Who said I was worrying about the gun? How do you make this stuff up?
Well, you do seem awfully concerned about the trigger, recoil and the sights, and it seemed like "worry" to me, so hows that making it up if youre the one throwing it out there?
Look I'm 78 years old and have been shooting most of my life and your not going to convince me that a gun with an inferior trigger, poorer sights and more felt recoil is going to shoot more accurately or with as fast followup shots under stressful or none stressful conditions. You can say it but I've been shooting for too many years and I know it's not true!
Let me ask you this, how exactly do you "shoot"? What type of targets, in what way? Its sounding more and more, were talking two different things here.
I normally shoot from concealment, from my holster, waistband, coat pocket, etc, or a SUL position too on occasion, and often while moving off line while doing so. I dont shoot "bullseye" targets, or in "bullseye" fashion. Most of my shooting with guns like the Seecamp, LCP, P238, etc, are done from 10 yards and in, and usually closer than farther. More often than not, with the gun just drawn, thrust out, and fired one handed, with no use of the sights. Focus is entirely on the target, and I'm not thinking about the trigger or recoil or usually the sights, though I do tend to use them (if they are there) as the distance opens up. They are after all "belly" guns and meant for close range fast shooting at a close targets. Even so, they usually do very well when shot that way.
These were the last two I shot with both the P238 and LCP together. Same day, time, and ammo, distance was about 8-10 yards. The first target was the P238, which had more rounds fired on it as I was trying to see if I could get it to function properly. Some of the tighter groups were fired "slow fire" with a different lot of ammo, to confirm POA/POI, hence the tighter groups. The rest were fired as described above. The second target was the LCP, and all were fired "point and shoot" at the same distance, and some while moving.
For some reason, with POA the same, the POI of the P238 was always a little high for me compared to the LCP. Not a big deal, but you can see it.
I see nothing there that makes one that much more than the other, when shot similarly, and most if not all of those "hits" would have worked, especially since they were fired in pairs or threes. While I dont have the targets fired by the LCP to confirm POA/POI using the LCP's "minimal" sights, it too fired similar groups as the P238 when fired that way.
P238
LCP
When the Seecamp was basically the only game in town I would have and actually did want one until Kel-Tec began building the locked breech P-32 which was absolutely reliable for me.
I've owned a couple of P32's as well, and no longer have them. One was OK, for the most part, the other was a constant problem, and made a couple of trips back for repair. That turned me off to them. The Seecamps on the other hand, have both been 100% reliable, and always very shootable, even without sights.
I know, I know now your going to tell me how much better built the Seecamp is
Lets face it, the Seecamps are the pistol all the others wish they were, and really got the whole thing started, when it comes to "small" pistols that work and work well.
but I'd rather shoot a locked breech pistol with lower felt recoil than a micro sized blowback pistol any day.
I suppose its just a matter of what we like or dont like or are not concerned with. I dont find the recoil of either to be anything to worry about, and I really dont notice it when I shoot. Its not like shooting my Airweight J frames, which I do start to quickly notice when I practice with them and my hand begins to protest. I can shoot the .32's and .380's for a couple of hundred rounds with no problem or hint of pain.
