Enlightening day at the range

[SheepDog_B]

Did you read my other post on this (2 above yours)?

FYI, you can buy reloaded 9mm for $9.99/50 and reloaded .45 ACP for $11.99/50 (17% more) and if you reload yourself the difference is even smaller.

We're talking about a newb who does not have his license yet. I highly doubt he'll be reloading 45's anytime soon.
With enough shooting, given a good amount since he'll love it, it won't take long to see huge saving between WWbox 9mm and 45's.

 

[jbos6]

We're talking about a newb who does not have his license yet.

Whoa whoa whoa, careful waving the newb-stick around! I've been shooting for years, have just never gotten my permit. I know, I know, no lectures, please. However, you are correct in stating that I'm not going to be reloading 45's anytime soon. Cost is one of the reasons I'm looking at a platform that will allow me to change barrels so I can shoot something *cheaply* a lot and still carry a self-defense round I like better, like .40.

 

[ChargingCharlie]

Why do you like .40 better than .45? .40 ammo isn't cheap either.

 

[Sibb]

I'm a pretty good pistol shot and I've learned that the grip is the biggest factor when it comes to accuracy for me. On of my recent 2A converts bought a Beretta 92FS and I couldn't shoot it for for the life of me. Decent group but not hitting where I was aiming. He got new grips and now I''m killing the 10 ring. Got new grips for my old 85F and now I'm a .380 killing machine.

So my advice try some new grips on the Glock and see if that works for ya.

 

[M1911]

So my advice try some new grips on the Glock and see if that works for ya.

Gen 1 - 3 of the Glock have a large grip circumference, and that is the cause of some of the problems that people have with Glocks. You can't replace the grips on a Glock as it does not have removable grip panels. All you can do is add a slip-on rubber grip, which will increase the grip circumference, which is causing the problem in the first place. Your advice doesn't work for a Glock. The Gen 4 Glock allows you to change the grip circumference, but the Gen 4 is not easily found in MA.

The other problem that people have with Glocks is the trigger, and that's a whole different ball of wax.

 

[jbos6]

Why do you like .40 better than .45? .40 ammo isn't cheap either.

I will admit to being influenced by my shooting buddy, as his primary carry has long been the Glock 23. There's something comforting about carrying 7 or 8 rounds of .45, but I won't be able to practice with that as often as I will with 9mm. And round and round we go!

 

[M1911]

I agree that it is fundamentally shooter related. But other guns with better triggers seem to be easier for newer shooters to shoot accurately.

 

[fencer]

Maybe you are just allergic to plastic

 

[walkit]

The Glock's trigger takes some getting used to, if you are trained with an SA auto. $800 is a lot of money. I'd look at $600, private party sale, used Spld variant of the Commander, alloy framed, if I wanted a ccw .45. I doubt, however, that it wil do a thing for you that a couple of Star BM 9mm compacts wont do. Same wt as lwc (28 ozs) shorter length (by 1/2"), 8 rd mag, $250 each, or a bit less. The Star is no longer made, and parts are pretty much unavailable. Ccw one, practice with the other, and don't sweat any parts breakage. Use the CorBon 100 gr (1500 fps, 500 ft lbs) 9mmm PowRBall jhp ammo for defense. The Star is an SA auto, don't dryfire it without an empty case in the chamber!. If you do, it will break the firing pin in less than 50 drysnaps, guaranteed. A new pin can be made-fitted in about an hour, but a smith will charge you at least $50 for the custom work. It has the 1911 style thumb safety and mag release, excellent fixed sights, ergonomic safety, good trigger pull. All steel, very fine performer, damned shame that it's no longer made.

 

[M1911]

walkit/gunkid/hardin/John Melvin Davis, we know who you are and what you are. You are a felon. A federally prohibited person. And a troll. Go away.

