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

[Ns1]

How can you quote the first part of the paragraph and ignore the last part. In cased you missed it, "But if I take my time, aim, and squeeze I can make that shot damn near every time."

Reasonable people interpret that as something greater than 70%.

oh, you're totally right. I missed that part numerous times.

Sorry HP, you did it to yourself

 

[HumblePie]

oh, you're totally right. I missed that part numerous times.

Sorry HP, you did it to yourself

Eh, I might have been stretching a bit, but I can hit the bulls off a bench pretty regularly when I'm out shooting and was practicing much more than I have been recently. Wife, newborn kid, and other draws to my time and financial splurges have changed how often I've been able to go out. I was going to go out originally and make that video when the weather got a bit better last year to shut him up, but I really didn't care. Even if I did and showed I was shooting with real accuracy to him, he'd probably claim I edited the video or faked it. Nor was there any real gain I could see to it in the end. I know what I'm capable of shooting and he's just a forum troll.

 

[kage69]

Sex Panther, more or less than 70% of the time, it works every damn time.

James Westphal and Dr. Kenneth Noisewater swear by it. And why wouldn't they? I mean, it's made with real panther, so you know it works.

 

[slayer202]

we need video. this could be one of the best threads of all time

 

[Justinator]

IMO the term "consistently" in the gun world means his groupings. Groupings are your average 3 round clusters. When sighting in a new rifle scope I use a very stable platform and aim out to 100 yards and adjust my sights according to my groupings. When you fire 3 rounds at the same target you want them to be as close together and on target as possible. Now to hit a quarter sized target "once" with the naked eye using just iron sights with a pistol, I would say he is an amazing shot. To have your "grouping" within a quarters diameter at 50 yards, using iron sights, using a pistol... He's either one of the world's top shooters or he's completely full of shit.

 

[MongGrel]

IMO the term "consistently" in the gun world means his groupings. Groupings are your average 3 round clusters. When sighting in a new rifle scope I use a very stable platform and aim out to 100 yards and adjust my sights according to my groupings. When you fire 3 rounds at the same target you want them to be as close together and on target as possible. Now to hit a quarter sized target "once" with the naked eye using just iron sights with a pistol, I would say he is an amazing shot. To have your "grouping" within a quarters diameter at 50 yards, using iron sights, using a pistol... He's either one of the world's top shooters or he's completely full of shit.

Yeah, I still have an old Winchester .223 Special Varmint I popped the bolt out of and bore sighted that thing at 100 yards with the scope on a bench, than can almost drive tacks that close up.

Just took a few shots later to dial it in after the first 3, for longer range.

Doing it offhand with a .380 pistol at 50 yards consistently seems pretty far fetched.

 

[tegraarms09]

Possible yes. Of course it's possible. With enough practice, this isn't really THAT hard. Practice makes a man perfect

 

[SSSnail]

Possible yes. Of course it's possible. With enough practice bullets, this isn't really THAT hard. Practice makes a man perfect

FTFY.

 

[ultimatebob]

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

Sure, you're bound to get lucky and hit it if you fire enough shots

 

[JulesMaximus]

Consistently? Very few people would be capable of that.

 

[clamum]

I still think it's certainly possible. But like I said before, it depends on how you define "consistently." I've seen people shoot playing cards, the edge of a card, enough times to believe that this is possible after some practice.

 

[glenn1]

I still think it's certainly possible. But like I said before, it depends on how you define "consistently." I've seen people shoot playing cards, the edge of a card, enough times to believe that this is possible after some practice.

Let's calculate it then. Using this handy table from an earlier posting, using the values from the "average" of the seven shot groups results expected accuracy of 1.81 ± .362" shooting from 7 yards and using a bench rest.

1. calculate mean of all groups (1.60 + 1.64 + 1.69 + 1.83 + 1.87 + 1.99 + 2.03 = 12.65 / 7 = 1.81") Mean
2. subtract mean from each value, then square results sqrt(.21)(.17) (.12) .03 .06 .19 .22
3. sum the results and divide by number of values in the set 46 + .41 + .35 + .17 + .24 + .44 + .47 = 2.54 / 7 = 0.362" expected variance

Then let's see how many standard deviations from the expected accuracy it is to hit a quarter sized target of 0.95"

So, (.95-1.81)/.362 = (2.357) deviations from mean. Consulting the probability tables, that results in a 0.0091. So given a normal probability distribution curve, one would be expect to maintain a quarter sized group less than 1% of the time. Change the criteria to shooting freehand and at 50 yards and I'd say you'd go up a few more standard deviations.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Did he specify the barrel length? I'm pretty accurate with a range gun (5-6" barrel)....but with my 9mm subcompact (3" barrel), my groupings really spread out. Most .380s are even smaller than that...so you'd be lucky to hit a target that small at 50 yards consistently without having a 18"+ barrel.

 

[clamum]

Let's calculate it then. Using this handy table from an earlier posting, using the values from the "average" of the seven shot groups results expected accuracy of 1.81 ± .362" shooting from 7 yards and using a bench rest.

1. calculate mean of all groups (1.60 + 1.64 + 1.69 + 1.83 + 1.87 + 1.99 + 2.03 = 12.65 / 7 = 1.81") Mean
2. subtract mean from each value, then square results sqrt(.21)(.17) (.12) .03 .06 .19 .22
3. sum the results and divide by number of values in the set 46 + .41 + .35 + .17 + .24 + .44 + .47 = 2.54 / 7 = 0.362" expected variance

Then let's see how many standard deviations from the expected accuracy it is to hit a quarter sized target of 0.95"

So, (.95-1.81)/.362 = (2.357) deviations from mean. Consulting the probability tables, that results in a 0.0091. So given a normal probability distribution curve, one would be expect to maintain a quarter sized group less than 1% of the time. Change the criteria to shooting freehand and at 50 yards and I'd say you'd go up a few more standard deviations.

I should be able to remember how to do that since I had AP Stats in high school and then a stats class again in college, but I don't, haha. But anyway, I'm just going by what I've seen.

 

[cabri]

Did he specify the barrel length? I'm pretty accurate with a range gun (5-6" barrel)....but with my 9mm subcompact (3" barrel), my groupings really spread out. Most .380s are even smaller than that...so you'd be lucky to hit a target that small at 50 yards consistently without having a 18"+ barrel.

With respect to repetitive accuracy
The added weight of a large barrel should negate the value of the length.
Unless one was to try to put a scope on the weapon.

 

[Howard]

With respect to repetitive accuracy
The added weight of a large barrel should negate the value of the length.
Unless one was to try to put a scope on the weapon.

Because of muscle fatigue?

 

[Fern]

NM. Old post.
Fern

 

[cabri]

Because of muscle fatigue?

Try holding a 3 lb weight steady with an outstretched arm at shoulder height for 5 minutes without wavering

 

[Kelvrick]

Try holding a 3 lb weight steady with an outstretched arm at shoulder height for 5 minutes without wavering

Who needs 5 minutes for a few shots unless it is a desert eagle. 5-10 seconds is on the upper limits of how long a person takes for a shot, even for precision shots.

 

[MongGrel]

A .380 is a hell of a lot lighter than a Desert Eagle, but I think you're kind of missing the point to begin with.

They were never accurate rounds by any means.

 

[MongGrel]

Much as I love the King Cobra and Blackhawk .357 Magnums. if I were just carrying something around it might be that little S&W .38 Special.

Is a nice little dude.

They needed oiled up anyways.

 

[Kelvrick]

A .380 is a hell of a lot lighter than a Desert Eagle, but I think you're kind of missing the point to begin with.

They were never accurate rounds by any means.

I don't think so, since I was responding to the comment about added weight of a heavier barrel negating value of length. I don't really see how that is, unless it is unrealistically long where the longer sight radius makes it harder to aim and barrel length causes a loss of velocity or the minimal barrel flex that a low pressure round that the 380 should cause.

When asked if it was because of muscle fatigue, the response was to hold it out for 5 minutes, which makes no sense because nobody is holding anything out for 5 minutes. I take less time to loose 308 rounds down 1000 yards. I don't even really care whether it is possible to consistently hit a quarter at 50 yards with a 380 anymore. But then I left this thread after the first two pages and was just coming in to see why the heck it is still going.

 

[MongGrel]

NM, it is getting to be a long drug out thing at this point.

 

[Kelvrick]

NM, it is getting to be a long drug out thing at this point.

I'm at work and don't feel like working. Probably the only reason I came back into this thread.

 

[MongGrel]

I'm at work and don't feel like working. Probably the only reason I came back into this thread.

:biggrin: