CCW pocket gun accuracy.

[Idaho45guy]

You have a choice between two pistols for concealed carry. Both are the same size, same capacity, same sights, same price, etc. Both are considered pocket guns and are semi-autos with 7rd capacity.

The first one shoots this group at 25 yards:

Attachment 207000


The second one shoots this group at 25yds:

Attachment 207001

Which one would you choose?

If you reply that it doesn't matter, then please explain why you would consider such a disparity of accuracy a trivial matter.

[35remington]

May I presume you have some kind of agenda to advance in asking this question? Something bad happen in your gun buying experience recently?

[35remington]

I retract the question. I read another thread here where you responded to an accuracy question and yep, you have an agenda.

My 9mm Shield does not shoot anywhere near that badly. Still sore about it I see.

FWIW.

[sparkyv]

I'll bite...I would choose the one that is most reliable with my CCW ammo of choice. Most times a CCW is needed is at close range, in and around 10yds, and those two pistols will group well enough to attempt to stop a bad guy at those distances. Many consider the "21 foot rule" a standard for training in self defense situations. I am hard pressed to come up with a scenario in which there was a need of a civilian to fire at a bad guy in self defense at 25yds. YMMV

[Idaho45guy]

I retract the question. I read another thread here where you responded to an accuracy question and yep, you have an agenda.

My 9mm Shield does not shoot anywhere near that badly. Still sore about it I see.

FWIW.

And your agenda seems to be just stir the pot by accusing me of an agenda. It's called having a discussion. That's difficult to do if you refuse to engage in conversation and just come out of the gate with insults and accusations.

For those of you with some level of manners and ability to discuss matters in a mature and non-insulting manner, which pistol would you rather carry?

[35remington]

If the shoe fits........at some point you have to move on. Now that you have the pistol you want, you feel compelled to wonder why anyone could possibly use the pistol you had. But you did sell the inaccurate one.

Sounds like your mind is made up. Can't say I would be all that different, but the horse has left the barn.

I'd rather have the more accurate pistol. Truthfully, in any shooting we're likely to engage in the accuracy difference likely would not matter. So that is sorta like the other response. But not exactly. I presume both pistols are equally reliable.

[Idaho45guy]

I'll bite...I would choose the one that is most reliable with my CCW ammo of choice. Most times a CCW is needed is at close range, in and around 10yds, and those two pistols will group well enough to attempt to stop a bad guy at those distances. Many consider the "21 foot rule" a standard for training in self defense situations. I am hard pressed to come up with a scenario in which there was a need of a civilian to fire at a bad guy in self defense at 25yds. YMMV

The 21' rule apparently is a myth. The FBI statistics that so many people cite for their source is based on reports of fatal officer shootings. The FBI does not gather data on actual distances of self-defense shootings, according to this article...

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.c...out-gunfights/

Not as much as many people would lead us to believe. We frequently hear claims like: “Check out the stats, man, it’s always at 20 feet or less, and nearly always at 10 feet or less.” Or “that zero to three feet distance that most gunfights take place at in the real world.” Various figures are cited as the source for these contentions, most commonly “the FBI.”

Well, neither of those statements can be proven true based on the information supplied by “the FBI.” The available facts are actually a lot less conclusive than many people portray them as. Consequently, there is a great deal of unsupportable extrapolation of the facts that do exist.

The data that is being referred to is compiled and published as part of the FBI’s annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed & Assaulted report, which is available to download from the FBI’s website. It is published around the end of October each year for incidents occurring the previous year.

