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:

207000


The second one shoots this group at 25yds:

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.com/article/what-do-fbi-statistics-really-say-about-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.com/article/what-do-fbi-statistics-really-say-about-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...

[Idaho45guy]

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.)


#1 gun was a S&W Shield Performance Center 9mm with a bad barrel. Sent it back and they replaced it with an almost as bad barrel. I sold it for $25 less than I paid for it and swore off S&W for a while.

This is the original barrel, FWIW:

207043

207044

[sawinredneck]

My take, without really knowing what’s going on.
I’ll take a .22 that shoots accurately and reliably over a .44 magnum that doesn’t any day! If you aren’t comfortable in the accuracy and reliability of the gun you are carrying then you are better off not carrying anything. One of the reasons I’ve gone back to my LCR! I can hit a beer can at 7yds with some practice, I know it’s going to go “bang” each of the five times I pull the trigger and it instills confidence in me, the shooter!
I can’t say how many .22 semiiauto pistols I’ve owned, I like the size, but when I couldn’t dispatch a cat with my Berretta 21, which shot and fed reliably, I lost all faith in the gun and round.
If I don’t have faith in the gun and the round I’m shooting I may as well be throwing insults at the asailents, I have more confidence in them than the bullets!
So whatever is going on here, if you don’t trust what you are shooting, get rid of it and get something you do trust, PERIOD! If you don’t have faith in it, it WILL FAIL! I can’t make it anymore clearer than that.

[44MAG#1]

I would get a Glock if I wanted a Semi or a Smith M69 2.75 inch if a revolver. That would be my solution.

[35remington]

I'll just say that Hannibal and I both have the same questions about why the topic was posted.

[Idaho45guy]

I'll just say that Hannibal and I both have the same questions about why the topic was posted.

Because I have come across a number of people like the gentleman that purchased my Shield who don't think a handgun used for self-defense needs to be accurate. I thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss and see what the various views were.

Sorry it seems to have offended you and Hannibal.

[Hickok]

I take the .45 ACP over the 9mm because....... whoops, wrong thread! This always gets an argument![smilie=1:

[Lloyd Smale]

I don't buy a pocket gun to shoot groups at 25 yards. If I thought I would be in a situation that required accurate 25 yard shooting id leave the pocket gun at home. 99 percent of ccw shootings happen at less then 10 yards probably 10 feet. Your not Rambo or a police officer. If someone is 25 yards away your probably in a position to get out of dodge. Most untrained ccw holders would probably be more of a danger to the public under the stress of a gun fight shooting at 25 yards with a full blown comp grade 1911 then they would be to the guy there trying to shoot. Then you have to consider that fact that your pocket gun is probably a 38 or 380 or something similar and chances are your going to need to place more then one shot at 25 yards to stop them and even then its probably going to take a perfect central nervous system hit to stop them. Like some others said if it were my choice id put a couple hundred rounds through both and pick which if either is RELIABLE.

[2ndAmendmentNut]

#1 gun was a S&W Shield Performance Center 9mm with a bad barrel. Sent it back and they replaced it with an almost as bad barrel. I sold it for $25 less than I paid for it and swore off S&W for a while.

This is the original barrel, FWIW:

207043

207044

What gun was used for the second target?

Also what are the pictures illustrating? I see some barrel wear on the outside of the barrel around the compensator ports but other than cosmetic I do not see anything that should result in such poor accuracy.

Not sure about S&W Shields, but I believe their lock up is similar to Glocks. Both my Glock 19 and 26 have developed bluing wear in similar areas from use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[35remington]

Might be helpful to see what actual CCW shootings were in terms of distance. I know of no such database, and the FBI stats may not be useful. Thus it is hard to make a case that super accuracy is necessary. Desirable, sure. Necessary is hard to prove given lack of info.

I highly suspect that ranges are close. I also suspect there is less reason and opportunity to engage in long range and protracted shootouts compared to law enforcement who often must engage a perp in a more "offensive" manner.

[bgw45]

Answer t the original question, the better accuracy. In regard to FBI data I'm not sure it applies to the average citizen. What I'm thinking is as the distance between players increases so does the need for an exceptional lawyer. A LEO is perceived differently than a citizen. As the distance increases so do the opportunities to avoid the confrontation. I'm gonna do my best not to shoot anyone. I do fear the justice system, jury of my "peers" & aggressive prosecutor.
JMHO

[Der Gebirgsjager]

20 yards from the counter? Must be a big Arby's.

