Talking about 9mm accuracy

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...

With all due respect, you need to try some other modern firearms.

When someone is asking about the most accurate 9mm, you don't go comparing a bunch of Glock, M&P, and XD pistols.
 
I guess I'm not sure why there's disagreement here.
Click to expand...

I find it baffling as well.

Looks to me like the OP was asking about the accuracy of the gun alone, shot from a rest.
Click to expand...

The response to this will be some blinding glimpse of the obvious along the lines of, "But guns aren't shot from rests and vices in the real world." As if anyone disagrees with this, and as if it has any bearing on the question at hand.

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.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
The OQ was on mechanical accuracy of the pistol alone. Marksmanship of the shooter is a different subject.

"Since the dispersion of the weapon is added to that of the shooter, it can only be desired that the weapon have no dispersion at all." Cooper.
 
"Since the dispersion of the weapon is added to that of the shooter, it can only be desired that the weapon have no dispersion at all." Cooper.
Click to expand...

I kept starting to type up a paragraph or two saying exactly that, but I wasn't aware Cooper beat me to it so succinctly.

The "good enough" accuracy found in generic combat pistols is always a compromise and not ideal - ideal would be 0" groups at 100yds, every round in the same hole from a vice. Whether they know it or not, every shooter in the world wants their gun to do that.
 
The OQ was on mechanical accuracy of the pistol alone. Marksmanship of the shooter is a different subject.

"Since the dispersion of the weapon is added to that of the shooter, it can only be desired that the weapon have no dispersion at all." Cooper.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you. Great quote.

For some reason, it's difficult to have a discussion pertaining to mechanical accuracy on this forum without someone feeling compelled to chime in and finger-wag at everyone that the shooter is the most important factor in practical accuracy (something everyone already knows and something irrelevant to the topic of discussion). I'm really not sure why that is.
 
Last edited:
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...
This is not true of all shooters, There is quite a bit of difference between the average service pistol that shoots 3" @ 25 from a rest and the better target pistols that'll shrink that group in half at twice the distance.
Just because a person doesn't shoot well enough to tell the difference doesn't mean that the difference doesn't exist and isn't relevant for those that can to discuss.
 
Well, we are fixing to move it beyond the theoretical, I'm going shooting because this is the warmest dry day in the forecast here.

Unfortunately, I no longer have access to a Ransom rest and will have to make do with a sandbag and eyeballs, but I wish to compare two bullets to see if one is enough more accurate than the other to matter when I resupply.


That was a wash. The BBI with Hi Tek coating gave closer clusters but with a flyer nearly every string. The Xtreme gave round groups wider than the BBI clusters but no flyers. Neither as good as a name brand JHP but a lot cheaper to shoot and good enough for IDPA.
 
Last edited:
After rereading this thread over, I think there is two view points getting confused. Ultimate accuracy, as in shooting from a mechanical rest. A test barrel alone for testing ammo would be incredably accurate but not a real world representation of the end users results. No one is a mechanical rest so accuracy measured in a vacume isn't realistic. The way a handgun is designed to the shooters hand has to be a factor in real world accuracy because it is where it all starts. A ultimate accurate test barrel does us no good since we can't hold it either.
Design, tolerance, build quality, etc.. all play their part. The real difference is if the end user is good enough to exploit those superlative qualities is another story.

There are too many factors that lend to a accurate gun to really pin it down to a absolute answer.
 
To get back to guns, what are thoughts on the sti 2011's. Are they in the same league as the x5's?? or the top cz's??
 
To get back to guns, what are thoughts on the sti 2011's. Are they in the same league as the x5's?? or the top cz's??
Click to expand...

I have a Dave Dawson 2011 STI but it is in 38 Super, not 9mm. It shoots very well but right now I would still give the accuracy edge to my Smith 952 that is in 9mm.

I say now because, exactly on the point of this thread, I never put as much load development time into the STI that I did the 952. I am sure there is more accuracy there with a little more testing and development.
 
After rereading this thread over, I think there is two view points getting confused. Ultimate accuracy, as in shooting from a mechanical rest. A test barrel alone for testing ammo would be incredably accurate but not a real world representation of the end users results. No one is a mechanical rest so accuracy measured in a vacume isn't realistic. The way a handgun is designed to the shooters hand has to be a factor in real world accuracy because it is where it all starts. A ultimate accurate test barrel does us no good since we can't hold it either.
Design, tolerance, build quality, etc.. all play their part. The real difference is if the end user is good enough to exploit those superlative qualities is another story.

There are too many factors that lend to a accurate gun to really pin it down to a absolute answer.
Click to expand...

I don't have the stamina at this point to keep going over this, but most of the people in this thread aren't confusing anything at all. A small number of people have failed to understand that this thread is strictly about the mechanical accuracy of different fully-assembled firearms (not test barrels) -- which necessarily means that all shooter-related variables are eliminated from consideration in this discussion. We're all quite aware that this does not represent how a given gun will perform in the hands of different actual shooters. That's completely obvious. It's also completely irrelevant to this particular discussion.

It also seems that some people are unaware that some guns are in fact significantly more mechanically accurate than others. We're not talking about standard mass-production pistols like your Walther or your Sig in this thread. A P210, an X-Five/X-Six, a S&W 952, a Les Baer 1911 with the accuracy guarantee, a Wilson 1911, and a David Sams Beretta 92 will all be significantly more mechanically accurate than these mass-production guns. This difference may not be of practical importance to you or to the average shooter, but that's entirely beside the point, and no one denies that anyway.
 
One of the many articles I read over the years talked about the terms "precise" and "accurate." A gun that's precise is mechanically capable of returning to the same starting point with each shot. A Ransom Rest test measures that "precision" in metal-framed guns, but does less well with polymer-framed guns. But either gun can have "precision" in the slide/barrel/sight alignment, and a good shooter using the sights, is capable of similar results regardless of frame-type.

A good shooter using a high-quality, precise gun will be able to demonstrate considerably better results than someone shooting a less precise weapon. If hitting the target (or in the case of a armed conflict, the other guy) is important, the handgun's capability is critical. A great shooter isn't going to make the gun's groups smaller, but he or she might not make them much bigger, either. And, even a crappy shooter can get lucky when shooting a great gun; it's much less likely with a not-so-great gun...
 
I have a Dave Dawson 2011 STI but it is in 38 Super, not 9mm. It shoots very well but right now I would still give the accuracy edge to my Smith 952 that is in 9mm.
Click to expand...

Being an owner of pretty much all the high end target 9mms, I must say that the 952's accuracy is extremely hard to beat.

Its one of my favorites of all time and certainly my favorite Smith & Wesson auto. :cool:
 
One of the many articles I read over the years talked about the terms "precise" and "accurate." A gun that's precise is mechanically capable of returning to the same starting point with each shot. A Ransom Rest test measures that "precision" in metal-framed guns, but does less well with polymer-framed guns. But either gun can have "precision" in the slide/barrel/sight alignment, and a good shooter using the sights, is capable of similar results regardless of frame-type.

A good shooter using a high-quality, precise gun will be able to demonstrate considerably better results than someone shooting a less precise weapon. If hitting the target (or in the case of a armed conflict, the other guy) is important, the handgun's capability is critical. A great shooter isn't going to make the gun's groups smaller, but he or she might not make them much bigger, either. And, even a crappy shooter can get lucky when shooting a great gun; it's much less likely with a not-so-great gun...
Click to expand...


You need to read more articles then......


It comes down to reaction speed, firing under movement, and luck.


Training, situational awareness, volume of fire, cover, and weapon manipulation can increase luck dramatically.

How accurate do I need to be in a gunfight statistically occurring at under 10 feet?




As to OP's question, sig x5/x6 is best bet for a production gun. You can argue rightfully so that there are other more mechanically accurate guns, but good luck finding anyone to prove more accurate, and not by much.
 
DanTSX said:
You need to read more articles then...

It comes down to reaction speed, firing under movement, and luck.

Training, situational awareness, volume of fire, cover, and weapon manipulation can increase luck dramatically.

How accurate do I need to be in a gunfight statistically occurring at under 10 feet
Click to expand...

You don't know how accurate you'll need to be...and you don't know that it'll occur that close. That's because there's a chance that the other guy is just as situationally aware as you, just as able to hit a target while moving as you, and may even be as lucky as you. And, believe it or not, he may be as good a shot with as good a weapon as you. You can't assume he's an idiot with a pointed stick.

Who has the edge, then, if things are more even? Probably the one who acts first, right? If he's truly a bad guy intent on doing you harm, that'll probably be him.

If he's not all that good, but he's on drugs, all notions about what's going to happen get thrown out the door.

If he's within 10 feet with a hidden knife, you've got problems. If he's within 25 feet, and has a knife, and your weapon is still holstered, you've also got problems.

If you've both got firearms, and you know what's coming, then the shooter who has the traits you describe and the better weapon is likely to have an edge -- as a CNS hit is far more important than a shot to the gut, leg, arm or shoulder. That's because even if the other guy has been hit and is bleeding out, unless you stop him quickly, he may still be able to kill you. If he's truly a bad guy, with some experience under his belt, a "psychological" stop (after one shot) isn't likely to happen.

It seems to me that some of your assumptions may have given you a false sense of security. I'd argue that you may have to be VERY accurate "in a gunfight statistically occurring at under 10 feet." That's when a gun's precision may matter.

DanTSX said:
As to OP's question, sig x5/x6 is best bet for a production gun. You can argue rightfully so that there are other more mechanically accurate guns, but good luck finding anyone to prove more accurate, and not by much.
Click to expand...

Having owned a P226 X-Five, I would argue it's not the weapon I'd want to carry on a daily basis.
 
Last edited:
It comes down to reaction speed, firing under movement, and luck.
Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about ultimate accuracy shooting from a rest or better-yet a vise, not combat tactics.... But hey, there are already plenty of tangents here, let's bring on another one! :D
 
Walt I'm sure my Glock is more than enough accurate in a short range gun fight. If I miss CNS, it's not because I had a loose chamber or loose frame to slide fit. The rounds will go where I point the gun when the striker releases. You are right that I am assuming a lot, but based on statistics, I'm going to concentrate on the factors I mentioned as what will give me the most advantage. You are right that an assailant will have the drop on me, but that is why I specifically stated that reaction time is the key to maximizing your advantage. Dont get me wrong, I like accuracy. But my carry guns are not inaccurate, their inability to print cloverleafs at 75 feet is the least of my concerns. I don't know what "accurate enough" is, and plenty of my guns are more accurate than others, but I have yet to encounter something where accuracy isn't suitable for shots at typical self defense distances. What I have found is that the most accurate are not always the fastest on target or most reliable. Actually, far from it.


I never suggested the X5/x6 would be suitable for carry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top