[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Accurate Handguns (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 5/14/2011 2:15:16 AM EDT
|
Was wondering if people would chime in.
In your experience, what semi-auto, factory, not terribly tricked out standard $500-$1200 handguns have you experienced the greatest accuracy with? Did you figure our what made it so accurate, and if so please explain. Also, what guns in this category were you disappointed in, in terms of accuracy, and please post if you figured out what the problem was. Thanks, I'm looking at getting a new piece in that range and accuracy will be probably the single factor in the purchase. |
|
Quoted:
Was wondering if people would chime in. In your experience, what semi-auto, factory, not terribly tricked out standard $500-$1200 handguns have you experienced the greatest accuracy with? Did you figure our what made it so accurate, and if so please explain. Also, what guns in this category were you disappointed in, in terms of accuracy, and please post if you figured out what the problem was. Thanks, I'm looking at getting a new piece in that range and accuracy will be probably the single factor in the purchase. I'm pretty satisfied with my XD45. Out of the box it shot ORH (one ragged hole) 10-round groups at 15 feet, off hand. My Ruger GP100 (.357) hit the 18" x 24" paper target at 80 yards, from the bench, out of the box. |
|
Springfield MC Operator, HK 45, and XDm 9mm are the three I've so far shot the best. I don't particularly know why. I've had lots of 1911's, and I always shot them better than any other type of pistol. HK 45 was a surprise, as I picked it up on a whim, and didn't necessarily think I would like it, but I don't shoot the USP45 as well as the HK45.
Worst for me so far has been the Glock anything. I don't know why, but I don't do as well. I still hit what I'm shooting at, but I can't make tiny pretty paper groups with them. Also, the Ruger SR9 is pretty much the same story. |
|
Not intending to sound insulting here, but are you new to handguns?
The reason I ask is because a person typically has to be VERRRRY familiar with handguns and flawless in proper shooting techniques to even come close to "outshooting" just about any well-made handgun. What I mean by "outshooting" the gun is that they are ABLE to get tighter groups, but the inherent accuracy of the gun is what prevents that from happening. Their skills are greater than the gun is accurate. These people are very few, even among experienced handgunners. For the vast majority of us, we are most accurate with whatever gun(s) we are most familiar with. |
|
I get very good accuracy from both a 5" Kimber and a 3".
Of course that's all relative. "very good" in this case are a 1.25" groups at 7 yards with the 3" Kimber off hand and about the same performance at 10 yards with the 5", again offhand. I've never shot either of them off a bag or off a bench. I suspect both would do 3" groups at 25 yards off a rest but since it's not how I'll ever use them, it is largely meaningless in terms of accuracy. But it also includes me as a limiting factor in the accuracy equation. In comparison to a 1911, I have a Mk III Hi Power and while it is also very reliable, it is not as accurate and demonstrates groups in the 3" range at 10 yards off hand. I also have an FEG version of a Hi Power and it is also very reliable, but some what looser fit and less accurate - around 4" at 10 yards. Another comparison is a Kimber .22 conversion kit on a Brolin frame with Kimber fire control parts. It will shoot 3" 10 shot groups at 15 yards offhand, while my Ruger Mk II with aftermarket hammer sear and trigger will shoot groups half that size at the same distance. However in the .22 class at a pin shoot, I'll still use the Kimber as it is relentlessly reliable while the MK II can be very mag sensitive and much more ammo sensitive and the Ruger cost me a few matches with FTFs before I switched. So in real world terms what matters is not most accurate but rather both accurate enough and reliable enough for what ever you do with it. |
|
I think it depends on your definition of "accurate".
Every handgun I've ever handled I've shot accurately, once I've gotten used to it. But, accuracy to me means practical accuracy. To me, practical accuracy is being able to hit a 6" plate from up to 50 yards away with consistency. A buddy of mine recently attended a class where the instructor had them hitting IPSC steel plates at 150 yards off hand. That's pretty damned accurate if you ask me. And there was a myriad of handguns there, from M&P's and Glocks to Kimbers and FN's. The key to shooting a handgun accurately is tightening the loose nut behind the trigger. 
|
|
the following good shooters have ONLY been shot standing.
I found that OTS CZs are really nice in the acccuracry department. i also found that the Kimber were that bad. I think it was the Tactical Elite that i got was exceptional. My Kimber SS II isnt that bad, but the TE is better. I also got a used Colt Commander that had been worked on by a LGS. Its a tack driver, but dont know how much $$$ was put into it. i got it for a really good price tho. M&P9. Its a new gun. only a few hunder rounds thru it. its not bad. HK P30. It a new gun too. not alot of round thu it. i like the swappable grip inserts. decocker is sort of funky in its location. XD45 Tactical. Not bad in the accuracry dept. want to get an XD9 to see how it compares. PO LDA. really nice triggers. they arent bad accuracry wise either. what ive shot that hasnt been as good as the above: note that they have only been shot standing, no bench yet so they probably could do better. Armalite AR24. NIB and no range time. CZ clone and it feels nice. heavier tho. Glock 17 (its me more then gun. i cant shoot glocks well) Beretta 92. (its a used gun but i think it can do better) Beretta Cougar 9 & 45. Thought they would be more accurate. They are nifty guns tho. Sig P220. dont remember how it was in the accuracry dept. Daewoo DP51. thought it would be more accurate, but for a service gun and its price, its a nice piece. Ruger P85. Not alot of rounds thu it to determine. but the one time i shot it, it wasnt as good as my better guns, but if you know the history of them, you will understand. Ruger SR9. NIB and no range time yet. |
| I agree with the other post stating just about any handgun you buy is capable of shooting ragged holes at 25 yards or better, with good consistent ammunition. The limitation is within the shooters ability to shoot said firearm. That said I had a Glock 27 sub-compact that was spectacularly accurate at 50 yards with crappy ammo even, i.e. WWB ammo. My M&P .40 fs and .40c are just as accurate as the Glock 27 I mentioned, maybe more coupled with Apex triggers. The best pistol in regards to accuracy I own is a "NM" prefix serial numbered Springfield "Loaded" 1911. The amazing accuracy is due to the 4lb trigger, 5 inch match grade barrel, with a target crown, and hand fitted bushing. This is a stock pistol I bought in March for $900. OP, start with a good quality pistol, get some training, and practice live and dry firing said pistol. I started off with pellet pistols then worked up to .22lr pistols. Once I had the basics I moved to larger caliber pistols using the same fundamentals and now I would humbly say that I have become a very good shooter. |
|
Quoted:
Not intending to sound insulting here, but are you new to handguns? The reason I ask is because a person typically has to be VERRRRY familiar with handguns and flawless in proper shooting techniques to even come close to "outshooting" just about any well-made handgun. What I mean by "outshooting" the gun is that they are ABLE to get tighter groups, but the inherent accuracy of the gun is what prevents that from happening. Their skills are greater than the gun is accurate. These people are very few, even among experienced handgunners. For the vast majority of us, we are most accurate with whatever gun(s) we are most familiar with. I'm not a technically skilled pistol shooter but I have shot more than one handgun that out of the box had distractingly bad accuracy. On the other hand, a nice fresh from the armorers bench, Ed Brown 1911 shoots like some sort of lazer from the future in my hands. I call BS on the accuracy don't matter until your a grand master crowd. A cheap to shoot and very accurate hand gun would be any Ruger Mark series .22. |
|
Quoted:
Just try to answer the question. What guns have you found to be accurate? Why do you think they are? Great post! Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? And no where near most guns are capable of shooting one hole groups at 25 yards. A lot will, but nowhere most. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just try to answer the question. What guns have you found to be accurate? Why do you think they are? Great post! Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? And no where near most guns are capable of shooting one hole groups at 25 yards. A lot will, but nowhere most. I was just trying to help the guy. If this were a golf forum and he asked which set of clubs would make him drive the ball 300 yards, I'd tell him just about the same thing. If this were a running forum and he asked which shoes would make him run a sub-4 minute mile, I'd tell him just about the same thing. His question led me to believe that he's new to handgunning, which is perfectly fine. Going by the responses, I believe the same about a number of you folks, too. And as for the hightlighted sentence in your post: most shooters aren't nearly capable of that with ANY handgun, which underscores my point. Sorry if you're not seeing the forest because the trees are blocking your view. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just try to answer the question. What guns have you found to be accurate? Why do you think they are? Great post! Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? And no where near most guns are capable of shooting one hole groups at 25 yards. A lot will, but nowhere most. I was just trying to help the guy. If this were a golf forum and he asked which set of clubs would make him drive the ball 300 yards, I'd tell him just about the same thing. If this were a running forum and he asked which shoes would make him run a sub-4 minute mile, I'd tell him just about the same thing. His question led me to believe that he's new to handgunning, which is perfectly fine. Going by the responses, I believe the same about a number of you folks, too. And as for the hightlighted sentence in your post: most shooters aren't nearly capable of that with ANY handgun, which underscores my point. Sorry if you're not seeing the forest because the trees are blocking your view. LOL. The guy asked a simple question and as usual, he gets three or four actual answers and then "seasoned vets" start questioning his credentials and trying to qualify whether he really knows what he's asking or if he's savvy enough to even be asking the question. He didn't ask you which gun (or set of golf clubs) he should buy or how to run a 4 minute mile.. He asked what handguns we had bought, used or shot that were particularly accurate. Pretty simjple question. And I think the "forest for the trees metaphor" would more accurately describe YOUR contribution to this thread more than mine. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for the comments so far. What kind of accuracy do people get with a Beretta 92/96, or say a Browning Hi Power? 92/96 accurate once you learn to handle the long DA trigger pull. Browning HP IMHO (my experience is with the .40) is extremely reliable, but less accurate than other auto pistols i've owned, have heard the 9mm HP's are more accurate. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not intending to sound insulting here, but are you new to handguns? The reason I ask is because a person typically has to be VERRRRY familiar with handguns and flawless in proper shooting techniques to even come close to "outshooting" just about any well-made handgun. What I mean by "outshooting" the gun is that they are ABLE to get tighter groups, but the inherent accuracy of the gun is what prevents that from happening. Their skills are greater than the gun is accurate. These people are very few, even among experienced handgunners. For the vast majority of us, we are most accurate with whatever gun(s) we are most familiar with. I'm not a technically skilled pistol shooter but I have shot more than one handgun that out of the box had distractingly bad accuracy. On the other hand, a nice fresh from the armorers bench, Ed Brown 1911 shoots like some sort of lazer from the future in my hands. I call BS on the accuracy don't matter until your a grand master crowd. A cheap to shoot and very accurate hand gun would be any Ruger Mark series .22. Often times a pistol has plenty good mechanical accuracy but a person may not be able to take advantage of that accuracy due to a conflict between the shooter and the firearm. Call it ergonomics. A year or so back I brought a family member to the range, so he could try a few pistols, to decide which kind he would purchase. He already had a Ruger .22lr MKIII target, but wanted something a bit more suitable for defensive use. First choice was my Glock 19. Even at 5-7 yards, his accuracy was horrible. Looked like someone had unloaded a shotgun at 20 yards. Next, he shot a 1911, I believe it was a series I Kimber. Accuracy was significantly better. From his perspective, the Glock was horribly inaccurate. However, in my hands, the Glock's accuracy was just fine, it was almost like a totally different pistol. So for many people, the pistol's inherent accuracy isn't the primary concern, it's the accuracy in that specific person's hands that counts. |
|
Most of my handguns are way more accurate than I am. If I notice an accuracy issue, I assume that I am the problem unless a couple other shooters have the same problem with my handgun. I have seen too many people on the range that try to blame the firearm or their mistakes. Anyone remember the range scene from Heartbreak Ridge?
As to a relatively inexpensive accurate hangun straight from the box? Since you did not mention caliber, I would go with any of a number of .22LR target pistols. |
|
Moat accurate handgun I ever owned = Thompson Center Contender with a 14" bull barrel chambered for .223 Remington. With a good load it would shoot 1/2 MOA off a Harris bipod and bag. Serious fun on prarie dogs out to about 300 yards.
