Home Main Category General Firearms

sd handgun shootability

VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior MemberPosts: 7,955 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.
It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.

Replies

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    What is shootability?

    A discription or measurement of a gun being easier or harder to put rounds on target???
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,955 Senior Member
    edited April 2020 #3
    as far as I can tell, yep. And I don't think it means much.

    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's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    I agree the guns are more accurate than I can shoot them.

    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.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,955 Senior Member
    And that's the point.

    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.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • CHIRO1989CHIRO1989 Senior Member Posts: 14,204 Senior Member




    Looks to be minute of drooling polar bear, nice shooting hey :)
    I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn away from their ways and live. Eze 33:11
  • GunNutGunNut Posts: 7,642 Senior Member
    Since I was the one that brought up shootability I guess it's up to me to make my point of view clear.  This was my original point.


    "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...
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,955 Senior Member
    You used the term there, but it flies around here often. I just don't believe in it.

    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)



    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    The one small problem this example illustrates. Is that being able to hit a target at distance does not automatically preclude the possibility of an errant shot hitting someone or something unintended. A possibly worse circumstance than whatever may have precipitated the need to shoot in the first place.

    The shots that missed the steel can remain unaccounted for without consequence. 
  • SpkSpk Senior Member Posts: 4,739 Senior Member
    What is shootability?

    A discription or measurement of a gun being easier or harder to put rounds on target???
    Pretty much...
    I think the best meaning I've  seen so far for this word is this one.
    Shootability: An attempt to quantify in a firearm the suitableness -- [the quality or state of being especially suitable or fitting] -- for a new shooter (new to that firearm) to be successful when using it. Pertaining to shootable.
    "Suitable for shooting."

    From this simple proposed meaning (proposed because it's not in the dictionary but it's an informal term in common usage) one could scare up a simple subjective scale from excellent shootability to poor shootability. Of course, the scale would be subjective and only have relevance to other like minded people.
    I like to think of "shootability" as a mash up of two other words "shooting" and "suitability" --> "shootability"
    Keep on using this word and it will find it way into dictionaries just like "Ginormous". 😁
    Too much thinking...




    Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience -- Mark Twain
    How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and [how] hard it is to undo that work again! -- Mark Twain

  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,955 Senior Member
    The one small problem this example illustrates. Is that being able to hit a target at distance does not automatically preclude the possibility of an errant shot hitting someone or something unintended. A possibly worse circumstance than whatever may have precipitated the need to shoot in the first place.

    The shots that missed the steel can remain unaccounted for without consequence. 
    Nor does it preclude a monkey jumping on you and taking a dump on your head or that holding a excessively comfy 9mm at the range of a tshirt does not preclude a through and through that will blow a hole in a orphans first and last ice cream cone and her new puppy.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 7,928 Senior Member
    My point is the errant shots are a potentially serious problem.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,955 Senior Member
    edited May 2020 #13

    shots are a potentially serious problem.

    FIFY

    Still nothing to do with the ability to use the weapon you have.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement