Engineered Accuracy? How?

Status
Not open for further replies.
robinkevin

robinkevin

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
482
Location
Northern Kentucky
Tonight I went to range and decided to rent a few pistols I haven't tried out yet. I recently bought my first 9mm (SW Shield) but wanted to try out some full size pistols. I recently had tried Glock 19 which I found to group decent and be a decent shooter even with the stock sights. So tonight I first tried a Beretta M9. I found myself unimpressed with the single action trigger pull and the group left a lot to be desired especially compared to my small Shield. Next figured I'd try out the pistol that replace it the Sig M17. Holy cow did that pistol impressed me. First mag I shot a ragged 2 inch hole at 15 yards with exception of 1 flyer which was me going a little too quick and jerk the trigger. The accuracy difference between these two pistols amazed me with the Glock I shot before being somewhere between little more towards the Sig.

This brings me to the discussion I wish to start. What is Sig doing to get so much more accuracy out of their pistols? I can't say it's the trigger. Though nice it's not really much different than the Glock and certainly not a 1911. Sights are nice but sights alone make that big a difference? I m not so sure... So is it the barrel, ergonomics, maybe a little of everything? Give me your opinions or expertise on the topic.
 
I’ve owned Glock, Sig Sauer, S&W, FN, H&K, CZ but what I’ve learned is if it doesn’t fit the hand you’ll never get it to shoot well for you. I don’t shoot round grip platforms like XD very well, others love them. Obviously you’ve found the right fit earlier than most, congrats!
 
Labguy47 said:
I’ve owned Glock, Sig Sauer, S&W, FN, H&K, CZ but what I’ve learned is if it doesn’t fit the hand you’ll never get it to shoot well for you. I don’t shoot round grip platforms like XD very well, others love them. Obviously you’ve found the right fit earlier than most, congrats!
Click to expand...

Ergonomics could be part of it for sure. But think there's got to be more to it... Maybe not. Only more shooting will tell I guess. Any other pistols similar to Sig in ergonomics that could perhaps test the theory?
 
There are two components to handgun precision (if we leave out ammunition).

The first is the mechanical precision of the gun itself. If you really want to measure the mechanical precision of the gun you need to fire it from a machine rest to eliminate the human factor. The second is the human factor -- related to ergonomics, including how the gun fits your hand and how well you can manage the trigger.

So what you were really measuring is how well you shoot those particular guns. I've found that frequently if I pick up a sort of gun with which I'm not familiar I might very well shoot some pretty unimpressive groups. But then if I work at shooting the gun I can significantly improve my performance with it.

In addition, I've found that certain types of guns are easier for me to achieve a better level of performance more quickly. For example, I've generally found that 1911s were fairly easy to shoot well. On the other hand, the first time I shot an H&K P7M8 I had just bought, I wasn't very happy with my shooting. But after some serious practice with that gun I was shooting it as well as my favorite 1911s.

Of course sometimes other factors can come into play. For example, sometimes rental guns are shot a great deal and might not be very well maintained.

So in general I've found that quality guns from reputable manufactures are all capable of being shot with a high degree of precision. But for reasons idiosyncratic to the shooter some types of guns might have a longer learning curve
 
robinkevin said:
So tonight I first tried a Beretta M9. I found myself unimpressed with the single action trigger pull and the group left a lot to be desired especially compared to my small Shield. Next figured I'd try out the pistol that replace it the Sig M17. Holy cow did that pistol impressed me.
Click to expand...
I have a Beretta M9 and a Sig M17 and the comparison is interesting. The first point of contrast is that the Beretta has a DA/SA trigger whereas the Sig has a consistent pull that is somewhere in between the two. That alone makes a difference in how well you can shoot it. Secondly, the Beretta's DA pull is way too heavy. Substituting a Beretta 92D hammer spring (which has about 1/2" shorter free length) makes a lot of difference in taming that trigger pull. With that alteration alone, the Beretta becomes much more comparable to the Sig.