 

[C-pher]

yeah. there's no question that a 1911 style trigger is easier for a new shooter. glock's massive popularity with new shooters led to a lot of myths about the trigger, etc. with the advent of the M&Ps, XD series, etc., it's fun to watch newer shooters blame their low left hits on the crappy glock style trigger.

I'm high and to the right if I don't think about my shots....I don't blame the trigger...I blame the fact that I don't like the way that I shoot it...so it only comes out of the safe when someone wants to shoot a Glock. OR, I just suck...which could be the issue as well.

 

[jbos6]

I'm high and to the right if I don't think about my shots....I don't blame the trigger...I blame the fact that I don't like the way that I shoot it...so it only comes out of the safe when someone wants to shoot a Glock. OR, I just suck...which could be the issue as well.

See, I'm with you, and that's kinda the point I've been trying (or meant) to make all along. Can I shoot the Glock well? yes, with concentration. Could I get past that? Yes, with lots of range time and rounds downrange. However, why wouldn't I just choose a handgun that I *naturally* shoot comfortably instead of trying to force myself into something that isn't natural? With both the 239 and the 1911, I picked them up and put about the whole first magazine into center-mass at 10 yards. I'm not a crack shot by any means, but my thinking is that I should buy something that comes naturally and start working from *that* point, not the point of "If you stand directly in front of me, you're perfectly safe!"

 

[Underwhere]

See, I'm with you, and that's kinda the point I've been trying (or meant) to make all along. Can I shoot the Glock well? yes, with concentration. Could I get past that? Yes, with lots of range time and rounds downrange. However, why wouldn't I just choose a handgun that I *naturally* shoot comfortably instead of trying to force myself into something that isn't natural? With both the 239 and the 1911, I picked them up and put about the whole first magazine into center-mass at 10 yards. I'm not a crack shot by any means, but my thinking is that I should buy something that comes naturally and start working from *that* point, not the point of "If you stand directly in front of me, you're perfectly safe!"

In my opinion you're still blaming the gun. If at 10 yards you can't hit the 9 or 10 ring consistently with any gun then you need more practice. It's not the gun. Once you can do it with any gun, then decide which one is best suited for you.

Making a decision based on inexperienced skills will just mean you will have to revisit your decision later or you'll become one of those people who learns early on that they can only shoot 1 gun.

Or you can stop with decision making and just buy it...and realize you'll be buying more later. No problem with that.

 

[jbos6]

In my opinion you're still blaming the gun. If at 10 yards you can't hit the 9 or 10 ring consistently with any gun then you need more practice. It's not the gun. Once you can do it with any gun, then decide which one is best suited for you.

I guess I'm trying to understand how it's *not* the gun ... and I don't ask to be flippant, I'm honestly trying to understand. If I shoot a half-dozen other pistols reasonably well and naturally so, but there is one pistol that I *don't* shoot consistently or naturally well, what is wrong with my technique? I'm not concerned with being immediately proficient with *any* pistol I pick up, I'm concerned with being proficient with the pistol I'm going to carry every day. I mean, obviously I'm doing *something* wrong with the G23 because the *pistol* is not inaccurate (my buddy can drive tacks with it), but why is that a problem? I'm not good with a Glock, so I just don't choose that as my personal line of defense. Why must I concentrate on (and spend time and money on) fixing whatever is wrong with my Glock technique if I'm not going to be carrying it? Clearly there is something about *that* pistol or trigger or grip angle or butt width or *something* that is giving me problems, but why waste time and money trying to figure out what and why if it's not my carry piece?

Or you can stop with decision making and just buy it...and realize you'll be buying more later. No problem with that.

