What handgun should I get?

[Jay Cunningham]

How many carry a BUG/spare mags in preparation for the event of a malfunctioning gun? What is the probability of needing that? Now what is the probability of needing to accurately place a shot on a target at 25+ yards? Why prepare for one and not the other?

Does it matter whether the mag breaks, or if the gun malfunctions, or if you expend all your ammo and you need to keep shooting? Either you have the alternate capability on your hip or you do not. It is cheap, simple insurance in the case of a spare magazine. It is expensive, more complicated insurance in the event of a BUG. However the BUG allows you to fix the gun grab problem, where a spare mag does not.

As far as probability? Well, they're both (fixing a gun and making a 25 yard shot on a dude) statistical outliers, but they're still on the bell curve. I say work at both but don't spend an inordinate amout of time on both.

[Tamara]

I'd have to disagree with that. My pistol's accuracy is a limit on what I can achieve. While my shooting may not always rise to that limit, I'd rather know the gun is capable of more rather than less.

Well, "73rd" is a bit of an exaggeration, but obviously accuracy is not my primary determinant, because otherwise I'd still be carrying a custom 1911, but to me the ~2" difference in group size at 25 yards between the CCA gun and the G19 I'm currently carrying does not outweigh the other benefits of the Glock.

There's obviously a point at which accuracy becomes a factor in the decision-making cycle, though, which is where I'm at with the M&P. I mean, if it was the only gun I had, I'd just go 'head and carry it, aware of its limitations.

As it is, (like I indicated in my previous post,) I'm torn between trying to do something about the accuracy issue, perhaps by sending it back to Smith and seeing if they are responsive, or perhaps via an aftermarket barrel, or just sucking it up, switching to the Glock, and relegating the M&P to bedside duty. (It has a light and laser and in this house the distances are measured in feet and not yards, which obviates any long-range accuracy issues.)

[ToddG]

Well, "73rd" is a bit of an exaggeration, but obviously accuracy is not my primary determinant, because otherwise I'd still be carrying a custom 1911, but to me the ~2" difference in group size at 25 yards between the CCA gun and the G19 I'm currently carrying does not outweigh the other benefits of the Glock.

Agree 100% that there are other factors worth considering and some weigh more heavily than accuracy.

Much like reliability, my take on accuracy is formed through experience with a number of different brands and models tested over many years with many different types of ammo. There are so many good guns that easily shoot sub-4" groups at 25 (and many that shoot closer to 2") that I'm hard pressed to accept worse accuracy than that without a very strong justification.

The Glock I've been carrying for the past sixteen months is averaging just under 2.5" groups at 25yd from a bench. Emotionally, I have a hard time accepting that since all of my other test guns routinely shot under two inches. But realistically that half inch difference isn't something I think about when I'm shooting or when I'm carrying.

[GOP]

I woke up today with almost nothing to do, and read a bunch of various reviews and opinions all over the web about the KKM drop in barrels. Everyone, with the exception of a few people in this thread, reported group size cut in half with the KKM. A few people reported 2-3" groups at 50m! Apparently even Dave Sevigny has been recommending them to M&P owners as well. I will be buying one for peace of mind until the fitted barrels from G&R and Apex come out. It may not be necessary, but I have a big match coming up in October I have been training hard for and don't want to worry about any gear issues. I still wont be able to do much other than 15m groups until my arm heals, but when it does, I'll post a comparison from a rest.

Accuracy to me is a huge deal, and I'm still biased from reading Larry Vickers say that group size will double under stress in highly trained shooters. I'm not sure if that is even realistic (a lot of SOF shooters use 8" plates as the balance between speed/accuracy), but it has definitely effected my opinion.

[BLR]

I woke up today with almost nothing to do, and read a bunch of various reviews and opinions all over the web about the KKM drop in barrels. Everyone, with the exception of a few people in this thread, reported group size cut in half with the KKM. A few people reported 2-3" groups at 50m! Apparently even Dave Sevigny has been recommending them to M&P owners as well. I will be buying one for peace of mind until the fitted barrels from G&R and Apex come out. It may not be necessary, but I have a big match coming up in October I have been training hard for and don't want to worry about any gear issues. I still wont be able to do much other than 15m groups until my arm heals, but when it does, I'll post a comparison from a rest.

Accuracy to me is a huge deal, and I'm still biased from reading Larry Vickers say that group size will double under stress in highly trained shooters. I'm not sure if that is even realistic (a lot of SOF shooters use 8" plates as the balance between speed/accuracy), but it has definitely effected my opinion.

Group size doubling? Yeah, I'll buy that. I remember the first real match I shot, reviewing/scoring the targets. I'd have sworn they were all A's. Lots and lots of C's. Things get shaky and jittery under stress.

[GOP]

Group size doubling? Yeah, I'll buy that. I remember the first real match I shot, reviewing/scoring the targets. I'd have sworn they were all A's. Lots and lots of C's. Things get shaky and jittery under stress.

I'm not really referring to match stress, as I have actually found that I shoot very similar in a match vs. what I do on the range (I've been the most accurate shooter in 1 club match and in my division at a major match of the 4 matches I've competed in this year). I'm more referring to the stress of a gun fight, which I obviously have no experience with.

[GJM]

GOP, I am perplexed. As I understand it, your PPQ has been accurate, reliable and you have been able to shoot sub 4 second FASTests and 1.8 Bill drills on demand with it. Presumably, you have holsters and magazines for it.

Now you are in the M&P camp when you don't even have a pistol that you have confirmed is accurate at 25 yards, and the experience of folks here on PF tells you that getting an accurate M&P is statistically less likely than with a Glock, HK or SIG -- which means it may take some time to get an accurate M&P thru a custom barrel or by buying multiple pistols.

What is with the big rush to switch platforms?

[Ed L]

If you actually read my posts in this thread you will see that I do not mention Kimber anywhere here. I threw my lot in with Sig.

You're right. It was another thread where you posted in favor of Kimber. I misremembered reading it in this thread. Here is what you wrote in the other thread:

Kimber isn't the largest 1911 manufacturer out there because they can't put together a pistol right.

If you take the time to actually read and digest my post here, you will see that I say accuracy can be a litmus for quality. I even said there are exceptions to the rule. However, you seem to be incorrectly assuming that I hold accuracy paramount. I didn't think what I wrote was all that obtuse, but let me state it again: accuracy is an indicator of quality. It indicates the manufacturer spent the time and money to ensure design geometries were adhered to during production. Which, while not without exception, implies in spec parts were used throughout. An inaccurate gun tells me that, for example, the crown was cut off center, or the chamber reamed off center, etc. Which would then imply the machines were not properly maintained and/or quality control isn't doing its job. I would then suspect poor materials, other parts out of spec or fitted incorrectly. That is a different argument than "I need a gun to shoot 1.5" groups at 25yrds with Golden Sabers out of a Ransom rest for me to carry it."

The Kimber Warrior that I bought was very accurate, capable of firing 5 shots into 3" ay 25 yards, more of a limitation of my shooting skills at the time than the guns. However, the gun could barely get through a CMC powermag or Wilson 7 round mag or the stock Kimber Mag without either having a failure to feed or the slide lock back with rounds still in the magazine.

Taking a look at your post, a few things strike me. So your Kimber went to two "well known" gunsmiths, and still didn't work. Superficially, it would lend support for the "Kimber is junk camp". Which is fine. I have no interest in that discussion. However, using the "well known" descriptor implies these "gunsmiths" knew what they were doing. Yet neither could diagnose the problem, correctly. Much less fix it. So, in your mind, was the problem with the gun or the gunsmiths? Why not name the gunsmiths to give the post some credibility? What work did they do on them?

See my point?

