Home› Main Category› General Firearms
Varmintmist
Posts: 8,305 Senior Member
sd handgun shootability
Varmintmist
Posts: 8,305 Senior Member
For giggles after reading the other thread, since it isn't raining for a change, I grabbed 10 rounds of Magtech 9mm and on the way back from feeding the barn cats, dumped a few. I could have taken time, and redone until I got 5 of 5 on each, but I didn't.
First at 23 healthy steps, 12 inch steel
Yes I zinged one out. I used the sights as such as they are and sent then downrange in under 5 seconds, probably less.
I reloaded and stepped back
Connected 3 times. Same rate of fire.
47 steps, target is in the circle.
The PF9. Trigger sucks, grip is to small, its whippy for what it is, and its cheap.
Most SD handguns are more accurate than the hands that hold them.
First at 23 healthy steps, 12 inch steel
Yes I zinged one out. I used the sights as such as they are and sent then downrange in under 5 seconds, probably less.
I reloaded and stepped back
Connected 3 times. Same rate of fire.
47 steps, target is in the circle.
The PF9. Trigger sucks, grip is to small, its whippy for what it is, and its cheap.
Most SD handguns are more accurate than the hands that hold them.
It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
Replies
A discription or measurement of a gun being easier or harder to put rounds on target???
Point is this is not fun to shoot. Way to short, hard to hold, the trigger sucks, and according to some, not real accurate. everything is against it. I am not a pistolero. To be honest, I probably haven't fired this thing in 6 months or more. Yet I hit a 12 inch target more often than not at close to 50 yards.
If it was in the hands of someone who could shoot, it would do better.
Shootability is a term I see thrown around. I don't believe it has much to do with the pistol. Some folks wont carry something because they say it doesn't have shootability.
It would make sense for someone to make an effort at acquiring a handgun that they can shoot well. An attribute to be balanced with ease of carry or concealment.
Is it better to make an effort to get a pistol that you can shoot well, or make an effort to shoot the one you can best carry well? I love my 1911, I like a carbine more, but most of the time the PF9 is with me. Do I not carry it because it is less than easy to shoot, or do I adjust and overcome my shortcomings and make me the one who determines "shootability"?
As long as you are not exceeding the true ability of the handgun (ie a Raven or derringer) Shootability is a fake term.
"This is very much true. I have found very few handguns that are truly inaccurate, specially modern SD firearms. But, some other factors come into play too, including the elusive "shootability".
You might have God's most accurate Pre-War 1911 in your arsenal, well capable of dime sized groups at distance (I'm lucky enough to have one just like that in my safe) and YET I will not carry this gun for social purposes because it bites my hand violently and the sights are WAY too slow to pick up in a big hurry.
In my mind, a rather complex subject that does not really lend itself well to big blanket statements."
I called "shootability" elusive because like many other highly subjective criteria or emotions it's very much to the individual to define. My one example above deals with my options in 1911's. My Wilson CQB is in TO ME much more shootable that my VERY ACCURATE Remington Rand which is one of the most accurate 1911's I own. The two guns are sickeningly reliable with anything I feed them and they both will produce ragged holes at 15 yards with just about anything I feed them.
BUT, my WC has a great beavertail safety that prevents me from bleeding while executing my preferred HIGH hold on the gun. It has well defined combat friendly sights that I can pick up in a big hurry as opposed to the shinny black sights on the RR. It has a checkered front strap and MSH while the RR has smooth highly polished metal in both places. The list of features on the WC that contribute to better "shootability" than the RR goes on... So if I believe I might need to be on target really quick the Wilson has better "shootability" in my personal perception so that's the choice for carry on my belt all other things being equal.
We all make compromises based on many other criteria. I can't shoot the Glock 43 fast well enough to make me happy, I'm good enough, BUT not happy. And yet, it still makes it's way into my AIWB holster relatively often because it fits other criteria that are more important when I make a decision at a certain moment. But that gun in my scale of "shootability" does not come even close to, for example, my Kimber Ultra Raptor. But at times, based on other factors, the Glock wins the spot on my belt.
The ability to hit targets at distance is not the most relevant factor in my selection of SD handguns to carry when I'm looking at the choices in my safe. That is taken for grated since ALL my guns the are in SD rotation are more than capable of hitting anything I need to hit at any distance I trust myself to shoot at it or they are OUT of rotation. I will NEVER compromise size for accuracy AND reliability under any circumstances.
YMMV of course...
The only reason I chose to do the example I did was that a PF9 is hardly a bullseye pistol. It has everything going against it for a regular and extended range, and I don't think I ever shot it past 25yds. (And I was on the way by coming from the barn, nice day ect ect)
The shots that missed the steel can remain unaccounted for without consequence.
How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again! -- Mark Twain