Well, no, I don't imagine there is a problem with buying more later. In fact, I intend to (just don't tell my wife. Yet.) :-D

 

[Underwhere]

I guess I'm trying to understand how it's *not* the gun ... and I don't ask to be flippant, I'm honestly trying to understand. If I shoot a half-dozen other pistols reasonably well and naturally so, but there is one pistol that I *don't* shoot consistently or naturally well, what is wrong with my technique? I'm not concerned with being immediately proficient with *any* pistol I pick up, I'm concerned with being proficient with the pistol I'm going to carry every day. I mean, obviously I'm doing *something* wrong with the G23 because the *pistol* is not inaccurate (my buddy can drive tacks with it), but why is that a problem? I'm not good with a Glock, so I just don't choose that as my personal line of defense. Why must I concentrate on (and spend time and money on) fixing whatever is wrong with my Glock technique if I'm not going to be carrying it? Clearly there is something about *that* pistol or trigger or grip angle or butt width or *something* that is giving me problems, but why waste time and money trying to figure out what and why if it's not my carry piece?



Well, no, I don't imagine there is a problem with buying more later. In fact, I intend to (just don't tell my wife. Yet.) :-D

I'm not saying don't buy the gun you shoot best with. I'm just saying not to write off a gun right now because for some reason you can't shoot with it.

Once you get more trigger time under your belt you should be able to shoot anything...at which point you should revisit what you own and buy.

I didn't start out shooting very well having really no experience prior to getting my license. I soon found that the guns I shot horribly at first ended up very natural and easy to shoot after getting a ton of trigger time.

 

[C-pher]

In my opinion you're still blaming the gun. If at 10 yards you can't hit the 9 or 10 ring consistently with any gun then you need more practice. It's not the gun. Once you can do it with any gun, then decide which one is best suited for you.

Making a decision based on inexperienced skills will just mean you will have to revisit your decision later or you'll become one of those people who learns early on that they can only shoot 1 gun.

Or you can stop with decision making and just buy it...and realize you'll be buying more later. No problem with that.

I might sound like a dink here...and that's OK. I'm used to that...but if I close my eyes, pick up a gun point to shoot, and I don't see my front sight...I can promise you that if I don't lift the front up I'm going to shoot that thing low. I'm not going to blame the gun...because I can just pick up the front and then I'm on target. But, I will blame the design, and that it doesn't fit in my hand well. It's the same with the PPS. Damn if I have to really think about my shots to get them where I want.

Sure, practice and muscle memory will overcome that with time. But, if I'm going to carry something...I like things that when I open my eyes...the front sight is there with my rear. Because those I seem to pick up and just shoot with less time thinking about adjustments to place the shots where I want on the target.

Now, I'm not a crack shot...hell, I'm not even a Defensive Handgun Shooter. But when I'm playing Retro IDPA I can hold my own. I'm also using pistols that have a natural POA for me. So I don't really even use the sights that much to run down the steel.

Again, I'm not going to blame the gun, I'm more saying it's how it naturally sits in my hand. Which I think is why some pistols have adjustable backstraps. And why they also make several different models. Because everyone's hands are a little different.

Though, it's also why they make adjustable sights. So if I'm always shooting High and to the left...I can move the sights to get it down and to the right. But then, I'm not all over the target when I'm shooting the Glock...I have a nice group...they are just high and to the left.

 

[Underwhere]

I might sound like a dink here...and that's OK. I'm used to that...but if I close my eyes, pick up a gun point to shoot, and I don't see my front sight...I can promise you that if I don't lift the front up I'm going to shoot that thing low. I'm not going to blame the gun...because I can just pick up the front and then I'm on target. But, I will blame the design, and that it doesn't fit in my hand well. It's the same with the PPS. Damn if I have to really think about my shots to get them where I want.

Sure, practice and muscle memory will overcome that with time. But, if I'm going to carry something...I like things that when I open my eyes...the front sight is there with my rear. Because those I seem to pick up and just shoot with less time thinking about adjustments to place the shots where I want on the target.

Now, I'm not a crack shot...hell, I'm not even a Defensive Handgun Shooter. But when I'm playing Retro IDPA I can hold my own. I'm also using pistols that have a natural POA for me. So I don't really even use the sights that much to run down the steel.

Again, I'm not going to blame the gun, I'm more saying it's how it naturally sits in my hand. Which I think is why some pistols have adjustable backstraps. And why they also make several different models. Because everyone's hands are a little different.

Though, it's also why they make adjustable sights. So if I'm always shooting High and to the left...I can move the sights to get it down and to the right. But then, I'm not all over the target when I'm shooting the Glock...I have a nice group...they are just high and to the left.

There is definitely to be said about natural point of aim.
But at a range that shouldn't mean you have issues target shooting. That's a totally different problem.

In my opinion the gun will do it's part more reliably than I will. I don't want to change the sights to depend on my mistakes. If I did that, as my experience level and comfort with different guns changed, I'd be constantly adjusting my sights.

 

[M1911]

There is definitely to be said about natural point of aim.
But at a range that shouldn't mean you have issues target shooting. That's a totally different problem.

I disagree. At close range in defensive shooting or practical shooting, you may be using target focus shooting, or just the briefest flash sight picture, and a gun that points naturally for you is a big help.

 

[TheRoland]

In my opinion you're still blaming the gun. If at 10 yards you can't hit the 9 or 10 ring consistently with any gun then you need more practice. It's not the gun. Once you can do it with any gun, then decide which one is best suited for you.

While I totally agree... if there's a technological fix for an issue, I think he might as well take it. And there are still sometimes guns that just don't work with people. I'm not making A Class tomorrow, but I'm an alright shooter, and I just cannot get hits with the Beretta 92FS. I'm sure it's something I'm doing, but whatever it is, it's not an issue if I shoot basically any other pistol. I could spend time trying to figure it out, or I could simply shoot pretty much any other gun where I don't do whatever it is (probably snatching the trigger in a nasty way).

I've found out the hard way that there arn't alot of problems that can actually be solved by throwing money at them, or messing with equipment. If the OP's got one of the few problems that can be solved that way, I think he might as well go for it.

 

[jobowker]

It's hard to make arguments like it's the gun vs it's the shooter. I have been shooting for a number of years, but I'm not really that good. A few months ago I bought a SIG 1911, and out of the box, the very first day, I was far better with the 1911 than I am with my SIG 229. Does that mean that the 1911 is inherently more accurate? No. I'm shooting both single action. even the first shot, so that takes the da/sa part out of the equation.

Maybe I'm just shooting the 229 wrong, and continued practice is just continuing to practice improperly?
If that's the case, then why aren't I shooting the 1911 wrong?

I've practiced extensively with the 229 (at least 3,000 rds) so I should be used to it by now, right?

So is it the shooter or the gun? I would argue that certain people do better with certain guns, so you should shoot what you shoot well. I have doubts that I will ever be able to shoot the 229 as well as the 1911 - if 3,000 rounds didn't help, I doubt that 10,000 additional rounds will suddenly make me better with the 229. Maybe the single stack just fits me better so I hold it better. So I can't easily say it's the shooter, or blame the gun - I believe it's the interaction between the two.

My 44 mag Ruger Blackhawk, when shooting very mild handloads, is even better than either semi (for me), but I'm attributing that to a heavy single action longer barrelled revolver.

You can "kinda" shoot a Glock single action by releasing the trigger just enough for the reset (Timber described it earlier better than I can) so you should be able to rule out the da/sa question of the disparity.

 

[Underwhere]

I disagree. At close range in defensive shooting or practical shooting, you may be using target focus shooting, or just the briefest flash sight picture, and a gun that points naturally for you is a big help.

Well we're talking about different things. The original poster is saying he has issues target shooting with the Glock. That right away tells me that there is something not right about his shooting fundamentals. It really has nothing to do with point shooting or defensive shooting.

Close range point shooting: natural point of aim makes a world of difference.

My opinion is that given the obvious issues target shooting, not to be so quick to judge the gun as "does not shoot well" or "does not fit". Build up skills until you can shoot it well and then decide what will work well for you.

While I totally agree... if there's a technological fix for an issue, I think he might as well take it. And there are still sometimes guns that just don't work with people. I'm not making A Class tomorrow, but I'm an alright shooter, and I just cannot get hits with the Beretta 92FS. I'm sure it's something I'm doing, but whatever it is, it's not an issue if I shoot basically any other pistol. I could spend time trying to figure it out, or I could simply shoot pretty much any other gun where I don't do whatever it is (probably snatching the trigger in a nasty way).

I've found out the hard way that there arn't alot of problems that can actually be solved by throwing money at them, or messing with equipment. If the OP's got one of the few problems that can be solved that way, I think he might as well go for it.

I'm pretty sure if you had a 92FS at 10 yards stationary and off the clock you could hit pretty much anything you wanted. I've seen you shoot.
The original poster can't and so I think he has more than just simple equipment issues.

It's hard to make arguments like it's the gun vs it's the shooter. I have been shooting for a number of years, but I'm not really that good. A few months ago I bought a SIG 1911, and out of the box, the very first day, I was far better with the 1911 than I am with my SIG 229. Does that mean that the 1911 is inherently more accurate? No. I'm shooting both single action. even the first shot, so that takes the da/sa part out of the equation.

Maybe I'm just shooting the 229 wrong, and continued practice is just continuing to practice improperly?
If that's the case, then why aren't I shooting the 1911 wrong?

I've practiced extensively with the 229 (at least 3,000 rds) so I should be used to it by now, right?

So is it the shooter or the gun? I would argue that certain people do better with certain guns, so you should shoot what you shoot well. I have doubts that I will ever be able to shoot the 229 as well as the 1911 - if 3,000 rounds didn't help, I doubt that 10,000 additional rounds will suddenly make me better with the 229. Maybe the single stack just fits me better so I hold it better. So I can't easily say it's the shooter, or blame the gun - I believe it's the interaction between the two.

My 44 mag Ruger Blackhawk, when shooting very mild handloads, is even better than either semi (for me), but I'm attributing that to a heavy single action longer barrelled revolver.

You can "kinda" shoot a Glock single action by releasing the trigger just enough for the reset (Timber described it earlier better than I can) so you should be able to rule out the da/sa question of the disparity.

You certainly can shoot guns better than others. No one is making that argument. I'm just saying that you should be able to pick up almost any gun and do "ok" provided you have solid fundamentals.

I think we are beating this to death.

 

[jbos6]

Well we're talking about different things. The original poster is saying he has issues target shooting with the Glock. That right away tells me that there is something not right about his shooting fundamentals.

Please help me understand this statement, and I'm asking this honestly. If I had NEVER fired a Glock, then I could tell you I shot at least in the 7 ring (and often better) at 10 yards with every pistol I'd fired (DA, SA, single-stack, double-stack, whatever). In that case, you'd probably have to say my shooting fundamentals were pretty decent, no? I pick up the pistol, I point it downrange and the bullets go pretty much where I want them to go. Hell, a lot of people compare the M&P to the Glock and I fire THAT much better than I fire the Glock. Again, I'm not saying there's something wrong or bad about the Glock (and "Glock = grenade" crowd, let this go for a moment, please), but there's something different enough about it that it clearly effects my shooting. How do those differences that are pretty clearly present speak to *my* basic approach to firing a pistol?

I ask this not to beat a dead horse, but because I want to become a better shooter. Don't we all? Clearly, you feel strongly that my accuracy with this one pistol speaks to my basic approach to pistol shooting, and while I'm not taking away from that opinion, I'm trying to understand it because it doesn't make sense to me in the face of the rest of my pistol experience. What do you think I am doing wrong with this gun that I don't do wrong in general?

 

[Underwhere]

Please help me understand this statement, and I'm asking this honestly. If I had NEVER fired a Glock, then I could tell you I shot at least in the 7 ring (and often better) at 10 yards with every pistol I'd fired (DA, SA, single-stack, double-stack, whatever). In that case, you'd probably have to say my shooting fundamentals were pretty decent, no? I pick up the pistol, I point it downrange and the bullets go pretty much where I want them to go. Hell, a lot of people compare the M&P to the Glock and I fire THAT much better than I fire the Glock. Again, I'm not saying there's something wrong or bad about the Glock (and "Glock = grenade" crowd, let this go for a moment, please), but there's something different enough about it that it clearly effects my shooting. How do those differences that are pretty clearly present speak to *my* basic approach to firing a pistol?

I ask this not to beat a dead horse, but because I want to become a better shooter. Don't we all? Clearly, you feel strongly that my accuracy with this one pistol speaks to my basic approach to pistol shooting, and while I'm not taking away from that opinion, I'm trying to understand it because it doesn't make sense to me in the face of the rest of my pistol experience. What do you think I am doing wrong with this gun that I don't do wrong in general?

All I have to judge your shooting skills is what you said: that you are having issues hitting your intended target with a Glock.
Because you can shoot others accurately means your fundamentals are not decent but in fact the opposite may be true.

Fundamentals are basic and apply across the board, not specific to certain guns. There is a difference between natural ability and learned fundamentals. Fundamentals are learned. Over time the two sort of come together.

If you had a pistol instructor who had solid "fundamentals"...would you expect him/her to do fairly well with pretty much any gun you put in their hands? Or would you expect him to say "I can shoot my guns well...just not some of the ones you gave me"

You also mentioned being "all over the map" when shooting a Glock which means you are inconsistent. It's just like sighting in a rifle. If you take a 5 shot group and they are all 1 inch to the right you know exactly what to do. If you take a 5 shot group and there really is no group at all then it means that there is an equipment problem or a shooter problem. If a friend can group with the same gun then it's a shooter problem.

 

[C-pher]

I don't want to change the sights to depend on my mistakes. If I did that, as my experience level and comfort with different guns changed, I'd be constantly adjusting my sights.

You also mentioned being "all over the map" when shooting a Glock which means you are inconsistent. It's just like sighting in a rifle. If you take a 5 shot group and they are all 1 inch to the right you know exactly what to do.

Is that answer, adjust the sights?

 

[Underwhere]

Is that answer, adjust the sights?

Yes it is. I should have been more clear but I get the feeling you already know what intended.

What I should have mentioned:
If you bench the rifle in an attempt to remove the possibility of shooter error when sighting in.

And in my head I was thinking about scope mounting and sighting in but probably should have mentioned that.

 

[TheRoland]

And in my head I was thinking about scope mounting and sighting in but probably should have mentioned that.

I agree, mounting a scope should fix it. I recommend getting good quality scope rings, then using double-sided tape to mount them to the slide. Alternately, at least two layers of duct-tape may be used.

 

[Underwhere]

I agree, mounting a scope should fix it. I recommend getting good quality scope rings, then using double-sided tape to mount them to the slide. Alternately, at least two layers of duct-tape may be used.

I've actually always wanted to try this but could never justify the cost:
Apparently there is a movement to go this route for concealed carry.

 

[TheRoland]

I've actually always wanted to try this but could never justify the cost:
Apparently there is a movement to go this route for concealed carry.

I think it has a ton of advantages, and will try to get a carry gun with an optic... eventually. But I think it still has durability concerns. I've also tried a slide-mounted Glock (way back when I was a new shooter), and it seemed to me like acquiring the dot was considerably slower than irons. Practice or co-witness with the sights might make a difference.

 

[Underwhere]

Is that answer, adjust the sights?

And to be more clear I advocate moving sights to match the gun. I just don't think in most cases they should be moved to suit the user.

 

[Underwhere]

I think it has a ton of advantages, and will try to get a carry gun with an optic... eventually. But I think it still has durability concerns. I've also tried a slide-mounted Glock, and it seemed to me like acquiring the dot was considerably slower than irons. Practice or co-witness with the sights might make a difference.

That and it cost more than the gun itself to do something like that.
Someday.