3rd-gen Smith shooters--what kind of accuracy are you getting?


PDA






Deus Machina
February 18, 2009, 02:44 PM
Replacing my CCW--a S&W 469--as soon as I can find another gun I like. I love the gun, it points naturally and it always fires, but it's got a habit of shooting 4" low at 7 yards, and the groups are worse than my Ruger Mk3's at 25. I won't even try shooting at 25 with the Smith.

CZ's are at the top of my list. Try something different, you know? But the local shows always have some 6904's, 6906's, and sometimes even new-in-box third-gens of various sorts.

So, of the compact third-gen 9mm's--preferably ones I can still use my 15-round mags in--could I expect them to shoot as well as a CZ, or at least where I point them?

If you enjoyed reading about "3rd-gen Smith shooters--what kind of accuracy are you getting?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Rob P.
February 18, 2009, 03:20 PM
My 3d gen 6906 gives me 10 shot groups of 3"-5" (unless the shooter screws up). It can give me these groups from 3 yds to 25 yds all day long (unless the shooter screws up or gets tired).

One thing you can try is shooting from a sandbag or fixed bench rest and see what size groups you get. If you're not getting good accuracy then either the shooter is messing up or the weapon needs attention from someone who knows how to accurize it.

MachIVshooter
February 18, 2009, 04:19 PM
what kind of accuracy are you getting?

Excellent. I own 6 third gens, and they're about the most accurate DA combat auto's I've ever fired, easily printing under 3 inches at 50 ft., save the CS 45 (it probably could, but I can't)

ir3e971
February 18, 2009, 04:28 PM
With my 5906, while shooting fairly rapidly at 25 feet I get about a 3" average group.

If I slow down and take my time I get much better groups.

This is using lead reloads.

I think any accuracy failings that are occuring are probably mostly my fault.

Deus Machina
February 18, 2009, 07:40 PM
Well, I originally thought "I need more practice," but I get pretty good groupings out of my Ruger .22, and the Smith just isn't.

Shooting from a rested position, the groupings to shrink, but it still shoots low and with a spread.

It did tighten up after a recrown and de-coppering the bore. I believe it--but can't confirm it--to be the locking area on the frame, because it's quite obviously worn. Only to be expected on aluminum parts as old as I am, of course.

GRIZ22
February 18, 2009, 08:33 PM
Shooting from a rested position, the groupings to shrink, but it still shoots low and with a spread.


It could be you are mashing the trigger bringing the strike of the round down. you also may be "pushing" the muzzle down in anticipation of the recoil.

Deus Machina
February 18, 2009, 09:18 PM
I've checked that. I shoot to point of aim with my .22, my friend's .45, and every revolver I've used. If I line the sights with the third serration down instead of the top of the front sight, the groups center at the bullseye, too consistently to be rough compensation for a flinch.

My 9mm, on the other hand, shoots low from three different shooters, including me. And the other two, I know aren't recoil-shy.

I've purposely narrowed down to what it isn't, and what's my fault.

I do have a habit of jerking the shot a little to the right, only in part because the trigger's release is so far back.

GRIZ22
February 18, 2009, 09:58 PM
File down the front sight.

The Lone Haranguer
February 18, 2009, 10:54 PM
A 5904 I once owned was, shall we say, "combat adequate" accurate. My 3913LS shoots one-hole groups in slow fire, hand held. Both shot to point of aim.

Deus Machina
February 18, 2009, 10:57 PM
It's not just a matter of it shooting low.

the groups are worse than my Ruger Mk3's at 25.

Even rested, and careful not to do my right-side jerk, the groups are rarely as good at 7 yards as my Ruger's at 25, shot offhand with Thunderbolts.

That's barely 'good enough' for an SD gun, IMO, and considering the adrenaline involved in an SD situation, I'm wanting something that I can be more comfortable with in regards to my responsibility for my fire.

rhartwell
February 19, 2009, 07:53 AM
my 6906 is a lot more accurate then I am

Storm
February 19, 2009, 08:23 AM
I won a dozen or so 3rd Gen Smiths (and a bunch of 2nd Gens) and I find them to all be excellent accurate shooters (on par with waht is being reported here) varying a bit from gun to gun and caliber to caliber. Possibly most accurate is my 3913 for a 9mm and my 645 (2nd Gen) for a .45.

I'm not sure what subcompact you'd be able to use your 469 mags with. That was the beauty of the Mini Gun, so much capacity in such a small package. BTW, my 469 is the one gun that really gives my 3913 a run for its money in terms of accuracy. The gun is a tack driver shooting pretty much point of aim. I have a 669 that I just had refinished that I haven't fired yet, so it will be interesting to see how it stacks up next to the 469.

One of the big pluses of the 3rd Gen guns over some of the 2nd Gen guns is that quality and performance became more consistent with the 3rd Gen guns, or so I'm told, and have found. While I greatly value my 2nd Gen guns I am considerably more careful in choosing one than I would be with a 3rd Gen gun.

jackstinson
February 19, 2009, 08:35 AM
My 6946 is more accurate than I am.

SwampWolf
February 19, 2009, 06:17 PM
From my 6906, decent (3" five-shot groups @ 25 yards); from my 945, superb ( 1" or so five-shot groups @ 25 yards), all from a hand-held rest over a sandbag.

If you enjoyed reading about "3rd-gen Smith shooters--what kind of accuracy are you getting?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!