Handgun Zeroing

[NeoBlackdog]

I shoot Glocks and have never had to zero any of them. They are just Perfection from the factory...

 

[kmk1012]

I shoot Glocks and have never had to zero any of them. They are just Perfection from the factory...

So very true, even the snout mouth so commonly brought up.

 

[OldBroad44]

Here's an interesting article on engagement distances to maybe help decide on practice distances:

The True Distance of a Typical Gunfight - Lucky Gunner Lounge

How far apart does the typical gunfight happen? We analyze police and other data to determine the distance in this article.

www.luckygunner.com

I'd tend to agree with OP with the 10 & 25 yards. I like to use paper plates with dot sticker for targets due to how cheap they are. When I'm at the range and people claim how badly they shot, I simply hold the paper plate to my chest so they can see that it would still be pretty effective shooting.

It may be true that most SD shootings of bad guys by citizens are within just a few yards. However I'm not going to sight in my handgun differently for SD than hunting. In addition, SD against cougar, back bear, and dog might be further. The videos that show a person walking backward retreating from a cougar...not me. If its stalking me I'd shoot it as soon as it became obvious it was stalking me, before it started its charge. Its much easier to hit a motionless or walking target than a charging one. So the distance might be more like 40 feet instead of ten. Second issue. If you have a human or dog companion, you may need to shoot at a distance if your companion is attacked. In my major hiking and camping days I had a dog with me. My SD gun needed to be good enough to save her from a bear or cougar at some distance from me. I used to have a neighbor with two aggressive dogs confined by electric line on property and associated collars on dogs. Sometimes the power went off and released the dogs. I might have needed to shoot dogs at a distance if they went after a neighborhood kid. They often ran at passing kids in apparent attack mode but they slid to a halt when warned by collars. Little kids would sometimes scream when this happened. Not obvious dogs would not actually attack if power was off. Maybe dogs were just bluffing. Maybe not.

If my 6" revolver was sighted in at 25 yards and I had to shoot at very close range, the worse that could happen from 25 yard sight in is being off by up to 3/4" low if I forgot to use holdover. But since I did lots of shooting at small things at variable short distances, holding over the right amount was automatic.

 

[Bobbygun]

I sight my concealed carry handguns at 7 yards, probably because I actually want to hit the target. My larger handguns I sight in at 25 yards, but if I'm really looking for a good result, I'll use a rest instead of offhand. Although, not to toot my own horn, most of my one-shot groups offhand at 25 yards can me covered with a nickel.

The only handgun I sight in at 100 yards is my T.C. Contender with a 2.5x7x28 scope. I tend to use a rest with that one as well, but offhand I can hit the Earth.

 

[Tinman357]

I've been looking for a decent maximum point blank range calculator for pistols but no luck. I zero my adjustible sighted pistol at 25yds. That seems to be the best zero for multiple ranges, to me.

Fixed sight pistols get shot with a wide variety of commonly available SD ammo at 25 yds. I stock up on the 3 loads that are closest to POA/POI and fine tune the sights to those 3. Lucky for me all 3 my fixed sight pistols like the same 3 loads.

I've come to accept a 4" group at 25yds as a baseline for "accurate enough" although, after a bit of tuning, all of mine will do better.

I'll tweak my reloads to as close to POA/POI as possible and call it good. Variances in gun/ammo will result in diffrent POA/POI, but I've done my best to minimize that. I'm not a target shooter, I put my priority on SD ammo and all my pistols are for SD. I reload "happy medium" ammo and adjust my aim accordingly.

When I pistol hunted, I tailored ammo/sights at 50 yards and worked hard to maintain a 2" grouping. It took a lot of time and work that I can't do anymore.

 

[Koda]

I've been looking for a decent maximum point blank range calculator for pistols but no luck.

have you tried this one?

ShootersCalculator.com | Point Blank Range Calculator

Calculates the maximum point blank range of a firearm cartridge fired from a rifle or handgun.

shooterscalculator.com

 

[Tinman357]

Yes. Thats the one I use, but it's a bit clunky.

 

[Koda]

Yes. Thats the one I use, but it's a bit clunky.

I think it would be difficult to get the exact BC that the actual gun puts out vs what the bullet advertises. I just use that calculator as a general reference, same for their ballistic trajectory calculator.

 

[OldBroad44]

I sight my concealed carry handguns at 7 yards, probably because I actually want to hit the target. My larger handguns I sight in at 25 yards, but if I'm really looking for a good result, I'll use a rest instead of offhand. Although, not to toot my own horn, most of my one-shot groups offhand at 25 yards can me covered with a nickel.

The only handgun I sight in at 100 yards is my T.C. Contender with a 2.5x7x28 scope. I tend to use a rest with that one as well, but offhand I can hit the Earth.

Most of your ones shot groups could be covered by a nickel? Huh??? Aren't everyone's one- shot "groups" only as wide as the one bullet?

 

[Bobbygun]

Aren't everyone's one- shot "groups" only as wide as the one bullet?

Maybe???

 

[OldBroad44]

...When I pistol hunted, I tailored ammo/sights at 50 yards and worked hard to maintain a 2" grouping. It took a lot of time and work that I can't do anymore.

Back in the 1970s and 1980s gun magazines featured lots of groups shot by revolvers on Random Rests as well as by human shooters. Ransome Rest essentially represents the precision of the revolver with no human error. Generally, the best 6" revolvers in Colt, SW, and Ruger in .357 and .44 could shoot 6-shot 50-yard groups of 1 1/2 - 2" with the ammo that was best in the particular gun from Random Rest. The best 6-shot groups from human shooters with open sights from bench rest with these guns were usually in the 3 1/2" - 4" range. However, if the gun was scoped, the best human shooters could actually match the Ransome Rest scores from bench rest.

Re your claim to be shooting 2" groups at 50 yards while pistol hunting-- something isn't adding up for me. I don't think you or anyone else could do that with an ordinary unscoped 6" revolver, even from bench rest. Did you hunt with a bench rest setup hauled behind you on a cart? Was your gun scoped? Were you using a scoped Contender or some other super accurate single shot rig rather than an ordinary revolver? Or maybe a scoped SW .460? Or maybe you were shooting one-shot "groups" like Bobbygun? Or maybe shooting a dozen 3-shot groups and counting only the one that made it below 2" because of luck and small sample size?

 

[OldBroad44]

Maybe???

No. I really don't understand.

 

[Bobbygun]

No. I really don't understand.

It was a joke.

 

[smoothbore]

I check the guns accuracy off the bench first at 25 yards. Then I shoot off hand to check my accuracy. Gun always shoot better than I can My best training is either 6 inch steel targets at 10 yards or 6 inch dueling tree at 10 yards. Reactive targets are best after you sight the gun in as it makes you a faster more competent shot....in my opinion.

I agree!

 

[OldBroad44]

It was a joke.

Oh. Good joke too. Oh well.

 

[smoothbore]

Most of your ones shot groups could be covered by a nickel? Huh??? Aren't everyone's one- shot "groups" only as wide as the one bullet?

LOL! I think that one flew over your head

 

[smoothbore]

I remember the time when I could put two shots in the same hole, but now when I shoot a three shot group, I put one on paper, and the other two in the dirt, and call it a one hole group. Never fool anyone though!

 

[Tinman357]

Oldbroad44:

I clearly stated that I worked very hard. Yes, with tuned equipment and ammo. (Never claimed I didn't) Yes, I worked up loads and practiced on a "bench". (Never claimed I didn't) When hunting, I used the tree stand I was in or whatever was available. ( never claimed I didn't) Standing on 2 legs and freehanding is a good way to lose meat.

Yes, my revolver was not "out of the box" factory. It was tuned, and well tuned at that. As well as scoped. (I never said it wasn't) I stated that I worked very hard to maintain a 2" group. I did. I worked hard at it. I wasn't a consistant 2" shooter. I never claimed that. But I can see where it could be taken that way. I did, however, hit that 2" mark more often than not.

