kill what you can't hit! You likely won't even slow it down. So take the human being out of this, which is where I thought the question was aimed originally, and what's acceptable?

Everyone seem's to agree that this is close range business, from 7 to realistically maybe 15 feet. At 25 feet or more thing's aren't developing as fast. And the need to hit someone in the eye at 25 yds would be suspect, that's really quite a long way for combat with handgun's. So it would seem that the outer limit is about 20'. If you draw a circle on the chest it would be about 12" and you have to place all your shot's in that 12" UNDER tremendous STRESS. How good must your handgun shoot at 20' without stress to do this? I think that's the question and the answer is "one hole". It's something that may not be possible but without a well tuned handgun and lot's and lot's of practice, we'll not even come close.

In conclusion I don't think you can put a group size on this question, the handgun shooting 8" group's in highly qualified hand's is much more suitable than a one hole handgun in untrained hand's. Outdoor writers claiming "combat/denfense" accuracy do so because it's safe. They can't describe it and neither can we, althought you guy's have come a lot closer.

Really like John Clif's post!!!!!!!

[JJ79]

I think Fweidner & Mickey both made some valid points...
1) the smallest group you can shoot with your pistol is going to double or even triple in size under combat conditions, especially at greater distances.

2) with that in mind, whatever you're shooting had better shoot pretty decent (4"-5") groups, since realistically you'll be shooting 2 to 3 times that size (12" or so)

That said, I think JohnClif has the best answer...there's a BIG difference between "intrinsic" & "useable" accuracy; great post John, and thanks for the practice advice!!  

[S.S.]

If I could not score at least a 98
out of 100 on our qualification course
with it, I would not carry it.
We fired at 3-7-15 and 25 yards.
I shot in competition for many years
and quickly found that no matter how
accurate the weapon is, There is no substitute
for practice. To me, acceptable combat accuracy
is 1 big ragged hole center body mass. If the
gun \ shooter combination is not capable of doing that
at 25 yards, they need to practice together more.
Some one in a previous post made the point
that in a situation where deadly force is called for,
that adrenalin and fear will really come into play.
I can tell you from experience that is a true statement.
So you better be able to cut center most of the
time in practice. If not you may be in real trouble
once that adrenaline and fear hits.

[Mikey]

trank - you said 'Check out the FBI''s Uniform Crime Report. It says that over half of the GUN fights are at 10 ft and less. So, 70% of the time, you can't legally fire at more than 10 ft, and half of the remaining time, that is the distance you will fire at. So, 85% of the time, you will fire at 10 ft or less. That's of the 10% of the time that you have to fire, as vs the 90% of the time that all you have to do is show the attacker your gun and determination to kill him. A "bluff" works at pretty much any range'.

"70% of the time you can't legally fire at more than 10'.  That's about the worst stretch of inductive logic and probably the worst advice I have ever heard.  I can't think of anyone who wouldn't be dead if they followed that advice, and I think the entire state of Florida may agree with me - you no longer have to retreat from a deadly threat in Florida, they just passed the law that allows you to stand your ground.  

You also said "Nobody has ever proven that they could get reliable hits on men's chests beyond 25 yds, while they were actually being shot-at. Either they were not being shot at, or they got lucky with one shot and one hit, or they fired many shots, and less than 50% hit the chest".

Geez mister, what the hay do you want us to do here, spring a bunch of creeps from the local jail and tell them they have one chance to get away so we can prove there might be more of us than you can imagine who can hit right.  

20 gunfights - you may be right about that because I don't know of anyone except Charles Askins who may have tallied up his total, but I can tell you from my personal experiences at Dak To and Dak Pek, where many of my team members and I used handguns regularly while we were under seige, that you stop counting the hits after the first reload, and it just went on and on.

I will tellya this - I seriously doubt very much that anyone who carries for personal protection is going to carry a measuring tape to make sure his hits are within your 'legal' range and we are most likely going to do what S. Sumner provided - go for that big ragged hole in the center body mass - wherever the threat appears, 10' or 10 yds.

The original question posted by Butlerford asked "how do you determine your acceptable combat accuracy standard" and that was subsequently clarified in another post with his question 'how poorly must a gun shoot'.

We are talking about the accuracy capabilities of the handgun being carried - is it capable of 2", 4" or 6" groups at whatever distance, not whether you can place a chest shot on a moving assailant at 10 yds within .x seconds.  And I still think your statement about the legality of a 10'+ shot is just the worst advice I have ever heard.  Mikey.

[Japle]

You shoot somebody beyond 10 ft, and they have no projectile weapon, you are going to be tied up in court for YEARS, and be lucky to stay out of prison.

In some states and under some circumstances, maybe. That's too broad a statement, though, and usually not true.

John
Cape Canaveral

[S.S.]

I am a little lost here, I must have missed something
on shooting Mexicans, We can't do it in Georgia either :?
As far as shooting incidents,
the "Distance" rule is a bunch of B.S....
It comes down to weather you feel that your life was in
jeopardy and 'WHY" you felt that way. No matter the distance.
I have personally been shot twice and stabbed once.
(Idiot stabbed me with a pencil of all things!
And no, I did not shoot him for it :wink: )
I have been shot at on three other non-military occasions
also. Every single incident except when I was stabbed
was farther than 25 meters. If you are not a proficient
shot at a decent distance, you will most likely be the one
who dies in the confrontation. If you hesitate to defend
yourself because the person you are defending yourself
from is not close enough, you will find yourself in a great deal
of trouble. As far as military handguns in the previous post,
Those are close quarters weapons and or backup weapons
in case your primary weapon fails. I have been pinned down
in a situation before to where I did not have enough cover
to place a fresh magazine in my rifle without exposing myself.
My 1911 was quite comforting to have at that time.
Not a long range weapon by no means but it kept them off of me
until my "associate" was able to get up the ally-way. He was heavily
armed and the situation was over in about a half a second.
People put too much stock/faith in gun writers like
Marshall and Ayoob, and government statistics.
Interesting toilet reading sometimes, but do not trust your life
on them...............
Practice, practice and more practice!
You will appreciate it if (God forbid) you ever need it.

[yuppie]

That means that justifiable shootings take place at 10 FEET, not 10 yds. The stats say that most gunfights are at 10ft and less, too.  Anyone can make claims about this or that, but when "called" on it, they always backpedal.

You do not want to have to convince a jury of little old ladies (which is what most juries consist of, other people have to work) that you felt so threatened by a guy with "just a knife" 20 ft away, that you had to shoot him. Your life will be riding on teaching them a lifetime of rough and tumble experience and good sense about same.  Good luck.

You are out of your mind if you "think" that you are going to shoot even 1/4 as well in a gun fight as you can do slowfire, with ear protection, in good light. Nobody has ever demonstrated that they could reliably hit the chest of a man beyond 25 yds, while they were actually being shot at, with a carry pistol. They either got lucky with a single shot, or they fired many times, with most shots being misses of the chest. That is proof that the chest hits were just luck.

[Lost Okie]

I think the initial question was, how accurate should your personal defense weapon be.  I agree with several that most handguns are very capable and that the limitation is the shooter not the handgun.  As far as accuracy and practice, if you are constantly shooting at a target your not being realistic about your training.  I personally practice a lot with a .22 auto and walk back and forth shooting at sticks and cans on the ground or on the back stop at distances of 7, 10, 15, 25, and 50 yrds.  I snap shoot looking across the sights but not concentrating on sighting.  After several mags of .22 I then change to my .45.  All is well out to 25, at 50 I really have to stop and think about it with the .45, with the .22 I hit 70% of the cans.  Had the opportunity last year to particapate in training with one of the city police depts using a FAT simulator.  (sons father-in-law is on the force).  The above practice allowed me to hit my target each and every time and several times these were had to be headshots.  Could not have done this if all I did was shoot at targets....
Training was awsome and very "eye opening"  
 
So, my opinion, its not how accurate the pistol is, its all about your ability to hit what you need to hit at the distance you need to hit it.....Like several have already said.