But in terms of practical pistols, it just isn't. |
|
Springfield Range Officer will be just about the most accurate in that price range. I've got 3 1911's that can have 8rds printing inside of 2 inches offhand at 15yds with my SWC's. Here's what one of mine can do at 25yds in a Ransom Rest: 7rds in one hole with one flyer. EDIT: round in picture is for size reference. 
|
|
CZ SP01 (9mm) - 1.7" at 25 yards consistently, but only with one type of factory ammunition. No doubt handloading would be good for it. Then anything with a fixed barrel and good ammunition. Makarov, CZ-82, PPK. 1.5" at 50 yards is what is generally considered an accurate handgun. |
|
Quoted:
In your experience, what semi-auto, factory, not terribly tricked out standard $500-$1200 handguns have you experienced the greatest accuracy with? Did you figure our what made it so accurate, and if so please explain. Also, what guns in this category were you disappointed in, in terms of accuracy, and please post if you figured out what the problem was. Most disappointing was my Sig P-220 in .45acp. I ended up trading it off on something else. The most accurate factory gun I own is my H&K P7M8. I can hit clays on a bank from 50 yards using GA Arms 9mm ammo @ $10/50rds. At 20-25 yards, I can do a cloverleaf when I do my part. Simply a gun I will NEVER part with. The most accurate non-factory gun I own or have shot is my Les Baer 1911. Just behind it is my Springfield Armory 1911 Trophy NM. The SA is now around $1500~ & the Les Baer Hardball model is around $1900~. My .o2 |
|
Hey gentlemen and any ladies, thanks for the input so far, I appreciate what everybody has said. What I'm getting is that there are a lot of reliable factory handguns out there.
Good news. To flesh it out a little bit, what happened here is that a few miles from where I live there is some pretty good pest coyote hunting. I would like to do some handguns for the challenge and to try out some different bullets viz a viz terminal ballistics on a dog. I imagine that it isn't much different than big game rifle hunting, that is the proof is in the pudding and not so much the adverts. Although there are certainly lots of quality products out there, so no real need to overthink it, but... Shots are all going to be inside 100 yards, probably inside 50 due to hills and vegetation. I would rather do it with a standard gun instead of a hunting pistol, just for the practice. So if anybody has a gun to avoid for this kind of task please put your experience in here. Thanks AR15.com |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not intending to sound insulting here, but are you new to handguns? The reason I ask is because a person typically has to be VERRRRY familiar with handguns and flawless in proper shooting techniques to even come close to "outshooting" just about any well-made handgun. What I mean by "outshooting" the gun is that they are ABLE to get tighter groups, but the inherent accuracy of the gun is what prevents that from happening. Their skills are greater than the gun is accurate. These people are very few, even among experienced handgunners. For the vast majority of us, we are most accurate with whatever gun(s) we are most familiar with. I'm not a technically skilled pistol shooter but I have shot more than one handgun that out of the box had distractingly bad accuracy. On the other hand, a nice fresh from the armorers bench, Ed Brown 1911 shoots like some sort of lazer from the future in my hands. I call BS on the accuracy don't matter until your a grand master crowd. A cheap to shoot and very accurate hand gun would be any Ruger Mark series .22. Often times a pistol has plenty good mechanical accuracy but a person may not be able to take advantage of that accuracy due to a conflict between the shooter and the firearm. Call it ergonomics. A year or so back I brought a family member to the range, so he could try a few pistols, to decide which kind he would purchase. He already had a Ruger .22lr MKIII target, but wanted something a bit more suitable for defensive use. First choice was my Glock 19. Even at 5-7 yards, his accuracy was horrible. Looked like someone had unloaded a shotgun at 20 yards. Next, he shot a 1911, I believe it was a series I Kimber. Accuracy was significantly better. From his perspective, the Glock was horribly inaccurate. However, in my hands, the Glock's accuracy was just fine, it was almost like a totally different pistol. So for many people, the pistol's inherent accuracy isn't the primary concern, it's the accuracy in that specific person's hands that counts. No doubt ergonomics play a role. I have small hands and some pistols work better for me than others. I'll also make the point that the mechanical accuracy of pistols varies a great deal. Most pistols are not capable of "one ragged hole at 25 meters". Even average shooters enjoy better results with better equipment. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just try to answer the question. What guns have you found to be accurate? Why do you think they are? Great post! Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? And no where near most guns are capable of shooting one hole groups at 25 yards. A lot will, but nowhere most. Because there is no simple answer. People will always want the easy answer, while often times the easy answer simply doesn't exist. Arguably, one of the most accurate handguns I've ever shot was n HK mk 23. I couldn't hit a damn thing with it until I figured out the 6 o'clock hold and exactly how the sights were intended to be utilized. But after that, whoa momma. If I had picked up the gun and fired one mag through it only, I would have proclaimed it to be very poor in the accuracy department. It was only after I had figured out the sights and the ergo's that the gun really started to shine. A lot of people here have proclaimed Glocks to be very accurate. Not for me they're not. I don't like the grip angle, and I hate the factory sights. For me, the Glock is not an accurate handgun. What the OP is asking is completely dependent on the person behind the trigger. |
|
Sig P series, Glock, some 1911's in this price range, HK etc...