My apologies to you. I should have been clearer in my comments. I didn't realize they would be taken as such a challenge. But, that said, you may have assumed a tiny little tad too much. Borderline calling me a liar based on your assumptions. But text is an inaccurate medium. I prefer to not take it that way and ignore your other assumptive accusations.

On the other hand, I've personally witnessed more than a few people that could consistently nail that 2" @ 50 on demand. I could do it, but not consistantly. Never claimed I could. I thought.

Yes, they shoot from a bench.
Yes, they are shooting tuned revolvers.
Yes, the guns are scoped.
Yes, they shoot hand tailored loads.
No, it isn't that rare. Uncommon? Yes, but not rare.
No, it's not the 70's or 80's anymore. been some advancements in machining in the last 50 years. I've got a budget Leopold scope thats lightyears ahead of anything from 50 years ago. Precision gunsmiths abound, tooling has changed, ammo has gotten more consistant too.

I've invited you and yours for coffee and a range trip on several occasions, if memory serves me correctly. You should drop in sometime. I've got a few sweet shooting pistols that you can try. My most recent is Wilson XTAC, it shoots pretty good too.

 

[OldBroad44]

Oldbroad44:

I clearly stated that I worked very hard. Yes, with tuned equipment and ammo. (Never claimed I didn't) Yes, I worked up loads and practiced on a "bench". (Never claimed I didn't) When hunting, I used the tree stand I was in or whatever was available. ( never claimed I didn't) Standing on 2 legs and freehanding is a good way to lose meat.

Yes, my revolver was not "out of the box" factory. It was tuned, and well tuned at that. As well as scoped. (I never said it wasn't) I stated that I worked very hard to maintain a 2" group. I did. I worked hard at it. I wasn't a consistant 2" shooter. I never claimed that. But I can see where it could be taken that way. I did, however, hit that 2" mark more often than not.

My apologies to you. I should have been clearer in my comments. I didn't realize they would be taken as such a challenge. But, that said, you may have assumed a tiny little tad too much. Borderline calling me a liar based on your assumptions. But text is an inaccurate medium. I prefer to not take it that way and ignore your other assumptive accusations.

On the other hand, I've personally witnessed more than a few people that could consistently nail that 2" @ 50 on demand. I could do it, but not consistantly. Never claimed I could. I thought.

Yes, they shoot from a bench.
Yes, they are shooting tuned revolvers.
Yes, the guns are scoped.
Yes, they shoot hand tailored loads.
No, it isn't that rare. Uncommon? Yes, but not rare.
No, it's not the 70's or 80's anymore. been some advancements in machining in the last 50 years. I've got a budget Leopold scope thats lightyears ahead of anything from 50 years ago. Precision gunsmiths abound, tooling has changed, ammo has gotten more consistant too.

I've invited you and yours for coffee and a range trip on several occasions, if memory serves me correctly. You should drop in sometime. I've got a few sweet shooting pistols that you can try. My most recent is Wilson XTAC, it shoots pretty good too.

Ahhhh. That explains it. No I wasnt meaning to seem to call you a lier. I apologize for coming across that way. I simply thought that either you were not hunting with the sort of gun under the sort of conditions I was imagining or I was wrong about the capabilities of the revolvers and people, or the revolvers needed to be scoped and being shot under bench rest conditions. Which confused me because you were talking about hunting, not a shooting range. And turns out your revolvers were, indeed, scoped, and your hunting tree stand approximated bench rest. You never said otherwise . So that explains it.

No, I'm not the one you invited for coffee and a range trip. You're Puget Sound. I am, alas, all the way down in Corvallis Oregon. Nice thought though.

My reference to data from gun magazines in the 70s and 80s was not because I thought that the pinnacle of revolver or ammo precision. Its because silhouette games had become popular and Ransome Rest data were often featured. After that, the high capacity pistols seemed to take over gun mags, and hard data about precision of hunting or silhouette handguns seemed to vanish. And I quit reading them.

Cheers,
Carol