PDA

View Full Version : HK woes



GJM
05-24-2011, 12:04 PM
For years, I have been an HK fan, and have a bunch of them. I really appreciate their accuracy, reliability, quality and LEM trigger. A few months back, I did the Rogers School, using a P30, and shot thousands of rounds there and in general practice this year. At Rogers, I felt like I undershot my usual performance, and in particular, struggled with my support hand shooting. Since that course in April, I have also been messing around with Glock and M&P pistols, and really focusing on my support hand shooting with the Glock, M&P and HK.

A few observations:

1) With lots of practice, my support hand shooting has dramatically improved, but still, I shoot much better support hand with a Glock or M&P than the HK. This is especially noticeable when trying to go fast, as opposed to slow fire precision.

2) This morning, for fun, I ran several FAST drills (not from concealment to take that out of the equation) with the P30. My times were 5.2-5.3, which is about where they were all spring. My first run with the M&P 9 was 4.7, and my successive runs were 4.41 - 4.47. This is after shooting approaching 10,000 HK rounds this year, and just a couple hundred rounds thru the M&P.

This is super distressing because I love the HK pistols, but the timer doesn't lie.

ToddG
05-24-2011, 12:32 PM
Let's assume for sake of discussion that your practice has been ideal and the difference really does come down to the mechanical function of the guns.

I shoot my G17 a bit better than my P30, too. But out of four HK pistols I've had in the past three years, the worst problem I suffered was an out of spec spring that induced stoppages once every 1,500 rounds or so until it was identified and fixed. By comparison, both of the Glocks I've purchased over the past year (both gen4 9mm) have suffered significant problems. One had to be replaced by the manufacturer and the other had to have its extractor replaced twice to get running.

There's more to choosing a gun than the one that turns in your best FAST... and I say that as someone whose life revolves around that drill to a certain extent!

Nonetheless, you're doing the exact right thing. You're taking an unemotional approach to evaluating different platforms and finding the one that works best for you based on you: your skill, your anatomy, your priorities, etc.

I don't think you'll find anyone here who tells you that switching from a P30 to a Glock or M&P is a mistake. Nor would you find anyone who tells you that switching from a Glock or M&P to a P30 is a mistake. They've all got their strengths and weaknesses. As long as you end up with a gun that is reliable, everything else is a matter of priorities. Let's face it, an awful lot of people care more about what their gun looks like than whether it functions or where the bullets end up when the loud noise happens. When you start choosing between guns based on some tenths of a second difference on the FAST, you know you've got a lot of good options.

Pistol Shooter
05-24-2011, 04:56 PM
I don't think you'll find anyone here who tells you that switching from a P30 to a Glock or M&P is a mistake. Nor would you find anyone who tells you that switching from a Glock or M&P to a P30 is a mistake. They've all got their strengths and weaknesses. As long as you end up with a gun that is reliable, everything else is a matter of priorities. Let's face it, an awful lot of people care more about what their gun looks like than whether it functions or where the bullets end up when the loud noise happens. When you start choosing between guns based on some tenths of a second difference on the FAST, you know you've got a lot of good options.

Great advice. :D

Use what you shoot best and don't worry about the brand name stamped on your pistol. It's a tool.

Comedian
05-24-2011, 04:57 PM
Good points Todd.

agent-smith
05-24-2011, 05:46 PM
Out of curiosity, do you know where you're making-up the time?

Is it primarily on time-to-first shot? Reload? Splits? Evenly "spread"?

agent-smith
05-24-2011, 05:51 PM
Let's face it, an awful lot of people care more about what their gun looks like than whether it functions or where the bullets end up when the loud noise happens. When you start choosing between guns based on some tenths of a second difference on the FAST, you know you've got a lot of good options.

I think we'll have to respectfully agree-to-disagree here...I'm all about whatever looks cool.

JHC
05-24-2011, 06:04 PM
Well, this could be cross-linked to the ONE GUN discussion. ;)

When I gave a M&P Pro a 2400 round test drive last year, partly in tandem with our 1st Gen 4 G17 - there were a few weeks where I thought I'd found true love. The M&P was a joy to run closer range drills with - at the time that was primarily El Presidente and something akin to Hackathorns 3-3-3; I had not yet gotten into the TLG drills like the FAST at that time. I'd been shooting Glocks almost exclusively for years and POW. It was only the poor 25 yard precision capability, couple of dead triggers, and squirmy roundish grip that led me to let it go, and renew my vows to G. They are cool pistols that can really be run. My Gen 4 Glock reloads are pretty quick but I've never reloaded anything faster than that Pro 9.
It'll be fun to hear what direction to go. Thanks.

joshs
05-24-2011, 06:09 PM
Out of curiosity, do you know where you're making-up the time?

I'm interested in this as well. I switched to the P30 from a G17G4. Initially, my FAST times were slightly slower (body splits were about .05 slower), but I can now reload the P30 about two tenths faster than I could reload the Glock, so my times end up being about the same with slower splits.

If you like everything else more about the P30, have you considered sending your gun to Grayguns?

GJM
05-24-2011, 07:56 PM
Lots to reply to here.

First, HK woes may not be exactly fair as the title of the thread, given how reliable and accurate my P30's/HK45's/HK45C's have been, but it reflected my state of mind after accepting that no matter how much I like an HK, and how hard I have tried, the timer doesn't lie.

Something Bill Rogers said in his opening lecture really hit home for me. He says the reason they are called a handgun and not a "hands-gun" is they are designed to be able to be shot with one hand, and there are many real world reasons for being able to operate them one hand, from being injured to using a hand to drive/climb/hold a dog leash, etc. I came home from the Rogers School determined to become a good support hand only shooter, and have devoted a significant part of each range session working on that skill. Despite that effort, in MY support hand, the LEM trigger is just more difficult to shoot at speed. While small increments of speed are not that significant to my analysis of what I carry, it really bugs me to know that my support hand shooting with the LEM is not on par with what I can do with a Glock, 1911 or M&P.

As to accuracy, while not as accurate as my HK 45's, my M&P 9 and M&P mid-size 45, both recently purchased and with Apex parts are acceptably accurate. I have a six inch plate at 50 yards that I use for practical field accuracy, and I can't tell the difference between the M&P's, the HK's and the Glocks in hitting that target. Intermixed with mechanical accuracy has to be ergonomics, and the M&P just feels good in my hands. Counterpoint is I had some early M&P 45's that I found wanting at shooting steel from 50-100 yards.

The HK has been the gold standard in my experience with reliability, and I can't recall a single stoppage or malfunction in about a dozen samples from the P30/HK45 family. So far, my recently purchased M&P9 and M&P45 have been 100 per cent reliable, but I am a long way from a round count that makes me believe they will approach the HK in reliability. Today, I received an M&P9 Compact, with Apex parts, and was delighted shooting it. Delighted, that is, until the Compact started malfunctioning with a case partway out of the chamber with the next round tying the pistol up good. After calling Smith, they said to run some more rounds, which I took as the equivalent of take two aspirin and call in the morning. I did run another 50 cartridges, and after continuing to experience the same malfunction every other magazine, I decided to put in aside to go back to Smith. I have had no problems with the 9mm Glock pistols, aside from a self induced malfunction yesterday, when I managed to use a .357 Sig magazine in a G19.

As to what accounted for the .8-.9 faster FAST drill with the M&P, it was spread evenly throughout the shots -- faster two head shots, faster reload, and faster splits on the four shots following the reload. I recall that my reload and shot was about 1.8 with the M&P, compared to 2.0-2.2 with the P30, which surprised me as I have always found the P30 easy to reload. In my hands, the M&P felt just plain easier to shoot, and more consistent. This evening, I ran a few FAST drills with a G19, and they were smack between the HK and M&P, at about 4.75. The reload was definitely slower with the Glock, not counting the one that I totally screwed up at about 3 seconds.

While the Glock isn't my favorite feeling handgun, it seems everyone needs to have a G19 and know how to shoot it. Since the Glock 29 has an important niche for me in Alaska, the G19 is also a good sub caliber training device for the G29. I still appreciate the LEM trigger of the HK for cold weather use, the hammer for IWB carry and the accuracy/reliability of the platform, but until I learn to shoot it as well support hand as the other platforms, I can't be content carrying it. I am willing to put the effort into getting some reliable M&P pistols, and until they are proven out, there is always a G19!

I am curious as to how well others shoot their P30/HK45 LEM support hand only at speed?

John Ralston
05-24-2011, 08:57 PM
I am curious as to how well others shoot their P30/HK45 LEM support hand only at speed?

Quite slow and accuracy sucks with that long trigger pull. I have been doing a lot of dry fire WHO, but live fire is still bad. I will work through it though, as the gun fits my hand 100x's better than a G19 and I love everything else about the pistol (except the factory sights).

jslaker
05-24-2011, 09:27 PM
Quite slow and accuracy sucks with that long trigger pull. I have been doing a lot of dry fire WHO, but live fire is still bad. I will work through it though, as the gun fits my hand 100x's better than a G19 and I love everything else about the pistol (except the factory sights).

I haven't been doing much WHO shooting at all, but I actually found that I tended to be more accurate in general from the full LEM pull than from reset. I've generally attributed it to the anticipation issues I've been having with that gun. Not having similar problems with the rental G19 I gave a spin nor the M&P I just purchased through the limited 150 round run I gave it after picking it up the other day, though.

Wheeler
05-24-2011, 09:51 PM
As to what accounted for the .8-.9 faster FAST drill with the M&P, it was spread evenly throughout the shots -- faster two head shots, faster reload, and faster splits on the four shots following the reload. I recall that my reload and shot was about 1.8 with the M&P, compared to 2.0-2.2 with the P30, which surprised me as I have always found the P30 easy to reload. In my hands, the M&P felt just plain easier to shoot, and more consistent. This evening, I ran a few FAST drills with a G19, and they were smack between the HK and M&P, at about 4.75. The reload was definitely slower with the Glock, not counting the one that I totally screwed up at about 3 seconds.



I'm wondering if this might be a focus issue rather than a hardware/fit/feel issue. When I do flip from one gun to another, there are so many differences, (grip angle, sight picture, trigger, etc.) that I tend to focus more on the fundamentals of manipulation, sight picture, and trigger press. In certain scenarios I will shoot the one I just picked up better than the one I just put down. Just another thought to stir the pot a little more.

Wheeler

Chipster
05-24-2011, 09:53 PM
I feel your pain. Qualifications today and I did not drop a single point with the P30. When I want to run at speed though it is all Glock! Frustrating for me as I want to get faster with the P30, but the Glock makes it easier for me at speed. The accuracy is not as great with the Glock and I am not as sure with the Glock in AIWB, but the speed is definitely there and when you are wanting to bring home a coin, it matters. Maybe an unbiased contest this weekend to see which one I want be monogamous with.

JohnN
05-25-2011, 09:40 AM
Is there a general consensus of the number of rounds needed to make an informed opinion on a platform?

I think many of us made the move to the P30 because we either liked the increased safety of the hammer for AIWB or just for a change.

It seems though that there are an increased number of us who are struggling to attain the level of performance we experienced with whatever we were shooting prior to.

DocGKR
05-25-2011, 09:45 AM
Dedicate yourself to the pistol you want to use--shoot 20,000+ rounds or so out of it over the next year, along with taking a couple of classes, and then seen how you are doing...

ToddG
05-25-2011, 11:40 AM
Furthermore, if you switched from platform-A to platform-B for reasons other than "I can shoot it faster," then accept that you may not be able to shoot it as fast.

Not killing yourself when you holster > faster splits.

FWIW, to date I've not been able to shoot a legitimate FAST with the G17 that topped my personal best with the P30:


P30: 4.08 clean, 1.37, .35 / 1.76 / .20, .20, .20
G17: 4.22 clean, 1.40, .37 / 1.86 / .21, .19, .19

David Armstrong
05-25-2011, 11:48 AM
Ummm, am I the only guy here who found a fighting handgun that he liked 20 years ago and has just continued to shoot that same gun? I've got some play around guns, sure, but the thought of trading a gun that works well just to start the learning curve all over again is rather foreign to me.:confused:

ToddG
05-25-2011, 11:51 AM
Ummm, am I the only guy here who found a fighting handgun that he liked 20 years ago and has just continued to shoot that same gun?

I'd never fired a handgun 20 years ago. So... yeah. :cool:

JV_
05-25-2011, 11:55 AM
If I could have a Glock with an HK paddle release, I'd probably never shoot anything else.

Kyle Reese
05-25-2011, 12:01 PM
If I could have a Glock with an HK paddle release, I'd probably never shoot anything else.

In addition to true drop free mags..... :cool:

JHC
05-25-2011, 12:03 PM
Ummm, am I the only guy here who found a fighting handgun that he liked 20 years ago and has just continued to shoot that same gun? I've got some play around guns, sure, but the thought of trading a gun that works well just to start the learning curve all over again is rather foreign to me.:confused:

Well? Which one is it?

Apart from brief experiments for kicks; my primary cycles were 1911s, then snubbies in a different scortching hot climate and NPE, then BHP, then to Glocks since about the mid to late '90s. Two trends within those cycles were changes in environment (dresscode/temperatures) and my ability to manage the .45acp. It seemed like in my 20's I could run a 1911 as fast as anything but in subsequent decades I've perceived that the struggle to keep up the pace with a .45 versus a 9mm was a race I was losing and the .45 is now more of a hunting companion.

JHC
05-25-2011, 12:05 PM
Furthermore, if you switched from platform-A to platform-B for reasons other than "I can shoot it faster," then accept that you may not be able to shoot it as fast.

Not killing yourself when you holster > faster splits.

FWIW, to date I've not been able to shoot a legitimate FAST with the G17 that topped my personal best with the P30:


P30: 4.08 clean, 1.37, .35 / 1.76 / .20, .20, .20
G17: 4.22 clean, 1.40, .37 / 1.86 / .21, .19, .19


You commented recently - maybe on the One Gun thread that you shot the G17 better than the P30 whereas the P30 offered other advantages. Since the P30 shows the stronger FAST, in which way did/are you shooting the G17 better?

YVK
05-25-2011, 12:47 PM
Nonetheless, you're doing the exact right thing. You're taking an unemotional approach to evaluating different platforms and finding the one that works best for you based on you: your skill, your anatomy, your priorities, etc.


Since Todd used both bold and italics in his post, all I had left was underline function to make my point..
In my time I demoed a ton of tennis rackets (much cheaper proposition than pistols). One was awesome for serve, another gave me laser backhand, third was the cool one. None gave me all I wanted, and I had to prioritize. Seems like the same thing is happening here, which gets me to priorities.
I am too faster with Glock than with P30 - one handed or two handed, but I am more accurate at distance with P30. What's my priority - get a pistol I can use better if my strong hand is disabled, or get a pistol I am more comfortable taking a low percentage shot with? The fact that Bill Rogers has a compelling argument, or that people drop most points in his class on weak handed shooting doesn't actually answer this question for me. Highly individual decision...
One thing I'd mention, G., is that you're dissecting your F.A.S.T performance to fraction of a second, but your long range practical accuracy is measured on hit/miss basis, am I right? For advanced shooter like you, I'd argue that long range accuracy should be measured in finer increments.

GJM
05-25-2011, 12:55 PM
Is there a general consensus of the number of rounds needed to make an informed opinion on a platform?

I think many of us made the move to the P30 because we either liked the increased safety of the hammer for AIWB or just for a change.

It seems though that there are an increased number of us who are struggling to attain the level of performance we experienced with whatever we were shooting prior to.

I would be very interested in seeing this kind of data on the P30. To GR's point about persistence, some model HK with an LEM has been my primary for about five years, and thru multiple classes, including most recently the Rogers School. Throughout the period, I have also messed with 1911's, M&P's and Glocks, although an HK was always my go to platform. I have always had a vague feeling that I always shot the other platforms better than the HK, but as may be typical of someone under the HK spell, I came up with reasons why I stuck with the HK, including suitability for use in cold weather, accuracy and reliability. Despite having taken my first Gunsite class in 1991, previously being an A class IPSC Limited shooter, and taken training at least annually, it was only my experience at the Rogers School in April, and a renewed interest in improving my practical shooting this year, that caused me to become more analytical about my performance.

Cutting through the emotion, the facts are that despite upwards of 25,000 HK handgun rounds, and lots of effort, I shoot a Glock, and especially an M&P better. Since I obviously still have the HK disease, I went out with my one non LEM HK this morning to work on support hand shooting, hoping the SA trigger would be easier SHO. On the very first SHO shot with my P30/S in .40, with my thumb on top of the safety 1911 style, I managed to slice the web of my left thumb open. I even experimented placing my thumb below the safety, which stopped the bleeding, but besides being contrary to my 1911 muscle memory, was slow and inconsistent. I grabbed an LEM HK 45C and worked yet again on my SHO shooting, and started to see some light at the end of the tunnel, although nowhere near as good as the Glock or M&P. I then worked on some FAST drills, and best was 5.25 +/- with most high 5's. Repeated the same with a P30 LEM in .40 and got the same results. For jollies, I grabbed my newish M&P 45 mid-size and ran three FAST drills as soon as I strapped the pistol on. I went purposely slow on the first one, and was surprised to see 4.75. My next two were 4.37 and 4.51, down just one shot, barely out, of the 18 rounds fired. Caveat was all were fired from open carry, not concealment, and it was at my own area by myself without any pressure. I am less interested in the absolute time, than the difference between the M&P, which is new to me again, and the HK which has been my primary for ever. Then I did some SHO shooting with the M&P, and it was still much better than the HK.

Bottom line is the HK is a great platform, and I can still see carrying one -- although I will do so with a realistic understanding of how I shoot it, compared to other platforms, like the M&P. Now, if HK brings out a striker fired pistol next year, I will be the first in line to get one. :)

Finally, to end where I started this diatribe, in an attempt to understand whether my experience is unique, what data do folks have on how well they shoot their P30 compared to a Glock or M&P?

jthhapkido
05-25-2011, 02:50 PM
I am too faster with Glock than with P30 - one handed or two handed, but I am more accurate at distance with P30. What's my priority - get a pistol I can use better if my strong hand is disabled, or get a pistol I am more comfortable taking a low percentage shot with?

I note that when I read this, the first thing I thought was "at what distance"? What do you consider a "low percentage shot"? A 3-inch dot at 20 yards? 50 yards? 100 yards? :)

For my particular situation/circumstances, if I'm consistently faster and accurate enough (under stress) out to 15 yards, I'd personally take that over something where I'm more accurate with slow fire at 50 yards. (Note: the "accurate enough" is rather important.)

For a carry gun, the likelihood of me needing to take a shot past 20 yards is significantly less than needing to get a much quicker shot off at 7-15 yards (and more likely it'll be one-handed at 1-3 yards).

Everyone has different situations (for example, I don't hunt bears with handguns in Alaska ) but for mine, Glock/M&P/HK firearms accuracy are all good enough at the distances that are most likely for me to need (and past), and if I am that much better with one particular type for single-handed shooting, or shooting at speed---I'm definitely going to choose that one over something that demonstrates slightly more accuracy at much farther distances.

So---what exactly do you consider a "low percentage shot", and how important is it to you? How likely? Are you able to hit a 2-inch dot at 10 yards with any of the weapons? How much lower of a percentage type of shot are you going to need?

Moving ocular-window-size rectangles at 15 yards? :)

Again---this is just a commentary on my priority set based on my particular circumstances. So---what are yours like? What are the most probable situations in which you'll need to use a gun?

YVK
05-25-2011, 03:33 PM
My accuracy goal is 2.5 inch group at 25 yards. Since I am an not a firearm-wielding professional, I don't have my own frame of reference as to "why". This one comes from a firearms instructor who has been quite influential on my learning and training, and rationale is described here http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/accuracy/. While goals of CAG operator are different from goals of civilian user, we all need to get some sort of standard.




For a carry gun, the likelihood of me needing to take a shot past 20 yards is significantly less than needing to get a much quicker shot off at 7-15 yards (and more likely it'll be one-handed at 1-3 yards).

....So---what are yours like? What are the most probable situations in which you'll need to use a gun?

I have no clue what my circumstances might be. Do we know for sure that likelihood of weak-handed shooting exceeds a likelihood of a 25 yard shot for a civilian user?
I live in a very open area, I spend a lot of time outdoors where 25 doesn't seem to be too far...

Regardless, 2.5 inch group at 25 yards statically is my standard. It is not necessarily a matter of practical importance, it is a marksmanship standard that's important to me. Just as F.A.S.T. test is a performance standard which may or may not have similar practical importance for various shooters.

GJM
05-25-2011, 07:31 PM
I have thought about your earlier post on measuring long range accuracy, and I am not sure how to do that with out putting paper out there. That creates two issues, you don't get the instant feedback of shooting steel, and that is a lot of running back and forth down range. Not sure what you had in mind?

Larry Vickers has obviously forgotten more than I know about shooting, and I don't know the context of the 2.5 inches at 25 yards comment, but I think too much focus on that can be counterproductive. I spent several years shooting on a home range that consisted of an eight inch steel at 25 yards, an eight inch steel at 50 yards, and a twelve inch steel at 100 yards -- and almost never put up paper. While I got decent at shooting steel, my split times could be measured by a sun dial, and it has taken lots of work to get to where I need to be at ten yards and in. Another issue is that the kind of pistol that shoots 2.5 inches at 25 yards, may not be suited to the kind of shooting most drills are oriented towards. If 2.5 inches in your hands is mandatory, I would get a tight 1911 and a very light trigger. Now, if you wanted to use a Ransom rest or some other way of testing pistols, that didn't rely on a very light trigger, and only keep samples that met your accuracy spec, that would be OK in my opinion.

My personal accuracy spec is all shots in the upper ocular box of an EAG target at 25 yards, from sitting, slow fire, and so far my HK, Glock and M&P (late model) pistols are doing that. With that level of accuracy established in my testing, I don't fret accuracy, and focus on the hardware/software interface (me).

YVK
05-25-2011, 08:08 PM
I have thought about your earlier post on measuring long range accuracy, and I am not sure how to do that with out putting paper out there. That creates two issues, you don't get the instant feedback of shooting steel, and that is a lot of running back and forth down range. Not sure what you had in mind?


At 50, the only way to do it would be to spray paint the target and verify impact after each shot with binocs.




Larry Vickers has obviously forgotten more than I know about shooting, and I don't know the context of the 2.5 inches at 25 yards comment, but I think too much focus on that can be counterproductive. I spent several years shooting on a home range that consisted of an eight inch steel at 25 yards, an eight inch steel at 50 yards, and a twelve inch steel at 100 yards -- and almost never put up paper. While I got decent at shooting steel, my split times could be measured by a sun dial, and it has taken lots of work to get to where I need to be at ten yards and in. Another issue is that the kind of pistol that shoots 2.5 inches at 25 yards, may not be suited to the kind of shooting most drills are oriented towards.

2.5 at 25 is simply a goal (for me, LAV has his own theory), a measure of attained marksmanship which [marksmanship] to me a first block on which everything else builds upon. Is it counterproductive to pursue? I don't know, individual decision. Is it practically important and reflects a task I may have to face? No, likely not, but neither is shooting 8 consecutive targets with weak hand only with 0.5 second par time for each. Both are simply challenges that we impose on ourselves to be better. I simply prioritize the first one, quite possibly with excessively stringent criteria which I may relax at some point, I don't know.
As far as hardware is concerned, I've shot enough tight groups with 1911s, P7 and P30 to know they weren't happening by chance, but I can't do it with my G19.





My personal accuracy spec is all shots in the upper ocular box of an EAG target at 25 yards, from sitting, slow fire, and so far my HK, Glock and M&P (late model) pistols are doing that. With that level of accuracy established in my testing, I don't fret accuracy, and focus on the hardware/software interface (me).

That's all that matters, G., if they all meet your own criteria for accuracy.

Savage Hands
05-25-2011, 10:02 PM
The 2.5" group at 25 yards is LAV's maximum group size of a gun and ammo's mechanical accuracy while benched or rested which should be easily attained with most quality handguns.

John Hearne
05-25-2011, 10:49 PM
Ummm, am I the only guy here who found a fighting handgun that he liked 20 years ago and has just continued to shoot that same gun?

My employer did that for me. After carrying a revolver for seven years, I transitioned to a Sig P220. For the last thirteen years or so, I've shot some variant of the P220. Most recently I've been shooting the stainless guns and even more recently, a 5" variant. It's probably saved me a lot of time and hassle.

Every once and a while I think about transitioning to a long slide 40 variant of the P226 but when I think about buying two of them and then buying the same number of magazines I have for the P220, the same holters, and the brass to reload, I quickl come back to reality.

YVK
05-25-2011, 11:01 PM
The 2.5" group at 25 yards is LAV's maximum group size of a gun and ammo's mechanical accuracy.

That is absolutely correct.

However, the practical background for that mechanical accuracy is LAV's requirement for a head shot (5.0") at 25 yards under condition of stress and expected degradation of shooter's performance. With that in mind, it doesn't seem like much of stretch to strive for near-mechanical accuracy when shooting in ideal conditions.


which should be easily attained with most quality handguns.
That I am not sure about. My gunsmith-installed Briley-barreled G19 turned in a 50-round average group of 3" from Ransom rest.

I think we hijack this one far enough. Everyone has own priorities, and as long as systematic impartial approach is maintained, everyone should be able to find a pistol that meets their needs.

John Ralston
05-26-2011, 09:53 AM
Don't want to push this thread too far off topic, but there is good reasoning behind the 2.5" @ 25 yards (or whatever standard your favorite instructor chooses):

If you can't make fairly tight groups at the range, how well are you going to shoot under stress?

Angus Hobdel gives a fairly good explanation (although he applied it to an IPSC Target) - If you can only shoot a 8" group at 25, and you only have an 8" diameter portion of your threat visible at 25 yards, then you will have to have your sights PERFECTLY aligned, and you will have to aim DEAD CENTER of the visible target area to GUARANTEE a hit. If you can shoot 2.5" groups, then you get a little wiggle room on sight alignment and your aiming point.

Every top shooter shoots groups to work on trigger control and sight alignment. You have to be able to shoot good groups if you want to be able to make hits at speed.

David Armstrong
05-26-2011, 10:48 AM
Well? Which one is it?
Glock 17 or 19

Apart from brief experiments for kicks; my primary cycles were 1911s, then snubbies in a different scortching hot climate and NPE, then BHP, then to Glocks since about the mid to late '90s. Two trends within those cycles were changes in environment (dresscode/temperatures) and my ability to manage the .45acp. It seemed like in my 20's I could run a 1911 as fast as anything but in subsequent decades I've perceived that the struggle to keep up the pace with a .45 versus a 9mm was a race I was losing and the .45 is now more of a hunting companion.
I'm similar. Started with the 1911 back in the early 1970s and pretty much stayed with it except as job requirements and/or availability mandated until the early 90s when I moved to the Glock. I carry a snub more often than not now, but I still consider the Glock as my primary pistol.

ToddG
05-26-2011, 11:41 AM
You commented recently - maybe on the One Gun thread that you shot the G17 better than the P30 whereas the P30 offered other advantages. Since the P30 shows the stronger FAST, in which way did/are you shooting the G17 better?

I'm more consistently able to get faster splits on both high- and low-prob targets with the G17. The difference is small enough, though, that I wouldn't automatically choose the Glock. I do believe I'll beat my P30 record this year while shooting the Glock, but while some folks will say that's because I shoot the Glock better it does raise the question of whether an additional 100,000 rounds of practice over two years (half of it with a .45) might have had something to do with my improved shooting ability.


For a carry gun, the likelihood of me needing to take a shot past 20 yards is significantly less than needing to get a much quicker shot off at 7-15 yards (and more likely it'll be one-handed at 1-3 yards).

Except you have no idea what kind of target presentation you're going to see whether it's at 5yd or 50yd. Especially indoors, there are rarely wide open full body shots to be made. Someone using cover well 7yd away is just as hard as hitting a torso at 50yd.

I see good shooters (even IPSC GMs and certainly myself) miss a static 3x5 at 7yd all the time when going fast. I consider that a pretty realistic and practical target zone and distance.


Another issue is that the kind of pistol that shoots 2.5 inches at 25 yards, may not be suited to the kind of shooting most drills are oriented towards. If 2.5 inches in your hands is mandatory, I would get a tight 1911 and a very light trigger.

That's just it, though. Plenty of modern handguns are capable of that degree of accuracy if you have adequate marksmanship capability. If that seems unattainable to you but sub-.20 splits are easy, it might be time to reprioritize.

While I understand the rationale behind Rogers Shooting School putting so much emphasis on SHO/WHO shooting, I'm constantly drawn back to the fact that very few real gunfights (two way bullet traffic) actually result in participants needing to rely on one hand, especially at longer ranges, etc. I'm not saying it's unimportant -- I practice it and teach it -- but I wouldn't make it the major deciding factor for choosing a gun. If I can shoot a gun well 2H, then I know the gun is capable of being shot well. Now I just need to work on my trigger press to make it work well SHO/WHO.

GJM
05-26-2011, 02:10 PM
While I understand the rationale behind Rogers Shooting School putting so much emphasis on SHO/WHO shooting, I'm constantly drawn back to the fact that very few real gunfights (two way bullet traffic) actually result in participants needing to rely on one hand, especially at longer ranges, etc. I'm not saying it's unimportant -- I practice it and teach it -- but I wouldn't make it the major deciding factor for choosing a gun. If I can shoot a gun well 2H, then I know the gun is capable of being shot well. Now I just need to work on my trigger press to make it work well SHO/WHO.

I didn't question him on his methods of analysis, but Bill Rogers in his opening lecture said that reviewing video from police shootings from the dash cams showed half of all police gunfights involved one or more shots fired with just one hand. While the plural of anecdote is not data, in my little world, a ranger near Moab was shot by a bad guy last fall, and ended up returning fire SHO, and credits that with saving his life. Following the theory of practice what you suck at, I have spent more time on SHO shooting in the last month than I have in the last 20 years combined. In my IPSC days, I always tried to bluff my way through the SHO stages of standards, and it feels good to not be in that boat.

Is there data out there that goes to the question of how likely a SHO shot happens in real life?

ToddG
05-26-2011, 02:45 PM
There is a huge difference between "shooting SHO" and "being forced to shoot SHO." That's a distinction that gets left out a lot of times when folks start discussing these things. People with relatively little skill-habit in shooting (like most cops, sadly) often revert to a one handed grip under stress. You see it all the times in movies and on TV which, even more sadly, is where a lot of people ingrain their shooting habits as opposed to, say, on the range.

I'm not suggesting that people never get shot in their arms/hands or that SHO/WHO is unimportant. But spending 30% of my training time on a 5% problem, or choosing a gun solely because I'm a fraction better with it on that 5% problem, seems misplaced.

GJM
05-26-2011, 08:48 PM
Point well taken.

I should clarify that my use of "SHO" meant Support Hand Only, and I will be careful to use a better description of what I am referring to.

Yuri's comments shamed me into checking the accuracy of my M&P 45 mid-size, and this evening when I wanted to rough zero a new AR upper at 50 yards, I had a chance. First, I shot the mid-size M&P 45, Warren tactical sights, and Apex trigger, with Winchester Ranger 230 T ammo.

It was convenient to shoot at 55 yards, and I used slow fire sitting not a bench, which is a favorite position I use to zero pistols. Here is the M&P 55 yard group:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/MP55.jpg

Next, I shot a 25 yard group on the head, with the M&P as above:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/MP25.jpg

As a control, I shot an HK 45C with a light LEM trigger, also at 55 yards:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/HK45C55.jpg

Finally, the HK 45C at 25 yards:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/HK45C25.jpg

While this is anecdotal, and I am not sure it met the LAV 2.5 inch standard, I would hate to call either the M&P or HK the clear winner. Frankly this was a surprise, as my experience is the 45C is as accurate as any production 45. Also anecdotal, but the HK seemed to have more felt recoil.

YVK
05-26-2011, 10:12 PM
This is some very good shooting, G. If I did it, I'd be happy with myself. I'd call it equivalent between the two on a basis of 25 yard groups (55 to me looks prettier with HK but at that distance I'd hate to make calls based on 5-shot groups), and if MP gave you advantages elsewhere, I'd go with MP.

Savage Hands
05-26-2011, 10:47 PM
Remember, LAV is looking for 2.5" or better rested/benched or 5" group while standing unsupported which both groups look under 5 inches easily unsupported. :cool:

John Ralston
05-26-2011, 10:58 PM
I would agree - those 25 yard groups are excellent. I wouldn't consider either a win over the other, and I would definitely find either of those suitable.

jthhapkido
05-27-2011, 10:59 AM
I wrote:

For a carry gun, the likelihood of me needing to take a shot past 20 yards is significantly less than needing to get a much quicker shot off at 7-15 yards (and more likely it'll be one-handed at 1-3 yards).

To which Todd replied:


Except you have no idea what kind of target presentation you're going to see whether it's at 5yd or 50yd. Especially indoors, there are rarely wide open full body shots to be made. Someone using cover well 7yd away is just as hard as hitting a torso at 50yd.

I see good shooters (even IPSC GMs and certainly myself) miss a static 3x5 at 7yd all the time when going fast. I consider that a pretty realistic and practical target zone and distance.

I agree with your first, third, and fourth sentences. :) And I never said "wide open fully body shots" at nearer distances. :) (I like practicing with 2in dots, 3 in dots, and 3x5 cards set in different places on targets from 3 to 15 yards.)

I also note that a 2-in circle at 7 yards IS easier (for me) than a 6 inch circle at 20 yards---because it is easier to keep the focus on the front sight and still have a good grasp of where exactly the target area is. Yes, dot practice up close will help you get better at precision shooting at distance. It isn't the same, though, in terms of difficulty, in my opinion. And practice at shooting precision shots close-in is also important.

I'm not against far shots---everybody should practice them, I think. Preferably on steel, to get that immediate feedback. Great practice, and fun to do also.

For me personally, though, even on the wide-open plains of Nebraska :) the threat possibility of precision shots past 20 yards requiring an immediate handgun response is significantly less than other threat possibilities. Do I practice stress responses to distance targets? Sure. Do I spend much time on it? Not as much as other things.

I should note that in every practice session, I try to at least get a little distance-precision practice in. ---and this leads to a comment on a misunderstanding on my part. I had thought that the person I originally responded to meant that his practice was done with the goal of being able to hit 2.5" targets at 25 yards on demand (meaning when it is necessary RIGHT NOW)---as opposed to using a target at that distance for precision practice.

If prioritizing practice for stress responses, distance precision is far down on my list. If practicing precision and good fundamentals, distance shooting is high on my list.