This is the type of people that get to decide if you have a gun or not.

That person is bragging about a 1 yard group?

That's pretty good grouping, depends on distance though. 

That's pretty good grouping, depends on distance though. 

And whether or not he had one point of aim or two...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And whether or not he had one point of aim or two...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was assuming that it was at two distances. 

Don't they usually shoot left and right barricade?

looks like double tap strings at close distance.

...1100 stringing

I think they shoot starting at 3 yards, then 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Most both handed, some one handed. Shooting is timed as well. Looks like a good grouping to me.

Should of cropped the picture.......

I think they shoot starting at 3 yards, then 5, 7, 10, and 15 yards. Most both handed, some one handed. Shooting is timed as well. Looks like a good grouping to me.

how did you do?

I know the OP was talking more about what the text said and not what the impacts on the target say.  While I may not personally care for the comments either, I will address the target also. 

As far as the target is concerned or any target for that matter, we must consider what is an acceptable hit zone for the target that we are facing.  We must also consider the time in which we can deliver acceptable hits.  We have all heard of speed and accuracy and this must apply here but first I will say that this is a horrible target for LE qualification.  This target is almost as bad as the B27 which was status quo in LE for many years and still in use today.  Both targets focus a shooter on a less than ideal hit zone when it comes to shot placement on a human torso. 

Now if we ignore the shot placement topic, which is easily fixed by training and a more correct target, we really need to consider how quickly those hits occurred.  I hate to say that distance is irrelevant, but it really is.  We must look at #1 are those hits acceptable to be effective and #2 is the shooter able to effect those hits faster than the opponent, regardless of the distance? 

As an example, if macsak and I were both able to be accurate enough to place a round on each others nose at any distance, who would win that fight?  Obviously, whoever can deliver that shot faster.  Now does macsak need to hit me right square on the tip of my nose to win?  No he does not.  Can he hit me in the eye (less accurate) but be a tenth or two faster and still get the job done?  Yes, he can.  This is balancing speed vs necessary accuracy.  Of course a fast miss is still a miss and accuracy is King, however all the accuracy in the world matters little if the opponent can do it faster.  Now of course this is purely hypothetical because we are both non-violent, rational adults but this helps to illustrate a point.  Speed and accuracy applies no matter if it is IPSC or defensive shooting, however the emphasis may vary depending on the situation. 

Again outside of placement being too low on that target, the group size would be acceptable provided time constraints of the qualification were met.  Again we can easily adapt a shooter to select more ideal target areas, so the reality is that the target is not horrible by any stretch.  It is actually more than acceptable given the variables. 

I know the OP was talking more about what the text said and not what the impacts on the target say.  While I may not personally care for the comments either, I will address the target also. 

As far as the target is concerned or any target for that matter, we must consider what is an acceptable hit zone for the target that we are facing.  We must also consider the time in which we can deliver acceptable hits.  We have all heard of speed and accuracy and this must apply here but first I will say that this is a horrible target for LE qualification.  This target is almost as bad as the B27 which was status quo in LE for many years and still in use today.  Both targets focus a shooter on a less than ideal hit zone when it comes to shot placement on a human torso. 

Now if we ignore the shot placement topic, which is easily fixed by training and a more correct target, we really need to consider how quickly those hits occurred.  I hate to say that distance is irrelevant, but it really is.  We must look at #1 are those hits acceptable to be effective and #2 is the shooter able to effect those hits faster than the opponent, regardless of the distance? 

As an example, if macsak and I were both able to be accurate enough to place a round on each others nose at any distance, who would win that fight?  Obviously, whoever can deliver that shot faster.  Now does macsak need to hit me right square on the tip of my nose to win?  No he does not.  Can he hit me in the eye (less accurate) but be a tenth or two faster and still get the job done?  Yes, he can.  This is balancing speed vs necessary accuracy.  Of course a fast miss is still a miss and accuracy is King, however all the accuracy in the world matters little if the opponent can do it faster.  Now of course this is purely hypothetical because we are both non-violent, rational adults but this helps to illustrate a point.  Speed and accuracy applies no matter if it is IPSC or defensive shooting, however the emphasis may vary depending on the situation. 

Again outside of placement being too low on that target, the group size would be acceptable provided time constraints of the qualification were met.  Again we can easily adapt a shooter to select more ideal target areas, so the reality is that the target is not horrible by any stretch.  It is actually more than acceptable given the variables.

Very good assessment.

If you are 5 yards away and have to draw and fire two rounds within 3 seconds with only one hand I would say that is not a bad grouping at all. Obviously if there were no time constraints then it would be a bad group.

In a stressful shooting I think all of those hits would be considered pretty good.

how did you do?

Mine would be better 

Mine would be better