Unhealthy Obsession? Pistol Accuracy...

[45dotACP]

I'm on the opposite side of the fence: I think people make too little of a pistol/ammo's inherent accuracy. No matter how good you are, your pistol and ammo can only add to the dispersion of your shots. The less they add, the more good hits you'll achieve all else being equal.

That's why I think there's a big difference between a 4"@25 gun and a 2"@25 gun. Will it matter under most practical circumstances? No. But since you can never shoot better than the gun & ammo's inherent level of accuracy, why sacrifice when you don't have to?

Realistically talking here...most of the pistols you tested long term were capable of accuracy right around 2.5" or 3"...would it not be reasonable to assume that most production handguns are capable of that type of accuracy? Granted the M&P had some accuracy issues back in the day, but I'd say the go to guns for the majority of people on this forum (Glock, HK, SIG, Beretta, M&P, and GASP, the 1911) would meet that accuracy standard or at least be closer to 2" at 25 than to 4" right?

[LSP552]

Mechanical accuracy is good thing. Equally important to me is being able to get usable accuracy. The two are not necessarily the same thing. The best example I can give is my stepson's DA/SA HK45c. The gun is mechanically very accurate, single action slow fire. However, it has the worst trigger of any pistol I've every shot. The DA must be 15 lb. and the SA is a horrible creepy thing. It's impossible to shoot accurately with any real speed, at least in my hands.

I know this is an extreme example. However, all platforms have good and bad traits. It's all about which attributes you want to emphasize. And different tasks can call for different tools.

[1986s4]

Yes, mechanical accuracy is good but I think most quality pistols have that to one degree or another. Usable accuracy is something I am discovering quite late. I've always known my revolvers were accurate. But during my accuracy experiments I have found my Colt .38 super auto to be the easiest to squeeze the accuracy out of.

[Gio]

The biggest misconception I see posted is when shooters think that if they can't shoot better than a 4" group at 25 yds then they don't need a gun that shoots sub 4" groups. That's not how it works, the two variations are additive. If you shoot a 4" group and your gun shoots a 4" group, the best you can possibly hold would be an 8" group on average. If you had a gun that shoots 1", and you shoot 4" groups, then you would average 5" groups. Everyone would benefit from a more accurate gun, but at some point there are diminishing returns w/ regard to cost and reliability. It's up to each individual shooter to decide where to draw the line, with the highest end of accuracy likely being a custom 1911's that shoot 1-1.5" @ 25 yds while modern service type pistols shoot about 2-2.5."

The other factor is shoot ability. You may have a gun that can mechanically hold a 2" group, but can you shoot it at speed without jerking the trigger and throwing shots?

[j.d.allen]

I know CZ's don't necessarily get a lot of love on this forum, maybe due to being a somewhat older and complicated design, but I had and daily carried a CZ 75B SA for years and that thing shot like a freaking dream. Probably one of the best stock triggers you will find outside of a 1911. And you want to talk about inherent accuracy? Really nice pistol in that regard. I wouldn't fault you for going with one of those...

[Savage Hands]

I'm on the opposite side of the fence: I think people make too little of a pistol/ammo's inherent accuracy. No matter how good you are, your pistol and ammo can only add to the dispersion of your shots. The less they add, the more good hits you'll achieve all else being equal.

That's why I think there's a big difference between a 4"@25 gun and a 2"@25 gun. Will it matter under most practical circumstances? No. But since you can never shoot better than the gun & ammo's inherent level of accuracy, why sacrifice when you don't have to?

I agree with this and don't mind paying for additional mechanical precision if it doesn't affect reliability.

[JHC]

I'm on the opposite side of the fence: I think people make too little of a pistol/ammo's inherent accuracy. No matter how good you are, your pistol and ammo can only add to the dispersion of your shots. The less they add, the more good hits you'll achieve all else being equal.

That's why I think there's a big difference between a 4"@25 gun and a 2"@25 gun. Will it matter under most practical circumstances? No. But since you can never shoot better than the gun & ammo's inherent level of accuracy, why sacrifice when you don't have to?

+1 but in his case he's got a 2" gun. So round out the skill set. OTOH a change to the VP9 and continued obsession would add some data points for real users offhand precision with the gun. On other boards that is commonly 7, 10, or 15 yd measures.

[fixer]

However (and at the risk of sounding arrogant) I think I'm to the point in pistol skill where hardware does begin to make a difference.

Not arrogant...following your 25 yd shooting improvements, I think your consistently good groups substantiate your statement .

Early in 2014 I settled into shooting Gen 4 Glock 17's and have really learned and grown a lot with them in this past year. I think it's for sure a solid platform and "accurate enough" for most things. However, let's say I wanted to go full-in on the accuracy side while still maintaining a "duty acceptable" durability, mags, holsters, parts, sights proposition. I'd also prefer to stay in 9mm. Where do you look? The only things on my radar at this point are a Sig P226SAO or maybe a CZ75. Or, am I chasing a ghost and should just stick with the Glocks?

The 226 and CZ are great platforms that meet your other requirements (9mm, duty-grade durable and reliable). I suggest also considering the 92. The 9mm 1911 may also be something you want to investigate.

This is a subject near to my heart. I really like the Glock platform for the reasons Okie John mentioned. However I have a fetish for 25 yd (and beyond) accuracy. I literally struggle to get decent groups at 25 yds with the Glock platform. It bothers the hell out of me.

I can consistently get 3-4" groups with the 92 in SA. On occasion I can eek out a 2.5" group. This is also "cold".

So the dilemma is--carry the 92 because I shoot better with it despite the logistics problem of carrying such a monster; or carry a Glock (19, 23, even 17) because while I'm good enough with it, the logistics are much friendlier.

So I feel your pain kinda thing.

[1986s4]

I had a SIG P-226 Elite SAO. It was an accurate pistol, no doubt. The trigger was very good. But when trying to shoot fast, I found it didn't shoot as flat as I wanted. My Beretta, CZ and Colt are better in that regard.

[mizer67]

+1 but in his case he's got a 2" gun. So round out the skill set. OTOH a change to the VP9 and continued obsession would add some data points for real users offhand precision with the gun. On other boards that is commonly 7, 10, or 15 yd measures.

I've found no practical difference between the VP9 and re-barreled Gen4 G17s w.r.t. off hand accuracy @ 25 yards. The VP9, in my bench testing, is slightly worse in mechanical accuracy vs. my recent Bar-Sto'ed Glock.

However, my brace of VP9's do still wear stock sights, which are less than ideal for this type of work.

Honestly, the only gun that I can shoot both faster and more accurately at distance than a Glock is a CZ75, which, as long you replace the TRS, has been boringly reliable even with PF.com levels of care and feeding.

Other possible contenders for this type of goal for me, would be a P-07/9, P320, 1911 or P226 as mentioned. Although I'd venture a guess if you can master the trigger a P30 would be a contender also.