Is it the Indian or the Arrow?

[Carolinaman]

Hello Folks,

I have seen some great displays of marksmanship on the forum so far thanks to HRF and huntershooter.  (Thanks guys for posting your targets/videos)!

However, I wonder how much of us place a premium on mechanical vs. intrinsic accuracy while testing their handguns?  The reason I bring up the subject is because I have always been a "decent shot" with a handgun, but not necessarily a "expert" shot with a handgun.  Even after years of shooting handguns, I have found that most will reasonably out shoot their owners ability to hold them sans mechanical devices, i.e. the Ransom Rest.

This brings me back to a discussion that was started by Stephen A. Camp on the H&A website.  He would often raise the question "is it the Indian or the Arrow" that gets the job done?  It was very thoughtful discussion.

And so what are your thoughts?

Please keep posting folks....

Best,

Chris

[rock185]

Chris, I always thought of the pistol's intrinsic accuracy as being it's mechanical accuracy. I don't have a Ransom Rest, but I do place a premium on the intrinsic/mechanical precision of the pistol. I like knowing that If I miss, it is me, not the gun. That being said, I used to have a very accurate Richard Heinie custom Colt and a SIG P220, both in .45 ACP. I found that in action shooting at close ranges, the P220 did as well or better than the custom Colt. But, in shooting carefully off the bench, to remove as much of the shaky human factor as possible, the custom Colt was the more accurate of the two. An especially accurate pistol may not be a significant advantage over a pistol of mediocre accuracy, depending on what the shooter intends to use the pistol for. But for me, I'll continue to prefer, and be willing to pay considerably more for, pistols with superior accuracy.....ymmv

[HRFunk]

Great question Chris! I think this really comes down to what type of firearm you're shooting and how you intend to use it. As an LE Sniper, I wanted the most mechanically accurate system I could get because I planned to employ it from a stable, supported, position where I could take maximum advantage of its potential. If I'm deploying a tactical carbine or a handgun (or a shotgun for that matter), I expect a shorter range engagement with the possibility of either myself or an adversary moving rapidly. In such an instance, handling and pointing characteristics become more important than true mechanical accuracy. Basically, the firearm in question has to allow natural, fast shots that are "accurate enough." I spend a great deal of time working on improving my accuracy from both supported and non-sported positions. In either case, the real challenge usually involves my efforts to control my own body and mind. The firearm and ammunition are normally up to the occasion, but it's me who makes or blows the shot. The most mechanically accurate rifle or pistol ever created cannot overcome poor marksmanship, but a good marksman can certainly eek out the most accuracy from a marginally accurate platform. So in that sense, I would have to say it's the Indian.

HRF

[Jäger]

Jun 14, 2017 17:03:13 GMT -5 Carolinaman said:

This brings me back to a discussion that was started by Stephen A. Camp on the H&A website.  He would often raise the question "is it the Indian or the Arrow" that gets the job done?  It was very thoughtful discussion.

Both, if you want something better than mediocrity all the way around.

For those who need/want skill beyond mediocrity, the arrow has to be capable of the accuracy that would ensure hits with proper sight alignment within the distances it is being used.  The requirements for mechanical accuracy out of a sniper rifle used in law enforcement are going to be very different than the mechanical accuracy required out of a military sniper rifle.  We were engaging hajjis at around 1000 meters with 7.62's at Tora Bora.  Or, to move to the more mundane, the mechanical accuracy requirements for the air rifle I use to clean out the cowbirds, starlings, and crows around our yard is very different than the mechanical accuracy of air rifles used in Olympic competition.  Which is why nobody shows up at the Olympics with a Beeman, even if it is the very best air rifle they sell.

Another factor concerning the arrow is it removes uncertainty in the mind of the Indian.  I regularly practice (and shoot for the pure fun of it) with a Hi Standard Olympic pistol and an Anschutz 1803 three position rifle.  The mechanical accuracy of both of them is such that, if you're buying quality ammunition, they will shoot little bughole groups at 50 meters and well beyond.  If you think you're pretty good at doping wind and consistent position, etc., just try mini-Palma: .22 rimfire at 200 yards.  The value in mechanical accuracy as you get from high end firearms is, if a bullet didn't hit where you called your shot, you KNOW it was you.  It wasn't the arrow, it wasn't the sights, it wasn't the ammunition.  It was you.  Which helps when you're practicing and working on analyzing and correcting your shooting.  In my mind, in the shooting world there is not much worse than having bullets end up on the target not where you expected them to be, and to be unsure of whether it is you or the arrow or some other piece of arrow equipment.  Which is why serious handguns for serious shooters frequently get "verified" in a Ransom Rest, even if they will never be fired from any kind of rest.  And why serious rifles get benchrested with proper benchrest equipment, even if they will never be fired from a bench while in use.

After that, everything else is in the control of the Indian, to practice his/her skills as diligently as they choose.  Or choose not to.  Chances are that if the standard of competency the Indian sets for themselves (or has set for them by their job description) is not very high, the standard of excellence they demand of their arrows will not be very high either.

BTW, somewhat related, I occasionally practice with handguns out beyond normal practice that ends at 50 yards.  Mostly because it is challenging and fun.  But also because that thought of "you just never know" is in the back of my mind.  If the early and minimal facts on the attempted mass murder of Republican lawmakers last night is accurate, the two police officers present apparently engaged the left wing hajji at distances well beyond 50 yards.  At this time I don't know who actually ended his rampage, whether the original officers who engaged him, or those who arrived on scene moments later.  Don't really care either, actually.  And a few years ago a scumbag ambushed and murdered four police officers inside a building with a semiautomatic rifle.  He then exited to murder the officers who were outside, away from their vehicles.  One officer returned fire with his handgun at a range of over 50 yards.  He wounded the scumbag, who retreated inside to shoot himself after the shooting quit going all his way.

The point would be: I wonder if those officers ever practiced significantly with their sidearms beyond 50 yards - if that.  Some police forces these days don't have 50 yard stages any longer as part of their qualification.  The theory being, apparently, that about 80% or more of police shootings are within spitting distance, and there's always a shotgun or patrol carbine in the car for anything else, so concentrate training on where it is most likely to be used.

Perhaps I'm influenced by where I worked, but I never dismissed the idea of shooting at longer distances with a handgun as something that statistically speaking, would never be a situation I found myself in.

Very competent Indians tend to carry very competent arrows.  The reverse of that is also true.

[gt40doc]

I would LOVE to be able to blame my handgun for the target results, and on rare occasions, this has been the case(front/rear sight drifted, etc.). Usually if my groups are opening up, I bench shoot the handgun and find the Indian is to fault. This is by far the majority of the cases.


I own a few handguns that are quite accurate from new, or after "tuning". If the Indian does his part, they make me look like I know what I am doing. I think that it is a combo of both parts, but the majority is the Indian. 

[ranger566]

In my shooting world, as an over the hill geezer, the Indian.

My range buddy is a young whipper-snapper in his early 50's, and a waaayyyy better shot than I am.  I'm a life-size silhouette target guy from 5/7/10 yards self-defense style, and extremely pleased with COM hits with a few good head shots. He likes to rip through his range bag with various pistols and revolvers shooting ragged holes in half dollar-sized orange stickies from 10-15 yards out.

After tireless testing, I've determined the two handguns I shoot the best are the 1911 and the Hi Power. POA=POI, IF-----IF-----I make a good trigger pull.  This may not be the proper shooting terminology, but "squeeze the trigger straight back" works for me as long as I take the mili-second to say it to myself before making it happen.  I'm hopeful the day may come, before I take a dirt-nap, when I can do that without thinking about it, but I'm not optimistic that's going to happen.  I'm working on it.

On those days when my shots are too far outside the acceptable range, and I'm sure the reason is the gun and not me, I hand my pistol to my range buddy, who then proceeds to put ragged holes in his orange stickies with my gun.  :>(( 

[Carolinaman]

Hello Guys,

I want to follow up and thank you for your careful thoughts. While I have owned a lot of firearms over the years and used to compete in the local "Tuesday Night" shooting matches, I often found that I really wasn't all that great! Yeah, sorry guys but I often wondered about buying a "better" handgun over the years and really didn't improve my shooting skills. I often remark, "Beware of the man that owns one gun because he/she is certainly going to know how to use it"....

There have been certain firearms that I have owned over the years like the Czech CZ-75B series that would really do a decent job at both "intrinsic and mechanical" accuracy do the the fact that the design of the firearm allowed a full length slide to frame fit. I've owned a Swiss AT-84 that was pretty decent as well. I have been a 1911 fan all my life and once took out a trotting fox at 75 yards with a Colt "Officers" model. (However, in later years I would just claim that the fox ran into the path of the bullet)....

Please keep your comments coming folks!

Best,

Chris

[huntershooter]

I think you raise an accurate question Chris (pun intended).

There is no doubt in my mind that I cannot shoot to the majority of my firearms mechanical potential.

"Practical accuracy", for me, is the firearms ability to deliver a shot good enough for it's intended purpose; a Bullseye gun has a much greater accuracy requirement than a self defense gun.
Therefore a Bullseye guns practical accuracy requirement is much greater than the self defense gun.

I believe that most all guns sold commercially as self defense guns will exhibit ample "practical accuracy" for that purpose.

That said, my preference is ALL the accuracy I can get my hands on- as long as the firearm is 100% reliable.

A guy named J. Michael Plaxco, a top level USPSA competitor in the early days of the sport, once remarked- "you gotta have confidence in your equipment". This in regards to (shooting) performance on demand.
I certainly agree with- and leave by that opinion.
If my gun goes "bang" every time and hits precisely where the sights are aligned when the shot is taken- my confidence in my ability, and my job as a shooter becomes much easier.

[rock185]

Jager, I started in police work in 1973. We shot out to 25 yards. Now retired, I do some plinking from the bench out to 100 yards or so, just to see if I can hit anything with a handgun at that range. Not too hard to hit a smaller-than-man-sized target at 100 yds. with a mechanically accurate pistol chambered in a higher velocity caliber, 9MM,38 Super,10MM,etc. Harder with the slower .45 ACP. Hitting much beyond 100 yards with .45 ACP, becomes a real challenge for me. Still fun to try;)

[Jäger]

Jun 18, 2017 0:35:34 GMT -5 rock185 said:

Jager, I started in police work in 1973. We shot out to 25 yards. Now retired, I do some plinking from the bench out to 100 yards or so, just to see if I can hit anything with a handgun at that range. Not too hard to hit a smaller-than-man-sized target at 100 yds.

We got a little bit of training with our 5" 38 Spls at 100 yards.  Not much, but some to give us an idea.  Qualification at the time was what is the Distinguished match in PPC, including the 24 rounds at 50 yards. 

With a police silhouette target, using a lollipop head hold as you do in PPC using adjustable sights, unless you have the worst sights and/or trigger in the world, it is not very difficult to put rounds COM at 100 yards - and fairly reliably, if you're shooting right or left hand barricade, kneeling, sitting, or prone.  Except for my 10mm bear wrench, my K frames and High Powers are all sighted so that POA = POI at 50 yards.  Bullet rise using 147 gr HST with my HP above line of sight measures about +.5" at 25 yards and never gets to an inch above line of sight out to POA=POI at 50 yards.  Point of impact at 100 yards is about - 9 inches.  I imagine it would be a lot less with speedier 115 or 124 grain bullets if they were my ammunition of choice.

So a lollipop hold on the head will put the bullets right about in the dirtbag "off" button if sight alignment and trigger press are reasonably good.

I am not sure why they continue to press what seems to be the prevailing attitude that a handgun is pretty much useless beyond 50 yards.  I think it is accurate to say that most of the time it is extremely unlikely that engaging with a handgun at that distance will happen.  "Unlikely" does not mean there is no way it could happen. 

In one police rampage shooting a few years ago, three officers were murdered after other responding officers chose not to engage with their pistols prior to the last two of the two officers being murdered because they felt the distances were to great for their sidearms and they had no long arms.  The distances were around 100 yards as I remember from the public inquiry which followed investigating the incident.  However, in the earlier incident I mentioned, the officer did engage the murderer who had just killed four officers from ambush inside a building, while they were standing talking while maintaining continuity of evidence, unaware he was there.  The officer who engaged the murderer after he exited and began firing at him fired exactly two shots in return fire, one hitting the murderer in the hand, the second hitting his left leg at the pelvis, shattering his femur before taking cover behind the vehicle.  Two for two.  The puke then dragged himself inside and committed suicide.  Picture from the crime scene.  The officer was standing by the vehicle in the lower left when the murderer exited the building and began firing his rifle at him. 

The distance measured out to 90+ yards.  Two for two.



With the attempted assassination of Republican lawmakers a few days ago and these other shootings I have mentioned - and I don't scour the news for anything involving police shootings - I'm of the opinion that is a mistake to not allot at least a little bit of time to shooting at longer distances like 100 yards.  A patrol carbine or even a shotgun with slugs would always be preferable, but if we knew we were about to be in a gunfight, we'd have a long arm in our hands to begin with, not a handgun holstered at our side.

So yeah, I regularly do a little shooting at 100 yards, just in case.  Besides, it's not painful - it's fun.

[che]

Retired Lawman here. I thought PPC was great shooting and training.

I still take shots at 100 yards for familiarization because we never know when you may have to take that shot. Its all about the "Indian".

[noglock]

I have to opine it is the Indian, the bow and the arrow. If you are like me, you have or have had more than one handgun in the same platform. I define same platform as say 4" Revolver, GM 1911, or a 1935. Even though mechanical accuracy may have been very close, one of the same platform may have excelled at performance on demand (thanks hunter shooter for reminding me of that term) in your hands.

Shooter interface is the term I use to describe the relationship between the Indian and the arrow. This can be true of the same platform handgun or a different platform. I never seemed to shoot/perform the same with all 4" revolvers or all 1935s or GMs. I think the trigger and the sights play a huge role in this interface and/or POD. Even the grips may play a role as they affect trigger reach.

I always thought I needed long triggers in a 1911 for example. I have large hands. I obtained a used GM a few years ago with a short trigger. I started to "play" with it and discovered I liked it.

I picked that pistol for my first retired LEOSA qualification. I pulled a holster out of the holster pile and practiced with a couple of qualification candidate pistols the day before. I used a novice shot timer to get a read on my performance other than the target and my sensory perceptions. I say novice shot timer as I am not a pro. LOL.

The short trigger 1911 won the race in my hands that day so I used it the next. I impressed myself with my performance: a rare occurance these days. With 230 ball I outperformed the double stack wonder nines and forties in use by others on the line. I fear using another pistol but may do so because of that fear of a lesser performance.

No matter the ability of a particular Indian, I believe the Indian must search for that magic bullet pistol. I truly believe any Indian's performance can be minumized or maximized with no change in Indian ability.

[trooper]

Shooters in the bottom ten percent can't find their ass with both hands, so equipment choice isn't a factor. The top ten percent will make anything work. The middle eighty percent waste too much time on an equipment race when they'd be better off simply choosing a gun and spending the rest of their available funds on ammunition.

Twenty five yards is where handgun shooting really begins, anything closer is gravy.  One hundred yards is quite easy with just a modicum of practice.