PDA

View Full Version : How good is good enough?



VolGrad
02-20-2012, 12:56 PM
This post was spawned from my range trip this morning. Specifically, I started thinking about the inherent accuracy of one gun vs another. It was also sort of inspired by the recent discussions of the accuracy issues some have had with recent production M&P9 pistols.

Like most of you I have some guns that I shoot better than others. There are too many variables to discuss what might be the cause of this but we all know what they are so it's probably not worth trying to get into anyway. I have sold/traded off guns I didn't shoot well in favor or focusing on ones I did shoot well. I also have guns I would feel more confident carrying than others based on perceived accuracy potential. Specifically, I'm talking about GLOCKs of the same model .... a G19 that shot well compared to one that was mediocre, etc.

I'll post some "data" to put it in perspective for me. This isn't bragging because frankly it isn't all that great. It will just give you a point of reference as to where I'm coming from.

My most recent IDPA classification was EX in SSP. My total score was 113.71 (22 pts down).
In addition to shooting regular monthly IDPA matches I shoot 4-6 GSSF matches per year with my best scores being in the low-mid 80s.
I have taken numerous defensive pistol classes with both local & big name trainers.
My FAST score of record is 7.37 clean IIRC. I am confident I can do better but don't "practice" this drill frequently.
On the range I can keep nearly every round from a magazine inside a 3" circle from 7yds with the flyers generally being within an inch or so. I can keep most of the rounds from a magazine inside a 6" circle from 15yds with the occasional flyers same as before.
In contrast I can't shoot worth a crap benchrested at 25yds. This seems to be how many measure the accuracy potential of a gun. For me it doesn't do much. I can shoot better free hand at 25yds and still keep most of the rounds inside the 6" circle.

So what brought this thread about is the fact I shot a few different GLOCKs today side-by-side with my new M&P9 and M&P45. I wanted to see if I was having the same issues with the M&P9 as others. Frankly, I can't tell because I can't shoot well from 25yds to really tell. From closer distances I shot the M&Ps about the same (or better) than my GLOCKs.

My question is sort of along the lines of, "Should most of us be all that concerned that recent production M&P9s won't hold consistent 1" groups at 25yds?" Ken Hackathorn presents data stating most all defensive shootings occur well within this distance, half of that distance actually. If we can wear the center out at 15yds and run the gun well should we be concerned with shooting one's eyeball out at 25+ yds?

Like most of you I would rather have a gun that is more capable than I. Especially knowing under stress my skills won't even come close to what I normally exhibit on the range. But having said that, "How good is good enough?"

TGS
02-20-2012, 02:01 PM
I don't think anyone is necessitating 1" groups at 25 yards from a service handgun.

But when you have a gun that affects your ability to make accurate hits because it's so inaccurate itself, then that's where you might need to draw the line and get a different gun.

If someone has an M&P that can only print 6" groups while rested at 25 yards, then the group is going to be noticeably worse in human hands, and likely have a hard time hitting COM at 25 yards....which is unacceptable in my views. While less often, fights do happen at that range. Both SOP-9 and Tom Given's students' encounters will reflect about 1/10 gunfights at that range, and roughly 2/10 greater than 7-10 yards. Not being able to hit your target because the gun is so inaccurate is not going to help your situation, and weapons are available which will perform while still being dependable, concealable, affordable, ect, so I don't see any reason to choose a gun that can barely hit COM at 25 yards....

YVK
02-20-2012, 02:44 PM
But having said that, "How good is good enough?"

Good enough for what is the question. If you're weighing in your statistical chances of needing to take an important shot beyond 7-10 meters, then chances are such so you shouldn't care what MP prints at 25 yards. After all, high risk occupations and behaviors aside, your chance of needing to take ANY shot is pretty low.
However, if you're concerned with improving your overall skill set, then subpar long range accuracy is not good enough.
I am, just like you, not always confident in my own accuracy with long shots, and I try to work on this quite regularly. Why would I want then shoot a gun that can create an additional error and thus provide with a wrong feedback? Did I throw this shot or did it throw the shot?
You've mentioned taking classes from some named trainers. There is a whole group of them from the same unit who use long distance exercises extensively as a diagnostic and teaching tool, and most classes I took has some drills out to 20-25 yards. Why would I want to spend 1500-2000 bucks, factoring ammo, travel, tuition etc, and then frustrate myself for two-five days?

There are just two examples, but I personally see no good reason to settle for "good enough to 10 yards" pistol these days.

Mitchell, Esq.
02-20-2012, 02:54 PM
Their is good enough with "This gun's potential accuracy is X at Y distance, and I'm satisfied with that."

However, "My gun may or may not have a mechanical accuracy issue, and while some of them can do X at Y distance, my gun is doing X+x at Y distance, but I shouldn't worry about it because I only shoot at A% of Y distance and my gun is good for that/gunfights don't take place at Y distance, they are much closer affairs...so I'm satisfied with what I have."

First is an acceptance of the limitations of hardware that performs in spec...second is knowing that your hardware isn't in spec, but realizing that it's probably going to be OK for several reasons.

I'm OK with #1, not #2...

JHC
02-20-2012, 02:56 PM
Going back a couple/few years on Brian Enos' forum, on the board focused on M&Ps; USPSA shooters commonly made a point pretty much the same as yours. Their 5" M&P didn't want to group better than 5-6 inches at 25 yards and they didn't think it mattered much to their sport. OTOH there were others like me that just still wanted a 2-3" capable gun.

My recollection is that the shooter provides a "cone of wobble" and the gun provides a cone of mechanical accuracy. If my gun will deliver 2" but I wobble 8" then a 3" group is really dumb luck. But if I can hold 4" at 25 yards but my gun is no better than 6" of mechanical accuracy, then my groups will day in day out greatly exceed what I'm capable of shooting.

For most realistic SD scenarios 3-6" inch precision at 15 yards is more than will likely be needed. Yet we understand that when the heavy hitters like the HRT or JSOC units spec out a pistol they have often required much more accuracy. So some of us, myself definitely included, want that sort of potential too. Rightly or wrongly, I for one don't intend to be talked out of it. And if my target only provides part of a shoulder or part of a leg from cover, I may need every bit of it.

That's how OCD and delusional shooters such as I think. ;)

But for closer ranges 15 yards and under, I was never disappointed by my Pro 9 that sucked at 25. And if not for those days I work out on the 25 and 50 yard bullseye range, I would be none the wiser.

Savage Hands
02-20-2012, 03:00 PM
Good enough for what is the question. If you're weighing in your statistical chances of needing to take an important shot beyond 7-10 meters, then chances are such so you shouldn't care what MP prints at 25 yards. After all, high risk occupations and behaviors aside, your chance of needing to take ANY shot is pretty low.
However, if you're concerned with improving your overall skill set, then subpar long range accuracy is not good enough.
I am, just like you, not always confident in my own accuracy with long shots, and I try to work on this quite regularly. Why would I want then shoot a gun that can create an additional error and thus provide with a wrong feedback? Did I throw this shot or did it throw the shot?
You've mentioned taking classes from some named trainers. There is a whole group of them from the same unit who use long distance exercises extensively as a diagnostic and teaching tool, and most classes I took has some drills out to 20-25 yards. Why would I want to spend 1500-2000 bucks, factoring ammo, travel, tuition etc, and then frustrate myself for two-five days?

There are just two examples, but I personally see no good reason to settle for "good enough to 10 yards" pistol these days.



This explains it right here IMO... There's no reason to add an additional variable in shooting semi-accurately fast or slow.

David Armstrong
02-20-2012, 04:14 PM
How good is good enough? You'll never know until after the fact. Until then it is a matter of confidence in what you are doing. Right now I'm confident that if I get into any reasonably expected DGU any firearm I carry these days will get me through it without any problems. That is good enough for me for now. When I shot competitively I had a different standard of what was good enough for that, and when I carried for my job chasing down bad guys I had another standard of what was good enough.

BN
02-20-2012, 06:43 PM
My standard for gun/ammo/sights is that I must be able to put a magazine full on the head of an IDPA/USPSA target at 20 or 25 yards shooting freestyle, both hands, standing. The majority of the group must be centered on the head.

VolGrad
02-20-2012, 07:06 PM
But when you have a gun that affects your ability to make accurate hits because it's so inaccurate itself, then that's where you might need to draw the line and get a different gun.
I agree 100%.

I don't see any reason to choose a gun that can barely hit COM at 25 yards....
I agree 100% here too but what I was asking wasn't about a gun that misses COM at 25yds. What I'm asking is for those of us who aren't carrying this a pistol as a duty weapon on a SWAT entry team ... is the difference between a 2" group and a 4-5" group at 25yds enough to write a gun off?

I'm not being argumentative. That's a real question.

Al T.
02-20-2012, 07:25 PM
IMHO, no. I'd take an easily achieved 4 inch group at 25y. By that, I mean that if I had to work hard to get the accuracy (think ammo sensitive or heavy trigger), I'd be put off quite a bit.

But a handgun that can consistently do 4 inches, yes. I'd actually be OK with 5.5 come to think of it.

Simon
02-20-2012, 07:40 PM
I agree 100%.

I agree 100% here too but what I was asking wasn't about a gun that misses COM at 25yds. What I'm asking is for those of us who aren't carrying this a pistol as a duty weapon on a SWAT entry team ... is the difference between a 2" group and a 4-5" group at 25yds enough to write a gun off?

I'm not being argumentative. That's a real question.

It is for me. If you can only hold 5" and the gun will only hold 5", then when both you and the gun are at extremes, you can have a group of 10".
I want the most accurate hand gun I can buy. I may not be able to hit my target regardless of size, but I want to know that it is me and not the gun.

TGS
02-20-2012, 08:05 PM
What I'm asking is for those of us who aren't carrying this a pistol as a duty weapon on a SWAT entry team ... is the difference between a 2" group and a 4-5" group at 25yds enough to write a gun off?

Like everything, it's dependent. I don't personally have a specific number.

In the current market, if I can get pistol A that hits 2" and does everything else as well as pistol B which only hits 5", I would write off pistol B.

I think our current market in real life reflects that.

VolGrad
02-20-2012, 08:13 PM
In the current market, if I can get pistol A that hits 2" and does everything else as well as pistol B which only hits 5", I would write off pistol B.

I think our current market in real life reflects that.

I agree. I might not have framed my original post/question properly.

What I am most interested in is comparing the same model with the same model. Specifically, I fired two separate G17s today. One was bringing it while the other would be considered quite adequate by any non-PF.com reader. Given the fact I could tell a difference in how well these two pistols shot should I dump the second pistol because it wasn't replicating the groups I was able to achieve with the first pistol?

With the M&P9 example it would go something like this ... I bought a late 2010 production model a couple of weeks ago. In my hands the perceived accuracy potential seems more than adequate thus far but in someone else's hands they might consider it a exemplary of the recent issues S&W seems to be having. That's the framework I meant to create with the OP.

secondstoryguy
02-20-2012, 08:16 PM
My standard for gun/ammo/sights is that I must be able to put a magazine full on the head of an IDPA/USPSA target at 20 or 25 yards shooting freestyle, both hands, standing. The majority of the group must be centered on the head.

This sounds like a good standard. If a gun can't do this I would probably let it go.

UNK
02-20-2012, 08:55 PM
What I am most interested in is comparing the same model with the same model. Specifically, I fired two separate G17s today. One was bringing it while the other would be considered quite adequate by any non-PF.com reader. Given the fact I could tell a difference in how well these two pistols shot should I dump the second pistol because it wasn't replicating the groups I was able to achieve with the first pistol?

I would. Why would you settle for average anything when you can have above average? It is a lot more satisfying to me to be able to place shots exactly where I want them to go. Wouldn't it be a lot of fun to make a coke can dance at 25 or even 50 yards? I would think as long as it doesn't effect reliability the more accurate the better.

TGS
02-20-2012, 09:53 PM
I would. Why would you settle for average anything when you can have above average? It is a lot more satisfying to me to be able to place shots exactly where I want them to go. Wouldn't it be a lot of fun to make a coke can dance at 25 or even 50 yards? I would think as long as it doesn't effect reliability the more accurate the better.

The problem with this is that it still doesn't define what is good enough.

Suppose you get two above average pistols of the same make and model....the one is putting out 2" groups, the other 1" groups. Do you dump the one putting out 2" groups simply because it puts out an above average grouping but is still not as good as your other one? Your reasoning would say yes, but that doesn't seem to make much sense in the grand scheme of things.

Vol,

The best answer I could give is:

1) Will the gun hit COM at 25 yards in your hands 99% of the time? If so, I'd consider the accuracy to be serviceable and wouldn't bother to replace it unless I had money laying around.

2) Specifically on the Glock that's less accurate.......is it less accurate than average, or is the more accurate one just an above average gem (compared against factory accuracy standards)? If the Glock that is less accurate is sucking more than the average Glock or outside factory accuracy standards, I would look to see if something is wrong just to be on the safe side. But, if it still meets #1, I wouldn't call it a situation of impending doom requiring immediate replacement unless the gun is unsafe.

That's about the best I could think of. Barring defects, I personally was unaware of accuracy variances that big in-between guns of the same specific model in our current market.

UNK
02-20-2012, 10:21 PM
The problem with this is that it still doesn't define what is good enough.

Suppose you get two above average pistols of the same make and model....the one is putting out 2" groups, the other 1" groups. Do you dump the one putting out 2" groups simply because it puts out an above average grouping but is still not as good as your other one? Your reasoning would say yes, but that doesn't seem to make much sense in the grand scheme of things.


I wouldn't replace a 2" grouping gun with a 1" grouping gun. I would keep them both. But I like accuracy so I would require that my pistol would "bring it" as he said. And 2 or 1 inch is bringing it in my opinion. A 4" group at 25 yards however is not and that pistol would be gone. My favorite glock was a gen 3 19 that I routinely hit a liquid laundry detergent cap at 50 yards.

I would venture that if you have never spent any time under serious bullseye shooting you may have a more difficult time wringing the complete accuracy out of any pistol.

Lomshek
02-20-2012, 11:18 PM
I agree. I might not have framed my original post/question properly.

What I am most interested in is comparing the same model with the same model. Specifically, I fired two separate G17s today. One was bringing it while the other would be considered quite adequate by any non-PF.com reader. Given the fact I could tell a difference in how well these two pistols shot should I dump the second pistol because it wasn't replicating the groups I was able to achieve with the first pistol?



Some numbers would go a long way to knowing what you mean. Your idea vs. my idea of "bringing it" might be quite different. Is the better gun doing 2" 10 round groups at 25 yards or is it doing 5" 25 yard groups?

The average non-PF reader can't hit a target freestyle at 25 yards so their idea of good enough means nothing to a better shooter. As a very good bicycle racer I don't put any weight into the opinion of someone who has never taken a corner at 30 MPH or hit 60 on a mountain downhill about what tires have good traction.

If gun A routinely shoots groups half the size of gun B then I may keep gun B as a spare but gun A will be my go to gun. If I think gun B can be rehabiltated by a better trigger or barrel swap I may do that so I have two stellar guns.

JHC
02-21-2012, 05:12 AM
4" "mechanical" accuracy at 25 yards would be about my limit. If the gun had other charms, I could live with that. It wouldn't be my only and probably not my favorite.

rob_s
02-21-2012, 07:20 AM
I would hate to think that what someone perceived as a skill issue turned out to be a mechanical issue with the item in question, or that a mechanical issue prevented one from being all they can be. Whether a pool shooter trying to use a bent cue, a new driver trying to learn on a worn-out clutch, or a shooter trying to learn (or grow) on a pistol shooting outside it's potential, that strikes me as super frustrating.

What is considered a "good group" offhand at 25 yards? What is considered a "good group" from a rest? Mechanically supported and with "match" ammo, what should a pistol group?

GJM
02-21-2012, 08:45 AM
A related question is how well does your pistol shoot a range of loads? While a number of my M&P pistols shoot one load well, they shoot most other loads poorly and to a different point of impact.

I would be much happier with a pistol that shoots most everything under three inches at 25 than a pistol that shoots one load to an inch and most other loads to six inches.

PS: I do all most all my group testing at 25 yards from sitting as it gives me a stable platform.

Savage Hands
02-21-2012, 09:01 AM
I lke Vickers thoughts on accuracy:
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/accuracy/

Another question I get frequently asked is what is the acceptable mechanical or intrinsic accuracy for a service pistol or carbine. Meaning what should the weapon/ammo combination be capable of producing from a shooting device or rest that eliminates shooter error. Keep in mind I come from a surgical accuracy oriented special operations background with little margin for error. Based on this and years of experience I have concluded that a service pistol should be capable of head shots at 25 yds and a service carbine should be capable of the same at 100 yds – basically 5 inch groups. However there is a catch; I have found that under conditions of stress a shooter will only be able to shoot to within roughly 50 % of the accuracy potential of a given weapon. And that is only for the best shooters; the majority will not even be close to that. That means in order to achieve my standard of head shots (5 inch groups) at a given distance the weapon/ammo combination needs to be capable of at least 2.5 inch groups. I personally measure that accuracy standard with 10 shot groups. Many quality service pistols and carbines with good ammo will achieve this but there are many other factors involved such as sights and trigger pull characteristics. By these criteria it is not hard to see why a tuned 1911 pistol is so popular in selected spec ops units. Keep in mind that any effort to make a weapon more accurate almost always means tightening tolerances which can lead to a less than acceptable reliability standard for a combat weapon. A balance between accuracy and reliability has to be achieved. Surprisingly there are many pistols and carbines that do a good job offering an acceptable blend of both. In addition weapons of this type will require a higher degree of end user maintenance to keep them running. Don’t expect a pistol to shoot like a custom 1911 but be as forgiving about maintenance as a Glock 17; it just doesn’t happen that way

rob_s
02-21-2012, 09:31 AM
Thanks for that Shenaniguns.

I googled and came up with this re: mechanical accuracy of the Glock 17 (http://www.tactical-life.com/online/combat-handguns/top-loads-for-glocks-17-9mm/) from Chuck Taylor


In my G17, there were four particular loads that exhibited exceptional accuracy, the CorBon 90-grain JHP, CorBon 115-grain DPX JHP, Winchester Ranger SXT 127-grain JHP and Winchester Ranger SXT 147-grain JHP. From my Ransom Rest, all printed into 1.5 inches or better at 25 meters and at that distance shot either exactly to point of aim or within an inch of it.

and


Interestingly enough, 124- and 125-grain JHPs weren’t as accurate in my G17, with 3-shot 25-meter Ransom Rest groups of around 3 inches being the norm.

I don't know what that means for lower-tolerance training ammo.

JodyH
02-21-2012, 09:45 AM
Minute of IDPA head at 25 yards is my minimum precision standard.
But I also require the gun work with me to the point I can pull off a sub-7 FAST on demand.
All with my preferred carry ammo.
Of course better on both fronts would be desireable (and my P series H&K's deliver better) but I wont sacrifice in one area for gain in another.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

secondstoryguy
02-21-2012, 11:46 AM
As far as Glocks are concerned a few years ago I witnessed a test of about 6 different Glocks(G19, G17,G22, G34) shot at 25 and 50 yards out of a ransom rest with Win Ranger, WWB, and Hunting Shack reloads. The worst was around 3.5" at 25 and the best was about 2.5" at 50. Average out of all of them was around 2-2.5" at 25yds. I was heavily into 1911s at the time and I was impressed at how mechanically accurate Glocks were compared to my $2K plus 1911s.

GOP
02-21-2012, 12:04 PM
My standard is that the gun needs to be capable of scoring in the 90s on a 10 shot, freestyle b8 at 25m. All shots in a 6" circle.

JHC
02-21-2012, 12:18 PM
I would hate to think that what someone perceived as a skill issue turned out to be a mechanical issue with the item in question, or that a mechanical issue prevented one from being all they can be. Whether a pool shooter trying to use a bent cue, a new driver trying to learn on a worn-out clutch, or a shooter trying to learn (or grow) on a pistol shooting outside it's potential, that strikes me as super frustrating.

What is considered a "good group" offhand at 25 yards? What is considered a "good group" from a rest? Mechanically supported and with "match" ammo, what should a pistol group?

Shooting offhand - I think LAV's standard of being able to hit a 6" bull on demand is quite good for a 25 yd standard. Smaller than that is just more better. This is assuming a combat semiauto pistol. A six inch barreled revolver from S&W or Ruger; fired single action - like any of several I've owned over the decades could deliver groups have that size in the same shooter's hands, in my experience. But that's not really what we talking about. Ken Hackathorn described his standard to us in Dec as being groups you can cover with the span of your hand. At any distance, at any speed, that's what he was looking for in general. (exceptions made for the FAST etc).

From a rest - My avatar is a 25 yd group of 147 grain Ranger T from the Gen 4 G17 pictured - rested across a sandbag from the seated. It measured 1.5". I have to believe if that group were fired from a machine rest, it would be around an inch. That was exceptional. Most other Gold Dots, HST and 127 grain Rangers printed around 2.5-3.0 inches from that gun. I think under 3" is great for a fighting pistol.

I like the excerpt from the Vickers article in the other post. How under extreme stress shooting 50% again larger than what the gun is capable of was extremely good performance. What he seems to be describing is the intersection of those cones of wobble; the gun's and the shooter's.

IMO folks should not dump on shooters seeking high levels of mechanical precision with the argument that "until you can outshoot" the gun, don't worry about improving it or "the gun is more accurate than the majority of shooters"; another favorite dictum. Almost any experienced shooter will shoot a more accurate gun better than a less accurate gun. It isn't rocket science. A 6" shooting shooter will benefit from a 1.5" gun vs using a 5" gun.

VolGrad
02-21-2012, 12:21 PM
I was with LAV's assessment right up until the end when IDPA head @ 25yds every time turned into 2.5" groups. I guess I'll have to have someone else shoot my guns to see if they are accurate enough for me. :p

I will say after yesterday's session I decided to cut one of my GLOCKs loose. It's currently listed on another forum. I purchased it from a private party recently and have had it out twice with poor results both times. While I was shooting everything else fairly well yesterday this one gun just .... well, sucked. It's well out of range of what I have come to expect from a GLOCK, esp of this particular model.

I have another that I'm on the fence about keeping. I could keep them all in an IDPA head at 25yds but doubt it would pull 2.5" groups at that distance ... even if I could ... which I can't.

JHC
02-21-2012, 12:27 PM
Sight radius is a big challenge for me in measuring guns at 25 yds. G17's I can wring out but even the small drop to the G19's is really tough for me. Adds a couple inches to the groups on average - be they offhand or rested. I know that's me because on some occassions with premium ammo they've shown better potential.

And geometry is NOT my friend extending out to 50 yards. Here I think the trigger is the deal killer. As my Dave Sams 1911 can shoot pretty at 50 as can the wheelguns but Glocks - more often than not it's good just to hit the A zone for me.

Savage Hands
02-21-2012, 12:28 PM
I was with LAV's assessment right up until the end when IDPA head @ 25yds every time turned into 2.5" groups. I guess I'll have to have someone else shoot my guns to see if they are accurate enough for me. :p

I will say after yesterday's session I decided to cut one of my GLOCKs loose. It's currently listed on another forum. I purchased it from a private party recently and have had it out twice with poor results both times. While I was shooting everything else fairly well yesterday this one gun just .... well, sucked. It's well out of range of what I have come to expect from a GLOCK, esp of this particular model.

I have another that I'm on the fence about keeping. I could keep them all in an IDPA head at 25yds but doubt it would pull 2.5" groups at that distance ... even if I could ... which I can't.


You misread the quote:
Mechanical accuracy + Carry Ammo should be 2.5" or less
Above + shooter should stay under 5"

JHC
02-21-2012, 12:37 PM
Also explains why some of those units tried out the secret "minus minus" connector. Which I've read was dropped for reliability issues.

VolGrad
02-21-2012, 02:48 PM
You misread the quote:
Mechanical accuracy + Carry Ammo should be 2.5" or less
Above + shooter should stay under 5"

Gotcha. Thanks.

part-time shooter
02-21-2012, 05:12 PM
I've done something like this to myself multiple times over the years. I'll have a perfectly serviceable pistol, I've had far too many that have come and gone. I'll get a bad batch of ammo, or have a bad day at the range or inadvertantly find a "bad load" for the gun I'm holding versus the "exact same gun" in my buddies hand that happens to like the load my pistol decided to hate. I ditch the gun in the next week or so, never look into the issue more deeply or see if there was any underlying condition. The single range session or "issue" caused me to lose all faith in the weapon and I'd go looking for the next "answer". That doesn't address your accuracy question though.

I've always operated under the assumption of there's no such thing as enough accuracy. I remember ~20 years ago I had a good friend who ran the local gun shop. I was in the market for a Sig 228. At the time Sig's shipped in cardboard boxes with a target on top of the foam that held the pistol in place. My buddy literally let me pick though his stock of 228's for several weeks until I found one with a ragged hole for a test group. This was long before anyone would ever mention quality and Sig at the same time. It was a Sig. I bought it the day it arrived, he'd been looking at what I was doing and had it sitting on his desk when I dropped in. Could I shoot a ragged hole with it? yes, actually I could but only benched and only with fast light 9mm loads. It hated heavy loads and really hated those sub-sonics that were the rage for about a year, I didn't ditch that gun, at least not that time. I knew what it liked and went back to it and continued to be extremely happy with the gun for many years.

I did the same thing with 1911's, but spent a WHOLE lot more money learning I didn't need a gun that would shoot a ragged hole at 50 yards, or even 25. I still have one 1911 that will do that but I'd never carry it. It's reliable, but it's big, stainless, and heavy, and I'll avoid carrying it given half a chance.

My M&Ps will not shoot 1 inch groups at 25 yards benched, 2-5 depending on the load is the best they will do. I'm now fine with that but it took me 20 years to become so. 2-5 at 25 is more than enough for me to hit what I need to at handgun ranges. With the right load I'm sure I could shrink those groups but I don't need to do that. Factory ammo is more than good enough for what I see as "good enough", maybe spending a few bucks to find out what factory ammo is best liked by each of my M&Ps might be worth doing but I doubt it. These are 45s, all mid sized guns, the compact is a mid-size with a shorter frame.

Given what I've read here I'm far more worried now about my own ability to recognize trouble and avoid it than I am about my ability to consistently hit a 6 inch circle at 25 yards weak handed in the dark, I'm going to miss but I'll keep shooting. I now focus more on, making sure I have a gun with me, not the gun, and making sure I'm never someplace stupid that might put me into a position of needing said gun.

GA_Jeff
02-21-2012, 08:14 PM
So what brought this thread about is the fact I shot a few different GLOCKs today side-by-side with my new M&P9 and M&P45. I wanted to see if I was having the same issues with the M&P9 as others. Frankly, I can't tell because I can't shoot well from 25yds to really tell. From closer distances I shot the M&Ps about the same (or better) than my GLOCKs.

My question is sort of along the lines of, "Should most of us be all that concerned that recent production M&P9s won't hold consistent 1" groups at 25yds?" Ken Hackathorn presents data stating most all defensive shootings occur well within this distance, half of that distance actually. If we can wear the center out at 15yds and run the gun well should we be concerned with shooting one's eyeball out at 25+ yds?

Like most of you I would rather have a gun that is more capable than I. Especially knowing under stress my skills won't even come close to what I normally exhibit on the range. But having said that, "How good is good enough?"

So you shoot the Glocks comparable to the M&Ps. Therefore you are essentially saying that you struggle to hold consistent 1" groups at 25 yds. The questions seem to dance around a bit - "...that recent production M&P9s won't hold..." and then more general about whether there is reason for concern about 25+ yd accuracy.

On the former, I'd say that you've somewhat answered your own question. Why be concerned with the M&P9s if you know the performance is comparable to other guns? No offense, but I don't see that as an indication of potential performance issues with that particular gun.

On the latter, I think the answer is "it depends". It depends on what you deem an acceptable level of risk. What is the likelihood that you will need to use any handgun in SD at 25 yds? And if you do, what is the likelihood of groups being over 1" becoming an a matter of surviving or not? YMMV, but for me, I would not consider either to be a concern.

VolGrad
02-21-2012, 09:40 PM
..... I would not consider either to be a concern.

That's kind of the point of this thread in a round about way. I was sort of pointing out that perhaps all the concern about M&P9 accuracy issues might be much ado about nothing for many of us.

Savage Hands
02-21-2012, 09:47 PM
Whoever wants to trade their 2"@25 grouping M&P with the 5" and up club the line starts here.

GA_Jeff
02-21-2012, 09:50 PM
That's kind of the point of this thread in a round about way. I was sort of pointing out that perhaps all the concern about M&P9 accuracy issues might be much ado about nothing for many of us.

Yep...but there are people who may want that confidence. I watched a show last night about Andrew Jackson and the battle of New Orleans. Here was a man that was outnumbered by more than 2 to 1, and going against an army that was arguably the best. However he instilled confidence in his men through his own words and actions, and his subsequent dealing with Lafitte, etc. Confidence can make a significant difference in the outcome of conflict.

GJM
02-21-2012, 10:00 PM
Folks in the wide open mountain west may have a different perspective on acceptable accuracy than those residing in urban areas. I consider 0-100 yards to be my pistol envelope, shoot those distances frequently, and a six inch at 25 M&P doesn't cut it. While I love the egos of the M&P, I often carry a Glock or HK in the field.

JodyH
02-21-2012, 10:04 PM
Wal-Mart Supercenter's have numerous >50 yard shot possibilities.
:cool:

Lomshek
02-21-2012, 11:23 PM
That's kind of the point of this thread in a round about way. I was sort of pointing out that perhaps all the concern about M&P9 accuracy issues might be much ado about nothing for many of us.

The problem with the "good enough" argument is that none of us will get to pick where we will need our gun. Maybe it will be a close up shot at a bad guy across the corner of my car trunk or maybe it will be an active shooter. Neither is likely but either is possible.

The parking lot at my kid's school, church, the local mall, Walmart and most other public places I go have plenty of open areas in excess of 25 yards and most are over 50 yards. Most active shooter type scenarios have played out such that the bad guy does not let folks just walk up on him but rather they trade shots from some distance until the active shooter is either shot or runs low on ammo and kills himself. I'd rather not have to wait for him to make that decision. Look around the areas you frequent and play "what if Mumbai happens here?" Do you want a pistol that does 5" off a bench when you have all day to shoot?

How good is accurate enough? There's no such thing. There's only how good/accurate I can afford to make it. I don't need a gun to help me miss when I'm busy crapping myself.

How good do I need to be? Good enough to come out on top if that moment ever comes. If I make A class or some day Master (yeah right) then I'll keep training and pushing. There's no such thing as good enough, there is only how good can I be.

Savage Hands
02-21-2012, 11:30 PM
Well said Lomshek!

TGS
02-22-2012, 12:04 AM
How good is accurate enough? There's no such thing. There's only how good/accurate I can afford to make it.

How good do I need to be? There's no such thing as good enough, there is only how good can I be.

This man lives and breathes the purpose of P-F.com. I bet he even bleeds orange.

Lomshek
02-22-2012, 12:06 AM
Thanks guys. I'm flattered. :cool:

VolGrad
02-22-2012, 07:22 AM
This man lives and breathes the purpose of P-F.com. I bet he even bleeds orange.

Hey wait .... I bleed orange ... and white. GO VOLS!!!

FTR I was not and will never advocate accepting mediocrity.

UNK
02-22-2012, 09:43 PM
[QUOTE=VolGrad;54344]I was with LAV's assessment right up until the end when IDPA head @ 25yds every time turned into 2.5" groups. I guess I'll have to have someone else shoot my guns to see if they are accurate enough for me. :p

I can guarantee some bullseye will have you making head shots at 50 yards.
I think these guys address the importance of developing marksmanship skills through bullseye shooting better than I can.
http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?2874-Bullseye-Shooting

jthhapkido
02-22-2012, 10:17 PM
I wouldn't replace a 2" grouping gun with a 1" grouping gun. I would keep them both. But I like accuracy so I would require that my pistol would "bring it" as he said. And 2 or 1 inch is bringing it in my opinion. A 4" group at 25 yards however is not and that pistol would be gone. My favorite glock was a gen 3 19 that I routinely hit a liquid laundry detergent cap at 50 yards.

That is some significant shooting. Especially considering a 1-inch grouping gun (at 25 yards) has an error range of 2 inches at 50 yards, which means you are shooting at the mechanical limit of your firearm. (Most detergent caps aren't wider than 2 inches, nor are they much taller.) And that is assuming that your gun is a 1" group pistol in the first place, which most Glocks really aren't. Especially 19s, as compared to 17s or 34s. I'd love to see someone shoot like that. Don't believe I've ever seen that level of accuracy in a consistent manner with that type of gun.


I would venture that if you have never spent any time under serious bullseye shooting you may have a more difficult time wringing the complete accuracy out of any pistol.

....but, is taking the time for that kind of training ("serious bullseye shooting") an optimal use of time for people interested in defensive pistol shooting? Given the significant different in stance and method? No argument about the bullseye folks being far more accurate, just looking at how much practice would be required (for "serious bullseye shooting") and looking at the advantage in accuracy and the amount of time it would take---and comparing it to the accuracy level with a similar amount of DT-focused training over a similar amount of time.

UNK
02-22-2012, 10:40 PM
That is some significant shooting. Especially considering a 1-inch grouping gun (at 25 yards) has an error range of 2 inches at 50 yards, which means you are shooting at the mechanical limit of your firearm. (Most detergent caps aren't wider than 2 inches, nor are they much taller.) And that is assuming that your gun is a 1" group pistol in the first place, which most Glocks really aren't. Especially 19s, as compared to 17s or 34s. I'd love to see someone shoot like that. Don't believe I've ever seen that level of accuracy in a consistent manner with that type of gun.



....but, is taking the time for that kind of training ("serious bullseye shooting") an optimal use of time for people interested in defensive pistol shooting? Given the significant different in stance and method? No argument about the bullseye folks being far more accurate, just looking at how much practice would be required (for "serious bullseye shooting") and looking at the advantage in accuracy and the amount of time it would take---and comparing it to the accuracy level with a similar amount of DT-focused training over a similar amount of time.

I didn't hit every time but it was pretty regular. And that was with a set of sights that I developed to try to cope with my deteriorating eyesight. I still have a set on a Kahr and if you are ever in the neighborhood I would be happy to let you try them. My next step is to try fiber optics. I couldn't do that any more given my current eyesight. I just checked a Purex bottle top. It is 2.5x3 o.d. and I would venture the top I was shooting at was a tad larger.

I don't know how serious you would have to be :) probably a few months with a person who had experience with bullseye would make a huge difference especially for the long shots.
Check out the link in the post before yours and see what is said there

rob_s
02-23-2012, 05:24 AM
....but, is taking the time for that kind of training ("serious bullseye shooting") an optimal use of time for people interested in defensive pistol shooting? Given the significant different in stance and method? No argument about the bullseye folks being far more accurate, just looking at how much practice would be required (for "serious bullseye shooting") and looking at the advantage in accuracy and the amount of time it would take---and comparing it to the accuracy level with a similar amount of DT-focused training over a similar amount of time.

This is something I've thought a lot about over the course of the last year. If you read some forums or some posters we're supposed to be dry-firing 30 minutes a night, running 5k every morning, somewhere in there we're supposed to be hitting the gym and the MMA classes, not to mention weekly (or even daily) range sessions... then factor in driving time and dressing/undressing time between all these events, plus work, plus meals, plus sleeping...

I think we do some shooters a disservice by setting ridiculous standards (like a chick with a softball-player frame trying to look like a plastic barbie doll toy) for the average human with a real job, a family, other interests and commitments, etc. For a lot of guys with full lives getting to the range even once a week is a strain on the time/budget. It's a different thread, but it certainly falls under the thread title re: "how good is good enough?", but a guy like that has to set priorities as to what he's working on based on what he thinks his application is.

VolGrad
02-23-2012, 08:05 AM
This is something I've thought a lot about over the course of the last year. If you read some forums or some posters we're supposed to be dry-firing 30 minutes a night, running 5k every morning, somewhere in there we're supposed to be hitting the gym and the MMA classes, not to mention weekly (or even daily) range sessions... then factor in driving time and dressing/undressing time between all these events, plus work, plus meals, plus sleeping...

I think we do some shooters a disservice by setting ridiculous standards (like a chick with a softball-player frame trying to look like a plastic barbie doll toy) for the average human with a real job, a family, other interests and commitments, etc. For a lot of guys with full lives getting to the range even once a week is a strain on the time/budget. It's a different thread, but it certainly falls under the thread title re: "how good is good enough?", but a guy like that has to set priorities as to what he's working on based on what he thinks his application is.
Well said Rob. I'd love to live & breath this stuff in an applicable way rather than just in my mind and on my keyboard. I just don't have the time with a full-time job, a family, etc. I take it all very seriously but do have to stay within my current constraints with my reality.

JHC
02-23-2012, 08:54 AM
I don't miss many 5:00 AM workouts, only shoot once a week but dry fire is the first to go. FWIW Ken Hackathorn was vocally lukewarm about dry fire once you have the fundamentals pretty wired. The expression he used a lot in our class about extreme schedules as rob_s described was "get a life man". :D He applied it to the 20 mins of dry firing a day a friend of his did before cracking the slide face on a G19 or loving to reload or loving to clean guns. Pretty funny.

After leaving active duty in '84 I did one of my Reserve years with the 90th Army Reserve Command's marksmanship unit in San Antonio. There was a SGM Wheeler there who could one ragged hole with a 1911 at 25 yards SHO and not much bigger than that SHO at 50.

[after that year of "Ready on the right. Ready on the left. The firing line is ready" . . . I did not fire a shot for two years.]

NickA
02-23-2012, 09:54 AM
This is something I've thought a lot about over the course of the last year. If you read some forums or some posters we're supposed to be dry-firing 30 minutes a night, running 5k every morning, somewhere in there we're supposed to be hitting the gym and the MMA classes, not to mention weekly (or even daily) range sessions... then factor in driving time and dressing/undressing time between all these events, plus work, plus meals, plus sleeping...

I think we do some shooters a disservice by setting ridiculous standards (like a chick with a softball-player frame trying to look like a plastic barbie doll toy) for the average human with a real job, a family, other interests and commitments, etc. For a lot of guys with full lives getting to the range even once a week is a strain on the time/budget. It's a different thread, but it certainly falls under the thread title re: "how good is good enough?", but a guy like that has to set priorities as to what he's working on based on what he thinks his application is.

Well said rob. I have to constantly remind myself that though I'm towards the back of the pack here at PF, given the limited time and $ I can apply to shooting I'm still way ahead of most gun "owners".
On the original topic: to me what's so confusing about something like the M&P accuracy issue is that it's so... ambiguous... I guess. If they grouped 6" at 10 yards, it would be easy to call them bad and move on. But good out to 15 yds then a sharp drop off makes it a tougher call.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

ToddG
02-23-2012, 11:10 AM
re: mechanical accuracy

Mechanical accuracy is always a factor. A gun that shoots 1" mean radius is essentially increasing my wobble zone by two inches. So even if I can maintain a locked hold on a 2" circle at 25yd without the muzzle ever moving off the dot, I'm looking at a 4" group.

It always amazes me when people say things like, "I can't outshoot the gun." No kidding! But that doesn't change the fact that the gun is adding to your margin of error. Now if your wobble zone is already 12" at 25yd, sure, adding another inch on each end isn't going to make a noticeable difference. But the better you get, the more the gun's accuracy becomes a major part of your total dispersion.

re: time and life

Set goals and make them realistic. If you're only going to the range once a month and you never dry fire, you cannot set a goal of shooting a 3-second El Prez and expect to get there. Ever. To set goals you need to establish a baseline and then figure out what you can achieve from there given the resources you can devote to the activity. That's why we have the DotW and the 2012 challenge and all the rest. So you can not only compare yourself to other shooters, but so you can watch your own progress. If you're getting better, regardless of the rate of improvement, you're doing it right. Sure, some approaches are more efficient. Sure, having more time and money and ammo and range access all make a difference. But if you're getting better, you're on the right track.

Savage Hands
02-23-2012, 11:31 AM
Well said Todd.

David Armstrong
02-23-2012, 11:34 AM
This is something I've thought a lot about over the course of the last year. If you read some forums or some posters we're supposed to be dry-firing 30 minutes a night, running 5k every morning, somewhere in there we're supposed to be hitting the gym and the MMA classes, not to mention weekly (or even daily) range sessions... then factor in driving time and dressing/undressing time between all these events, plus work, plus meals, plus sleeping...

I think we do some shooters a disservice by setting ridiculous standards (like a chick with a softball-player frame trying to look like a plastic barbie doll toy) for the average human with a real job, a family, other interests and commitments, etc. For a lot of guys with full lives getting to the range even once a week is a strain on the time/budget. It's a different thread, but it certainly falls under the thread title re: "how good is good enough?", but a guy like that has to set priorities as to what he's working on based on what he thinks his application is.
Exactly the point I've tried to make repeatedly on this forum and others. When discussing standards, training, and so on it is all well and good to discuss it from the position of the small fraction of a percent of gun owners and shooters that are at the top of the game, but it is far more realistic to discuss it from the position of the more typical owner and shooter. As I've mentioned before, it was a real eye-opener for me to start teaching basic CCW classes for the "average human" and realizing their concerns and issues were very different than the dedicated shottist.

rob_s
02-23-2012, 11:58 AM
re: mechanical accuracy
re: time and life

Set goals and make them realistic. If you're only going to the range once a month and you never dry fire, you cannot set a goal of shooting a 3-second El Prez and expect to get there. Ever. To set goals you need to establish a baseline and then figure out what you can achieve from there given the resources you can devote to the activity. That's why we have the DotW and the 2012 challenge and all the rest. So you can not only compare yourself to other shooters, but so you can watch your own progress. If you're getting better, regardless of the rate of improvement, you're doing it right. Sure, some approaches are more efficient. Sure, having more time and money and ammo and range access all make a difference. But if you're getting better, you're on the right track.

Absolutely agree. But that gets lost pretty quickly most places, and on most forums. We're all supposed to be able to shoot Master with only 5 minutes a day, 20 minutes a weekend, right?

Shellback
02-23-2012, 12:50 PM
This is something I've thought a lot about over the course of the last year. If you read some forums or some posters we're supposed to be dry-firing 30 minutes a night, running 5k every morning, somewhere in there we're supposed to be hitting the gym and the MMA classes, not to mention weekly (or even daily) range sessions... then factor in driving time and dressing/undressing time between all these events, plus work, plus meals, plus sleeping...

I think we do some shooters a disservice by setting ridiculous standards (like a chick with a softball-player frame trying to look like a plastic barbie doll toy) for the average human with a real job, a family, other interests and commitments, etc. For a lot of guys with full lives getting to the range even once a week is a strain on the time/budget. It's a different thread, but it certainly falls under the thread title re: "how good is good enough?", but a guy like that has to set priorities as to what he's working on based on what he thinks his application is.

Why bring the realities of life into the conversation? ;) Well said Rob.

DocGKR
02-23-2012, 01:15 PM
What accuracy standard should be considered a valid requirement a duty/CCW pistol?

As noted, the esteemed Larry Vickers states that a combat pistol needs a 2.5" mechanical accuracy at 25 yds in order ensure about 5" during a stressful lethal force encounter: http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/accuracy/.

When I used present the wound ballistics module at Camp Pendleton's Range 130, the USMC MEU-SOC .45 ACP 1911's in use there typically could shoot groups between 3 to 5 inches at 25 yards--this was considered quite acceptable by the Force Recon Marines.

Most folks consider the G17 to offer acceptable accuracy. Now the guys at TigerSwan are very dialed in shooters, yet in Brian Searcy's recent thread (http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=98542), he describes how a stock G17 is not accurate enough for his needs so he replaces the barrel to tighten things up.

Stock G17 showing about a 4" extreme spread at 25 yds:
http://www.m4carbine.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=11089&d=1328478968

FWIW, this is inline with what my stock G17's shoot at 25 yds--typically all inside the black 9 ring on a B8 (around a 5" group at 25 yds), but not much better. In contrast, most M&P45's I've shot can keep much everything pretty much in the 10 ring ( about a 3" group at 25 yds), while my old match grade 1911 could routinely drill out the X-ring (sub 2" group at 25 yds).

I am currently qualified on, carry, and am perfectly happy with the 9 mm Glock and .45 ACP M&P45; thus for me, acceptable accuracy for a duty/CCW pistol is between 3-5 inches at 25 yds.

GA_Jeff
02-23-2012, 07:54 PM
Absolutely agree. But that gets lost pretty quickly most places, and on most forums. We're all supposed to be able to shoot Master with only 5 minutes a day, 20 minutes a weekend, right?

I'm not seeing a failure in accepting reality to the extent that you've cited. What I do see a LOT of is self-proclaimed "experts", "Masters", etc. They are typically vocal in many forums and use this self-proclaimed background to wield a big stick in a variety of discussions. Point being, perhaps your perception (or mine) is skewed simply by encountering these people so often...i.e., it seems like there are more out there because the ones that are out there are so vocal.

I'm a newb to this forum. However before joining, I 'lurked' here for information and didn't find the folks to be as "unique" as...let's say the black rifle forum.

I do think practice and training are important. However there are many examples of people surviving threats who have little experience. I view it as a personal risk assessment. Perhaps someone believes that just knowing how the gun works, basics of how to shoot, and a few trips to the range are enough for their particular needs...i.e., that's all they need to achieve an acceptable level risk for them. Who am I (or anyone) to say they are wrong? In some cases, I find someone may be taking on a greater risk by getting training from a worthless instructor versus no training at all (one at a range near my house, specifically). Or worse yet (and even more common), people taking input on tactics, etc from some self-proclaimed internet ninja without scrutinizing the source and without researching the input further on their own.

ToddG
02-24-2012, 12:08 PM
Absolutely agree. But that gets lost pretty quickly most places, and on most forums. We're all supposed to be able to shoot Master with only 5 minutes a day, 20 minutes a weekend, right?

Exactly. I don't know anyone who shoots at what I consider a high level that got there with less than weekly dedicated practice for many years.

Not everyone can do that. And a person can certainly be competent in terms of self defense without achieving that.

MDS
02-24-2012, 01:00 PM
Exactly. I don't know anyone who shoots at what I consider a high level that got there with less than weekly dedicated practice for many years.

Not everyone can do that. And a person can certainly be competent in terms of self defense without achieving that.

So, it makes sense that you can be competent for SD without being a master shooter. What about the inverse? I.e., can you be a master shooter without also being competent for SD? (Converse? Contrapositive? Whatever. Todd's a lawyer, maybe he can correct me. ;))

In my unqualified mind, it seems like you easily could be. Which leads back to the counter-question: good enough for what? If you're worried about being good enough for SD, then I think the pistol portion of your skills portfolio wouldn't have to be very advanced at all, compared to the average pistol skills on this forum. Fitness, H2H, and the mental game of SD might need much more attention than pistol if you can, e.g., clean the FAST in 8-10s.

Now, the OP's about how good a pistol should be, rather than how good a shooter should be, but the logic chain is similar, I think:

Good enough for what?
If for SD, then the pistol's accuracy doesn't have to be very surgical, though more accuracy can't hurt.
Bottom line, it's not an important question if you haven't addressed other, much more important variables in your SD game.


If you want the pistol to be good enough for Bullseye competition, or good enough for you to be sure that it's you and not the gun that can't shoot KSTG better than TLG, then the logic chain changes materially...

jmjames
02-25-2012, 02:06 PM
Another side of "good enough" is reliability vs. accuracy.

I've been struggling to figure out if I am no good or if it's the gun, so today I ran through three guns... same ammo, same range, 2 15 shot strings. In both strings, a gun that some folks (like Todd) would regard as "not reliable" blew the other away on accuracy (3" group vs. 5" and 6" at 5 yards), but the other two are pistols with a reputation for reliability.

So my questions are this:

1. Is the better trainability of the "not reliable" gun (after all, I *know* that it's me, not the gun, when shots land in the wrong spot) going to allow me to become a much better shooter compared to guns that I can't judge why a shot went bad?

2. In a self defense scenario, is the better accuracy going to make a bigger difference than the reliability concerns?

For the record, the "not reliable" gun shooting like a laser was a Jericho Compact (a CZ clone, aka "Baby Desert Eagle") and the other two were a Glock 17 and a H&K P30. I'm *not* an experienced shooter, so it is important to me that every round I fire in practice help to make me a better shooter. But as many others in this thread have said, it's pretty hard to improve when you cannot be sure that bad shots are caused by the gun.

J.Ja

JHC
02-25-2012, 02:49 PM
I commented on your other thread. You've got one of the very finest combat pistols at any price. Just keep training.

Ken Hackathorn in our Dec class really emphasized that our first priority is to master self defense from 10 yards and closer; fast, with movement, accurately, with strong hand only skills too and the ability to reload quickly (most likely cause for a "stoppage"). Then expand outward from there.

MDS
02-25-2012, 03:05 PM
In both strings, a gun that some folks (like Todd) would regard as "not reliable" blew the other away on accuracy (3" group vs. 5" and 6" at 5 yards), but the other two are pistols with a reputation for reliability.

As a fellow n00b, I won't pretend to know all the answers. FWIW, though, I'll say something about your question #1. I see the "accuracy" situation a little differently than how you capture it. When I shoot one gun more accurately than another, (assuming neither gun has horrible problems,) then I first assume that the gun I shoot better is just masking my shooting problems. As a degenerate example, I do a lot of accuracy work with my 617 revolver, at 15+ yds. I shoot a lot more accurately in single action mode than in double action mode. The gun is obviously no less accurate in DA, it's just that SA masks a lot of imperfections in my trigger skills... so, I gave myself the challenge to shoot a lot of DA with that gun, and the difference between DA and SA groups has been diminishing. Most importantly, the size of both groups has also been diminishing.

Similarly in your scenario, I would assume that the CZ clone is masking imperfections - I'm fairly certain that all three guns are capable of 2" groups at 5yd, and I suspect that practicing a lot with the other guns will teach you more about trigger control. Again, not trying to answer your questions or lead you down a certain path, just sharing my own thought process, FWIW...

DocGKR
02-25-2012, 03:08 PM
jmjames--How much training have our received?

Generally, the more training and experience a shooter has, the better they are able to determine when the error is their's vs. a problem with the firearm.

Since 99.9% of the 9 mm Glocks and HK's I've seen can shoot 5" or better groups at 25 yds, if you are unable to do so, the chances are it is you rather than a problem with the pistol. One good way to tell is to have an experienced shooter fire your pistol and see how it does in their hands--if good, then you know there is nothing wrong with the firearm.

The vast majority of people are better off getting additional training from a qualified instructor, rather than another firearm.

FWIW, I'd NEVER carry a Jericho over a 9mm Glock or HK...

JHC
02-25-2012, 03:48 PM
I do a lot of accuracy work with my 617 revolver, at 15+ yds. ...

Purely brilliant method!

jmjames
02-25-2012, 04:05 PM
jmjames--How much training have our received?

Generally, the more training and experience a shooter has, the better they are able to determine when the error is their's vs. a problem with the firearm.

Since 99.9% of the 9 mm Glocks and HK's I've seen can shoot 5" or better groups at 25 yds, if you are unable to do so, the chances are it is you rather than a problem with the pistol. One good way to tell is to have an experienced shooter fire your pistol and see how it does in their hands--if good, then you know there is nothing wrong with the firearm.

The vast majority of people are better off getting additional training from a qualified instructor, rather than another firearm.

FWIW, I'd NEVER carry a Jericho over a 9mm Glock or HK...

Doc -

Not that much instruction, only a few hours in February. I'm planning to do more in March or April, and continue to get instruction every month or two. Someone else suggested that I have another person shoot it, and I will be doing just that as well. I wanted to ask some of the better shooters at the range today, but they were busy, maybe they'll be free later this week.

From what I can tell, there are lots of great reasons to not carry a Jericho over a Glock or H&K too, and the reliability isn't the only reason not to. It's a nice range gun though, and the other CZ that I've shot was too.

Thanks!

J.Ja

mizer67
02-25-2012, 07:56 PM
Doc -

Not that much instruction, only a few hours in February. I'm planning to do more in March or April, and continue to get instruction every month or two. Someone else suggested that I have another person shoot it, and I will be doing just that as well. I wanted to ask some of the better shooters at the range today, but they were busy, maybe they'll be free later this week.

From what I can tell, there are lots of great reasons to not carry a Jericho over a Glock or H&K too, and the reliability isn't the only reason not to. It's a nice range gun though, and the other CZ that I've shot was too.

Thanks!

J.Ja

Work on your trigger control. 5 inch groups at 5 yards is most likely not a problem with the gun.

CZs usually have a good trigger when in single action. Glocks and HKs take more getting used to, but will shoot with most CZs <15-20 yards.

DocGKR
02-28-2012, 03:47 PM
I sandbagged a OEM barreled G17 w/RMR07 and fired 10 rounds of Federal AE9FP 147 gr FMJ at a NRA B8 25 yds away. This resulted in a group with an extreme spread of 3.5" and a score of 98-7x.

I then took a brand new KKM G17B1 "drop-in" match barrel and literally dropped it into the pistol. I fired 2 rounds at a small 1" circle to check POA/POI--it required 3 clicks to left to re-zero; elevation was good. Then an additional 10 rounds were fired at a new B8 target in exactly the same manner. The KKM barrel gave an extreme spread of 2" and a score of 100-9x.

The OEM barrel had a couple of outliers. The KKM group was tighter and more consistent; it was fun seeing a nearly perfectly round 25yd group centered on the "X" that was shot out of a Glock. There was one shot that was about 0.1" outside the "X"--the KKM was that close to a 100-10x.

Although the KKM was better and more consistent when rested, when I shot 2 hand unsupported 10 rd groups with each barrel, there was no difference in score going from OEM to KKM, as I still got between 95-98 pts with 3-5x, so I did not see any improvement on that end yet--I am the weak link, not the barrels...

I'll continue to give the KKM a try over the next few months and see how it goes.

GJM
02-28-2012, 09:34 PM
Anecdotally, for me, the Gen 4 9's seem to shoot better than the Gen 3 9's, but I prefer the trigger on the Gen 3 models. The RMR sure makes accuracy testing easier!