Accuracy vs Speed

[PhotonGuy]

This thread is a bit old but I am going to revive it. There's the debate of speed vs accuracy. Some people have said that accuracy is most important but how about this. Lets say that when taking a bunch of shots to the center of the chest you're accurate enough that all your shots can be covered with a quarter. Now, lets say you can be a little bit faster but at the expense of being a little less accurate. By being a little bit faster you now need a coffee mug to cover all your shots. So would you rather be a little slower and be able to cover your shots with a quarter or would you rather be a little faster and require a coffee mug to cover your shots?

 

[jks9199]

This thread is a bit old but I am going to revive it. There's the debate of speed vs accuracy. Some people have said that accuracy is most important but how about this. Lets say that when taking a bunch of shots to the center of the chest you're accurate enough that all your shots can be covered with a quarter. Now, lets say you can be a little bit faster but at the expense of being a little less accurate. By being a little bit faster you now need a coffee mug to cover all your shots. So would you rather be a little slower and be able to cover your shots with a quarter or would you rather be a little faster and require a coffee mug to cover your shots?

As described... the difference is likely to be meaningless. You're talking a 1 inch circle versus a 4 inch circle. Assuming shooting at center mass... Yeah, that's not likely to make a difference worth noting. Coarse ground hamburger versus medium ground in the chest cavity. Still hamburger in the chest cavity.

But here's the real thing... it's not the grouping that matters. It's whether you get a hit or not. Never shoot faster than you can actually hit the freakin' target. Only after you hit it in the first place do you need to worry about groupings.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Some people here have said that in shooting accuracy is the most important factor. In the classes I've taken we've been taught that accuracy is important but you also need speed. The third factor is power which depends in the weapon and ammo you're using. Now, in terms of speed and accuracy when it comes to hitting the target, what I've been taught is you want the shots on your target to be roughly far enough apart so that you can cover them with your hand but not any further. If your shots are further than that you want to slow down and take your time with your shots to improve your accuracy. If your shots are really close together, if they're right on top of each other, than you want to speed up and sacrifice some accuracy in order to shoot faster. All the accuracy in the world won't be that good if your opponent shoots you first.

Buy a shot gun

 

[Dirty Dog]

Buy a shot gun

It's a bit difficult to conceal a shotgun... even one of the tactical bullpup designs would require a trench coat to conceal.

 

[marques]

I apologise first training accuracy. Then accuracy and speed together. Anyone alone is worthless.
When fighting... It depends on the moment. To made (too) simple, speed to open the guard, accuracy to KO.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Only if you're talking handguns vs rifles. It's been quite conclusively shown that so far as handguns go, the caliber is irrelevant. And ammo is only a factor if you're too stupid to use a good modern defensive ammo.

I'm curious about this statement that caliber is irrelevant. I would assume that is meant to exclude the extremes, as surely the caliber is relevant when comparing .45 or .44mag to .22lr. So, am I right in assuming this is in reference to "defensive" calibers (most define as starting with either .38 or 9mm)?

And I see a lot of argument back and forth about accuracy. I'd like to point out that some of those points are actually about "precision", not "accuracy". Accuracy means hitting your target (so, if you're shooting center-mass, you hit center-mass), whereas precision is about how close together your hits are. One can theoretically be very precise without being accurate (5 shots within 1 inch of each other, but 8 inches away from the intended target, so perhaps COM shots landing just to the left of the person's side, entirely missing within a 1-inch diameter). One can also be accurate without being highly precise (5 shots in center mass, within an 8-inch diameter). The ideal is to have high accuracy and reasonable precision. Accuracy is paramount, since (by definition) low accuracy means not hitting the intended target.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I would just move in, so that one of us can't miss.

Let's hope it's not the other guy.

 

[Dirty Dog]

I'm curious about this statement that caliber is irrelevant. I would assume that is meant to exclude the extremes, as surely the caliber is relevant when comparing .45 or .44mag to .22lr. So, am I right in assuming this is in reference to "defensive" calibers (most define as starting with either .38 or 9mm)?