I first sent it to Ed Vandenberg, citing the problems I was experiencing, and it came back functioning no better. I sent it back to him and then it came back without the premature lockbacks but still had feeding issues. I then sent it to Mike Lau of TX Brigade Armory who gave me back a gun that seemed to feed reliably but still had a rare issue. Then this guy named Larry Vickers did a little work on the extractor during a 1911 Operator class.

But even after this, the gun did other wierd things like dragging an empty case back into the magazine on one occasion, failing to pick up a new round from a magazine and close the slide on an empty chamber when there were still rounds in the magazine on another, and the aforementioned situation where the ambi thumb safety loosened enough to prevent me from disengaging it.

It did this with a variety of CMC powermags and Wilson 7 rounders firing everything from Winchester White box to UMC ammo, to Blazer Brass, to Black Hills--all in 230 grain FMJ as well as Remington 230 grain Golder Saber.

So just because it met your accuracy criteria, did not mean that it was reliable.

Here is a thread from elsewhere that covers some of it: http://www.10-8forums.com/ubbthreads...r=56091&page=1

[BLR]

So just because it met your accuracy criteria, did not mean that it was reliable.

I really don't want to be a jerk here, but what accuracy criteria did I set??? Where did I outline it?

You're taking what I say totally out of context and twisting it to meet your own purposes.

It has been stated 4 times by two people now that I suggest accuracy is an indicator and nothing more. I'm at a loss for why you want to make it more than that.

As to your gunsmithing experience: so now we are at 3 sets of eyes failing to find/diagnose/remedy the problem? Surely you can see my hesitation with this? Getting a 1911 to run isn't black magic.

I'll respond to your Kimber comment in the appropriate thread.

[GOP]

GOP, I am perplexed. As I understand it, your PPQ has been accurate, reliable and you have been able to shoot sub 4 second FASTests and 1.8 Bill drills on demand with it. Presumably, you have holsters and magazines for it.

Now you are in the M&P camp when you don't even have a pistol that you have confirmed is accurate at 25 yards, and the experience of folks here on PF tells you that getting an accurate M&P is statistically less likely than with a Glock, HK or SIG -- which means it may take some time to get an accurate M&P thru a custom barrel or by buying multiple pistols.

What is with the big rush to switch platforms?

It is pretty simple to me really. The PPQ is awesome, but I just had to pay $80 for a gunsmith to work on the gun AND find a spare part. The gun was down for 3 weeks with a simple issue dealing with the rear sight. The lack of a compact size gun means I am having to compete and train with a gun that I don't always carry (in the summer, I usually wear t-shirts and shorts, in the other seasons I am at college). The sights are fine for close range stuff, but the stock sights and night sight options leave A LOT to be desired at 25m. I plan to eventually instruct, and I want to master a gun that will be used by a large portion of my students, I have heard too many students in classes say things like "if I had a gun like that...I could do that", etc. Also, I am in ESP division in IDPA with the PPQ when my ideal goal was to make Master in the next 2 years in SSP. Primarily, though, the lack of a compact PPQ made me want to switch to another platform so I could carry exactly what I compete with. With the M&P, I can have a full line of pistols from pocket to 5" with extreme aftermarket support, very solid reliability, great ergonomics (the gun feels better than others, though I know that is way overrated), and that eventually will be more accurate than even the PPQ if the G&R and Apex barrels produce 1-2" groups as preliminary reports suggest. I'm 22, so I'm in this for the long run. Much like the Glock series, I have no doubt that the M&P line will be here long term. Walther, well, still is a tiny presence in the US gun market and is almost non-existent in the competition world. I've had an M&P40 in the past, and my speed won't suffer much at all with the M&P series. In fact, my weapons manipulation will probably get even faster with the M&P because of how much I like the controls (I'm a lefty, and I hated the HUGE slide release on the PPQ).

I still own a PPQ and all the accessories, so if this doesn't work out like I expect, I'll just go back to the PPQ like nothing ever happened.