Since LEOKA 2012 has just been released, let’s examine the assertions about them. Unfortunately, the FBI does not gather information about distance of gunfights in routine submissions to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The only information on distances is gathered as supplemental data in cases where police officers are actually killed. These data are compiled in Table 36 — Distance Between Victim Officer and Offender, 2003–2012, in the current report. However, this table reports only a very small subset (44) of “gunfights” police engaged in. The data that is collected about the total number of police gunfights (2,259) is compiled in Table 70 — Type of Weapon and Percent Injured, 2003–2012. No distances are provided in this table.
Image from FBI.gov

Image from FBI.gov
Even the data in Table 36 must be interpreted carefully, because the distance given is for where the officer was actually killed. For example, in a previous year, a State Trooper returning home was ambushed from across the street at a distance of 35 yards with a rifle and severely wounded. His assailant then walked over to him and executed the Trooper at close range with a handgun. Since the Trooper was killed at almost touching distance, he was reported as a zero to five feet casualty. But the “fight” actually took place at 35 yards.

[2ndAmendmentNut]

Not sure what is going on here, but to address the OP’s question I would choose the second pistol if all other things were equal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Idaho45guy]

If the shoe fits........ar some point you have to move on. Now that you have the pistol you want, you feel compelled to wonder why anyone could possibly use the pistol you had.

This thread has nothing to do with why S&W sold me a defective pistol and was unable to rectify it, or why anyone would buy a pistol from a company so obviously failing in quality and customer service. Rather, it is about the differing attitudes in acceptable accuracy for the firearm that you depend on to protect you and your family when out in public. My "agenda" is to seek the actual truth in self-defensive shootings and not some repeated old wives tale that is not based on facts.

[MyFlatline]

All I know is this..If I must engage in a gun fight at 75 feet, he best stand still or else I might hit him. I carry only for up close and personal. I am not Superman and never have claimed to be a crack pistol shot. Might be the cowards way out, but honesty about ability goes along ways..

[35remington]

My response was hardly an insult, by the way. It was obvious that some specific occurrence prompted asking the question in the first place. Perceptive is a more accurate characterization of my commentary IMO.

[35remington]

Idaho, it is a little bit about your bad experience or you would not have felt compelled to reprise it in long detail in the first sentence of post 9.

So be it. Moving on and getting out of the way now.

Facts and truth vary depending upon the person experiencing them. Your facts and truth may not be someone else's.

[35remington]

In advancing your premise one might want to explain how OIS are the same as, or not the same as, shootings involving CCW holders. The validity of any point would rest heavily upon that.

FBI stats may have zero to do with us. Or maybe they do. Where is the definitive database to be found for CCW shootings? By all means point us to it, as I am interested. A guess would be that it does not show engagement at long ranges.

[Hannibal]

The 21' rule apparently is a myth. The FBI statistics that so many people cite for their source is based on reports of fatal officer shootings. The FBI does not gather data on actual distances of self-defense shootings, according to this article...

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.c...out-gunfights/

Not as much as many people would lead us to believe. We frequently hear claims like: “Check out the stats, man, it’s always at 20 feet or less, and nearly always at 10 feet or less.” Or “that zero to three feet distance that most gunfights take place at in the real world.” Various figures are cited as the source for these contentions, most commonly “the FBI.”

Well, neither of those statements can be proven true based on the information supplied by “the FBI.” The available facts are actually a lot less conclusive than many people portray them as. Consequently, there is a great deal of unsupportable extrapolation of the facts that do exist.

The data that is being referred to is compiled and published as part of the FBI’s annual Law Enforcement Officers Killed & Assaulted report, which is available to download from the FBI’s website. It is published around the end of October each year for incidents occurring the previous year.

Since LEOKA 2012 has just been released, let’s examine the assertions about them. Unfortunately, the FBI does not gather information about distance of gunfights in routine submissions to the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. The only information on distances is gathered as supplemental data in cases where police officers are actually killed. These data are compiled in Table 36 — Distance Between Victim Officer and Offender, 2003–2012, in the current report. However, this table reports only a very small subset (44) of “gunfights” police engaged in. The data that is collected about the total number of police gunfights (2,259) is compiled in Table 70 — Type of Weapon and Percent Injured, 2003–2012. No distances are provided in this table.
Image from FBI.gov

Image from FBI.gov
Even the data in Table 36 must be interpreted carefully, because the distance given is for where the officer was actually killed. For example, in a previous year, a State Trooper returning home was ambushed from across the street at a distance of 35 yards with a rifle and severely wounded. His assailant then walked over to him and executed the Trooper at close range with a handgun. Since the Trooper was killed at almost touching distance, he was reported as a zero to five feet casualty. But the “fight” actually took place at 35 yards.

It was explained to me in my concealed carry class that you had better make sure you could convince a jury that you were in fear of your life if you ever used a firearm to protect yourself. I've no idea how often shoot outs occur, or over what distances, but I suspect it is much rarer and at much closer ranges than those depicted by Hollywood.
As to your first question, I would choose the more accurate firearm, as much for the satisfaction during practice as the confidence boost.

[tazman]

It is certainly possible that someone who was desiring to hurt or kill me might try it from distances beyond close range, especially if they actually knew anything about me.
I have certain standards of accuracy I require of all the handguns I own, one of which is being able to consistently hit the kill zone on man sized targets at 25 yards minimum. Given any option, I will always choose the more accurate firearm if everything else is close to equal.
Magazine capacity does not enter into this since a bunch of fast misses are overcome by a single good hit.

[JBinMN]

I would choose the most accurate. Accuracy is what counts at ANY distance, IMO. Particularly in self defense.

IMO.. It seems to me that if you are gonna carry for self defense, you ought to be able to shoot accurately out to 25 yds with your handgun. At least, paper plate sized on an average male torso.. If ya can't do that, either practice with it until ya can, get a different firearm that you can. [ or carry a shotgun or rifle. LOL ].
But , keep practicing until you know it is the handgun & not you. If it is the handgun.. move it along. If it is you, more practice.


If a firearm is not accurate, after I have tried what I can do without spending a lot of $$, I move it along. If a firearm is not comfortable for me to shoot. I move it along.

I might add that when "we"shoot our 38/357 snubbies, it is at 25yds, then we move to the 10's & less. Regular size paper plates at 25 & snack sized at 15 or less. We let other folks have "gimmes" if they are not used to the pistols & let them use larger targets, but nothing over ave. sized mans torso.( an opened up 12 pack or a "flat" from cans from the supermarket is a good size. We then tape or pin a paper plate to the top as a "head".) If after that , if someone can't hit the target, & we know the pistol is not the issue, then we & they know it is a matter of more practice.

I hope ya get the answer(s) ya seek! I would stick with accuracy & if you are unhappy with your handgun after much practice with it.... Just move it on & go find a different one that suits ya better.

[Idaho45guy]

It was explained to me in my concealed carry class that you had better make sure you could convince a jury that you were in fear of your life if you ever used a firearm to protect yourself. I've no idea how often shoot outs occur, or over what distances, but I suspect it is much rarer and at much closer ranges than those depicted by Hollywood.
As to your first question, I would choose the more accurate firearm, as much for the satisfaction during practice as the confidence boost.

If a man is pointing a gun at me at 75' away, I think it is reasonable to believe I'm in fear for my life and am completely justified in shooting him. As a former soldier and law enforcement, I don't know if I could retreat from a threat and risk innocent lives being taken. For example, if I'm at the mall and hear gunfire, I am going to seek to engage the threat in order to protect the innocent. Having a firearm that I am comfortable shooting at man-sized targets at 75' away or further is important to me.

The two times I had to draw my weapon in a civilian capacity, however, involved threats that were both less than 20' away. So I tend to agree that the vast majority of self-defense scenarios involve closer threats. But I also believe that as remote of a chance that I will ever have to use my firearm in self-defense around here, that it would be wise to be comfortable and able to engage targets at further distances.

I live in a super low crime area. However, two years ago there was a shooting in a nearby town where my family lives and I often go a couple of times a week. A psychotic person went on a rampage and shot four people and killed three.

The second location on the spree was an Arby's fast food restaurant where I occasionally ate. The shooter walked into the restaurant with a S&W Sigma 9mm in his hand and walked up to the counter and asked for the manager. When the manager approached, he began firing. I don't recall the number of shots, but ultimately she attempted to get away by climbing out the drive-thru window. She died in that window. The gunman's pistol jammed during the incident and he had time to clear it and continue firing since no one else there was armed. Had I been there, I would have been sitting in a booth approximately 20yds from the counter. So there would have been a self-defense shooting at a greater distance than what the CCW class people say is "normal".

[Bzcraig]

to address the OP’s question I would choose the second pistol if all other things were equal.

My opinion as well.

35Rem: seems like you're baiting to me. Whether he has an agenda or not, answer the question or just move along geesh.

[Hannibal]

If a man is pointing a gun at me at 75' away, I think it is reasonable to believe I'm in fear for my life and am completely justified in shooting him. As a former soldier and law enforcement, I don't know if I could retreat from a threat and risk innocent lives being taken. For example, if I'm at the mall and hear gunfire, I am going to seek to engage the threat in order to protect the innocent. Having a firearm that I am comfortable shooting at man-sized targets at 75' away or further is important to me.

The two times I had to draw my weapon in a civilian capacity, however, involved threats that were both less than 20' away. So I tend to agree that the vast majority of self-defense scenarios involve closer threats. But I also believe that as remote of a chance that I will ever have to use my firearm in self-defense around here, that it would be wise to be comfortable and able to engage targets at further distances.

I live in a super low crime area. However, two years ago there was a shooting in a nearby town where my family lives and I often go a couple of times a week. A psychotic person went on a rampage and shot four people and killed three.

The second location on the spree was an Arby's fast food restaurant where I occasionally ate. The shooter walked into the restaurant with a S&W Sigma 9mm in his hand and walked up to the counter and asked for the manager. When the manager approached, he began firing. I don't recall the number of shots, but ultimately she attempted to get away by climbing out the drive-thru window. She died in that window. The gunman's pistol jammed during the incident and he had time to clear it and continue firing since no one else there was armed. Had I been there, I would have been sitting in a booth approximately 20yds from the counter. So there would have been a self-defense shooting at a greater distance than what the CCW class people say is "normal".

Well Sir, in light of this new information, I'm surprised you are asking for consensus regarding the accuracy expectations of a handgun. Had I known you possessed this background, I'd not have bothered to reply, as you are obviously well qualified to answer your own question/questions.

Which causes me to wonder . . . . just why DID you pose your OP question?

Most curious. So it goes.

No matter. I am the father of 2 young girls and a the sole source of support for them and their mother. Arriving home safe every night is my primary responsibility in my mind, as they have no relatives on either side to provide aide should some tragedy befall me.

I applaud persons such as yourself who put their own safety aside to protect strangers and the public at large. It's a position I can not afford to put myself in willingly. Thank you for your service.

[Mr_Sheesh]

More accuracy is a GOOD thing IMO; It's happened that someone had a hostage-taker, and I could see situations where one could shoot the bad guy IF they had the accuracy, or, couldn't because their SD weapon's accuracy sucks.

BUT. I know for darn sure, too, that sometimes it's the gun (Sights so loose they rattle, was one example; I was wondering why a guy I knew couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. He didn't know better...) Sometimes it's the ammo. And sometimes it's the user. So if a gun doesn't shoot for you, why not learn more & figure out WHY and fix the cause? (Not knowing what happened with the OP's gun # 1, busy so I'll let that be.)

A Browning BDA in 380 Auto I shot at one point, had HORRID vertical stringing, about 12" at 25 yards; I could have installed a stronger (Wolff probably, knowing me) recoil spring; Instead I just handloaded a little softer handloads, 100 Grain FMJ's. It started shooting one ragged hole... At that point, yeah, they're a little lower powered, but, Shot Placement, Shot Placement, Shot Placement...