Gun people: Is it possible to hit a quarter at 50 yards with a .380?

[moonbogg]

My best shooting is hitting apples at 220yards with about a 10-15mph cross wind. I'd say about 65% were hits. With no wind that goes up to about 85%, maybe a little better. (no, not with a fucking pistol)

 

[schneiderguy]

No. Even factory target pistols are not that accurate.

For example, S&W's Model 52 (which is known for being a very accurate pistol) was required to do a maximum 5 shot group of 2" at 50 yards clamped to a machine rest.

I would guess that your buddy, with what is most likely a cheaply made .380 with a 12 pound trigger and a short sight radius, would have difficulty consistently hitting a quarter at 7 yards.

 

[BoberFett]

JohnOfSheffield could do it.

Winner!

 

[rudeguy]

So guys....

Lets just say the person who said this posts on this forum. And he claimed to have a video of him making these shots. Would you guys be interested in seeing this happen?

 

[pontifex]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fwb-9aYDa0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw

but then again, this is probably all this guy does day in and day out.

 

[LTC8K6]

It's entirely possible. Just practice a lot, and learn what ammo the gun likes.

Golf ball at 100 yards with .22 pistol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6Z1qkm_svE

 

[LTC8K6]

No. Even factory target pistols are not that accurate.

For example, S&W's Model 52 (which is known for being a very accurate pistol) was required to do a maximum 5 shot group of 2" at 50 yards clamped to a machine rest.

I would guess that your buddy, with what is most likely a cheaply made .380 with a 12 pound trigger and a short sight radius, would have difficulty consistently hitting a quarter at 7 yards.

It has less to do with the pistol's accuracy and more to do with the shooter's experience with the gun and the ammo, and knowing where that bullet is going to go, or land in the case of very long range shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uG-Kiy3AT4

 

[phucheneh]

No. Even factory target pistols are not that accurate.

For example, S&W's Model 52 (which is known for being a very accurate pistol) was required to do a maximum 5 shot group of 2" at 50 yards clamped to a machine rest.

I would guess that your buddy, with what is most likely a cheaply made .380 with a 12 pound trigger and a short sight radius, would have difficulty consistently hitting a quarter at 7 yards.

With regard to the mentioned S&W, I would say that if 2" groups at 50 yards is true, that qualifies as being capable of hitting a quarter most of the time.

How big is a quarter? Approximately 1" across sounds right to me. So if your group is zeroed on the center of it, anything within a ~1.75" circle (acounting for the size of the bullet) should be a hit.

 

[olds]

Q. Gun people: Is it possible to hit a quarter at 50 yards with a .380?
A. Yes

 

[phucheneh]

It has less to do with the pistol's accuracy and more to do with the shooter's experience with the gun and the ammo, and knowing where that bullet is going to go, or land in the case of very long range shots.

No...not with the gun locked down and still unable to give repeatable accuracy to the degree required (or is that 'precision'? I think it's technically precision).

Look at the grouping listed for a Glock 42 above. Let's give the benefit of a doubt and say that maybe a really good fixed barrel .380 could shoot a 1.25" group at the listed range of 7 yards...

...that's still approximately a 9" group at 50 yards.

 

[glenn1]

A competition quality Sig Sauer P220 is capable of about a 5cm grouping from a bench rest. Pretty sure the Hammerli 208 is the most accurate mass produced pistol ever made and testing from a bench nets best groups of about 0.56 inches from 25 yards. So no, I'd say the chances of some dude freehand shooting a .380 and hitting a coin at 50 yards are pretty much nil.

 

[LTC8K6]

The Hickok45 230 yard pistol videos are fun to watch. He can usually hit an 18" gong at that distance.

Meaning he could put bullets in you at that distance, even with a short barreled pistol.

 

[rudeguy]

The Hickok45 230 yard pistol videos are fun to watch. He can usually hit an 18" gong at that distance.

Meaning he could put bullets in you at that distance, even with a short barreled pistol.

Hickok is my favorite youtube person ever. Watching him plink the gong with a Glock 42 is fun, watching him hit the critters makes me wonder if I have any skill at all.

 

[Krazy4Real]

So guys....

Lets just say the person who said this posts on this forum. And he claimed to have a video of him making these shots. Would you guys be interested in seeing this happen?

Yes, I would be interested because I don't think it's possible.

 

[LTC8K6]

Hickok is my favorite youtube person ever. Watching him plink the gong with a Glock 42 is fun, watching him hit the critters makes me wonder if I have any skill at all.

I remember when I first saw one of his 230 yard vids. I thought he was shooting at the gong I could see.

Then his son zoomed in to the gong he was actually hitting. :awe:

 

[LTC8K6]

Yes, I would be interested because I don't think it's possible.

It's certainly possible.

Lots of shooters could do it, imo.

Whether this specific person can do it, yes, we would need to see the video.

 

[rudeguy]

I remember when I first saw one of his 230 yard vids. I thought he was shooting at the gong I could see.

Then his son zoomed in to the gong he was actually hitting. :awe:

Yep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LskihWv3ALw

Go to 11:30. He's hitting the gong with a Glock 42.

I want to make an excuse for why he can shoot so much better than me but I got nothing.

 

[phucheneh]

It really puts into perspective how true 'this gun is more accurate than I could ever be' typically is. I hate it when people try to review a gun by stating how closely they can group unsupported...it's just so irrelevant.

Even complaints about bad factory sights are usually user error. 'This gun shoots a foot low at ten yards!' ...no, YOU shoot a foot low at ten yards.

Hickock's ability to shoot an 18" target at 50 yards is already head and shoulders above 98% of amateur shooters. With my best pistol (the 9mm X-Cal...5" bull barrel, 2lb trigger), I doubt I could do better than 50% success. And I see myself as probably superior to a solid 90% of those at your typical public handgun range...and that's not being full of myself. I am nothing but a well-practiced amateur; a true marksman is infinitely superior to me.

So, like I said, when someone who is NOT a world-class marksman makes claims that are above that of what any competent recreational gun-nut would dare to...it doesn't even need discussion. It's bullshit.

 

[Kelvrick]

It really puts into perspective how true 'this gun is more accurate than I could ever be' typically is. I hate it when people try to review a gun by stating how closely they can group unsupported...it's just so irrelevant.

Even complaints about bad factory sights are usually user error. 'This gun shoots a foot low at ten yards!' ...no, YOU shoot a foot low at ten yards.

Hickock's ability to shoot an 18" target at 50 yards is already head and shoulders above 98% of amateur shooters. With my best pistol (the 9mm X-Cal...5" bull barrel, 2lb trigger), I doubt I could do better than 50% success. And I see myself as probably superior to a solid 90% of those at your typical public handgun range...and that's not being full of myself. I am nothing but a well-practiced amateur; a true marksman is infinitely superior to me.

So, like I said, when someone who is NOT a world-class marksman makes claims that are above that of what any competent recreational gun-nut would dare to...it doesn't even need discussion. It's bullshit.

That is the thing though, you never know who it is. I remember being at a range once and seeing a kid (low teens) and his mom in one of the bays with an instructor and talking about how the kid is getting a nice head start, etc.

I was talking to one of the employees later and he said the kid was a national youth champion of something or other I forgot, but the mom was hot.

 

[BurnItDwn]

50 yards, that would take one hell of an awesome marksman with super awesome eyesight, or maybe optical magnification combined with awesome marksman.

As far as "are handguns accurate enough", its going to depend on the make/model of the gun. I'd think a nice pistol with a long ass barrel would have a much better shot at it then a snub, but I dont know.


I can hit the broad sign of a barn door, from 25 yards, but 50 yards, I could miss by yards.

 

[Merad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fwb-9aYDa0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw

but then again, this is probably all this guy does day in and day out.

1. Jerry is one of the best pistol shooters in the world (arguably the best). That he does something on video shows that it's within the realm of possibility, and not much else.
2. We have no idea how many takes he did before he made the shot (not that it's any less impressive).
3. In the .380 video he is shooting at a 18"x24" target at 200 yards. A 50 yard shot of comparable difficultly would use a target roughly 10"x10". The claim mentioned in the OP is shooting a target of < 1" at 50 yards.

Honestly, I would be surprised if the average pistol is even mechanically capable of the accuracy necessary to consistently hit this shot. I think typically accuracy standards for "good" combat pistols (Sigs, H&Ks, etc) are about 2" groups at 25 yards (4" at 50 yd). Even if a high-end target pistol can halve that group size you're still talking 2" groups at 50 yd with absolutely perfect shooting.

Edit: Ok, glenn1 addressed this earlier. So the most accurate pistol ever made should be capable of doing this.

 

[phucheneh]

I was talking to one of the employees later and he said the kid was a national youth champion of something or other I forgot, but the mom was hot.

At least you remembered the important part.

Burn- you'd be surprised at how little barrel length really influences accuracy. The biggest advantage it typically grants is sight radius.

A high-quality snub-nosed .38 revolver is actually capable of rather exceptional accuracy...better than many much-longer automatics, whose accuracy is limited by both barrel-to-slide and slide-to-frame fit. Those aspects are commonly intentionally left a little loose to aid in reliable cycling.

 

[dougp]

Yep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LskihWv3ALw

Go to 11:30. He's hitting the gong with a Glock 42.

I want to make an excuse for why he can shoot so much better than me but I got nothing.

Technique and muscle memory - and this is outside of the actual skill. Odds are he practices a lot more than you do, and has been doing so for longer.

It's no different than any other sport. Give you and Tiger the same golf club & ball, and he'll take it to it's maximum potential while you hit for maybe 50% of his shot.

 

[phucheneh]

3. In the .380 video he is shooting at a 18"x24" target at 200 yards. A 50 yard shot of comparable difficultly would use a target roughly 10"x10". The claim mentioned in the OP is shooting a target of < 1" at 50 yards.

Am I wrong in thinking accuracy should scale in a linear fashion? Your grouping is essentially a cone of fire. A triangle if you simplify to two dimensions. So a 24" group at 200 yards should be a 12" group at 100 yards, a 6" group at 50 yards, and a 3" group at 25 yards.

...right? (I'm far from 100%; fuck math :\)

 

[Merad]

Am I wrong in thinking accuracy should scale in a linear fashion? Your grouping is essentially a cone of fire. A triangle if you simplify to two dimensions. So a 24" group at 200 yards should be a 12" group at 100 yards, a 6" group at 50 yards, and a 3" group at 25 yards.

...right? (I'm far from 100%; fuck math :\)

You're right AFAIK, I was just doing a guesstimate based on the area* of the target since the target in the video used a rectangular target.

*:
18 * 24 = 432 in^2 @ 200 yd
432 / 4 = 108 in^2 @ 50 yd
~10x10 target at 50 yd