Handguns and Ammunition Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello. I was wondering what you find most important in your handguns, be they for sport, plinking, target shooting, hunting, or defense, mechanical or practical accuracy?

I'm defining mechanical accuracy as the intrinsic accuracy built into the firearm (and ammunition) and practical accuracy as how comfortable it is to shoot.

In my case, I want as much mechanical accuracy as I can get in a reliable gun, but will gladly sacrifice some for comfort.

An example is the SIG P210. It's generally acknowledged as one of the premier pistols in terms of accuracy...and they sure are, but the hammer bites the fire out of me. A Browning FN Competition is possibly not quite as accurate, but it is considerably more pleasant to shoot. Ditto an STI Trojan 1911 pattern 9mm. I wind up shooting all three about the same, but find myself shooting the ones that are more comfortable more even though they might not be quite as mechanically precise.

How about you? Do you strictly go by what's most accurate, comfortable, or a combination?

Best.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,178 Posts
Hello Mr.Camp,

I go more for comfort, example, I have a Sig 229 in .40cal that I can hold some amazing groups at 40 yards with, even when rapid firing, But it's a very uncomfortable gun to carry, it feels like a brick under my arm in a shoulder holster and/or a brick on my hip in a in a belt holster, but it feels pretty good in my hand.

The High Power on the other hand is THE most comfortable gun I have ever had my hands on, I flat fell in love with the HP the first time I ever picked one up!

I wish my .40cal High Powers were as accurate as my Sig, But their not bad, so I will gladly give up some accuracy to carry the pistol that feels the best to me, even if I have a more accurate one at home in the safe.

Take Care,
THE SOCKMAN
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,951 Posts
Mr. Camp,

This is my best combat group to date:



This is rapid fire from the Taurus 92 at 25yds using Winchester "White Box" ammunition. The flyer that blew the group out was my fault.

That said, I must go with both, in equal parts. If I cannot handle a pistol comfortably, I will not shoot this well. Additionally, if the pistol is not capable of this type of accuracy I cannot shoot it this well.

The group size has blown out to about 3" since this target was scanned as I have not been practicing as I should (down from 100rnds/wk to 100rnds/mo).

Josh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,053 Posts
That is a very adept question. I feel pretty sure that some of the bolt action or break action single shots are among the most accurate handguns. I have even owned a couple but actually using them (other than on the range to produce tiny groups) is a rare thing for me.

Just as the great Townsend Whelen said "only accurate rifles are interesting", I supose that accurate pistols are more interesting also but I would modify that to say "accurate enough for the job at hand".

I feel sure that Alvin York's 1917 Enfield and Sam Woodfill's '03 Springfield were both more accurate than their 1911s but the latter is what they went to when confronted with a lot of attackers at less than 25 yards (it certainly wasn't because they were out of ammo). In fact Woodfill even chose a pic over his Springfield when things got too close.

I certainly would not choose my Contender over my 1911 for Concealed carry or even just cruising the timber (though I might often take a revolver for the latter).

Bottom line, the right tool for the right job :)

Press on,
Jim
 
G

·
I certainly agree with Jim on using the right tool for the job. For me, to remain part of my collection, a firearm must be enjoyable to shoot. Usually for me this means both comfortable, and comforting. I need to know that I'm going to hit what I'm aiming at, a lack of that knowledge breaks a fundamental safety rule of handling firearms: being aware of your target and everything beyond. If I can't garuntee I'm going to hit what I aim at, I can't know the latter of that rule, and thus can not use said firearm. The firearm must also be ergonomically pleasing to me. If the grip, or stock, is so large I can not get a comfortable firing position, I'm probably not going to do justice to the weapon's mechanical accuracy. The same can be said if it's too thin. There are a million variables I can throw into this equation, but to answer the question, it's a combination of the two for me. I do not require sub-MOA groups at eleventyonebillion yards, I do require all shots fired to be accounted for. I also require the weapon to be comfortable to shoot.

My only personally owned exception to either rule is my Mosin-Nagant M44. It kicks like an angry mule, and is uncomfortable for my light frame to shoot, and it isn't particularly accurate either. The only reason I still own it is b/c while it exhibits everything from sub-MOA, to minute of barn accuracy, with any given ammunition, it always belches 3 to 5 feet of fire, and is a hoot and a half to shoot at dawn or dusk!

Anthony
 
G

·
Reliability combined with practical "hitability" in *my* hands. My principal interest has always been in duty type handguns, and just about any decent example of the type is more than sufficiently accurate (maybe not in my case but then that's me).

Am now a 'civilian' but I find that the old standards serve my purposes best--just so they have decent triggers, stocks, and sights, depending on the exact piece at hand.

That comes down to J frames, my Old Reliable Ruger Sixes, and revisiting the 1911 .45. I also appreciate K frames and Ruger SAs and take them on outings as the mood strikes.

At the risk of being branded a dinosaur I frankly have very little interest in the new and improved stuff that has been urged on us in the last 20 years. I think the "progress" they represent is largely illusory.

If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it. As long as I can be a carnivore.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top