Another major difference is in the safeties. The Beretta has a decocking safety which disengages the firing pin and then drops the hammer. This can be disconcerting. You can remove the hammer release lever and substitute a spacer from the 92D. If you do that, the slide-mounted safety doesn't drop the hammer, but it still disengages the firing pin. The safety doesn't block the trigger, so you can still drop the hammer (safely) by pulling the trigger. The Sig M17 manual safety does block the trigger, but does nothing else. A lot of people say that these kinds of guns (the Beretta and the Sig) don't really need a manual safety at all. I personally prefer to have it.
 
I would guess that an experienced, trained and talented shooter can get better accuracy performance out of any handgun above the “average” person (ie, a professional NASCAR driver can hop in either of my vehicles and drive them more skillfully than I can right off the bat). In turn, a highly engineered handgun (ie, precision made for accuracy) should shoot better in anyone's hands over a standard production grade handgun (all other things being equal).
The above two generalizations should hold true most of the time - shooting skill and precision production (when combined) should always produce better accuracy results all of the time.
 
Yup, it's all additive.
Good sights help. A good trigger helps. Good balance helps. Precise machining helps, assuming you're good enough to make it a considerable variable.
A good fit really helps, in that it makes it easier to keep the sights aligned, the trigger under control (or in that fighting it doesn't move it around), and everything else becomes more obvious.
For instance, I did just fine with my CZ PCR. It fit me perfectly. But even with my friend's nice Beretta 92, with its larger frame and the wraparound grips my friend loved, I'm lucky to hit a trash can. I just can't hold the thing right.
 
.I shot the Beretta in single action not even bothering with double action. Trigger weights I believe doing this way are all within a pound of each other with my Shield which I actually shoot about with the same proficiency as Glock 19 being the heaviest of them I am comparing but also smallest. It was also on par in my hands with it's big brother M&P 9. But back to the topic on hand the Sig M17 stock has about a 5# trigger. Of course with it being a rental gun I am sure it has many rounds through it and as such probably a little lighter than a stock one?

Never really thought about the fit helping with minimizing movement during trigger squeeze. But that is definitely an interesting observation. More testing will definitely be required, next week I may shoot some different Sigs to see how they do. The only other Sig I have tried was the small P365 when shopping for a conceal carry pistol. It was nice shooter too but not much different than the Shield which I ultimately chose due to fit and a good bundle sale which landed me extra mags...

I guess what I am wondering most is if the biggest factor is fit than that's something I should be able to able to strive for is getting my skill level to the point where I can shoot any pistol just as well?
 
In theory, the Sig P250/P320/M17 has alternate grip modules in small, medium, and large sizes (circumferences). In practice, the market availability of the odd sizes is next to nil. So this supposed selling point really isn't. But, it is said that the medium grip module will be OK with 95% of hands. I'm not sure about that.

In addition to the circumference, the grip modules come in various lengths -- full, carry, compact, and sub-compact. So (again in theory), the grip choices could be mind-boggling.

(The issue M17 comes with a full-length slide and a medium "carry" grip module, for whatever that's worth. It's clunky as a brick. Put a standard M1911 next to it and the M1911 seems small by comparison.)
 
With a range rental gun, there's also the possibility than an individual example (such as the Beretta you shot) might just be shot-out. Lockup might be loose, barrel might be worn nearly smoothbore, etc. That's less likely with the Sig, which hasn't existed for very long, whereas M9's have been available for decades. Is that the case in your particular example? I have no idea, but rental range guns absolutely can get shot out.
 
Keep in mind that you were renting the pistols and their condition and wear of the bore may have something to do with it. The M9 has been around forever, the M17 is relatively new, so the M9 rental could have a lot more "miles" on it.

That said. The few times I've had the pleasure of shooting Sig hand guns, I always felt like they were very high quality firearms.
 
robinkevin said:
Ergonomics could be part of it for sure. But think there's got to be more to it... Maybe not. Only more shooting will tell I guess. Any other pistols similar to Sig in ergonomics that could perhaps test the theory?
Click to expand...

S&W 5906, BHPs, Kimber
 
I don't know that it's all in the ergonomics (and count me among those that believe SIG rules this factor in production pistols, along with CZ, the 1911 and the BHP), but it's my subjective opinion (garnered over almost 50 years of shooting handguns) that SIG pistols are, out of the box, typically more accurate that almost ever other production pistol out there that doesn't cost a whole lot more.
 
