Tom Givens presented a few cases that made me really wish I knew where my gun would hit at 25 yards. Not sure how well 8" does it for me when I can shoot better with a different gun.
Tom Givens presented a few cases that made me really wish I knew where my gun would hit at 25 yards. Not sure how well 8" does it for me when I can shoot better with a different gun.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
I don't think anyone should be discouraged by the issues with guns.
I think the internet has just brought this to the main stream. Apparently, glocks with magazines inserted in them in the early 1990's when thrown, fired. I just think this information was prevalent because there was nowhere to talk.
I really think if your gun has a malfunction every 3,000 or so rounds... you're in good shape. My Glock hasn't had a single stoppage or malfunction with any shooter or any ammo, and that's been in 900-ish rounds, and probably if I had to guess around 1,000-1,500 maybe 2k dry fires. Sure, it doesn't eject exactly like I want it to, but honestly... Big whoop. I can fire a 33 round magazine as fast as I'm able, and it's fed through at least two that way. I've shot probably 5-6 magazines worth both SHO and WHO only, and I've had nothing, and I've had some slight Front sight post wiggle, that I'm keeping an eye on.
But, at this point, my Arsenal AK-47, and my $1,000 1911 had to go back to the factory for repairs. My Arsenal never fired a shot, my 1911 lost part of the hammer.
I can't say I'm upset, honestly, about erratic ejection and an extremely thin front sight post working itself loose. My Dad's M&P Compact 9, about a week and a half ago, front sight fell OFF. O-F-F. OFF! It will not sit in the dovetail correctly. I haven't had that issue. Worst part is, I recommended the darn thing!
ETA: If I threw a 10 rounder in my 1911 in would jam. I told my Father that, who has the exact same model 1911, he sad it wouldn't jam... and I'm really sorry to say, that it jammed on him twice in the space of 50 rounds.
That's absolute Bull Crap.
ETA 2: It's the problem of the Chip McCormick 10 round Power mags, the bullets are pulled forward as the bullet above it is chambered and they then do a nose dive in the feed ramp and the magazine has to be pulled from the gun. That's 2 rounds more than normal, meanwhile, Glock factory 33 round magazine, blazing through without issue.
7 and 10 yard accuracy, even on 3x5's, even with a crappy gun is super easy and can be done at lightning speed. All you need is a straight barrel and a trigger. Unless you are shooting 1" dots 2 handed or 2" dots at warp speed or SHO/WHO, then 7 yard accuracy is in fact an oxymoron.
JHC, thanks a lot for telling me about G&R Tactical. I'm going to call them tomorrow as well to get an idea when they plan to be ready. I'm also going to call KKM and see if they can offer any hard proof that their barrels improve accuracy and if they offer any guarantees that they improve accuracy (a long shot I know). I'll post everything here. Any other leads on fitted M&P barrels?
http://thedownzerojourney.wordpress.com/
Life can be shorter with an unreliable pistol.Originally Posted by blr
You previously mentioned Kimber in this thread. Well, I bought a Kimber Warrior in 2006 that was the most accurate handgun I had ever owned up until that time. It was also one of the most unreliable, even after 3 trips to two different well-known gunsmiths. It was mainly problems with failures to feed and premature lockbacks with the mag still in the gun.
The final straw was after I got home from what I thought was a successful problem free range session. Time to clean it. So I dropped the mag, then tried to disengage the safety as a first step to being able to unload the round from the chamber.
The safety would not disengage.
It seems that the ambi safety separated a bit within the gun, just enough to make in not disengage.
I had been carrying the gun home from the range loaded as a primary handgun.
This was a problem that the gun had never experienced before.
I will take 8" at 25 yards and reliability over that Kimber every time.
Anyway, I have strayed from the topic of the thread.
Last edited by Ed L; 07-12-2012 at 12:31 AM.
I hear roflcopters
Sorry bro
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. -George Orwell
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.
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."
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?
The accuracy issue with M&P9s has nothing to do with anything being out of spec or off-center and everything to do with twist rates and barrel lug/locking block geometry.
