S&W Shield 9EZ shoots low
- Thread starter ciwsguy
- Start date
You gotta see a target to hit it. If you cover the target with the muzzle of the gun, how do you know where the target is? What if all you have is a head shot????? A gun should shoot to the TOP of the front sight, NOT somewhere below it. You gotta be able to see a target to hit it. I don't want the bullet to hit somewhere below the point of aim. I think "Combat sight hold" was invented to justify the gun shooting low. It's just poor quality. Even Glock sells different sights so you can zero the point of impact.
S&W Shield 9EZ shoots low
Glock, SIG, S&W, and a number of other makers all sell pistols that I’ve owned where the default hold seems to be to cover the target at least partially with the front sight at the 10 yd distance mentioned by the OP. I’ve never found this to inhibit my ability to make a head shot on a target with a hit box for a head out to 25 yd. The case for the OP is problematic because it’s abnormal, which is why we have this thread in the first place. Most pistols set up for what is being called a combat hold do not function as the OP is describing in terms of impacting that much below POA, such as his 380 EZ that doesn’t have this problem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Glock, SIG, S&W, and a number of other makers all sell pistols that I’ve owned where the default hold seems to be to cover the target at least partially with the front sight at the 10 yd distance mentioned by the OP. I’ve never found this to inhibit my ability to make a head shot on a target with a hit box for a head out to 25 yd. The case for the OP is problematic because it’s abnormal, which is why we have this thread in the first place. Most pistols set up for what is being called a combat hold do not function as the OP is describing in terms of impacting that much below POA, such as his 380 EZ that doesn’t have this problem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Yes
They test fire for function.
S&W Shield 9EZ shoots low
It depends on the manufacturer. New Walthers used to come with test targets, as well as CZs. Not sure if they do anymore. People I’ve talked to at SIG have said the pistols are expected to hold 2” at 25 yd from a rest. Whether that’s 2” for POA=POI I don’t know.
I’ve owned literally dozens of new pistols. I never had one that came from the factory shooting 6” low at 10 yd. I’m not sure how much I’d let this particular instance color my entire opinion of the firearms industry were I you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It depends on the manufacturer. New Walthers used to come with test targets, as well as CZs. Not sure if they do anymore. People I’ve talked to at SIG have said the pistols are expected to hold 2” at 25 yd from a rest. Whether that’s 2” for POA=POI I don’t know.
I’ve owned literally dozens of new pistols. I never had one that came from the factory shooting 6” low at 10 yd. I’m not sure how much I’d let this particular instance color my entire opinion of the firearms industry were I you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I only own a half-dozen or so Glocks, but none of them shoot like that except at very close range.
They are all sighted for a pretty standard 6 O'Clock hold. I've shot fewer SIGs, but the one's I've shot were set up for a 6 O'Clock hold.
In fact, with the exception of the one pistol I mentioned earlier in this thread that had sights that were very poorly chosen and shot about a foot low at 10yards, I've never shot any pistol that came from the factory with fixed sights that didn't place the bullets above the front sight at distances beyond a few yards.
Some of this confusion comes from the fact that the point of impact changes with range as explained in this thread.
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=503476
Some of it, I attribute to the fact that shooting low is the most common symptom of shot anticipation.
And yes, there may actually be some makers who do sight their pistols like that and I've just never managed to run across one.
S&W Shield 9EZ shoots low
I’m moderately sure I’m not anticipating the shot. All the sights I have currently require me to cover the target at least partially with the front sight at 10 yd, that includes my Glocks. Now to be fair I don’t keep stock Glock sights on for long because I don’t like them, so my memory may be tainted by the Ameriglos I have currently. I have ordered Dawson Precision sights where the impact is at the top of the front sight and the Colt 1911 I had was a true 6 o’clock hold.
Edit: when I say cover the POI, I mean a sight picture of #2 or #3 like here in this thread from 3.5 years ago:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6533321&postcount=7
Most of the pistols in my safe at 10 yd are somewhere between #2 and #3. I have had pistols that were very much #3 at 10 yd and it wasn’t pleasant, but it wasn’t 6” at 10 yd.
And as in that thread back then I do get your point that POI relative to POA will vary based on the distance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m moderately sure I’m not anticipating the shot. All the sights I have currently require me to cover the target at least partially with the front sight at 10 yd, that includes my Glocks. Now to be fair I don’t keep stock Glock sights on for long because I don’t like them, so my memory may be tainted by the Ameriglos I have currently. I have ordered Dawson Precision sights where the impact is at the top of the front sight and the Colt 1911 I had was a true 6 o’clock hold.
Edit: when I say cover the POI, I mean a sight picture of #2 or #3 like here in this thread from 3.5 years ago:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6533321&postcount=7
Most of the pistols in my safe at 10 yd are somewhere between #2 and #3. I have had pistols that were very much #3 at 10 yd and it wasn’t pleasant, but it wasn’t 6” at 10 yd.