I sometimes wonder about that myself. I have more than a dozen 9MM pistols. Three of them are S&W 5906's and one of them in particular will shoot twice as good than any of my other 9MM's. It came to me as a PD turn in that was ridden hard and put up wet as well as "stove to crap" along with the checkering worn almost non existent on the grips. I never did anything other than detail strip and clean it as it shoots so well now. No sense messing up a good thing IMO.
 
Mechanical accuracy needs a vice to be truly checked. It is largely based on the barrel and the lockup and fit of the firearm. A gun with an exceptional barrel that due to a poor fit lockups and sits in a different place each time (a major source of variance with a browning tilt breech action like that on the Glock) will not show anything close to the potential of the barrel.

Sig's usually have good barrels. So do Beretta's. For that matter Glock barrels in a test fixture usually shoot pretty dang well too. Where a glock looses out is on fit, dropping in either a bushing, or fitting an oversized barrel can dramatically tighten up the Glocks groups at the cost of some reliability.

The second major point of accuracy for a given shooter is the ergonomics. Beretta's usually have horrible sights compared to modern service sights. Something as simple as updating the sights can make the gun massively more accurate for a given shooter.

Overall the M17 is a modern design, with all the benefits of almost 30 years of design and technology compared to the Beretta and the Glock. In a test fixture, all three in good condition, they well probably all be similar in group size. As far as actually shooting them, I'd definitely give the edge to the M17.
 
So after reading opinions on ergonomics, I started taking a serious look into the aspects that ergonomics affect barrel movement during trigger pull. Sideways forces applied to the pistol is the enemy and usually caused by grip and trigger pull. I determine I had a very solid grip putting even pressure on the pistol.

However I noticed that I had gotten into a bad habit of placing my trigger finger to the first knuckle and during dry firing theory test notice this affecting sight movement. Continuing with dry fire I readjust to middle of finger pad and notice much less sight movement. I then tested this theory with bb pistols the garage and saw great improvement with those pistols.

My next test will be with live fire at the range this coming weekend but feel confident that I have found a major factor. I believe the M17 ergonomics corrected my finger placement without me realizing it and that along with little help here and there from variables mention above is why I saw such a vast difference.

Overall I feel like I just experienced a eureka moment that allow me to make huge stride in my marksmanship. I thank you all for joining in on the conversation in answering this question.
 
robinkevin said:
I guess what I am wondering most is if the biggest factor is fit than that's something I should be able to able to strive for is getting my skill level to the point where I can shoot any pistol just as well?
Click to expand...
Fit of the gun to your hand isn't the biggest factor. It isn't even a very important one as long as it isn't so small or so large as to impede the operation of the selected pistol. It only becomes a larger influence when you want to run a pistol at speed.

What allows you to optimally utilize multiple platforms is correct trigger management.

As to the platforms you've mentioned. I've owned and shot them all.
The Beretta's advantage is that it has a non-dropping/tilting barrel which allows the barrel to stay in the same plane during recoil...it's just smoother.
The Glock's claim to fame is reliability. It's accuracy downfall is that the front of it's barrel isn't supported within the slide to aid in consistent lockup and the "wall" at the end of it's trigger travel
The M17 barrel is stabilized at the front by how the slide is drilled and it has a cleaner trigger release.

If you think the SIG fits your hand the best, you should try out the X-series grip module
 
Sounds to me like you found a gun that has a good trigger release weight for you, and fits you well. I do well with the Beretta,
Others love the 1911, and are really accurate with it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Accuracy vs. precision
2 3 4 5
Replies
107
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
illinoisburt
  • Locked
Real World Accuracy & Shooting Fun
Replies
9
Views
1K
Jack B.
Jack B.
P
  • Locked
Intermediate range accuracy
Replies
7
Views
795
cratz2
C
H
  • Locked
Sight Radius vs Accuracy?
Replies
16
Views
4K
lysanderxiii
L
Palladan44
  • Locked
Barrel cleanliness and accuracy
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
.38 Special
.38 Special
Back
Top