Conditional accuracy and follow up shots with an open mind

[CDW4ME]

I prefer bigger bullets, but I continually read comments about how there is little difference in the actual effect of modern HP ammunition between 9mm, 357 Sig, 40, and 45. I can easily understand how a millimeter or two of diameter is not as important as an inch or two of exact shot placement.

Given the understanding that shot placement trumps caliber and follow up shots may be required, accuracy and speed of follow up shots are both important. Since we are not going to count on a “one shot stop” and could be faced with more than one assailant, a 6 + 1 or 7 + 1 capacity is unfavorable; I am including capacity as a factor in my choice of carry pistol.

Using my Glocks, I decided to obtain some fresh data with carry ammo.

First, I fired each 8 – 10 shots slow fire at 7 yards to make sure the horizontal adjustment was good, if needed I tweaked it. I prefer to aim right on that small red dot and have the bullet POI either right on or up to about 1’’ high. Satisfied with POI, next was double taps.

My emphasis is on 1st – 2nd shot follow up time. I want both the first and 2nd shot to hit a 6’’ circle. I put several 6’’ circles on a larger target at 7 yards. I had not used the shot timer in about a year, so I gave myself a couple of warm-up runs with the Glock 19 prior to data collection.

This is the method I used for my data; I would shoot 4 pairs (8 shots) then check to see if any shots missed the circle, after covering any misses I repeated with 4 additional pairs. In order to obtain what I considered to be a fair representation of performance, I eliminated the greatest time from each of the four pairs; if a shot missed then I also eliminated the quickest time. The result was at least 4 pairs that remained (for each pistol) and they got averaged.

I use the flush fitting magazines in the 30SF but all subcompacts (26, 27, 33) have Pearce +0 bases.
All of the pistols have Meprolight night sights except the 33 which has XS Big Dots.

Results:
Glock 19 using Federal 124 gr. HST +P: average .26 sec with 13/16 hits.
Glock 32 using Winchester Ranger T 125: average .26 sec with 13/16 hits.
Glock 23 using Remington Golden Saber 165: average .27 sec with 13/16 hits.
Glock 30 SF using Federal 230 gr. Hydra-Shok: average .28 sec with 13/16 hits.
Glock 27 using Federal 180 JHP*: average .29 sec with 15/16 hits*
*I was skeptical with this result and Federal 180 JHP is not my carry ammo so I ran it again.
Glock 27 using Federal 180 gr. Hydra Shok: average .30 sec with 14/16 hits.
Glock 26 using Federal 124 gr. HST +P: average .30 sec with 15/16 hits.
Glock 33 using Winchester Ranger T 125: average .35 sec with 13/16 hits.

I was most pleased with the total cumulative POI from the 19, 23, 26 and 27.

I did not include my 29 SF in the test, because when I shot the initial 8 rounds slow fire to check POI it was higher than I prefer, even with light 155 gr. ammo and recoil was noticeably stiffer than the others.

Conclusion: Take what you want from this, but I am surprised by the slight to non-existent difference in follow up times (9mm vs. 40) with similar pistols and hits on target.

[TunnelRat]

As a reference I have a BS in Applied Math Statistics. I'm not making any claims that this somehow makes me superior, just that I have some experience in conducting experiments.

1. Why did you remove the slowest time? I imagine it was some attempt at removing outliers, but you may have skewed the results, especially given the relatively low number of samples. There are mathematical tests for outliers.

2. "If a shot missed then I also eliminated the quickest time." I think there are better ways to handle this. Not to mention that data in itself could be valuable. Was it with all guns, certain calibers, etc?

3. 4 pairs is not a lot of samples. I understand personal cost and what not, heck I am not volunteering to do it, but I'd like to see a higher number to lend real value to those averages.

4. I'd like to see standard deviations and number of samples for each of the pistol shootings.

4. Are the times you give the split times between the shots? I didn't see that clarified anywhere.

In my opinion you have some proof that pistol caliber may not be a significant factor (lacking standard deviations that's not even sure) in shot times, FOR YOU. You tested one shooter, yourself. That's great for you, almost useless for the rest of us. Now you should be happy that you seem to handle that many calibers well. Seems like you're a good shooter. But are you representative of the "average" shooter? Idk. I get what you're trying to do here, just provide some food for thought. But honestly this is nothing I would draw conclusions on.

[CDW4ME]

I'm not a math person.

I removed the slowest time from each string because on some shots I was slow and I knew it, hesitation; I can feel the difference in a .5 vs a .3 follow up.

I eliminated the quickest time as a consequence for a shot that failed to hit the 6'' circle, speed without accuracy is irrelevant.

The times I gave are from 1st - 2nd shot.
In other words, get on target / double tap, reacquire target / double tap, reacquire target / double tap...