The choice has to go to the more accurate pistol, given equal reliability with the chosen ammunition.

I'm not sure that I've ever heard of the 21 ft. rule, but do believe that the vast majority of shootings occur within that distance. One must always consider the Monday morning quarterbacking that follows any shooting. What was the other party armed with? If a knife, 21 ft. might apply as some people are very adept at a hop, skip, jump and lunge before you can draw from concealment. But 25 yards makes that person much less of a threat.
If the other party is armed with a handgun, again at 25 yards, how many bad guy types are adept at hitting what suddenly becomes a moving, ducking, dodging, headed for concealment, running away target? There are some, perhaps many, jurisdictions where shooting someone at 25 yards distance will be scrutinized very critically, especially if the other party hasn't fired first. Of course, if the other party has a long gun the picture changes somewhat, and your odds of success go down dramatically. I believe that, in general, the longer the distance the less the threat, not considering artillery and bombs.

But, returning for a moment to the 21 ft. and inside distance, certainly most police officers who are shot on traffic stops are inside this distance. And it follows that if confronted by bad guy(s) in a parking lot or dark street who demand your wallet they will also be close enough to be threatening, perhaps just beyond arm's reach. So, I wouldn't poo-poo the idea that the vast majority of armed encounters are likely to be up close and personal.

[HeavyMetal]

Fast is Fine, Accuracy is Final!

a quote for an unknown gunslinger from way in the past but still makes sense today.

I will always take the more accurate gun, provided all else is the same. Long believed in the rule of at least 200 rounds down range with no malfunction before carrying any weapon concealed! the OP's Shield did not fit the bill and I was not surprised that S&W couldn't fix it.

I will also pass on my personal thoughts on Mag capacity: Magazine capacity is NOT a substitute for Marksmanship!

Practice makes perfect 20 to 25 yards is not impractical and, in my opinion, will make hitting targets at closer range easier.

Big boys say you lose 80% of your skill level when the trouble starts, anything that hinders that, such as the OP's Shield, will only make that factor get worse.

Just my thought on the subject.

HM

[Forrest r]

It's been in this order for me for 30+ years.

1st: reliability
2nd: point ability/control ability
3rd: accuracy

If a firearm isn't reliable it's no good
If you choice in firearms doesn't point naturally for you, you will struggle to get/keep on target.
If you can't control the firearm you just brought a single shot to a gunfight.
Either target is more than accurate enough for sd/ccw.

[9.3X62AL]

I responded to the OP via PM with some stats covering shootings and homicides I had involvement with or knowledge of. Roughly 5% of the incidents occurred outside a 15 yard engagement distance. 1 in 20. FWIW.

There was a time--and not that long ago--when a service autopistol was either very accurate or very reliable, but seldom both. That is no longer the state of the art & science. Unfortunately, S&W is not yet on board with that concept. I am sure their decaying market share will demonstrate the folly of their current mindset. If you rest on your laurels for long enough, they will dry out. Someone will come along and ignite them under you, and your business will burn down. S&W did it to Colt, and now others (principally Glock) are doing it to S&W.

[Texas by God]

Well shucks now I have to go shoot my wife's 9mm Shield on the bench at 25 yds. I've not considered it till now. If that pans out I'll try 100 yds!

[44MAG#1]

If I owned one I would have already tried 100 yards.

[DerekP Houston]

all things being equal I'd go with the more accurate gun. I don't ask for target pistol accuracy from my belly guns, but they sure are on my hip/belt a lot more frequently than their full sized brothers. If that was my target from the range I'd be a bit disappointed with the first pistol as well. Then again, I've taken people to the range that couldn't group that well at 7 yards....so I guess it is all perspective. I'd rather shoot a bit slower and hit my intended target than spray and pray.

[Rick Hodges]

Let me throw another wrench into the argument....I was carrying a Sig P220 when my department mandated we go to Glocks....I do not shoot the Glock as well....qualification scores dropped for me across the board almost 15% and that is in spite of the fact that we received transition training of over 600 rds.

Fact, I shoot a Sig 220 or a 1911 better than a Glock....that difference has nothing to do with the inherent accuracy of the Glock, but with the accuracy of the entire delivery system.

I carry a S&W Shield 40. With it and 180gr. Winchester ammo I will keep all shots on a playing card at 15 yds. I have never bench fired it but did pot a grouse at a little over 30 yds. My point is that my Shield in my hand has been reliable, trouble free, and reasonably accurate. The shot on the grouse might have been lucky, but I suggest if it was some miscreant who was trying to do me harm he would have been in very big trouble.

Accuracy counts....if all else is equal....but individual ergonomics count as well in how accurate the entire weapon system is. The mechanical accuracy of the weapon is only one part of the equation.

[Idaho45guy]

But 25 yards makes that person much less of a threat.
If the other party is armed with a handgun, again at 25 yards, how many bad guy types are adept at hitting what suddenly becomes a moving, ducking, dodging, headed for concealment, running away target? There are some, perhaps many, jurisdictions where shooting someone at 25 yards distance will be scrutinized very critically, especially if the other party hasn't fired first. Of course, if the other party has a long gun the picture changes somewhat, and your odds of success go down dramatically. I believe that, in general, the longer the distance the less the threat, not considering artillery and bombs.



Seriously? You're standing in a mall with your wife and kids and you see a man 25yds away start pointing a gun at them and you don't think that's enough of a threat to pull your weapon and defend them?? That it's too far away? That you would all start running away hoping the bad guy can't hit any of you?

Because you just said that 25 yards is so far that a jury will really be scrutinizing your actions and that most bad guys won't be able to hit you if you are running and dodging...

Incredible thought processes on display here...

[Idaho45guy]

I don't buy a pocket gun to shoot groups at 25 yards. If I thought I would be in a situation that required accurate 25 yard shooting id leave the pocket gun at home. 99 percent of ccw shootings happen at less then 10 yards probably 10 feet. Your not Rambo or a police officer.

Please share with everyone how you are able to determine just what kind of self-defense situation you know you're going to or not going to be in that day. Must be some amazing psychic powers you have there... ;-)

And that illustrates my point. My XDS is the absolutely smallest pistol I have ever carried for self-defense. Prior to it I carried a S&W M&P40C that held 10rnds of pretty potent rounds. But I rarely carried it when in public because it was a bit chunky. I carry my XDS nearly everywhere due to it being so handy.

Your CCW is a compromise. You decide just how unprepared you are willing to be in the event of an attack.

For me, a .40 S&W with 6 165gr Hornady Critical Duty rounds that will group 2" at 25yds is my minimum. For others, a 5-shot revolver that they aren't comfortable shooting past 7yds is their minimum. It's all about choices. The odds are that the consequences of our choices will never be known, thank God.

Speaking to the terrorist attack with a truck today, I would be incredibly undergunned with my XDS. Having a truck careening down a bike path mowing down people requires a long gun with a high capacity magazine. Nobody carries that. So even if this hadn't happened in NYC and there were a couple of CCW holders there, I doubt they would have been able to do anything to stop that threat and seeking cover and fleeing would have been the only option.

[35remington]

I think what was meant was that the best course of action may be to run away first. Shooting after moving may be the next best option. If problems arise everyone starts moving first. If they are smart.

You should be moving too. Nothing like making yourself easy to hit.

Realistically, defending against a mall shooter is unlikely. Most likely usage is to dissuade assault or robbery attempts. We can all dream up scenarios where great accuracy is required but shouldn't you then be carrying a 1911 instead of a pocket pistol with a spongy trigger?

[Idaho45guy]

What gun was used for the second target?

Also what are the pictures illustrating? I see some barrel wear on the outside of the barrel around the compensator ports but other than cosmetic I do not see anything that should result in such poor accuracy.

Not sure about S&W Shields, but I believe their lock up is similar to Glocks. Both my Glock 19 and 26 have developed bluing wear in similar areas from use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Second gun is my Springfield Armory XDS 40...

207059

207060

And as for the barrel; you seriously don't see the "lump" on top of the barrel?

207062

[Idaho45guy]

Realistically, defending against a mall shooter is unlikely. Most likely usage is to dissuade assault or robbery attempts. We can all dream up scenarios where great accuracy is required but shouldn't you then be carrying a 1911 instead of a pocket pistol with a spongy trigger?

I recall a couple of shootings in malls in the news where the shooter was either shot by or detained by a CCW holder. The likelihood that any of us are going to be in a self-defense shooting is extremely low. Hence my point on just how much you are willing to compromise in what you choose for CCW.

I've been on gun forums for 20 years with hundreds of thousands of gun owners and I can only remember two that ever actually were involved in a self defense shooting, and one of them was found later to be a liar, so...

[35remington]

Seems like it comes down to this for some:

"My preferences in self defense weaponry and accuracy are well thought out and rational. Yours, unfortunately, are not."

Somewhere out there is a guy who carries a full sized accurized high capacity pistol because he views the whole idea of an "accurate" low capacity pocket pistol as nonsensical. As was said before, a lot of platforms lend themselves to better usable accuracy than a small pistol does. Most of us carry a second or third best option in that regard.

[tazman]

I have never been involved in a shooting. I have, however, had an instance when having a pistol with me saved me from some trouble.
I was stopped along an interstate loop around a large city due to a flat tire. I put my handgun inside my belt under my jacket just on general principles.
While I was getting things together to change the tire, 3 enterprising young men hopped the fence and came down to the road a few yards from me and asked if I needed help. I told them no, that I had it covered and they could go on their way.
They told me I didn't understand. They were going to help me change the tire.
I lifted the jacket and showed them the handgun and told them to they needed to go on down the road.
Suddenly they all agreed with me and left.

[35remington]

Taz, was the pistol accurate?

Tongue firmly in cheek.

[tazman]

Taz, was the pistol accurate?

Tongue firmly in cheek.

Also tongue in cheek,, Yes, it was very accurate.
Fortunately for all involved, it didn't get demonstrated that day.

[Der Gebirgsjager]

Dear Idaho45guy, I am amazed at the hostility you have displayed throughout the thread -- which you started! Reading back through it, I don't see anyone spoiling for a disagreement like you seem to be. Like most folks caught with their pants down, you wish to change the subject and circumstances slightly to back your point of view, and have added your wife and children into the mix with the man pointing a gun at you from 25 yards away in a shopping mall. Why don't you just duck into one of the doorways of the many shops or seek shelter behind one of the benches, the fountain, or the hallway to the restrooms until you know precisely what's going on? You'd better invest in the NRA's new after shooting insurance,
'cause you're going to need it if it turns out the guy was an undercover narcotics officer and wasn't actually aiming at you but some other guy about to shoot him. The scenarios could go on and on. Don't throw your background at us, because some of us have credentials at least as experienced as yours. Whether true or not, you present the impression that you are just dying to grease someone. Lighten up.

[Outpost75]

Were both targets shot side by side in same day, with same ammo?

Factory ammo? Reloads? Rested? Standing?
Pointing at the target and jerking with your eyes closed while urinating in your pants under range simulated combat conditions with tear gas in your eyes?

What?????

It could be that the shooter might be simply a troll... Not enough info to answer.

Read entire thread and learned nothing. I'm gone, you guys continue...



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:

207000


The second one shoots this group at 25yds:

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.

[2ndAmendmentNut]

In light of all the wisdom in this thread I have decided swap out my J-frame to something more accurate.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171101/75b71d2a0240334c08148c18326996aa.jpg
Really just need an IWB holster now and I’ll be set.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Idaho45guy]

Now I'm hostile and a troll...

So much for reasonable discussion...

[Bazoo]

Choice between a 12" group and a 3" group at 25 yards all else being equal I would choose the 3" gun. If all else wasnt equal, and I liked the 12" gun better for reasons that may include, but not limited to, it was a lot cheaper, maybe it had some perks with it like a holster, maybe it was a 45 auto and the 3" was a 9mm, different model I liked better, i'd go with the 12" gun.

I dont practice groups much for concealed carry, a 2/3 size ipsc falls to my carry gun at 50 yards or more. Not great accuracy. But enough.

[Mr_Sheesh]

IDK about you Minuteshaver, but if some weirdo tries raping me I'm aiming, uhm, a few inches lower. LOL "Powder burns of certain parts that'll HURT" as in.

(And I'm 6'5" and male, COULD theoretically happen, likelihood not very high...)

The schools that train handgun self defense though, CAN and WILL show you what'll work for you. A good one will loan you various tools till you find one that WORKS for you (Also usually the guys there will. Most good guys are VERY happy to help a gal get armed, as they realize that if she needs an SD gun she needs it BADLY.)

And sometimes the least expected gun turns out to be THE answer (Nurse I knew back then was shooting cloverleafs from the start with a Ruger Stainless Blackhawk in 357, bought because it was pretty. It turned out to also be a gun she shot pretty dang well! We usually liked to push folks to a 1911 for reasons we could discuss, but with her, "That will do it!" was about all we could say.

So we got her shooting a steady diet of WCs and Keith bullets and let her figure out what she liked and shot best. Only possible problem being that if you put bullet #2 exactly through the same hole as #1, it won't do much damage - But I suspect she'd pick a new point of aim. She may be smaller than some guys, she's still smart tho :)

IMO reliability accuracy and stopping power DO all count, they also are all attainable.

[9.3X62AL]

Now I'm hostile and a troll...

So much for reasonable discussion...

The antagonism commenced with Post #2 in this thread, and continued. Not my circus and not my monkeys, but moderator oversight might assist a bit.

[mnewcomb59]

My PC Shield sucks for accuracy also. My buddy's normal shield shot under 3" for me at 25 and this one shoots like 8-10".

Look close at the barrel hood. Instead of having a lighter recoil spring because of the porting, it has a normal recoil spring and one corner of the barrel hood is rounded off so it unlocks easier.[smilie=b:[smilie=b:[smilie=b:

Mine is currently on armslist. Hopefully I get a normal shield with some extra cash on top.

With the porting and the Lee 95-rf bullet, I can shoot it just as fast and accurate at 7 yards as my full size m&p. But it is FAR more likely that I use my ccw for edible game than anything else. If the world ends and that is the only pistol I have on me, I need it to be squirrel accurate at 25 yards.

[ShooterAZ]

We all have our own criteria for choosing a defensive pistol. Lets keep the discussion civil and on topic.

[KCSO]

You want to carry as accurate a gun as you can for any self defence purpose. You may not get a whole standing front facing human to shoot at. What if you have to stop a coyote before he bites your dog, of a target behind some type of cover. If a gun wont shoot into 3 inches or so at 20 yards with its preferred ammo it is no gun to carry IMHO. I have yet to point a gun at a standing still full on bad guy so I want to be able to put a hit on what I can see first.

[Groo]

Groo here
1# The gun MUST function. [gun and ammo] The ammo you like is unimportant , what the gun likes is.........
2# Can you HIT when and where you want? SD targets are large, SD ranges are short [ unless you are LE] so few guns are not "accurate" enough...
3# You must have it WITH you..... In the car is worthless if you aren't.
Last , when in doubt, defer to No. 1#

[Lloyd Smale]

Please share with everyone how you are able to determine just what kind of self-defense situation you know you're going to or not going to be in that day. Must be some amazing psychic powers you have there... nope I cant but I don't buy a 200 mph corvette with 500 hp on the off chance I might need to pass a bit quicker once in a lifetime either. If I walked out of my house today I wouldn't arm myself to be ready for the Russians to attack either. If so I wouldn't bother with ANY handgun. I use a bit of reality instead of some walter middy grand illusion of taking on a Columbian hit squad.

[2ndAmendmentNut]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171104/8e98dbbc903734830465e48e4f0b8252.jpg

This is starting to look like a better option.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saleen322]

I have a Ruger LC9 and it is very ammo sensitive. When I first shot it I was very disappointed in the accuracy as it was all over the place even as close as 7 yards. Then I tried some Win Silvertips I had laying around and a 124 lead round. Both were more accurate and very reliable. I don't know if it is the short barrel but it definitely has its likes and dislikes when it comes to ammo. I don't know if this applies to other short barreled pistols but I would not be surprised if it did. YMMV

http://i601.photobucket.com/albums/tt98/saleen322/Center%20Fire%20Pistol/RugerLP9-Tgt-1_zps3e83b960.jpg

[Cary Gunn]

Gents,

To me, "civilian concealed carry" means pocket guns.

Just about anything larger pretty much requires wearing an outside upper garment long enough cover a waist-belt holster or a shoulder holster. And removing that upper garment for any reason usually means the handgun becomes visible.

Thus, my concealed-carry guns are pocket-sized -- read that "tiny" -- but that doesn't mean they are inaccurate. I have such pistols in 2", 2 1/2" and 3" barrels, firing .22, .380 and 9/19mm cartridges.

I'm pleased to report that all will group in 3-inches or under, two-hand offhand, at 15 yards.

I'm also pleased to report that all are also far more likely to be used for head-shooting sitting rabbits than for any more serious purpose. I'm confident in their accuracy, though, should a more serious purpose arise.

Happy trails,

-- Cary Gunn --

[rsrocket1]

Why would anyone want a ported CCW gun? You want flash and flames coming up the front of the gun in a very likely low light and possibly close up "from the hip" situation? If you're 25 yards away from a shooter in a mall, first of all, that top group will still hit the shooter, secondly, you don't need a mouse gun at 25 yards you need that accessory rail for something else:
http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gg11.jpg

[W.R.Buchanan]

All Glocks should be so accessorized!

Randy