lifesizepotato
New member
But don't you see? If you think about it, my Ruger P95 is just as accurate as your fancy pants P210 or X5!!!
Talking about 9mm accuracy
- Thread starter jaybigboy34
- Start date
But don't you see? If you think about it, my Ruger P95 is just as accurate as your fancy pants P210 or X5!!!
Jim Watson
New member
I want a Makarov like TxFlyFish's
Captains1911
New member
Because it's a pointless discussion WITHOUT mentioning it.
As mentioned earlier, the shooter is the biggest factor. Most quality handgun WILL shoot better than the shooter. That said, the difference in what a quality handgun will be is very marginal and can vary even with in the same handgun model.
Generally a heavier handgun will make it easier for consistent accuracy.
Sig Sauer is generally a very accurate handgun but Walther or HK are also proven platforms. A good trigger is a starting point.
Generally a heavier handgun will make it easier for consistent accuracy.
Sig Sauer is generally a very accurate handgun but Walther or HK are also proven platforms. A good trigger is a starting point.
Last edited:
FWIW, there are some of us who do understand that and appreciate the fact you reminded folks about it. What bac1023 is saying (again!) is that error is additive. To be competitive in say EIC matches, you need a pistol that shoots in the range of 3 - 3.5" groups at 50 yards, less than that is WAY better. This is why a Sams or Kidd gun will bring $3000 or more as they can do under 2".
For an EIC shooter, what 3 -3.5" translates to is from a mechanical rest, the gun and ammo will hold the 9 ring all of the time and the 10 ring most of the time. So to that mechanical error is added your error. What that means on a good day with my gun I will get into the low 90s @ 50 yards out of a 100-10X possible with the gun dropping some points and me dropping more. The more accurate the gun, the better chance you have at doing well. That is why we test and buy lots of different target pistols!
lifesizepotato
New member
No, it's literally pointless to mention it. Everybody already knows that some people are better shots than others. It adds nothing to the conversation, and it isn't nearly as profound or thought provoking as some appear to think it is.
If it was actually a worthwhile contribution, it would be the first and only reply, since the buck stops with the shooter and his/her skill. Might as well close the thread there.
.....Or posters could address the question in a meaningful way, which is to take the shooter out of the equation, as bac1023 discusses. And as saleen mentions above, a gun's actual intrinsic accuracy is a real thing that matters quite a bit.
Last edited:
DannyB1954
New member
Mtstro, did you see what the experts did when I said about the same thing?
I guess we are both idiots.
The rude experts base their extensive knowledge on all the guns that they never shot well, (always the guns fault).
Your error with a modern weapon will always exceed the weapons error. If you don't shoot that model well, use the gun for a scapegoat.
This guy has shot more guns then probably anyone here. I guess he is full of BS as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVzSAm5VhfE
I guess we are both idiots.
The rude experts base their extensive knowledge on all the guns that they never shot well, (always the guns fault).
Your error with a modern weapon will always exceed the weapons error. If you don't shoot that model well, use the gun for a scapegoat.
This guy has shot more guns then probably anyone here. I guess he is full of BS as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVzSAm5VhfE
Last edited:
lifesizepotato
New member
That isn't at all the argument.
This is: Mystro's groups with that Walther/Sig would have been half the size (or better) if he were using a high-falutin' P210 or X5.
Or, put another way: if the question is about what the most accurate 9mm is, assume the shooter is a mechanical rest or Bob Munden or Hickok45 or your preferred sharp shooting ace.
How about this, since car analogies are fun: if someone asks what the fastest car is, 0-60, do you think it's meaningful to add, "Well, it depends on if the driver knows how to shift gears, and at the right times, and how well he can work the pedals, and if the road is wet, and etc."? No, those observations are meaningless and some cars are just plain faster to 60 than others. Fastest 0-60 assumes a highly competent driver/machine in optimal conditions.
Last edited:
Captains1911
New member
No, you are missing the point. We are not just simply implying that some shooters are better than others. What we are suggesting is that some shooters are more accurate with certain guns, whereas other shooters are more accurate with other guns. In other words, a 'Shooter A' may be more accurate with 'Gun 1' than 'Gun 2', whereas 'Shooter B' may shoot the same 'Gun 2' more accurately. It's how the gun fits the shooter that determines the overall accuracy. This fit, or shooter/gun combo, is way more important than the mechanical accuracy of the gun itself. Get it?