For those who say any pistol is not particularly accurate due to the ergonomic design, that is a shooter problem as fundamentals do not change because of ergonomics or grip angles. Maintaining proper sight alignment and sight picture throughout the correct trigger pull are constant fundamentals between all firearms. This video tends to rub people the wrong way. Usually those who do not display good fundamentals and who may not like Glocks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFUyupthQPk 25 / 50 / 70 yards. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMdKfZJry18 |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just try to answer the question. What guns have you found to be accurate? Why do you think they are? Great post! Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? And no where near most guns are capable of shooting one hole groups at 25 yards. A lot will, but nowhere most. Because there is no simple answer. People will always want the easy answer, while often times the easy answer simply doesn't exist. Arguably, one of the most accurate handguns I've ever shot was n HK mk 23. I couldn't hit a damn thing with it until I figured out the 6 o'clock hold and exactly how the sights were intended to be utilized. But after that, whoa momma. If I had picked up the gun and fired one mag through it only, I would have proclaimed it to be very poor in the accuracy department. It was only after I had figured out the sights and the ergo's that the gun really started to shine. A lot of people here have proclaimed Glocks to be very accurate. Not for me they're not. I don't like the grip angle, and I hate the factory sights. For me, the Glock is not an accurate handgun. What the OP is asking is completely dependent on the person behind the trigger. So, your short answers should be: "I found the Mark 23 to be very accurate." How hard is that? |
|
I haven't shot a lot of handguns compared to others. Here's my list that were as or more accurate than I am capable of:
SIG P226, 229, 250 Walther PP (1969) and P99 Glock 17, 23, 26 (probably more) S&W M&P 9 and 40, 640, 642, 4516 Ruger LCP (yep, even this little guy with hardly any sights) HK USP .40 Beretta 96 Kimber 3" (I can't follow their naming conventions) Colt 1911 (WWI repro) Browning Challenger ('60s) Those are all that come to mind right now, Here's the list of handguns I felt did not perform as well as I could: S&W Sigma (to be fair, when they first came out) Taurus Beretta knock-off (to be fair, it was probably more of a functionality problem than accuracy...just was hard to get it to go bang three times in a row) Essentially what I'm saying is that I agree with the previous poster that most modern pistols are going to be more accurate than your average shooter (which I am). Now if you're going into the realm of bullseye shooting or race guns, that's a different story. |
|
Quoted:
Shots are all going to be inside 100 yards, probably inside 50 due to hills and vegetation. I would rather do it with a standard gun instead of a hunting pistol, just for the practice. So if anybody has a gun to avoid for this kind of task please put your experience in here. For that criteria, it won't be the gun as much as it will be your caliber of choice. You're going to need a flat shooting caliber & not something that will rainbow in from 75-100 yards. About the only ones capable of this are these, IMO: .357mag, 10mm (borderline), 5.7 & possibly .22 mag. I suppose one could conceivably add in .357Sig & .38Super to that mix, but I have not personally shot them past 50 yards. .38spl, 9mm & .45acp will all have too much of a rainbow trajectory. I am purposely leaving out .41 & 44mag as you said you really didn't want a "hunting" gun per se. |
|
Quoted:
a 110 gr bullet at 1550 fps is about as flat as a .357 gets with about a 6.5" drop at 100 m with a 25 m zero. In comparison a 185 gr .45 at 1050 fps will drop 14" at 100 m with the same 25 m zero. So we are really only talking about another 7" of holdover at 100m with the .45s "rainbow" trajectory and that does not make the shot all that much more difficult.
Quoted:
Shots are all going to be inside 100 yards, probably inside 50 due to hills and vegetation. I would rather do it with a standard gun instead of a hunting pistol, just for the practice. So if anybody has a gun to avoid for this kind of task please put your experience in here. For that criteria, it won't be the gun as much as it will be your caliber of choice. You're going to need a flat shooting caliber & not something that will rainbow in from 75-100 yards. About the only ones capable of this are these, IMO: .357mag, 10mm (borderline), 5.7 & possibly .22 mag. I suppose one could conceivably add in .357Sig & .38Super to that mix, but I have not personally shot them past 50 yards. .38spl, 9mm & .45acp will all have too much of a rainbow trajectory. I am purposely leaving out .41 & 44mag as you said you really didn't want a "hunting" gun per se. With a 10mm the drop is 8" with a 155 gr bullet at 1400 fps and with a 9mm 90 gr bullet at 1400 fps the drop is 9" under the same conditions. So a 9mm will have only another inch of drop compared to the 10mm and only 2.5" more than the .357. In light of the ballistics data, I would not worry about the trajectory of any of the above mentioned rounds and I would not let it serve as a controlling selection factor just because 100 yard shooting might be on the menu. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just try to answer the question. What guns have you found to be accurate? Why do you think they are? Great post! Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? And no where near most guns are capable of shooting one hole groups at 25 yards. A lot will, but nowhere most. Because there is no simple answer. People will always want the easy answer, while often times the easy answer simply doesn't exist. Arguably, one of the most accurate handguns I've ever shot was n HK mk 23. I couldn't hit a damn thing with it until I figured out the 6 o'clock hold and exactly how the sights were intended to be utilized. But after that, whoa momma. If I had picked up the gun and fired one mag through it only, I would have proclaimed it to be very poor in the accuracy department. It was only after I had figured out the sights and the ergo's that the gun really started to shine. A lot of people here have proclaimed Glocks to be very accurate. Not for me they're not. I don't like the grip angle, and I hate the factory sights. For me, the Glock is not an accurate handgun. What the OP is asking is completely dependent on the person behind the trigger. So, your short answers should be: "I found the Mark 23 to be very accurate." How hard is that? Tell me, seriously, are you this offensive and abrasive in real life? I doubt it. What is your goal here in this thread? You're contributing nothing but noise. If I had to guess, I'd say that you were recently banned and are back to your old shenanigans under a new username. Normal people don't just waltz onto a website and start slinging shit around. The Handguns room is pretty polite and tame and most folks here have a genuine interest in both helping and learning; you're doing neither. Fewer than 10 posts and all you've done is whine and scold people? Heck of a start, mister. I'm sure there's more to come. 
|
|
My XD9 is very accurate,but I have a LOT of rounds through it, that helps.
The most disappointing was a Kimber Pro carry II, I was underwhelmed with its accuracy compared to any XD I have. My brother has a FN high power,great shooter, I have a FEG HP clone.......................not so much.
|
Walther P88, HK P9S, Star M30, and of course the SIG P210 which will just cost a little more. There are many 1911style pistols out there for less than $1,200 that compare to the best. I had a Walther PP that was target-grade accurate with the old Winchester Silvertips and there is a plethora of rimfire pistols that will take a shooter to the limits of his capabiilities.
|
|
Quoted:
Glock 17. For the amount of money some people spend to get the performance and reliability out of their guns, compared to a Glock, is outrageously suprising sometimes. For the money, a 17 out of the box does just fine. The only mods on my G17 are fully adjustable sights. I shoot quarter-sized groups at 10 yards all day. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just try to answer the question. What guns have you found to be accurate? Why do you think they are? Great post! Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? And no where near most guns are capable of shooting one hole groups at 25 yards. A lot will, but nowhere most. Because there is no simple answer. People will always want the easy answer, while often times the easy answer simply doesn't exist. Arguably, one of the most accurate handguns I've ever shot was n HK mk 23. I couldn't hit a damn thing with it until I figured out the 6 o'clock hold and exactly how the sights were intended to be utilized. But after that, whoa momma. If I had picked up the gun and fired one mag through it only, I would have proclaimed it to be very poor in the accuracy department. It was only after I had figured out the sights and the ergo's that the gun really started to shine. A lot of people here have proclaimed Glocks to be very accurate. Not for me they're not. I don't like the grip angle, and I hate the factory sights. For me, the Glock is not an accurate handgun. What the OP is asking is completely dependent on the person behind the trigger. So, your short answers should be: "I found the Mark 23 to be very accurate." How hard is that? Take a look at the answers in this thread. There is a lot of guns out there that people find to be accurate. Doesn't really help narrow down the field when you're getting 50 different answers, does it? But what does appear to be common is the belief that most modern handguns are more dependent on the shooter than the actual gun itself for accuracy. Like I posted in my first reply to this thread, every handgun I have ever picked up has been accurate. Once I've figured out the gun. And once more in the hopes that it will actually sink in this time - Every gun I have ever picked up has been accurate once I've figured out the gun. |
|
Quoted:
What many people are saying in the thread is that "some guns are a lot easier to shoot well than others."
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just try to answer the question. What guns have you found to be accurate? Why do you think they are? Great post! Why is it so hard to answer a simple question? And no where near most guns are capable of shooting one hole groups at 25 yards. A lot will, but nowhere most. Because there is no simple answer. People will always want the easy answer, while often times the easy answer simply doesn't exist. Arguably, one of the most accurate handguns I've ever shot was n HK mk 23. I couldn't hit a damn thing with it until I figured out the 6 o'clock hold and exactly how the sights were intended to be utilized. But after that, whoa momma. If I had picked up the gun and fired one mag through it only, I would have proclaimed it to be very poor in the accuracy department. It was only after I had figured out the sights and the ergo's that the gun really started to shine. A lot of people here have proclaimed Glocks to be very accurate. Not for me they're not. I don't like the grip angle, and I hate the factory sights. For me, the Glock is not an accurate handgun. What the OP is asking is completely dependent on the person behind the trigger. So, your short answers should be: "I found the Mark 23 to be very accurate." How hard is that? Like I posted in my first reply to this thread, every handgun I have ever picked up has been accurate. Once I've figured out the gun. And once more in the hopes that it will actually sink in this time - Every gun I have ever picked up has been accurate once I've figured out the gun. For example I can shoot a flint lock pistol pretty well (double taps are tough though..) but with the slow lock time, it's a lot harder to shoot accurately than a pistol using a cartridge system. As a less extreme example, I prefer 1911s and shoot them better than most pistols due to two major factors: 1) generally good, crisp triggers with light pull weights, limited take-up and very little over travel. 2) a grip shape and angle that allows the sights to point where I am pointing and stay aligned with minimal effort on my part. Obviously number 2 will vary from person to person (but the 1911 seems to work for an awful lot of people) but the fact remains that for most people some pistols make it a lot easier to apply the fundamentals than others, and those pistols will tend to be perceived as being more accurate than others when you consider the entire pistol/shooter system. So the key qualification to your statement is "once I've figured out the gun" and that can be a biggy in some cases. |
|
Listen to all the guys who say it isn't so much the gun as it is technique and practice. I think the technique plays directly into how the gun fits you. Whenever I'm shooting for money bets, my hands don't pick up the $2400 Ed Brown 1911 or the $1600 Sig P226 X-5. They go straight for the $500 Glock 19 with a Scherer 3.5lb connector. Money!!! The glock 19 was my first ever handgun and I cant remember how many cases of ammo I've shot through it.
Hope this helped. However... I'm not trying to dissuade you from custom guns... They're still suuuuper nice and accurate! With sweet triggers! |
|
in my mind very accurate is defined at 25 or even 50 yards not these it shoots one hole groups at 20 feet comments. A marvel conversion 22 on a 1911 frame will be within a grand or a smith 41- good for 2 inch groups at 50 yards- that is accuracy!
in actual combat type handguns anything that will shoot 4 inch group or less at 25 yards will do- almost any of them will. Most accurate cheap combat handgun prize will go to a S&W revolver most I have used will easily shoot 2 inch or less 25 yards groups and cost under 300 bucks used |