Talking about 9mm accuracy

Big horsepower difference between your examples.
Click to expand...

I think I've had a breakthrough in this trite "all guns are equally accurate" spiel: you all are talking about a standard P226 vs G19 vs M&P vs XD vs PPQ vs etc.

You're right - those are essentially interchangeable with regards to accuracy, maybe 3" at 25yds, and things like shooter proficiency will have more of an impact.

However, Ferraris and Porsches exist in the gun world, too. They are P210s, X5s, S&W 952s, and the list goes on. These guns are simply and undeniably more accurate than the guns you are talking about, and saying they aren't is literally on the same level as saying the only difference between an M3 and a Camry is the driver.

In any event, although I know car analogies are cliche on the internet, it's still illustrative: when you're talking about a car's performance in comparison to another's, you naturally disregard the driver's competence and assume as close to a mechanically perfect driver as possible. There is no reason to do differently when discussing pistol accuracy.
 
This is a completely incoherent reply. In a discussion of different guns' intrinsic accuracy (i.e., accuracy independent of the shooter),
Click to expand...

Show me some statistical data from a lab that indicates sizable differences in accuracy between manufacturers. Doesn't exist? why not? Wouldn't one manufacturer wish to show their products superior to their competitors?

this intrinsic accuracy is somebody's opinion. not fact. My Bla Bla Bla is more accurate than a Bla Bla Bla. Prove it with fact.
 
Show me some statistical data from a lab that indicates sizable differences in accuracy between manufacturers. Doesn't exist? why not? Wouldn't one manufacturer wish to show their products superior to their competitors?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry to say that you're betraying a fair amount of ignorance here.

On the other hand, it backs up my theory that you're only considering generic modern combat pistols.
 
Because it's a pointless discussion WITHOUT mentioning it.
Click to expand...

Uh, wrong

When discussing the accuracy of THE GUN, you must REMOVE the other factors. Otherwise, there is no point or meaning to the discussion about THE GUN.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp around here?
 
There is a reason that gun manufactures will not guarantee what size group their gun will deliver.
Click to expand...

This is in fact demonstrably incorrect. Les Baer will guarantee that certain pistols of his will group at 1.5" or less at 50 yards. David Sams builds AMU Beretta 92s guaranteed to group 10 shots at 1.3" or less at 50 yards.

They are quite obviously not saying that their pistols will achieve this performance in anyone's hands. They are simply assessing and guaranteeing the shooter-independent accuracy of their pistols, which is precisely what we're trying to discuss in this thread, despite so many irrelevant interruptions.

It has more to do with the shooter than their gun.
Click to expand...

Which no one has disputed! No one is saying that you're wrong. It's simply that what you're saying has no bearing on the question under examination -- once again, that being the shooter-independent performance of different pistols.

This guy says my post is B.S His opinion differs, so I am the idiot right?
Click to expand...

You can stop feeling sorry for yourself now. It's not even about a difference of opinion. Once more, no one is disputing the argument that the shooter is the most important variable when a gun is fired. But in a conversation specifically framed to consider what a pistol is capable of when the shooter is isolated and excluded as a variable, your comments have no relevance.

Try to understand that no one has said that you're wrong. It's simply that you're off-topic, carrying on a separate, parallel discussion and mistakenly believing that it has bearing on this one.

Quote:
Bovine Excrement. I can pretty consistently shoot 2.5-3" groups at 25 yards off hand
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you quoted something that wasn't written by anyone currently posting in this thread.
 
Last edited:
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
Click to expand...

Seriously?

I don't think so. Some of us in this thread own guns that good 'ole Mr. Hickok never even touched.

Besides that, you're totally missing the point.
 
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?
Click to expand...

No, you're missing the point. The discussion is about the inherent accuracy of the gun itself. Not the shooter.

Regardless of what that means in real world performance with different shooters firing it is not relevant to the discussion.
 
Really, saying "Jerry Miculek could outshoot you with a Hi-Point" is coming close to finally getting it. Someone like Jerry is essentially a human Ransom rest.

So, one step further, see how Jerry does with an X6 or P210. Same as with the Hi-Point?

Now we're cookin' with gas!
 
When testing the gun and ammo to get the best performance you can, you MUST take human error out of the equation the best you can. You can use some type of mechanical rest to get the best load performance at the greatest distance you plan to shoot at, 50 yards is generally what I use for 9mm target pistols. Then you can feel confident you have your best performing package in a match.
 
Last edited:
Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp around here?
Click to expand...

It's really mind-boggling.

It's like me asking, "Which material should I build my house out of to stand the best chance of withstanding high winds?" and having someone insist that the skill of the homebuilder is the more important question. While I would agree that the homebuilder's skill is probably the most important factor, it's not the one I happen to be asking about.
 
It's really mind-boggling.

It's like me asking, "Which material should I build my house out of to stand the best chance of withstanding high winds?" and having someone insist that the skill of the homebuilder is the more important question. While I would agree that the homebuilder's skill is probably the most important factor, it's not the one I happen to be asking about
Click to expand...

FIT, not skill. You don't get it either.
 
And, of course, you completely misunderstood the analogy. :rolleyes:

I wasn't trying to tie the "skill" of the homebuilder to the skill of the shooter. I came up with the analogy in about five seconds to show the absurdity of continually focusing on issues outside of the scope of the discussion. That's it. And, amazingly, you still don't get it.

For the fiftieth time, no one is arguing that the shooter isn't the most important variable in practical accuracy. It's just that the discussion only concerns the inherent -- that is, shooter-independent, or mechanical -- accuracy of certain pistols. So to continue to harp on shooter-dependent factors is just to continue to interject comments utterly irrelevant to the particular question under consideration.

This really shouldn't be that difficult. Since it apparently is, though, you've managed to hijack and crash a thread on a subject that some of us actually find interesting.
 
Last edited:
And, of course, you completely misunderstood the analogy.

I wasn't trying to tie the "skill" of the homebuilder to the skill of the shooter. I came up with the analogy in about five seconds to show the absurdity of continually focusing on issues outside of the scope of the discussion. That's it. And, amazingly, you still don't get it.

For the fiftieth time, no one is arguing that the shooter isn't the most important variable in practical accuracy. It's just that the discussion only concerns the inherent -- that is, shooter-independent, or mechanical -- accuracy of certain pistols. So to continue to harp on shooter-dependent factors is just to continue to interject comments utterly irrelevant to the particular question under consideration.

This really shouldn't be that difficult. Since it apparently is, though, you've managed to hijack and crash a thread on a subject that some of us actually find interesting.
Click to expand...

A better analogy would be asking somebody what hand saw cuts the straightest, carpenter skills aside....
 
Only if all guns showed identical mechanical accuracy, which they don't. So, no, that would be a terrible analogy.
 
Then again, maybe we can try to make your analogy work, though obviously not in the way you intended.

Maybe hand saws vary in ways (sharpness, thickness of steel/lack of flex, evenness of serration pattern, and so forth) that affect the quality of the product being produced, even in the hands of the same carpenter. If that's the case, then it would make sense to discuss the mechanical limitations of a given hand saw, independent of the carpenter, just as it does to discuss the mechanical accuracy of certain pistols, independent of the shooter.
 
Only if all guns showed identical mechanical accuracy, which they don't. So, no, that would be a terrible analogy.
Click to expand...

And there again is where we are on different pages. Myself and others would argue that for all practical purposes, the differences in mechanical accuracy between almost all modern firearms can be considered negligible, because the variances that do exist are so small compared to the impact that the shooter imparts.
 
And there again is where we are on different pages. Myself and others would argue that for all practical purposes, the differences in mechanical accuracy between almost all modern firearms can be considered negligible, because the variances that do exist are so small compared to the impact that the shooter imparts.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right! As I've been trying to tell you, we're on different pages!

No one here disagrees that the shooter is the most important factor. Is that not clear? But we're deciding to consider shooter-independent variables. The mere consideration of these variables does not imply that we don't agree that the single most important factor in the performance of the gun is the person shooting it. Every one of the several of us laboring to explain this have shown that we agree with that proposition. So what is the point of your posts? No one disagrees with what you're saying. It just isn't a point that has bearing on the particular question under examination.

If you find the differences too insignificant to be worthy of consideration, just move along to a different thread. There are others of us who feel differently, whether from a practical orientation, a theoretical orientation, or both. The question is definitely of practical concern to bullseye shooters, for instance. We get that it isn't for you. So how about you kindly stop hijacking the thread with off-topic interjections?
 
I guess I'm not sure why there's disagreement here.

Some guns are more accurate than others, independent of the shooter as measured by putting the guns in a vice. A good but not perfect alternative to a vice is carefully shooting from a rest, and yes you can see significant differences, for example my P210 or Luger vs. my P226 or HK45.

Then there's the trigger, which is part of the gun and has a huge impact on real-world accuracy. You can work around a lousy trigger to some extent by practice, but only to some extent. If it were all up to shooter skill and practice, you wouldn't see competition shooters spending so much money and effort on trigger jobs.

Then there's the grip, part of the gun again but subjective because a great grip for one shooter might be a lousy grip for another. You can work around this too, but only to some extent.

Then there's the shooter and how he's holding the gun, and if you jerk the trigger or can't consistently line up the sights on the target, you won't get accurate and precise shot placement no matter what you are shooting.

Handheld shooting mixes up all these things and more, like ammo variability, how good the shooter's eyes are, how much coffee the shooter has recently drank, and who knows what other variables. But you'll never do better than what the gun is capable of.

Looks to me like the OP was asking about the accuracy of the gun alone, shot from a rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top