Since we're talking about defensive shooting, then yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that I'm talking about centerfire handgun rounds.

And I see a lot of argument back and forth about accuracy. I'd like to point out that some of those points are actually about "precision", not "accuracy". Accuracy means hitting your target (so, if you're shooting center-mass, you hit center-mass), whereas precision is about how close together your hits are. One can theoretically be very precise without being accurate (5 shots within 1 inch of each other, but 8 inches away from the intended target, so perhaps COM shots landing just to the left of the person's side, entirely missing within a 1-inch diameter). One can also be accurate without being highly precise (5 shots in center mass, within an 8-inch diameter). The ideal is to have high accuracy and reasonable precision. Accuracy is paramount, since (by definition) low accuracy means not hitting the intended target.

Accuracy means hitting your target. OK, I agree with that. In a defensive shoot, my target is your heart and/or your brain. If I am accurate, you will die. If I am accurate, I will also be precise, since my shots will be hitting the target.

 

[Tgace]

I wouldn't call caliber irrelevant, I would say it's not as important as accuracy or speed respectively.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[lklawson]

I'm curious about this statement that caliber is irrelevant. I would assume that is meant to exclude the extremes, as surely the caliber is relevant when comparing .45 or .44mag to .22lr. So, am I right in assuming this is in reference to "defensive" calibers (most define as starting with either .38 or 9mm)?

And I see a lot of argument back and forth about accuracy. I'd like to point out that some of those points are actually about "precision", not "accuracy". Accuracy means hitting your target (so, if you're shooting center-mass, you hit center-mass), whereas precision is about how close together your hits are. One can theoretically be very precise without being accurate (5 shots within 1 inch of each other, but 8 inches away from the intended target, so perhaps COM shots landing just to the left of the person's side, entirely missing within a 1-inch diameter). One can also be accurate without being highly precise (5 shots in center mass, within an 8-inch diameter). The ideal is to have high accuracy and reasonable precision. Accuracy is paramount, since (by definition) low accuracy means not hitting the intended target.

It's not irrelevant, but it's also, apparently, not nearly as important as certain factions of The Great Caliber Wars would prefer to believe.

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

.22 (short, long and long rifle)
% of hits that were fatal - 34%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38
% of people who were not incapacitated - 31%
One-shot-stop % - 31%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%

.45 ACP
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08
% of people who were not incapacitated - 14%
One-shot-stop % - 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 85%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 51%

Statistically speaking, these two are nearly identical. I'm not sure what his Margin of Error is, but chances are pretty good that the difference between these two falls within it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

.22 (short, long and long rifle)

 

[Tgace]

You need to read the last few paragraphs of that article. There's more to his point than the numbers.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[lklawson]

You need to read the last few paragraphs of that article.

Why would you assume that I haven't?

It was specifically because of the last few paragraphs that I posted the entire listing, including the "% of hits that were fatal" and "% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit)" not just the "one shot stop."

Perhaps I'm not quite understanding what you're writing here.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tgace]

Copy.

I wasn't sure what stat you were pointing to as evidence there.



Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Since we're talking about defensive shooting, then yes, I think it's reasonable to assume that I'm talking about centerfire handgun rounds.



Accuracy means hitting your target. OK, I agree with that. In a defensive shoot, my target is your heart and/or your brain. If I am accurate, you will die. If I am accurate, I will also be precise, since my shots will be hitting the target.

You've chosen a precise target in referring to the heart, so in this case, your accuracy requirement includes precision. My point was to those saying accuracy was about the spread. The spread is just the precision, and only matters after you're accurate. In your example, if you're aiming for the heart, it only matters how far apart the shots are if they are generally centered around the heart. If they are 2" apart, and 12" to the left of the heart, the precision counts for nothing. Which, I think, was exactly your point in choosing that as one of your targets.

With the head shots, on the other hand, (assuming frontal shots, so we have to allow for face shots to count, perhaps) we have a larger area. Shots within a 6" spread could be considered accurate, while that would likely not be on-target with the heart shots. The need for precision differs because of the size of the target. In both cases, accuracy would properly refer to the center of the group being roughly the same as the center of the target.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

It's not irrelevant, but it's also, apparently, not nearly as important as certain factions of The Great Caliber Wars would prefer to believe.

An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association

.22 (short, long and long rifle)
% of hits that were fatal - 34%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 1.38
% of people who were not incapacitated - 31%
One-shot-stop % - 31%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 76%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 60%

.45 ACP
% of hits that were fatal - 29%
Average number of rounds until incapacitation - 2.08
% of people who were not incapacitated - 14%
One-shot-stop % - 39%
Accuracy (head and torso hits) - 85%
% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit) - 51%

Statistically speaking, these two are nearly identical. I'm not sure what his Margin of Error is, but chances are pretty good that the difference between these two falls within it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

.22 (short, long and long rifle)

That's interesting. I'd have expected a minor difference between, say, 9mm and .45ACP, but not the performance shown for the .22's. I do notice the .22's had higher accuracy, which likely offsets the physical advantage of the .45ACP (which had a lower incidence of "incapacitating" shots).

Thanks for sharing that, Kirk!

EDIT: In re-reading your post, I see I swapped some numbers in my head. I wonder why the difference in stopping is so small, when the .45 actually had a higher incidence of hits to the head/torso. Hmm....

 

[Tgace]

That's interesting. I'd have expected a minor difference between, say, 9mm and .45ACP, but not the performance shown for the .22's. I do notice the .22's had higher accuracy, which likely offsets the physical advantage of the .45ACP (which had a lower incidence of "incapacitating" shots).

Thanks for sharing that, Kirk!

EDIT: In re-reading your post, I see I swapped some numbers in my head. I wonder why the difference in stopping is so small, when the .45 actually had a higher incidence of hits to the head/torso. Hmm....

The authors point about what a "stop" means is important. In this "study" stop means the confrontation ended, not death or physical incapacitation.

Most people in this example fled the field (so to speak) after a hit with a .22

That point is important, but I take internet based "blog studies" with a grain of salt...

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[lklawson]

The authors point about what a "stop" means is important. In this "study" stop means the confrontation ended, not death or physical incapacitation.

Most people in this example fled the field (so to speak) after a hit with a .22

Which is why the "% of hits that were fatal" and the "% actually incapacitated by one shot (torso or head hit)" are important; because they don't represent "crap! he's shooting at me!"

That point is important, but I take internet based "blog studies" with a grain of salt...

Which this one isn't.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tgace]

An Alternative Look at "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power"

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[lklawson]

An Alternative Look at "An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power"

Yeah. I've seen it. If Ellifritz is "asking the wrong question" then so too is this author. He makes the case that "stopping power" is a misleading statement and that "time to stop" is far more important. However, the best research has indicated that any firearm delivering energy on target in the range of .40S&W and "under" (including the .45ACP) experiences an almost unquantifiable statistical spread in "time to stop." The truth is that he's asking for a statistic which is impossible, quite literally, to create, not that people haven't been trying to do so for decades. The first attempt I can recall is Fairbairn's "Timetable of Death." The truth is that the only way to get "kinda close" to the statistic that he's after is to compile statistics of real world shootings and just accept that there is going to be some level of Statistical Uncertainty.

Here's an article which I think you'll like more :
The 4 Ways to Stop an Opponent

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Tgace]

IMO "psychological stopping" is a meaningless term in this discussion. Hell, a BG just running off if a cap gun was presented (or missed shots from any weapon) sort of qualifies....

I believe you need to carry a handgun that delivers the most powerful round you can accurately use. With factors such as capacity and size/ease of carry as considerations.