And as in that thread back then I do get your point that POI relative to POA will vary based on the distance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Taking your time, if you can shoot standing/unsupported 5 shot groups with your Glocks that are 4" or so in size at 25 yards, then you're doing really well with your trigger control and can be confident that you are not anticipating the shot.
At ranges like 15 yards, groups should be about 2" if you're taking your time.
At 10 yards and under, most guns I've messed with (not talking about micros and subcompacts) will shoot single-hole groups.
For example, I have a Kahr P9 and a Kahr CW9. Most would place those into the category of close-range guns, but when I was adjusting the rear sight windage to precisely sight the CW9, I shot a standing/unsupported 12 shot group at 25 yards that was less than 5" center-to-center--3" if you do best 10 of 12. Center of the group was about 5.5" above point of aim.
The last time I had the P9 at the range, I shot a standing/unsupported 25 shot group at 21 yards (max for that range) that was 5" center-to-center--4.25" if you take the best 24 of 25. Center of the group was about 4" above point of aim.
Awhile back, I shot a 10 round group through one of my Glocks using 6 different types of ammo, as a test. At 15 yards, standing/unsupported, the group was 2". Center of the group was about 1.5" above point of aim.
All of those guns had factory sights and that kind of performance is what I have come to expect in my fixed sighted guns.
What I see is that the guns and ammo, (even the relatively small ones, and even when you mix ammo) are capable of groups that are quite small.
The biggest problem I see when people are trying to evaluate the point of aim of their pistols is that they're shooting pretty large groups at relatively close ranges. That's almost invariably attributable to shot anticipation which very often tends to also push the groups low on the target.
But because many shooters are happy/satisfied with 6" groups at 10 yards, they're not interested in talking about trigger technique improvement so they would rather deal with it as a problem with the gun (sights) than get to the root of the issue.
At ranges like 15 yards, groups should be about 2" if you're taking your time.
At 10 yards and under, most guns I've messed with (not talking about micros and subcompacts) will shoot single-hole groups.
For example, I have a Kahr P9 and a Kahr CW9. Most would place those into the category of close-range guns, but when I was adjusting the rear sight windage to precisely sight the CW9, I shot a standing/unsupported 12 shot group at 25 yards that was less than 5" center-to-center--3" if you do best 10 of 12. Center of the group was about 5.5" above point of aim.
The last time I had the P9 at the range, I shot a standing/unsupported 25 shot group at 21 yards (max for that range) that was 5" center-to-center--4.25" if you take the best 24 of 25. Center of the group was about 4" above point of aim.
Awhile back, I shot a 10 round group through one of my Glocks using 6 different types of ammo, as a test. At 15 yards, standing/unsupported, the group was 2". Center of the group was about 1.5" above point of aim.
All of those guns had factory sights and that kind of performance is what I have come to expect in my fixed sighted guns.
What I see is that the guns and ammo, (even the relatively small ones, and even when you mix ammo) are capable of groups that are quite small.
The biggest problem I see when people are trying to evaluate the point of aim of their pistols is that they're shooting pretty large groups at relatively close ranges. That's almost invariably attributable to shot anticipation which very often tends to also push the groups low on the target.
But because many shooters are happy/satisfied with 6" groups at 10 yards, they're not interested in talking about trigger technique improvement so they would rather deal with it as a problem with the gun (sights) than get to the root of the issue.
S&W Shield 9EZ shoots low
I agree with the standards you put forth.
I tend to agree that when it comes to issues of accuracy or POA not equaling POI the issue is generally the shooter. I don’t have any proof that is the case here and my suspicion is it is not the case given that the OP has essentially the same pistol in 380 ACP and shoots it without issue. Certainly there can be more recoil in 9mm, but enough to account for a 6” difference at 10 yd as remarked by the OP seems unlikely. At this point the OP seems to have an option open to him for front sight replacement and seems to have indicated he is going in that direction.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with the standards you put forth.
I tend to agree that when it comes to issues of accuracy or POA not equaling POI the issue is generally the shooter. I don’t have any proof that is the case here and my suspicion is it is not the case given that the OP has essentially the same pistol in 380 ACP and shoots it without issue. Certainly there can be more recoil in 9mm, but enough to account for a 6” difference at 10 yd as remarked by the OP seems unlikely. At this point the OP seems to have an option open to him for front sight replacement and seems to have indicated he is going in that direction.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
People blaming equipment rather than themselves is a pretty normal human reaction and in fairness not restricted to shooting, though the firearms industry does seem to have no shortage of vendors to address what I might consider to be software problems rather than hardware problems.
I would add that sometimes, at least for myself, you can have bad days. I’ve taken multi day courses where I was disappointed in my performance on the first day or days at the range where I packed it in early because I knew I was wasting ammunition in my current state (physically or mentally). At some point as a shooter you have to learn your own baseline and be honest with yourself. Then when you diverge from that baseline you know if there is or isn’t a problem and if you actually need to spend money for a hardware solution. It’s also why I personally require multiple trips and multiple observations of a “problem” before I make a correction. It seems here that the OP did that and I think the sand bag suggestion was worthwhile.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would add that sometimes, at least for myself, you can have bad days. I’ve taken multi day courses where I was disappointed in my performance on the first day or days at the range where I packed it in early because I knew I was wasting ammunition in my current state (physically or mentally). At some point as a shooter you have to learn your own baseline and be honest with yourself. Then when you diverge from that baseline you know if there is or isn’t a problem and if you actually need to spend money for a hardware solution. It’s also why I personally require multiple trips and multiple observations of a “problem” before I make a correction. It seems here that the OP did that and I think the sand bag suggestion was worthwhile.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
where a gun hits at any range is always a combination of factors. Sounds like the only factor the OP has changed is shooting from a rest. Personally, I would try other shooters, and other ammunition before ruling things out.
Also, why ten yards?? Traditionally, handguns are sighted for 25yards at the factory (and only with one load, USUALLY the most common load in the caliber).
Now, 6" low at 10 yards isn't acceptable provided it is the gun, and not the shooter. And it can be the shooter, even when all your other guns shoot "right".
Different people look through the sights differently. What is right for one may be wrong for another.
What is a "combat sight picture"?? Is this what old timers (like me) call the "center hold"? or is it something else??
It could well be the gun, or it could be the gun and that particular ammo, or the gun, the ammo, AND the shooter.
I once had an SA .357 (fixed sights) that shot 158gr .38 Special to exact point of aim, but every .357 load put through the gun shot about a foot low and right, and it did this for 4 different shooters. In that case, it was the gun. In this case, we simply can't know for certain, with the information available so far.
Also, why ten yards?? Traditionally, handguns are sighted for 25yards at the factory (and only with one load, USUALLY the most common load in the caliber).
Now, 6" low at 10 yards isn't acceptable provided it is the gun, and not the shooter. And it can be the shooter, even when all your other guns shoot "right".
Different people look through the sights differently. What is right for one may be wrong for another.
What is a "combat sight picture"?? Is this what old timers (like me) call the "center hold"? or is it something else??
It could well be the gun, or it could be the gun and that particular ammo, or the gun, the ammo, AND the shooter.
I once had an SA .357 (fixed sights) that shot 158gr .38 Special to exact point of aim, but every .357 load put through the gun shot about a foot low and right, and it did this for 4 different shooters. In that case, it was the gun. In this case, we simply can't know for certain, with the information available so far.
The OP’s reply in Post #3 seems to suggest he did try different ammunition.
I’m not opposed to having other shooters shoot the pistol assuming those are competent shooters. If the argument here is that it could be the shooter inducing the problem, another shooter isn’t always going to be able to notice that problem if the two shooters are of similar skill levels and have the same flaws, such as shot anticipation (I’ve firsthand seen the blind leading the blind as it were at shooting ranges). I’d add that if I hand a pistol to another shooter who isn’t familiar with the trigger or manual of arms there is no guarantee that other shooter won’t have a different problem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
HighValleyRanch
New member
I agree with this. I've also never shot off bags to sight in or verify the accuracy of any pistol I have ever owned, including all the target guns I've owned in my days of bullseye competition.
If I shoot a really good group with any gun, then I know that gun has x amount of potential or better for me on my best day. If anything starts to go downhill from there then I assume its me, not the gun.
I was able to get out to the range yesterday for the first time in 8 months. I do have a small range in my field, but I don't practice down there because of neighbors and only use it for sighting in and testing loads and function, so yesterday was the first day I got to wring out this gun and shoot a bunch of paper targets. This was my first fifteen shots. So now I know that this gun has this potential or even mayber better. I do dry fire with this gun alot, and when I practice live fire, I try to practice like I am dry firing with live ammo.
Shot at ten yards,13 rounds slow fire, off hand standing, early morning with my Kahr P45 using reloaded hardball loads tested at 835 fps, Berys fmj. I did shoot five on paper earlier in the week after I installed the new Dawson Precision FO front sight, and eyeballed the front and rear sight alignment.
The Kahr has a Lothar walther match barrel that was so tight I had to have it throated and freebored so that I could use longer OAL rounds. It was finicky with ammo before that, but yesterday, it ate everything without a hitch.
Talking about combat hold, this group was shot using a combat hold over the center of the bull. I chose a thinner front sight and it has a fine bright red fiber optic recessed into the blade so its more clear that the hi viz sights.
I measured the old sight from the top of the slide to the top of the blade and ordered the same size from Dawson Precision. .180 tall by .100 width using the OEM Kahr white bar sight. So you just dot the red FO over the white blade for a quick sght picture.
I would highly recommend Dawson Precision as the way to go for adjusting your POI!
Attachments
Last edited: