[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Handgun accuracy problem. (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/14/2025 6:16:16 PM EDT
|
I have a Beretta M9A4 that I put an RDS on and sighted it in at 25 yards a few months ago. On the same range trip, I also sighted in a couple of CZ P-09 Nocturnes using the same cheap 115gr FMJ ammo at the same 25 yard distance. I was using some sandbags for a rest, and the CZ pistols, both full size and compact, produced around 2 inch groups at this distance. The Beretta had about a 5 inch group at the same distance, despite having a lighter trigger. All shots across all three guns were in single action. I don't think it's the sight on the Beretta. It could be, but I suspect it's something to do with the barrel. Either the barrel itself isn't great, or the way it locks up isn't consistent. Something just isn't working right. The sight was mounted using loctite and a wheeler torque driver to manufacturer specs. I took it out again today just to see if I was just having a bad day back then, and again, it was a disappointment. I should have brought a spare barrel to the range but it didnt occur to me to do so when I was loading up this morning. What would you try first? Swapping in a different barrel, or swapping in a different RDS? Is 2" accuracy from a rest at 25 yards too much to ask of this gun? |
|
Quoted: Group it with duty grade ammo. I’ve had some guns just not shoot basic bitch 115 well, my old Sig P320’s for example. They were 5” guns at 25 with bottom feeder 115 but 1.5”-2” guns with Speer gold dot 124. Rested of course. Any time I'm testing out a new gun, I bring three or four types of ammo, a mixture of brands and bullet weights. I have a few guns that don't group 115gr very well, but do much better with 124gr. |
|
I used to shoot for a military team and a unit was complaining about poor accuracy from the M9. Using nato ball (124) I ransom rest tested about 20 rack grade M9’s. Every one shot sub 3” and most sub 2” groups at 25. Almost every 9mm I have shot has been most accurate with 124/125 grain range bullet weight |
|
Quoted: I used to shoot for a military team and a unit was complaining about poor accuracy from the M9. Using nato ball (124) I ransom rest tested about 20 rack grade M9's. Every one shot sub 3" and most sub 2" groups at 25. Almost every 9mm I have shot has been most accurate with 124/125 grain range bullet weight All that said, this barrel is definitely a little suspect given Beretta's recent Gallatin QC issues. I have an Italian barrel I can try to see if that makes a difference. It's crazy that the CZs did so much better with the same 115 grain stuff. |
|
Quoted: How did the Beretta shoot prior to the RDS ? Could the added weight ( from the RDS ) altered its lock up ? And I would certainly try different ammo as well. I did do some reading on twist rate. Seems the M9A4 has a 1:10 twist barrel, and the CZ Nocturnes have 1:16. The 1:10 might be slightly over-stabilizing the 115 grain ammo. If that's the case, the Beretta should shoot better with the 147 grain subs (and 124 grain) when I get a chance to get it back out to the range. It could also explain why the CZs shoot the 115 grain ammo better. Maybe the answer is just to shoot up the 115 grain stuff in the CZs. It does make sense Beretta would want to be able to stabilize heavier subsonic ammo in these guns since the barrels are threaded for suppressors. |
|
Quoted: But, if it is the ammo, that will be sad because I wanted to be able to burn the cheap stuff when I shoot the occasional match.  I have a Tisas 9mm 1911 that hates S&B but shoots Blazer, Lawman, even Remington and Winchester White Box just fine. I always keep a few different brands of the cheap ammo, bought whenever there was a good sale. The cheap stuff, more than the good stuff, is even more likely to cause issues with particular guns. |
|
Quoted: Almost every 9mm I have shot has been most accurate with 124/125 grain range bullet weight That would make sense if they were designed for potential military use, no? I definitely prefer it for carry ammo, but in terms of target shooting, I'm not terribly worried about my groups printing an inch bigger as long as everything is on target and almost everything is still in the -0 or A zones (ideally everything, and I'm talking about standing, not bench rested). In terms of the OP, consistent 5" groups at 25 yards from the bench sounds a little too big to me and I'd have Beretta take a look while it's still in warranty, but I don't have any experience with the M9, so value my 2 cents accordingly. |
|
Quoted: That would make sense if they were designed for potential military use, no? I definitely prefer it for carry ammo, but in terms of target shooting, I'm not terribly worried about my groups printing an inch bigger as long as everything is on target and almost everything is still in the -0 or A zones (ideally everything, and I'm talking about standing, not bench rested). In terms of the OP, consistent 5" groups at 25 yards from the bench sounds a little too big to me and I'd have Beretta take a look while it's still in warranty, but I don't have any experience with the M9, so value my 2 cents accordingly. My theory is in most European countries 124 grain bullets loaded on the warmer side are the most common used ammo. And since most 9mm guns are designed and / or built in Europe, the designs are optimized from the ground up for the most common ammo used in that continent |
|
Quoted: That would make sense if they were designed for potential military use, no? I definitely prefer it for carry ammo, but in terms of target shooting, I'm not terribly worried about my groups printing an inch bigger as long as everything is on target and almost everything is still in the -0 or A zones (ideally everything, and I'm talking about standing, not bench rested). In terms of the OP, consistent 5" groups at 25 yards from the bench sounds a little too big to me and I'd have Beretta take a look while it's still in warranty, but I don't have any experience with the M9, so value my 2 cents accordingly. |
Took this back to the range today with 124 grain ammo. I had a 4.5" 8 shot group with the factory barrel aiming at the top dot. Switching to a spare barrel I have, I got a 7 shot 3.5" group shooting at the bottom dot, and the POI shifted up a little.  All but one of the shots in the second group were stringing vertically. |
|
Quoted: Took this back to the range today with 124 grain ammo. I had a 4.5" 8 shot group with the factory barrel aiming at the top dot. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/80518/1000023786-3676571.jpg Switching to a spare barrel I have, I got a 7 shot 3.5" group shooting at the bottom dot, and the POI shifted up a little. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/80518/1000023787-3676573.jpg All but one of the shots in the second group were stringing vertically. Was that with target, defense, or match grade ammo? The first group seems a little "all over the place" for being bench rested. |
|
Quoted: Was that with target, defense, or match grade ammo? The first group seems a little "all over the place" for being bench rested.  That's my next range trip plan, to go back and shoot a few groups with the CZ and the same ammo to verify that it is indeed the gun and not "me" that is the problem. I can still try a different sight on it too. |
| This discussion from the last decade may be relevant. It seems guns can have a preference based on bullet diameter. |
|
Quoted: buying one box of premium ammo is cheaper than a trip to the gunsmith or throwing parts at it. Blazer Brass is not a premium ammo, buy a box of gold dot, hst or ranger 124's You can't make any meaningful determination with a sample size of one. You really need to try a variety of different brands and weights in the same session. It doesn't have to be expensive ammo, but you need a large variety. If it has a similar size large group among five or six brands and bullet weights, then it's the gun or shooter, not the ammo. You also need try a different gun, chambered in the same caliber and similar barrel length, at the same time, with the same exact ammo. It's best if you know this gun well and it typically has good performance. This is your baseline comparison. If this other gun shoots much better groups with all the same ammo used, then it's likely not a shooter or ammo problem. Use a separate target for every string. Shoot five round strings at least, ten would be better. Try to make every shot the most precise shot you ever made in your life. Take your time. Same on every target for consistency. Make notes on your targets listing the specific ammo used, the gun used and the distance. You won't remember all the details later when you get home from the range. What you are looking for is a pattern of consistent, typical performance. Not outliers. |
|
Quoted: Group it with duty grade ammo. I’ve had some guns just not shoot basic bitch 115 well, my old Sig P320’s for example. They were 5” guns at 25 with bottom feeder 115 but 1.5”-2” guns with Speer gold dot 124. Rested of course. Quoted: That's the first thing I would try, different ammo. Any time I'm testing out a new gun, I bring three or four types of ammo, a mixture of brands and bullet weights. I have a few guns that don't group 115gr very well, but do much better with 124gr. This. For some reason people seem to think that a gun should be constantly accurate with ammo in general. Fact is some guns and ammo just are not compatible. Being that you have a Gatlin, TN Beretta I would check to make sure the barrel is centric with the muzzle and slides being off center, sights being out of alignment. Some of the guns that have come out of TN have been royally screwed. Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted: buying one box of premium ammo is cheaper than a trip to the gunsmith or throwing parts at it. Blazer Brass is not a premium ammo, buy a box of gold dot, hst or ranger 124's Agreed. Getting a quality duty, defense, or match grade ammo (in the hopes of having more consistency) to see if he can get a decent group with both his barrels as wells as in one of CZ's (assuming they have the same twist rate as the Beretta barrels) probably isn't a bad idea. He could also bring a few different colored markers and circle the shots from each group and maybe even write out the group size and barrel/gun next to each group. That's at least what I would do if I wanted to figure out something like this out. I have to admit that I'm generally much lazier about it and just use three defensive loads (five or so rounds of each) and just see if I can get a few decent groups off hand. |
|
Quoted: This. For some reason people seem to think that a gun should be constantly accurate with ammo in general. Fact is some guns and ammo just are not compatible. Being that you have a Gatlin, TN Beretta I would check to make sure the barrel is centric with the muzzle and slides being off center, sights being out of alignment. Some of the guns that have come out of TN have been royally screwed. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/557335/IMG_0826_jpeg-3677073.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/557335/IMG_0827_jpeg-3677074.JPG  Wow, I would not have expected that from Beretta. |
|
Okay guys, I went back to the range with the M9A4 and shot another group, trying as hard as I could to shoot a tight group. It was even worse than the last range trip. 5 shots measured a whopping 8 inches at 25 yards. Needing a benchmark because I am not the best shot in the world, I also brought my CZ P-09 F and shot a few groups with the same Blazer Brass ammo in both 115 and 124 grain, and also shot some 115 grain WWB. The CZ liked the WWB the best, and I had 8 shots that grouped under 2 inches and 7 more that opened it up to 3.5 inches.  There's a really tight group of 5 or 6 shots in there where I really held it together well. The rest I will blame on me being sloppy. Anyhow the real take-away is that the Beretta was definitely not shooting as well as the CZ, and I am not shooting as well as some of you guys. BUT, I may have found the problem. I thought perhaps there might be something wrong with the RDS since it is a cheap Osight. I got the guns home and cleaned them, and then I removed the Osight and the screws felt a little easy to unscrew. I had used blue loctite when I installed it, but apparently not enough. I then decided to remove the optic adapter plate, and those screws were even easier to break loose. I'd say they were probably less than 5 in/lbs of resistance, and there were signs that the plate was rubbing the slide. So in conclusion, there might not actually be anything wrong with the gun and it might be capable of acceptable accuracy (I'd be okay with 3 inches at 25 yards with this ammo and my skill level). But if the zero is moving around... My kids are out of school and my wife wants to go eat lunch in town tomorrow so I might not get to the range for a day or two. But I cleaned everything well with alcohol, applied as much loctite as I dared to avoid any dripping into the firing pin channel and torqued the mounting plate screws to the Beretta-recommended 15 in/lbs and then used more loctite and torqued the sight mounting screws to the recommended 18 in/lbs. It will have at least overnight to cure, and probably 2 days. I did notice that after re-mounting the sight and checking the windage with a laser bore sighter, it was quite a bit off, which might be another indication of how badly misaligned it was. The only way to know for sure will be another range trip, but I really think this is probably the culprit. |
|
Quoted: I would have just removed the optic and did a test with irons. Take the optic out of the equation entirely. With proper technique sub 3" 25 groups with an M9 are very realistic using the irons |
|
Quoted:BUT, I may have found the problem. I thought perhaps there might be something wrong with the RDS since it is a cheap Osight. I got the guns home and cleaned them, and then I removed the Osight and the screws felt a little easy to unscrew. I had used blue loctite when I installed it, but apparently not enough. I then decided to remove the optic adapter plate, and those screws were even easier to break loose. I'd say they were probably less than 5 in/lbs of resistance, and there were signs that the plate was rubbing the slide.  Edit: Nevermind. You're already on it.  |
|
Quoted: Okay guys, I went back to the range with the M9A4 and shot another group, trying as hard as I could to shoot a tight group. It was even worse than the last range trip. 5 shots measured a whopping 8 inches at 25 yards. Needing a benchmark because I am not the best shot in the world, I also brought my CZ P-09 F and shot a few groups with the same Blazer Brass ammo in both 115 and 124 grain, and also shot some 115 grain WWB. The CZ liked the WWB the best, and I had 8 shots that grouped under 2 inches and 7 more that opened it up to 3.5 inches. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/80518/1000023817-3677335.jpg There's a really tight group of 5 or 6 shots in there where I really held it together well. The rest I will blame on me being sloppy. Anyhow the real take-away is that the Beretta was definitely not shooting as well as the CZ, and I am not shooting as well as some of you guys. BUT, I may have found the problem. I thought perhaps there might be something wrong with the RDS since it is a cheap Osight. I got the guns home and cleaned them, and then I removed the Osight and the screws felt a little easy to unscrew. I had used blue loctite when I installed it, but apparently not enough. I then decided to remove the optic adapter plate, and those screws were even easier to break loose. I'd say they were probably less than 5 in/lbs of resistance, and there were signs that the plate was rubbing the slide. So in conclusion, there might not actually be anything wrong with the gun and it might be capable of acceptable accuracy (I'd be okay with 3 inches at 25 yards with this ammo and my skill level). But if the zero is moving around... My kids are out of school and my wife wants to go eat lunch in town tomorrow so I might not get to the range for a day or two. But I cleaned everything well with alcohol, applied as much loctite as I dared to avoid any dripping into the firing pin channel and torqued the mounting plate screws to the Beretta-recommended 15 in/lbs and then used more loctite and torqued the sight mounting screws to the recommended 18 in/lbs. It will have at least overnight to cure, and probably 2 days. I did notice that after re-mounting the sight and checking the windage with a laser bore sighter, it was quite a bit off, which might be another indication of how badly misaligned it was. The only way to know for sure will be another range trip, but I really think this is probably the culprit. I'm glad it's probably not the gun!  Don't feel too bad. I've had the slide plate come loose twice on my Echelon from being a little too cautious during the installation and twice I've gone to sight in a rifle and only realized after I got to the range that I had forgotten to tighten the scope rings and/or I didn't bring the right socket/wrench.
|
|
Quoted: But I cleaned everything well with alcohol, applied as much loctite as I dared... Don't go too crazy with the amount of Loctite. You can use too much and it won't set right. I do just a drop on one and rub the two screws together so there's a thin, even coating on all the threads of both screws. |
|
Well, got back to the range today just befpre dark and shot some of the 115 grain WWB that the CZ liked through the M9A4 with the re-mounted RDS. It was a little better than yesterday's performance but still not great. I did find this article while searching for typical expected accuracy. This guy used a Ransom rest and his groups with the 115 grain Blazer Brass were about what I was seeing (and I'm NOT using a Ransom Rest). https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/how-accurate-is-9mm-luger-match-ammo/99175#replay This makes me feel much better about the group sizes I'm seeing, but it does make me sad that I bought so much Blazer Brass. I will try to pick up some match ammo tomorrow and try again this weekend. |
|
Quoted: Well, got back to the range today just befpre dark and shot some of the 115 grain WWB that the CZ liked through the M9A4 with the re-mounted RDS. It was a little better than yesterday's performance but still not great. I did find this article while searching for typical expected accuracy. This guy used a Ransom rest and his groups with the 115 grain Blazer Brass were about what I was seeing (and I'm NOT using a Ransom Rest). https://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/how-accurate-is-9mm-luger-match-ammo/99175#replay This makes me feel much better about the group sizes I'm seeing, but it does make me sad that I bought so much Blazer Brass. I will try to pick up some match ammo tomorrow and try again this weekend. Interesting article! I'm a bit surprised how close most of the non-match ammo is to the match ammo (or that it is better performing in some cases). The Blazer, on the otherhand, is grouping a bit larger than I would have thought when compared to the others. |
|
Quoted:Interesting article! I'm a bit surprised how close most of the non-match ammo is to the match ammo (or that it is better performing in some cases). The Blazer, on the otherhand, is grouping a bit larger than I would have thought when compared to the others. Quoted:Interesting article! I'm a bit surprised how close most of the non-match ammo is to the match ammo (or that it is better performing in some cases). The Blazer, on the otherhand, is grouping a bit larger than I would have thought when compared to the others. It's a cool test, but it's just a sample one gun. So it may not be a an indicator of how those particular ammos might perform in your guns. Notice the author says this about the best and worst performing ammo and his experience with it in this particular gun: Blazer Brass: This is not considered match-grade ammo, but it makes for a good comparison. As I mentioned, my barrel does not like some plated bullets, and the Blazer ammunition serves as an example. The average 10-shot group size was 4.86 inches. Browning: The