I don't assume the results will apply to other shooters, I may be faster than some, likely slower than others. I did as good as I'm going to do in terms of speed & accuracy.

I think the accuracy & speed standard I'm attempting to achieve may be stricter than some would hold themselves to, some might be content for the 2nd shot to hit inside the "5" ring or "coke bottle" of a B-21 target.

Like I said, take (conclude) what you want from it, even if its nothing.

[Brit]

Seems to me that you found not much of anything in the difference, of 9mm/40S&W/45ACP?

I would agree. The big difference is in capacity! My Glock 19, can shoot 16 rounds B/4 a reload is required! And 9mm is lighter in the magazine.

As the saying goes "Whatever floats your Boat"

[TunnelRat]

I removed the slowest time from each string because on some shots I was slow and I knew it, hesitation; I can feel the difference in a .5 vs a .3 follow up.

That's the reason for large sample sizes. Doing what you're doing could unfairly skew the results in accordance with a previous bias.

I eliminated the quickest time as a consequence for a shot that failed to hit the 6'' circle, speed without accuracy is irrelevant.

I would agree, but I don't think that's the way to do it. It might also be interesting to learn if you had more or less trouble maintaining that accuracy with certain calibers.

Like I said, take (conclude) what you want from it, even if its nothing

I'm not trying to diminish your work. You approached this with the goal of learning something, that's always admirable. All I'm giving is advice on your methods. If you're not interested in hearing any responses, then why bother posting your results on a public forum?

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Just my 2 cents, and for me personally, I can tell you that my times vary a good bit from a heavier but balanced frame than a lighter frame for me.

My times in a 1911 full size is faster than in my poly9mm.

My speed is also quicker with my friends 5906 than my poly 9mm with me shooting.

For me personally more weight and better balance equal faster times from first shot to last.

I know this doesn't apply so much to your subject matter or test data, but food for thought.

Now moving forward where it may apply more I have shot two pistols (owned one of the two) side by side with same frames and slides with almost identical weights in 40 and 45 and the 40 was slower for me do to recoil no matter bullet weight.

I know this applies more to the subject matter and my analysis on the reason for the time differences was the heavier recoil of the 40 and the unbalanced polymer frame with heavy slide which was managed easier with the lighter recoil of the .45 for me.

I never saw the need to time the differences when they were so easily recognizable for me but I can see why curiosity had you use a timer to record data and it would be nice to see some more comparisons with varying Semi-autos and shooters, just to get an idea of how much different shooters, their experiences, preferences and the weapon come into play.

[45Gunner]

Just a thought but I think the speed in which you get a shot off is directly proportional to the sleep attained the night before and the accuracy is inversely proportional to the amount of coffee consumed prior to going to the range.

[CDW4ME]

TunnelRat:
I have a paper where I did a few runs using the timer early last August, almost a year ago.
Glock 23 (don't know what ammo) .24 sec. based on six pairs.
Glock 32 (don't know what ammo) .25 sec. based on four pairs.
Glock 27 (using 180 gr. ammo) .29 sec average based on five pairs.

Here is the difference(s) between last year and this year:
-I did not count any pair where one shot missed the circle, regardless of the time, they are marked out.
-I did not record the total hits on circle out of shots fired at circle.
-Not sure but it looks like I simply did not record a time if I thought it was slow due to my hesitation, all times recorded are very close.

The 1st - 2nd shot times are still very close to what I obtained this past weekend.

I'm not sure what you mean about previous bias. The only bias I have / had is a bigger bullet is likely going to be more effective than a smaller on given equal shot placement and I stated that at the beginning; that has no bearing on my shooting double taps.

If what I did doesn't follow the scientific method, that's very tragic; my work won't pass vetting or get published, no royalty check.
If my post has petty punctuation violations of the APA 7,000th edition (like not having two spaces after a period) it gives me a special kind of happiness.
I'm not trying to provide a dissertation, or thesis (I already have a masters degree +). (Does the period go inside the quotes or outside? Don't remember and don't have to look it up either ).

Okay despite my obvious distain for the writing tortures of college, I posted this because I thought it might interest people; I am interested in hearing responses.

[TunnelRat]

If what I did doesn't follow the scientific method, that's very tragic; my work won't pass vetting or get published, no royalty check.
If my post has petty punctuation violations of the APA 7,000th edition (like not having two spaces after a period) it gives me a special kind of happiness.
I'm not trying to provide a dissertation, or thesis (I already have a masters degree +). (Does the period go inside the quotes or outside? Don't remember and don't have to look it up either )

Great attitude you have.

Okay despite my obvious distain for the writing tortures of college, I posted this because I thought it might interest people; I am interested in hearing responses.

And you got one Skippy. Sorry it wasn't exactly what you wanted. Once again this is a public forum. Responses aren't under your control.