If accuracy were my sole determinant for a carry gun, I wouldn't "dump that polymer pistol, call the experience an experiment, and go back to my Pro," because my Pro can't hold a candle to my Model of 1955 .45 Target in the mechanical accuracy department, so I should obviously carry that one.
Let's not forget that an 8" group at 25 yards means that the gun was just reduced to scattering bullets all over the A-Zone.
I love the custom 1911s I still have. I'll still occasionally pick up my bespoke CCA custom and dry-fire it a bit, but doing so mostly serves to remind me that that's a damn heavy gun that doesn't hold a lot of BBs and costs a bunch to practice with.
My decision right now is whether I get an IWB for the M&P/Lightguard setup, or just relegate it to bedside duty and continue CCWing the Glock.
Sure, ok. So by design the M&P is an 8" gun? That's cool. So an inaccurate M&P would be, for example, a 12" gun. Which would be indicitive of problems with that gun. That is my point. An inaccurate P226 might be a 4" gun. An inaccurate Pro might be a 2" gun. And so on.The accuracy issue with M&P9s has nothing to do with anything being out of spec or off-center and everything to do with twist rates and barrel lug/locking block geometry.
If accuracy were my sole determinant for a carry gun, I wouldn't "dump that polymer pistol, call the experience an experiment, and go back to my Pro," because my Pro can't hold a candle to my Model of 1955 .45 Target in the mechanical accuracy department, so I should obviously carry that one.
Let's not forget that an 8" group at 25 yards means that the gun was just reduced to scattering bullets all over the A-Zone.
I love the custom 1911s I still have. I'll still occasionally pick up my bespoke CCA custom and dry-fire it a bit, but doing so mostly serves to remind me that that's a damn heavy gun that doesn't hold a lot of BBs and costs a bunch to practice with.
My decision right now is whether I get an IWB for the M&P/Lightguard setup, or just relegate it to bedside duty and continue CCWing the Glock.
You guys seem to want me to be making the argument that accuracy is a "sole determinate," or at least a prominent factor in my "gun selection critera" argument. It is not. However, I'll claim responsibility to the misunderstanding as it is usually the spearks fault anyway.
As a side note - I hear you on the cost to practice with a 45. Ain't cheap squirting 230g of lead and copper out 500 times a week. So much so that so many people shoot the cheapest ammo they can find through their tight match chambers.....
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.
Have to disagree with this, also. There's a reason why 25yd testing is the standard for a handgun. In terms of inconsistent lockup, a gun's accuracy at 7/10/15 will be consistent relative to its accuracy at 25yd. But it's around the 25yd mark that other issues, like inadequate stabilization of the bullet, start to get noticed. Shooting groups at 7yd doesn't tell me as much about the gun or myself as shooting groups at 25yd.
Also, and this may be getting a bit too picayune, but bullet diameter itself is a bigger factor at closer ranges. The bullet accounts for a greater percentage of the arc and as such a round that just clips the edge at 5yd would likely be a complete miss at 25yd even for a relatively sized target.
There are other circumstances when a backup gun might come in handy. I'd venture to guess that the most common use of a BUG in LE, for example, is when the primary has been taken by the BG.
As I understood blr, he was not saying that "accurate = good gun," but more along the lines that "inaccurate = bad gun." And while the inaccurate M&Ps may be "within spec" according to Smith, how many of us consider that good quality? Especially when it's luck of the draw... my M&P9 test gun back in '08 was laser accurate even after more than 60k rounds and a cracked slide.
Let's not forget that an 8" group at 25 yards means that the gun was just reduced to scattering bullets all over the A-Zone.
- An IPSC A-zone is 6" wide so a gun that only holds 8" at 25yd cannot consistently hit the A under ideal conditions.
- The gun's mechanical accuracy is just part of the equation but it is always a part. Assuming a perfectly zeroed gun, a pistol that shoots 4" groups at 25yd is already off as much as 2" from a perfect trigger press on a perfect sight picture. Add stress, speed, suboptimal environment... now the shooter is also adding to the error. But they're additive.
Good point, and one that I had not taken into account in my statement.
So let me rephrase my statement/question: 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?
Reply With Quote