Browning Performance Target 147-grain FMJ load also is not match ammo, but it proved to be the most accurate ammunition in this accuracy review. The average 10-shot group size was just 1.38 inches, beating the average group size of the best match ammo by almost a half-inch. I included this ammo because of my experience with it in this pistol. It shoots this round almost as well as it does my best handloads. And he says this in closing: I'm sure most Shooting Times readers understand that accuracy can be elusive, and guns have preferences that vary. I can attest to that. I've worked with various published loads that had produced superb and consistent accuracy in some authors' test guns but shot terribly in mine. Just because a load is the cat's meow in one gun doesn't guarantee it will perform equally well in guns that might have different chamber dimensions, rifling, etc. Ammunition manufacturers select components that have earned a reputation for good accuracy, but not every gun will like them. However, the chances are good that proven loads will perform. Sometimes generic ammunition can shoot extremely well, too, like the Browning round did in my pistol. That's why you should experiment with a variety of different loads. You never know which ones will perform best in your gun until you shoot them. |
|
Quoted: It's a good example of how guns may like or dislike certain ammo regardless what it costs. It's a cool test, but it's just a sample one gun. So it may not be a an indicator of how those particular ammos might perform in your guns. Notice the author says this about the best and worst performing ammo and his experience with it in this particular gun: And he says this in closing: I've been shooting offhand for years, but I never really sat down at a bench to try to shoot 25 yard groups with a handgun until I mounted a few RDS on some guns, and needed to sight them in. It's been a real eye opener going down this rabbit hole. Now I want to find some ammo that groups better in this gun just to prove to myself there isn't anything wrong with the gun. I'll need to bring a .22 target pistol and some good ammo next range trip and see how small of a group I can shoot with that in order to know if I am even aiming steady enough to find a good 9mm ammo for the Beretta. It would be great to use a Ransom rest but the $500 would probably be better spent on a bunch of different kinds of ammo. |
|
Quoted: Yeah it's crazy but it seems like with 9mm pistols, they require almost as much ammo testing as .22 rifles, along with all the same "no two are alike" pitfalls. I've been shooting offhand for years, but I never really sat down at a bench to try to shoot 25 yard groups with a handgun until I mounted a few RDS on some guns, and needed to sight them in. It's been a real eye opener going down this rabbit hole. Now I want to find some ammo that groups better in this gun just to prove to myself there isn't anything wrong with the gun. I'll need to bring a .22 target pistol and some good ammo next range trip and see how small of a group I can shoot with that in order to know if I am even aiming steady enough to find a good 9mm ammo for the Beretta. It would be great to use a Ransom rest but the $500 would probably be better spent on a bunch of different kinds of ammo. I set an acceptable standard of accuracy. For me it's within the 10 ring of a B8 at 25 yards and within a 3x5 card or 3-4" circle at 10 yards. If my gun and ammo can meet those standards, I'm satisfied and move on with my training. I zero my gun at 25 yards braced on a bench with my carry ammo. I also try to verify zero at the beginning of every range session (either at 25yards when possible or using a 25y zero offset target at 10 yards when I don't have access to a full 25 yards), even if it's just shooting a group or two offhand. It's also very helpful if you can find training ammo that has a very similar zero as your SD ammo, even if it doesn't group as well. I've been looking into braced pistols as PDWs lately and a lot of reviewers are realizing that typical service handguns on the whole just aren't really all that accurate. Guys think they put a brace on a P320 or G19 and they can make rifle shots at 150 yards. In reality, the mechanical accuracy of the pistol has a group size larger than the steel gong they are shooting at. |
|
Quoted: I've been looking into braced pistols as PDWs lately and a lot of reviewers are realizing that typical service handguns on the whole just aren't really all that accurate. Guys think they put a brace on a P320 or G19 and they can make rifle shots at 150 yards. In reality, the mechanical accuracy of the pistol has a group size larger than the steel gong they are shooting at. |
|
Quoted: I wonder if these accuracy expectations find their way into competition stage design? Or to put it another way, some small and far targets are actually "too small" for typical handguns. Everyone shoots the same stage though so no one would be at a disadvantage, but still, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the targets are too small to capture the spread with some of these guns. I never saw a target that I couldn't repeatedly hit with a box stock service handgun *if* I was doing everything correctly. Though of course under time and peer pressure, you're sometimes trying to get ahead of yourself. What I've been seeing on Youtube is guys trying to run braced pistol "PDW"s (Flux Raiders and such) in place of a traditional PCC on a 2-gun course setup for both pistol and long gun. They are using the PDW throughout the stage rather than switch from pistol to a PCC. The theory being they'd be faster and more accurate enough with a stocked pistol on the close-in pistol targets to make up for the accuracy shortcomings on the long range stuff. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not, depending on how the stages are laid out. A tilting barrel pistol based PDW just can't match a good quality fixed barrel PCC on long range accuracy. There are also issues with parallax being a bigger problem in handgun red dots vs the larger long gun red dots. (plus mounting issues specifically with chassis PDWs resulting in wandering zero and repeatability issues - not typically a problem with slide mounted pistol red dots) |
|
Quoted: In USPSA, every stage I ever shot was setup with realistic expectations, but that was all closeup stuff, 30 yards max, maybe 40y, but would be with big poppers or full size cardboard silhouettes. I never saw a target that I couldn't repeatedly hit with a box stock service handgun *if* I was doing everything correctly. Though of course under time and peer pressure, you're sometimes trying to get ahead of yourself. What I've been seeing on Youtube is guys trying to run braced pistol "PDW"s (Flux Raiders and such) in place of a traditional PCC on a 2-gun course setup for both pistol and long gun. They are using the PDW throughout the stage rather than switch from pistol to a PCC. The theory being they'd be faster and more accurate enough with a stocked pistol on the close-in pistol targets to make up for the accuracy shortcomings on the long range stuff. Sometimes it works out, sometimes not, depending on how the stages are laid out. A tilting barrel pistol based PDW just can't match a good quality fixed barrel PCC on long range accuracy. There are also issues with parallax being a bigger problem in handgun red dots vs the larger long gun red dots. (plus mounting issues specifically with chassis PDWs resulting in wandering zero and repeatability issues - not typically a problem with slide mounted pistol red dots) Not to get off topic, but could you further explain why someone would choose a chassis PDW over a true carbine or fixed barrel braced pistol (eg Kuna)? I really enjoy handguns and probably put about 10 (or more) times the number of rounds through them as rifles in a given year, but I just have a hard time understanding why someone would forgo a true PCC for a chassis PDW. I get that the smaller PDW is probably a bit more maneuverable and maybe a little quicker on target, but aren't they more difficult to make hits with to begin with? For the close targets, do they really offer that much more stability over a handgun to make it worth it? |
|
Quoted:..., but I just have a hard time understanding why someone would forgo a true PCC for a chassis PDW. I get that the smaller PDW is probably a bit more maneuverable and maybe a little quicker on target, but aren't they more difficult to make hits with to begin with? For the close targets, do they really offer that much more stability over a handgun to make it worth it? As you go from a full size rifle/PCC, to a large-ish PDW/SBR, to a small PDW, to a micro PDW(like P365 Flux Raider), at each step down in size, you give up capability for concealability (size and weight). By the time you get down to the pistol chassis type, you are only gaining (over a basic pistol) the ability to shoot a pistol with three points of contact for additional stability. But you still have all the drawbacks of a pistol other than that. Basically a Flux Raider is no better than a old WW1/WW2 era stocked pistol (like a Luger or HighPower) dressed up in a modern tactical guise with a red dot, mag carrier and folding skeletonized brace/stock. A braced/stocked chassis does not make a pistol more accurate, nor does it give it better ballistics for longer range lethality or effectiveness. It only helps you stabilize the pistol better than a two hand grip. |
|
Quoted: Concealability. That's pretty much it. As you go from a full size rifle/PCC, to a large-ish PDW/SBR, to a small PDW, to a micro PDW(like P365 Flux Raider), at each step down in size, you give up capability for concealability (size and weight). By the time you get down to the pistol chassis type, you are only gaining (over a basic pistol) the ability to shoot a pistol with three points of contact for additional stability. But you still have all the drawbacks of a pistol other than that. Basically a Flux Raider is no better than a old WW1/WW2 era stocked pistol (like a Luger or HighPower) dressed up in a modern tactical guise with a red dot, mag carrier and folding skeletonized brace/stock. A braced/stocked chassis does not make a pistol more accurate, nor does it give it better ballistics for longer range lethality or effectiveness. It only helps you stabilize the pistol better than a two hand grip. Interesting. Well, I wish those luck who are using chassis PDW's in competition, but I guess we'll see if the idea sticks around. |
|
Just got back from the range. I shot a 10 shot group using my MkII .22/45 and Federal Auto Match ammo to kind of establish a baseline for what kind of accuracy I can personally achieve. I only shot the one group, so maybe I could do better if I spent the time to figure out what ammo the MkII likes and all that jazz. But I just wanted a group size that I can say "I can hold the gun steady enough to get this kind of group size." It was almost exactly 2 inches.  The 2 highlighted holes were 9mm aiming at the center of the target, to give you an idea of how bad things went with the M9A4. Three of the 9mm shots pretty much nailed the bullseye. But the rest went really wild. I might be flinching or something when shooting off bags with the 9mm because I can't use my normal 2 hand grip to control recoil when shooting off bags. I don't think I am, but I'll entertain the possibility. It's either that, or the gun doesn't like Browning 124 grain Training & Practice and the ammo search continues. The top right isn't a cohesive group because I was adjusting the zero on the sight every 5 rounds to try to get it dialed in. The top left is my .22 baseline group.  So it's down to either the ammo, barrel, RDS, or the mounting of the RDS again. It was getting cold and windy and I totally forgot to take the RDS off and shoot it with just irons.
|
|
Quoted: I am still betting money it has to do with the optic. Take the dot off and see what happens and let us know A ruger MK series gun with decent ammo ( which federal auto match Definitely is not) should be an inch or better at 25 rested This MkII is also my oldest gun with the most rounds through it. Many cartons of cheap Federal bulk. But let's say it should be shooting 1". If I can shoot a 1" gun at around 2", does that mean I'd shoot a 2" gun at around 4"? Or does it not scale that way? |
|
Quoted: WRT the Ruger, for 10 shots or 5? I can throw out one shot and take a half inch off on that group size. This MkII is also my oldest gun with the most rounds through it. Many cartons of cheap Federal bulk. But let's say it should be shooting 1". If I can shoot a 1" gun at around 2", does that mean I'd shoot a 2" gun at around 4"? Or does it not scale that way? I agree with captain127 about giving it one more go with iron sights. If that doesn't improve the groups, it probably needs to go back to Beretta to give them a chance to fix it. |
|
Quoted: It's a moot point. If you can shoot a 2" group with the Ruger at 25y, you should be getting a better slow fire group with the Beretta than you are now. I agree with captain127 about giving it one more go with iron sights. If that doesn't improve the groups, it probably needs to go back to Beretta to give them a chance to fix it. Agreed. Take the red dot out of the equation and you might as well test both barrels again since you have them and you did get a better group with the Italian barrel last time albeit with a loose red dot IIRC. At least that way you can figure out if it has something to do with the red dot, barrel, or something else. |
|
Quoted: Just got back from the range. I shot a 10 shot group using my MkII .22/45 and Federal Auto Match ammo to kind of establish a baseline for what kind of accuracy I can personally achieve. I only shot the one group, so maybe I could do better if I spent the time to figure out what ammo the MkII likes and all that jazz. But I just wanted a group size that I can say "I can hold the gun steady enough to get this kind of group size." It was almost exactly 2 inches. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/80518/1000023873-3678971.jpg The 2 highlighted holes were 9mm aiming at the center of the target, to give you an idea of how bad things went with the M9A4. Three of the 9mm shots pretty much nailed the bullseye. But the rest went really wild. I might be flinching or something when shooting off bags with the 9mm because I can't use my normal 2 hand grip to control recoil when shooting off bags. I don't think I am, but I'll entertain the possibility. It's either that, or the gun doesn't like Browning 124 grain Training & Practice and the ammo search continues. The top right isn't a cohesive group because I was adjusting the zero on the sight every 5 rounds to try to get it dialed in. The top left is my .22 baseline group. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/80518/1000023870-3678973.jpg So it's down to either the ammo, barrel, RDS, or the mounting of the RDS again. It was getting cold and windy and I totally forgot to take the RDS off and shoot it with just irons. So uhhh, what ammo? |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Handgun accuracy problem. (Page 1 of 2)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter