Tracking vs Accuracy: a case of M&P45 and HK45

In defensive pistol platforms: TRACKING or ACCURACY

  • Tracking

    Votes: 4 44.4%

  • Accuracy

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
T

TxFlyFish

New member
After reading the review/newsletter by Hilton Yam on the merits of Hk S&W and Glock 45s, I noticed that he used the term "tracking" as a primary metric for the comparison. I apologize I do not have the original newsletter except what another forum posted HERE. Mr. Yam defined "tracking" as follows:

Hilton Yam said:
Tracking primarily refers to the gun's characteristics when moving in recoil, which has significant effects on sight recovery. The shooter's physical characteristics and mechanical capability also affect tracking, but each gun also has particular traits that it imparts to the experience. Tracking can also refer peripherally to the ability to drive the gun between targets in recoil, as the gun's recovery in recoil in conjunction with its overall pointability and muzzle balance have a profound effect on this.
Click to expand...

At the end of the review, he states that he preferred the tracking advantage of the M&P 45 over the inherent accuracy advantage of the HK45.

Hilton Yam said:
the S&W was my overall pick after running the three. Its excellent ergonomics and tracking characteristics made it the best shooting and handling gun. The HK wins hands down in the accuracy and trigger categories, but is a harder gun to shoot for speed and multiple rounds
Click to expand...


Without making this thread a comparison of these pistols (this is merely an example of tracking vs accuracy) I would like to hear your views on what you consider more important in a defensive pistol platform. Please keep in mind that this is Mr. Yam's perspective and that there are MANY folks who prefer the HK45. Again this is only an example to start the discussion!


TRACKING VS ACCURACY?
 
Alright lets rephrase this...

Recoil management vs Inherent Accuracy. If you bought a pistol which is more important
 
I would guess that tracking is my focus between these two. I am not out there trying to dot an i, or draw a smiley face on a target. I am trying to put as many rounds to center of mass as quickly as possible, needed to stop a threat. I love all those articles out there comparing subcompacts and showing .25 an inch difference in accuracy, and claiming one is a better choice based on this type of data. In a defense situation, I doubt that 1/4 inch is going to make ANY difference whatsoever. I also highly doubt that many people are out hunting with these weapons, although it would present an interesting challenge.

I have fired all 3 weapons, but chambered in .40 instead of .45, and I shoot the G23 the most accurately, and the quickest, so that is the weapon that I carry. One would assume that different hands could control these weapons differently also (ie--some weapons fit better naturally in some peoples hands than others). I think that you have to find the best combo of the two that work the best for you.

Transfering the energy of multiple rounds vs. threading the needle in a defense situation makes more sense to me. But that is just my $0.02.......
 
I don't know anything about "tracking", I do know that "accuracy", as in mechanical accuracy capability of a firearm, is virtually irrelevant in defensive scenarios.

We're talking about incidents that average like 7 feet and almost never exceed 20, 25 feet.

What's the difference in group size between a High-Point, Glock, Les Baer, Night Hawk, M&P or HK at 10 feet? 20 feet?

Yeah, irrelevant.

Whatever or however you define "tracking", if it matters at all, it matters more than mechanical accuracy.
 
To put it in more relevant scenario...

My question might been somewhat biased but not to overly deviate from the original definitions, what i notice in many guns is a scenario as follows:

Gun A: pointable ergos + inherent accuracy allows for more effective first shot placement BUT with slower recoil recovery

VS

Gun B: less pointable and accurate BUT with faster recoil recovery


Which handicap is easier to overcome with training?
 
of those 3 weapons,to the average or better shooter, what do you think is the difference in recoil to target time is,I would think not enough to worry about,so the only thing a shooter needs is a gun he has confidence in I would think
 
I suppose tracking is a good shorthand for "I shoot this gun better than that gun."

Me, I spend more time plinking than timing splits.

John
 
Mechanical accuracy is just about equal between modern well made handguns. Deviation is probably measurable in millimeters at 25yd.

Tracking? Follow through, recoil management, re-establishing the sight picture, whatever you want to call it has as much to do with the shooter as it does with the gun.

Different guns of the same mass firing the same cartridge will have the same recoil. How that gun fits in the shooters hand will have an effect on felt recoil and thus ability at follow up shots. That fit will be different for some shooters rather than others.

So lets just say how a gun fits is very important.
 
I was going to say the same, more or less.

If I want to shoot very small holes in targets, there are few platforms that suit me better than 1911s.

However, if I want to shoot reasonably sized holes in targets, quickly, despite the fact that I like the 1911 trigger best, I am faster to put sights on target for the initial shot, and faster to get sights back on target for follow-on shots, with my M&P, PX4, or K-frame handguns.

1911s point well for me, but the other pistols point even better. I expend less effort at putting them on target (although we are talking fractions of a second).

I think the reason I like the 1911 for precision shooting is the trigger, and the reason I prefer the other platforms for speed is the fit.

Now, for choosing a defensive pistol, I'd rate controllability/speed of acquisition above pure accuracy.

Sorry for the veer, but.... You didn't ask, but I'd rate reliability on top of all, followed by suitable caliber, followed by controllability/speed, then accuracy, then concealability (most of the time), then weight.

Edit: I'd put capacity about tied with concealability. Another point in favor of the M&P and PX4, and not so much in favor of the K-frame, with the 1911 in the middle.

In severely hot weather, or very challenging settings, concealability may climb up the ladder a bit.

YMMV.

PS I didn't address the HK because I haven't shot one. Can't compare. Then again, it doesn't matter, as your question is about traits vs specific guns.
 
Tracking? I thought dogs did that!

I agree completely with Buzzcook.

To answer the OP's question, I would say "tracking" is more important to me. "Shootability" we call it 'round these parts.

When it comes to quantifying accuracy vs tracking, it seems I'd do the first with a bull's eye target and the second with a shot timer. Go with the gun that does the best in both categories.

But the pistol that I can shoot the most accurately, the fastest isn't the same for the person next to me. One of my shooting buddies swears by his USP while another will go for his G34 every time.

The writer of the OP's article likes the M&P .45. I'll have my S&W 627, thank you very much.
 
Thanks everyone for bring in up very good points and staying on topic! The fit of the platform is definitely a major factor and differs individually. But I'm thinking of the guns in your possession, and the choice that you made for your go to gun whether EDC or HD. Are you carrying a gun that youve found to be superbly accurate at the range yet wish it had the quicker tracking of another gun? Are you rationalizing that you can overcome its tracking limitations with proper training/technique?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top