"GOOD SHOOTERS"

[leVieux]

Recent posts got me to thinking about past new gun encounters. It sounds silly, but after a lifetime of experience, I truly believe that some guns are better "shooters" than others. This came up when a correspondent related problems "hitting things" with a particular pistol.
Looking back, I recall several similar encounters with "good guns" and "bad guns" in reference of ease of and liklihood of hitting an intended target. I once had a Wather PPK I couldn't hit anything with. Later I had a factory 1911 "Colt Gold Cup" with all the accuracy features. couldn't hit anything. Pick up a regular GI issue and hit just fine. Hit everything with the Python. Others could hit fine with the Gold Cup, just not me. Later I bought three 870 Special Field Models at same time. One is like magic, hits everything. Other two are just regular 870 pattern's. Are these just myths, misunderstandings, or rationalizations? Or, do guns have souls and gremlins? Please tell your stories here.
leVieux

 

[toddnjoyce]

Firearms are made by man, subject to variation at the item level. Some of that is good, some is bad. Without a doubt there is variation even when there is only one assembler who repetitively assembles the same model of gun.

I appreciate the luck of better than average within a lineup and have paid for higher quality and workmanship that results in a better overall average from a particular manufacturer.

 

[AZ Refugee]

Ruger P89, could not hit the ground with it, hated the slop in the trigger. Had Llama Max-1 1911 style that was a rack driver out of the box. Lost it in a fire, bought 2 others that were .marginal at best

 

[Axxe55]

Todd us exactly correct. Manufacturing tolerances. I have seen various tests over the years of many different items, that were identical, and pulled off the same assembly or manufacturing line and the results between them could vary quite a bit.

 

[Dawico]

Sometimes you just suck with certain guns.

There will always be manufacturing differences in the guns and the ammo and that can always play a part of course. Plus your mood can work against you too.

But take for instance a die hard 1911 fanboi shooting a Glock. He doesn't like it and won't give it a fair shot. Adding in the fact that he's 90 years old, grumpy, probably crapped his Depends, and can't see shit and it won't shoot well for him. Plus he doesn't get a break every three rounds to clear a jam.

He'll tell you it's the gun every time but is it really?

 

[rotor]

Unless there is something wrong with the barrel I think the thing that makes most guns shoot poorly is the trigger. My S&W .380 Bodyguard has a trigger pull so heavy that my Brownells trigger gauge doesn't read that high. Also kicks like a small mule. Can't hit shit with it. I am reasonable with other guns although old eyes don't help.

 

[oldag]

For me it is not a specific gun, but rather type of gun.

For me, the 1911 is a natural aim. I have never shot as well with any other type pistol. Different grip angle, grip contour, balance, etc.

 

[leVieux]

Sometimes you just suck with certain guns.

There will always be manufacturing differences in the guns and the ammo and that can always play a part of course. Plus your mood can work against you too.

But take for instance a die hard 1911 fanboi shooting a Glock. He doesn't like it and won't give it a fair shot. Adding in the fact that he's 90 years old, grumpy, probably crapped his Depends, and can't see shit and it won't shoot well for him. Plus he doesn't get a break every three rounds to clear a jam.

He'll tell you it's the gun every time but is it really?

My question had to do with the differences between similar and/or identical firearms. Friends often chide me for carrying a Python; "Only SIX rounds?" I reply, "I am going to HIT my target first round EVERY time !" They may laugh, but that's the way I feel. And, I don't feel that way with any of my GLOCK's or Smith's.

Besides, I still have the CC weapon I ALWAYS carry ! Yes, Dear Hearts, O C & CC are NOT mutually exclusive. I never venture into the wild w/o a large caliber handgun, no matter what long gun I'm carrying, and I don't remove the CC when O C'ing.

But, I digress. . . . . .

leVieux



leVieux

 

[Moonpie]

It's the ergonomics of the firearm usually.

