I own 6 handguns (4 of which are .22s). But I've never gotten any kind of training, and my shooting with handguns is sporadic, so my skill level is still toward the novice end of the spectrum.
Last weekend, I went out with a Browning Buckmark with a Holosun red dot, a Heritage Rough Rider with a 6.5" barrel and non-adjustable sights, and a Beretta 21a. I have fairly long, but not meaty hands. The Buckmark URX grips fill my hand and the trigger reach feels good. The other two have grips small enough that my pinky finger is curled under the grip. And the trigger reach of the 21a feels too short.
I shot the Buckmark first, fully expecting its groups to be the best, considering it's more of a target pistol to begin with, has a nice trigger, fits my hand most comfortably, and had the small but highly visible red dot (which I know is functional from its use on rifles). Not to mention, it's the one I've owned the longest and shot the most.
Next was the cheap, pot-metal Rough Rider with its shallow notch for a rear sight and thick front blade. It grouped slightly better than the Buckmark.
Last was the 21a, with its tiny sight radius and minimal fixed sights. It too grouped slightly better than the Buckmark.
Granted, I'm not especially consistent, and the next time I go out, I may see different results. But it did get me thinking about why, in this instance, I shot better with the guns that, in theory, should be harder to shoot with.
The only advantage I could really think of for the Rough Rider and 21a is that they tend to point more naturally for me. When I extend the guns, the front and rear sights, rudimentary as they are, tend to line up with each other and the target, whereas with the Buckmark, I have to deliberately tip the barrel down to get the red dot visible.
I can see advantages of a more natural pointer for defense situations, where aiming has to be fast and intuitive under less than ideal conditions, but is it also a significant factor in accuracy for slower, deliberate shooting?
Last weekend, I went out with a Browning Buckmark with a Holosun red dot, a Heritage Rough Rider with a 6.5" barrel and non-adjustable sights, and a Beretta 21a. I have fairly long, but not meaty hands. The Buckmark URX grips fill my hand and the trigger reach feels good. The other two have grips small enough that my pinky finger is curled under the grip. And the trigger reach of the 21a feels too short.
I shot the Buckmark first, fully expecting its groups to be the best, considering it's more of a target pistol to begin with, has a nice trigger, fits my hand most comfortably, and had the small but highly visible red dot (which I know is functional from its use on rifles). Not to mention, it's the one I've owned the longest and shot the most.
Next was the cheap, pot-metal Rough Rider with its shallow notch for a rear sight and thick front blade. It grouped slightly better than the Buckmark.
Last was the 21a, with its tiny sight radius and minimal fixed sights. It too grouped slightly better than the Buckmark.
Granted, I'm not especially consistent, and the next time I go out, I may see different results. But it did get me thinking about why, in this instance, I shot better with the guns that, in theory, should be harder to shoot with.
The only advantage I could really think of for the Rough Rider and 21a is that they tend to point more naturally for me. When I extend the guns, the front and rear sights, rudimentary as they are, tend to line up with each other and the target, whereas with the Buckmark, I have to deliberately tip the barrel down to get the red dot visible.
I can see advantages of a more natural pointer for defense situations, where aiming has to be fast and intuitive under less than ideal conditions, but is it also a significant factor in accuracy for slower, deliberate shooting?
Last edited: