[Shawnee]

Am posting this here and also on the "Blackpowder" forum just to be sure I hear from fans of both modern and not-so-modern handguns. :)

Like a lot of you guys who grew up with Roy and Gene and "Hoppy", and Marshal Dillon - and never really grew up, I harbor a fascination yet for the "Pointability" of handguns - that secret magic that makes one pistola more true of aim when unaimed (or maybe, "unsighted") than other designs.

Having used Ruger single-actions (w/adjustable sights) since Eisenhower and an assortment of double-action revolvers and semi-autos since "Louie, Louie" hit the charts - and now infected with blackpowder the suspicion is beginning to creep over me that the handgun designs of the 19th century may well be the most "pointable" designs of all.:uhoh:

When passed the surgery I just had on the shoulder of my gun hand I plan to do some Official Semi-Scientific Backyard testing to see if I can find one handgun type/design that shines above all others at the "draw and fire" gig - that is, seems to have the truest "natural point" for vanquishing adversaries regardless of political party. Not necessarily "fast-draw", mind you, but without bringing the gun up to use any type of sights. With reenactors and "Cowboy Shooting" afficionados all over the place I'm thinking some (or most) of you may have walked a ways down that trail ahead of me.

So how 'bout it you Acolytes of The Showdown - you Devotees of the Duel -what are your experiences, convictions, observations, thoughts, opinions, susperstions etc. about handgun "Pointability" and perhaps how you might devise an Official Semi-Scientific Backyard testing Protocol to determine which designs are best at High Noon ?? :confused:

P.S. Will say that the replica 1875 Remington I bought recently looks like a strong candidate so far.

[Vern Humphrey]

Let me offer two points:

First of all, the SAA is a very "pointable" and ergonometric gun (but so is the M1911 -- because a lot of "pointability" depends on how your gun fits you.)

Secondly, a lot of the old west gunfighters weren't all that good. Despite the occasional spectacular shot (such as "Wild Bill" Hicock shooting a man in the head with a Colt Navy at 70 yards or so), a gunfight was as much an exercise in wild shooting in those days as it is today -- but with poorly-trained men on both sides.

[BlindJustice]

THe Colt SAA 4 5/8" Bbl. Len. and the P-08 Luger are both
toward the top of the chart for pointability.

Uh, Vern wasn't Wild BIll Hickock's shot about a tale of
was confronting two BGs at a range of across the street, and
was shot at by somebody down the street about 79 feet away
and Hickcock shot him and then took on the other two?

Sounds like the O.P. oughta consider Cowboy Action shooting

[Vern Humphrey]

Uh, Vern wasn't Wild BIll Hickock's shot about a tale of
was confronting two BGs at a range of across the street, and
was shot at by somebody down the street about 79 feet away
and Hickcock shot him and then took on the other two?
I believe we are talking about two different incidents. This was about winning and losing a watch in a poker game.

[BlindJustice]

Okey, doke.... I think a lot of WIld Bill's prowess was always
sticking with his 1851 Navy, nothing like knowing your gun.

[sinistr]

im not a big believer in pointability,i choose a pistol for the features that fit my needs.then i practice with it until i am proficiant.if i picked one that naturally pointed the best for me ,id be packing a 1911.:neener:

[Geronimo45]

Are you talking revolvers only, or semis as well?

Of those I have, the little Beretta 21A takes the cake. Maybe because it's so muzzle-light. It points incredibly well. The only gun that might come close is the Walther P99, which seems to fit my hand very well... but I haven't got one of those yet.

The K-frame's the only revolver I've tried... but it's worked very well thus far. Still doesn't compare with the Beretta 21, though.

[Kind of Blued]

Your backyard sounds awesome, from what I've heard of it.

[Noxx]

Not sure if we're restricting ourselves to revolvers here. Nothing points for me like a Hi-Power, altho with sighted fire I am more proficient with a number of other guns, go figure.

[Shawnee]

Include any and all action-types and models into the discussion - only criteria is that you feel it to be highly accurate at your natural "point" with it.
Remember though - we're talking unaimed.

Thanks All !!! :D

[1911NM]

If 'twas me, I think I would take a long look at a birds head, or Bisley as I both feel they point better than a standard SAA grip. Whatever, close your eyes, bring the gun up to point, then open your eyes. Are you pointing where you are looking?

[AZAndy]

M1911, PA-63, and Bersa CCW all point well enough for me to plug a paper plate at 10 yards or so, from the hip. CZ52 and Nagant not so much. ;-)

[Vern Humphrey]

if i picked one that naturally pointed the best for me ,id be packing a 1911
God is trying to tell you something: "Pack a 1911.":D

[jpwilly]

Well that's a 1911 for me to...or more specifically around 11 degree grip...my PT145 also has the same angle of grip as my two 1911's.

[spiroxlii]

I never thought about it until now, but at any given range, I shoot tighter groups closer to POA with my Colt SAA replica with birds head grips than I do with any other handgun I've handled.

[ccmdfd]

Not sure if we're restricting ourselves to revolvers here. Nothing points for me like a Hi-Power, altho with sighted fire I am more proficient with a number of other guns, go figure.
__________________

I'm right with you on this one. The BHP points very well, but I shoot SIG's, HK's, and many others better.

[Mat, not doormat]

Some SASS matches include something called the "Outlaw," category. That's where both handguns and shotguns are shot unsighted. Aficionados of that sort of shooting claim it to be a lot of fun. I will agree, to a point, (pun intended) it is a lot of fun to watch. It's not a lot of fun to count misses for. Personally, I prefer to hit the things I shoot at, and therefore, I use those little things called sights, which are conveniently placed on most guns, right from the factory.

Kidding aside, those folks tend to take a 20-50% drop in their hit rate for unsighted fire.

~~~Mat

[novaDAK]

for me, Ruger P-series (with either the hogue wraparound grips on the metal frames or the slip on grip for the poly frames) fit my hands the best, and point naturally the best.

Sig P226 with the stock plastic ("P226" on them) grips also fits and points just as well.

1911 points great but is a little thin for my big hands so my grip slips sometimes.

[Grandpa Shooter]

I have tried for years now to convince people to buy whatever pistol or revolver points naturally for them. One of the above posters hit it right. Hold the gun below your waist and bring it up to eye level with your eyes closed. If it is pointing closely at the spot you picked before you closed your eyes and brought it up, it "points" well for you. It is a very good idea to practice point shooting, particularly in low light situations. Don't quit when it starts to get dark. That's the best time to see if you can hit a target in low light conditions. Point and shoot.

I enjoy shooting my western style pistols for that reason. They are fun to point and shoot. I can do it with any of my regular hand guns, just not as much fun.

[MCgunner]

I've found that if you practice with it enough, about anything is pointable. I never really liked the 1911, not enough trip there for me. I prefer my Rugers with Hogue grips, but that's what I'm used to. I can interchange my revolvers, my auto, I fall right into the flow. The P90 and P85 and my Kel Tec P11 get the most shooting among my autos and, so, therefore, I'm more used to 'em and they point natural for me. My Taurus 85 ain't far behind, though.

Much ado is made of "gun fit". You can't tell how a gun is going to work for you until you've put 5,000 rounds through it and have gotten used to it. And, lots of guns, especially revolvers, can be improved with aftermarket grips if you don't like the standard. I shoot the best with my Rugers, but that's because of all the practice and matches I've fired 'em in. Had I fired my Smith M10 that much, it'd likely be my favorite, my best. This is one reason I think shooting your carry guns a lot is a good thing. I don't carry the Rugers a bunch, but do that Kel Tec and that Taurus.

I will say, my single actions point higher, a good thing if you're shooting from a low position, "from the hip" as they say. I don't practice that, though, and when I shoot single actions, it's normally sighted for accuracy because they're outdoor revolvers. I have no use for point shooting with a single action. Can't hit a rabbit at 30 yards or a deer at 60 by point shooting.

[Vern Humphrey]

My definition of "pointability" would be the same as with a shotgun -- keeping your eyes on the target, bring the gun up and you should automatically be looking dowm the rib (or through the sights) at the target with no need to adjust.

[MCgunner]

But, Vern, you can change the angle of your wrist. You can't really change the geometry of your physique. Oh, I guess you could with surgery, but not me. I'd rather cut on the stock than cut on my arms, shoulder, neck. You can get used to shooting ANY grip angle. Not really so with dimensions of a shotgun.

And, I thought we were talking point shooting with eyes well above the sights, anyway. Either way, it's what you are used to and shoot all the time, repeat muscle memory.

[Vern Humphrey]

But, Vern, you can change the angle of your wrist. You can't really change the geometry of your physique. Oh, I guess you could with surgery, but not me. I'd rather cut on the stock than cut on my arms, shoulder, neck. You can get used to shooting ANY grip angle. Not really so with dimensions of a shotgun.
Actually, there are some guns you can shoot fast and well and some you cannot. There are limits to the adaptability of the body -- and especially when dealing with recoil and follow up shots.

The natural geometry of your body will put some handguns on target, and others not.

And, I thought we were talking point shooting with eyes well above the sights, anyway. Either way, it's what you are used to and shoot all the time, repeat muscle memory.
The point is, your eyes aren't "well above the sights" -- they may be looking over the sights, but the gun should be very close to an aiming position.

A shotgun gives you multiple "clues" as to where it is pointing -- shoulder, cheek, separated hands. A handgun does not -- hence it should point naturally.

[MCgunner]

Well, all I know is I have lots of handguns that come to the eye well for me. I'm not real picky. Only reason I don't like 1911s is the skinny grip. I like a gun that fills my hand. The 1911 is too small and skinny even with fat grips.

I do shoot best what I shoot the most.

[taliv]

only pistol that's ever "pointed" well for me was a Steyr S9. it's the one with the 111 degree grip angle and wacky triangular sites.

http://lundestudio.com/thumbnail/steyr-s9-left-full.jpg

i wouldn't recommend it as the be-all-end-all of pistols... but it does point well

[Shawnee]

Hi Gents...

For this thread , my idea of "pointing" is with the gun held below the shoulders and closer to the level of the lower part of the rib cage. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

:cool:

[MCgunner]

Well, from that position, most autos will tend to point low for me. Single actions and a DA revolver with a proper fit grip will be more on target because I can hold my hand up higher on the grip which raises the muzzle. BUT, if I just raise the gun up to about throat level, really doesn't matter. I can point about any handgun I own pretty instinctively. YMMV a lot on that, of course. I have actually played with this at 3 and 7 yards at the range. The SA was the best, but I don't carry a single action CCW. I practice my point shooting with my M85 Taurus from about throat level. That's the gun I have in the bedroom handy if I have to go checkin' out the house at night. In my little house, though, I've always figured any fight would be at contact range, so I'll have the gun tight to my body while I fend off the attacker with my off hand, better practice. I used to play with that in the house using those plastic bullets speer makes that are powered by a primer. Had a cardboard bullet trap. Don't get to do that much since the wife quit working, though. It was nice when I had the house to myself. LOL

[SAWBONES]

IMNSHO, the "pointability" of a gun is important and should be ascertained in advance of CCW use. Certain revolvers "point" well for me, no semiautos do.
Carry a weapon that points accurately for you.

[dourdave]

Well, when your old eyes and corective lenses do not allow focusing on the front sight, you learn to "point shoot". I strive for a 5" impact diameter at 15 feet. Self defense only !! That works well for my two carry items and generally is OK for the rest of the arsenal.

Bullseye shooting used to be fun, but so was sex.


Well, let me think about that for a minute--------

[crebralfix]

People who complain about "pointability" don't practice enough.

[Lonestar49]

Quote:
For this thread , my idea of "pointing" is with the gun held below the shoulders and closer to the level of the lower part of the rib cage. Sorry if I was unclear about that.
-----------
...

Clear now, and:

I can speak to eyes that aren't as fast as they used to be, :scrutiny: so with that bonus.. not, that the best point-aim-guns in my small herd are both 1911's, the Colt Defender 45 and the SA EMP 9mm..

Besides the grips seem the most natural for the same exact grip anytime, every time, along with, the "angle of the grip" in relation to the barrel (it tilts up), seems just right for the best, most accurate, natural point and shoot accuracy, noting that the trigger pull (SAO) is as constant, smooth, and sharp, as it gets.

1911's without doubt out of my small herd


Ls

[spiroxlii]

People who complain about "pointability" don't practice enough.

Seems that pointability was once more important to serious shooters than it is now.

Stolen from Cornered Cat's page on shooting stances (http://corneredcat.com/Basics/stance.aspx):

Jack Weaver was a Deputy Sheriff in the 1950's when he began standing this way in competition. A young Jeff Cooper quickly adopted Weaver's stance, and later popularized it at his shooting school, Gunsite. The Weaver stance was a truly radical departure from the way things were done at the time. Until Jack Weaver came along, most handgunners held the gun with one hand, and fired quickly from the hip, or from the shoulder while sighting down the extended arm. Few held the gun with both hands, and few used the sights.

[Rexster]

I am going to take issue with the comment about not practicing enough. While true on a certain level, pointability is a factor. Sure, sufficient correct practice will habituate any device to anyone's hands, but why fight nature, unless compelled to do so by something such as having to carry an issued weapon, instead of one's choice? The important thing about pointability, IMHO, is that carrying multiple weapons with different handling characteristics is probably a bad idea. Of course, using the sights will allow one to shoot any weapon well, but a weapon that points well will be ahead of the curve compared to one which points "off," and needs to be realigned once in the line of sight. And, what about fighting after getting foreign objects or something like OC spray in the eyes? Just to be clear, I DO advocate frequent and correct practice!

[MCgunner]

IMHO, point shooting a handgun is only for when you can't see the front sight, either you're in the dark or one of our elderly gents. :neener: Jeez, sex no fun? Well, I guess I ain't old after all, and I can still use the front sight even though I went to bifocals over 10 years ago. I do practice point shooting, but I'm more interested in using the sights, bringing the gun up and getting a spot on flash sight picture. When the sights fall right in line without fishing for alignment, I'm in zen with the weapon. :cool: If I can do that, I find point shooting at indoor ranges a piece of cake.

[crebralfix]

I am going to take issue with the comment about not practicing enough. While true on a certain level, pointability is a factor. Sure, sufficient correct practice will habituate any device to anyone's hands, but why fight nature, unless compelled to do so by something such as having to carry an issued weapon, instead of one's choice? The important thing about pointability, IMHO, is that carrying multiple weapons with different handling characteristics is probably a bad idea. Of course, using the sights will allow one to shoot any weapon well, but a weapon that points well will be ahead of the curve compared to one which points "off," and needs to be realigned once in the line of sight. And, what about fighting after getting foreign objects or something like OC spray in the eyes? Just to be clear, I DO advocate frequent and correct practice!

It's an excuse for failure to perform.

Almost every shooter I see on the range does NOT point shoot. Even then, I have no trouble point shooting a 1911, Glock, S&W 617, or Ruger 22/45. It's just not a big deal.

Pick up a Glock and shoot it for 30 minutes. Then pick up a 1911 and shoot it. Your groups may be a bit off because of the difference in trigger pull. The sights are regulated appropriately for the gun. If someone follows the fundamentals, both will "point" just fine...because the sights are set for the firearm.

In terms of point shooting...so what? Point shooting is about speed and putting rounds into bodies. If you're an inch off here or there, adjust appropriately through body position. Either way, his body is going to react to a bullet striking it...be it in the hand or heart. Once you find determine what "level" is for that gun, you'll remember it if you practice.

[dourdave]

For me. POINT SHOOTING is about aiming. Period.

Dave

[Mad Magyar]

Point shooting is about speed and putting rounds into bodies. If you're an inch off here or there, adjust appropriately through body position.

...the BG wouldn't know the difference.....I've known LEO's who still practice two-hand style under 3 to 5 yds and wouldn't have the slightest notion of firing 1-handed! :eek: I observe.....
I blame it on their instruction, not them....