Last edited:
lifesizepotato
New member
I get that you're avoiding addressing the actual question while adding nothing of value, yes.
Taking your logic to its conclusion, it's impossible to say a P210 is more accurate than a High Point because, well, my uncle shoots his High Point purdy well and he doesn't cotton much to that fancy P210, right? "Accuracy" is just a pleasant theory.
Captains1911
New member
I'm not avoiding the question, I'm replying to it from a practical standpoint, rather than from an unrealistic position assuming that all guns are fired from a vice with zero human interaction.
DannyB1954
New member
I bet this guy could take a HighPoint against anything you have and put you to shame. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChSazF41q-s
I once seen a guy shoot pool with a mop handle. He could kick anybody's butt no matter how much their stick cost. Same thing applies here. If your technique is good the tool you use is a minor consideration.
The only thing that really matters for accuracy is how consistent is the barrel in relation to the sights. with todays machining, there is not much difference between the various makes as far as the fit of the barrel to the slide. Everything else is trigger release which is the operators responsibility. You don't shoot a heavy trigger well? Not the guns fault.
as far as the original question
I once seen a guy shoot pool with a mop handle. He could kick anybody's butt no matter how much their stick cost. Same thing applies here. If your technique is good the tool you use is a minor consideration.
The only thing that really matters for accuracy is how consistent is the barrel in relation to the sights. with todays machining, there is not much difference between the various makes as far as the fit of the barrel to the slide. Everything else is trigger release which is the operators responsibility. You don't shoot a heavy trigger well? Not the guns fault.
as far as the original question
the answer is most all of them. If you can only shoot well with a single action, that doesn't mean double actions are less accurate. It means that YOU are less accurate with a double action.
Last edited:
lifesizepotato
New member
Would you guys say you can't really say a BMW M3 is faster than a Toyota Camry because Michael Schumacher could lap the Nürburgring in the Camry faster than my grandma who can't drive a stick in the M3? Does that sound reasonable?
This is a completely incoherent reply. In a discussion of different guns' intrinsic accuracy (i.e., accuracy independent of the shooter), you referenced only shooter-related variables. Which is to say, you referenced only completely irrelevant variables. This is why you received the response you did.
I won't even try to surmise what the ridiculous statement about the "rude experts" means. No one is bitter toward any model of gun. The discussion is simply about which pistol shows the most shooter-independent accuracy. Not all pistols are equal in that respect, regardless of whether all of these pistols are capable of better accuracy than the shooter. That's not a point under contention, and it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I cannot believe that this is something so difficult to understand.
DannyB1954
New member
Big horsepower difference between your examples. Not that much difference in modern gun tolerances. Once the primer is struck the human element is over. If the barrel is consistent with the slide, (sights), the groupings will have more to do with the ammo than the gun.
There is a reason that gun manufactures will not guarantee what size group their gun will deliver. It has more to do with the shooter than their gun.
This guy says my post is B.S His opinion differs, so I am the idiot right?
Last edited:
No, he's not missing the point. You are missing the point, completely and unequivocally.
The domain of the conversation is the intrinsic accuracy -- i.e., shooter-independent accuracy -- of different pistols. Whether or not individual shooters shoot some guns better than others and whether or not all pistols are capable of greater accuracy than the shooter is outside of the domain of this discussion. These interjections have no relevance to this particular conversation, regardless of their merit in general. This discussion is specifically framed to exclude certain variables and to consider others. And, again, shooter-dependent variables are ipso facto excluded when the question is which gun is intrinsically capable of the best accuracy. Get it?
That "unrealistic position" is exactly the point under discussion, and nothing more. So your "practical" reply is in fact completely unresponsive to the question. Everyone is aware that not all guns are fired from a vice with zero human interaction. But this discussion specifically pertains to the performance of different pistols in this condition -- that is, where a shooter is eliminated as a variable.
You may not find the question of interest, but it is a legitimate one, and it does in fact have practical importance for a small subset of shooters (bullseye competitors). It doesn't have to be relevant to your personal situation to be worthy of consideration. Your interjection of shooter-related issues into a discussion of shooter-independent pistol performance by its very nature adds nothing of relevance whatsoever.