I have this theory about handguns and balance.
What makes the difference is the balance point.
Balance point is just above the trigger.
Take for example a Luger or Walther P-38.
When fully loaded the majority of the weight in the gun is behind the trigger, mostly in the center of your hand. While they point nicely, that weight on the back end allows for the slightest twitch to the barrel to throw the shot off.
Another example: a long time classic handgun such as a Colt .45 SAA with the 7.5in barrel.
The weight and balance of the gun cause it to naturally point and hold on target. Making it easier to hit with. That weight out in front of the trigger makes it relatively more difficult to twitch the barrel off target.
This is what makes snubbie revolvers so difficult to shoot accurately. The slightest twitch causes large angle changes to the impact point. With the weight concentrated to the back end of the gun its very very easy to pull the shot off mark.
I'm not saying these guns are mechanically inaccurate it just takes much more disciple and training to shoot them consistently accurately.
Glocks are similar to the Luger. Fully loaded the weight is on the back end. Where a steel 1911 has the weight out front.
Same thing with long guns.
Ever shot a Kentucky style long rifle?
When you lay that thing on target it just seems to lock on target. Something like an AK is more difficult to hold on target.
Shotgunners will know what I'm talking about.
They like the weight of the gun on the back end so the front of the gun swings faster.

 

[toddnjoyce]

It's the ergonomics of the firearm usually.....

I ageee and lots there. The other instance is pulling two Lugers off the rack from the same manufacturer, produced sequentially. They should have similar performance, but may have wide variation due to the manufacturing tolerances and error.

 

[leVieux]

It's the ergonomics of the firearm usually.

I have this theory about handguns and balance.
What makes the difference is the balance point.
Balance point is just above the trigger.
Take for example a Luger or Walther P-38.
When fully loaded the majority of the weight in the gun is behind the trigger, mostly in the center of your hand. While they point nicely, that weight on the back end allows for the slightest twitch to the barrel to throw the shot off.
Another example: a long time classic handgun such as a Colt .45 SAA with the 7.5in barrel.
The weight and balance of the gun cause it to naturally point and hold on target. Making it easier to hit with. That weight out in front of the trigger makes it relatively more difficult to twitch the barrel off target.
This is what makes snubbie revolvers so difficult to shoot accurately. The slightest twitch causes large angle changes to the impact point. With the weight concentrated to the back end of the gun its very very easy to pull the shot off mark.
I'm not saying these guns are mechanically inaccurate it just takes much more disciple and training to shoot them consistently accurately.
Glocks are similar to the Luger. Fully loaded the weight is on the back end. Where a steel 1911 has the weight out front.
Same thing with long guns.
Ever shot a Kentucky style long rifle?
When you lay that thing on target it just seems to lock on target. Something like an AK is more difficult to hold on target.
Shotgunners will know what I'm talking about.
They like the weight of the gun on the back end so the front of the gun swings faster.

Yes to all that. We all know about shotguns. But those three 870's were identical except for serial #'s. The 1911's were externally nearly identical, too. leVieux

 

[Leadeye]

Two things for me, how a firearm feels when you shoot it first and ammo second. I've shot guns that felt awkward to me, but not others and while I could learn to shoot the awkward ones I generally just retire them. Ammo is important, and as a guy who casts bullets and makes a wide variety of cartridges I've found that you can always improve. That said if I have a variety of guns in the same cartridge, I'll find one or two that work well and then not pursue accuracy into the higher levels.

As examples I can always shoot the Colt Bisley better than the SAA regardless of cartridge when shooting with one hand.

I have two 38-40 lines of ammo, one works best in the 1873 and the Colt Lightning, another works best in the 1892 and revolvers.

 

[Greywarrant]

A friend talked me into a Colt Python as my first revolver (way back when it was reasonably priced and readily available). I never was very comfortable with it. Single action was very accurate, but I just wasn’t comfortable with the way the gun fit in my hand and balanced - the thin trigger, the way the trigger was scalloped, the shape of the grips- I don’t don’t know - just a lot of things just didn’t work – for me. I wound up trading that gun for a Smith and Wesson model 19. Loved it. Carried it maybe 10 years? Just more comfortable, natural with it.

 

[leVieux]

A friend talked me into a Colt Python as my first revolver (way back when it was reasonably priced and readily available). I never was very comfortable with it. Single action was very accurate, but I just wasn’t comfortable with the way the gun fit in my hand and balanced - the thin trigger, the way the trigger was scalloped, the shape of the grips- I don’t don’t know - just a lot of things just didn’t work – for me. I wound up trading that gun for a Smith and Wesson model 19. Loved it. Carried it maybe 10 years? Just more comfortable, natural with it.

Tiens, "Chacqun a son gout", as the French say; your preference.

I have the Python and several Smiths. The Python is better. I frequently carry a "Scandium Smith" b/c it is lighter, easier to conceal, and more comfortable to carry.

Or, did you get one of those later 1980's/90's Colts, which aren't of the same quality?

The Python is easily the equal of a Sauer doublegun or a Winchester 21.

leVieux

 

[Lonesome Dove]

1st-2nd gen T/C Contenders.

 

[mongoose]

Tiens, "Chacqun a son gout", as the French say; your preference.

I have the Python and several Smiths. The Python is better. I frequently carry a "Scandium Smith" b/c it is lighter, easier to conceal, and more comfortable to carry.

Or, did you get one of those later 1980's/90's Colts, which aren't of the same quality?

The Python is easily the equal of a Sauer doublegun or a Winchester 21.

leVieux

Had a 70’s Python....would not stay in time with heavy loads. Have a S&W 27......no problem and equally as accurate.

 

[Axxe55]

A friend talked me into a Colt Python as my first revolver (way back when it was reasonably priced and readily available). I never was very comfortable with it. Single action was very accurate, but I just wasn’t comfortable with the way the gun fit in my hand and balanced - the thin trigger, the way the trigger was scalloped, the shape of the grips- I don’t don’t know - just a lot of things just didn’t work – for me. I wound up trading that gun for a Smith and Wesson model 19. Loved it. Carried it maybe 10 years? Just more comfortable, natural with it.

I wouldn't own a Colt revolver. When they ceased production years ago, they went stupidly expensive, simply because they had stopped making them. And people are still paying stupid prices for them.

IMO, the S&W revolvers are ten time better, and a lot more sturdy. Personally, I had many of the same issues shooting them as you did, hence why I wouldn't own one.

 

[gambler]

Every process has an inherent process "capability." For each process you can calculate the standard deviation from the mean and know how many pieces will fall within standard deviations of variance. That can all be calculate, measured and controlled in any decent shop and used to produce products of a certain level of tolerance. You can't make a machine produce parts to within 10 thousands of an inch if the machine capability is plus or minus 50 thousands of an inch.

 

[Kar98]

Most accurate and easy to shoot handgun I got is Magnum Research MR9. Walther made the frame and innards in Germany. The moonies made the slide and barrel in Minnesota. So accurate, it kinda takes the fun out of practicing. But you get away with a single target and a bag full of black stickers all afternoon.

 

[BigTexasOne]

My theory is that 99.9% of handguns are more accurate than 99.9% of shooters.

I have found three pistols that fit me and shoot above my ability.

A Sig Sauer P239 9mm SAS. I have proven, a couple of times, that even without looking at the target, I can shoot a 6 inch group at 10 yards. This pistol seem to know what I want. It is my EDC.

A Springfield Armory Custom 1911 Loaded 6" barrel. Wow, I love shooting with this thing. Worst group I've ever shot was about 3", including the flier.

A Ruger Mark IV. Dead box stock, it's the only pistol I have ever gotten a perfect score in a competition. I am afraid to change anything for fear it might change it's "alignment"