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".Originally Posted by VolGrad
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.
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.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
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.
This sounds like a good standard. If a gun can't do this I would probably let it go.
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.
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.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
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.
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.
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.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
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?
Reply With Quote