accuracy: G17, T9 vs entry level revolver

[jlh26oo]

(Warning: Apples vs oranges vs bananas)

Because of the nature of the design of the revolver, I understand that you are going to get more accuracy for your dollar (at entry level quality) with it than you are with an auto loader.

My question is- in general, how much more should I expect to pay to get comparable accuracy as my GP100? Of course it didn't surprise me that I couldn't get as tight of groups with a G17 (maybe with an aftermarket fitted barrel it would have).

What did surprise me, is that after falling in love with this T9 from the moment I held it, then reading the performance reviews- according to which it groups on par with a glock! They refer to typical "4 + 1 auto syndrome", but in the same breath they praise it's accuracy, and Kahrs accuracy in general.

I don't compete, so I know it seems like it shouldn;t matter. Still, I don't want to take a step down in accuracy, especially if I am paying twice as much. It's just a huge part of the fun for me to see how little of the target I can damage from how far away.

So is it rare to find an auto with comparable accuracy to a revolver at sub $800 entry level (aside from 1911's, which are probably the only correct answers to this dilimma)?

Any relevant insight appreciated.

 

[ChristopherG]

No, it's not rare at all to find an entry-level semiauto that can shoot with a solid entry level revolver; but they're all .22's.

The mechanical advantage of a revolver--the fact that the sights stay in perfect alignment with the barrel every time--makes it hard for semis to keep up, and I don't think anything in the price range you note is going to be able to overcome this advantage--at least not on a consistent basis. In a rare case, maybe, but you'd have to wring out a LOT of glocks and kahrs and whatnot to find those cases. What you pay for on a high-end gun (like a custom 1911) is not only the features that make it EASIER to shoot the gun accurately (sights, trigger, grip mods, etc.), but also the tight tolerances that make it POSSIBLE to shoot it more accurately. Entry level guns just can't be economically put together with those kinds of tolerances, and still have the requisite reliability.

The exception is semiauto .22's, which can be even more accurate than their revolver counterparts because of their blow-back action. Not only do the sights stay in fixed relation to the barrel, but (unlike a wheelgun) they get to use the same chamber every time as well.

Guns like Glocks and Kahrs are not made for bullseye shooting, though, so they aren't failing to fulfill their mission by not producing inch-groups at 25 yards. The question to ask yourself as you decide whether to spend more for a high-end semi, or to use a revolver in some way, is what kind of shooting are you interested in doing?

Oh, to answer the question about 'how much': to reliably get revolver accuracy in a centerfire semi, I'd think you'd have to expect to lay out a couple of large.

 

[middy]

The only inexpensive autos with the potential of being as accurate as a revolver are blowback design, usually .380 or less in power... nothing that's going to come close to a .357 magnum.

For a bullseye auto, your only choices are high-end 1911s and SIGs AFAIK (besides all the .22 bullseye guns).

For defensive purposes, I'm quite satisfied with any handgun I can make paper-plate size groups with at 25 yards, which any halfway decent pistol can manage. Reliability is more important, IMHO.

For hunting, stick with the revolvers.

 

[perception]

I would also have to add the desert eagle lineup to the list. While not necessarily cheap or entry level, the fixed barrel design makes for an EXTREMELY accurate gun. I have only shot a desert eagle a few times, but I have never shot either a revolver or another semi as accurately.

 

[jlh26oo]

So I won't be disappointed with the accuracy of thisthing, compared to my revolver? Hope not, just ordered one this morning from buds. I didn't realize they were built differently in that regard compared to centerfire autos.

You inquire what purpose the nine would serve- well I originally wanted ONE handgun to serve as my truck gun, but to be accurate enough to have fun at the range, and cheap to shoot. I just didn't realize how much I'd be shooting, so even the wwb .38spl's weren't cheap enough in my GP100 (spending 40 bucks a week). This is why I wanted to move to a 9mm (I'm not reloading), assuming I could be just as accurate with it at the range, as that's a huge part of the fun.

But with how cheap that MKII was (346 + 25 shipping), and how cheap the ammo is, I can't justify NOT relaxing my stance on ONLY shooting the one handgun I might have to use in other circumstances. So the KMK678GC it is. I just refuse to be a "collector". No offense.

I'm still selling my revolver if I can find a similarly accurate 9mm. So DE's are fixed barrel also? They kind of have a stigma attached to them (in my head, can't really explain it), but if they make a 9mm, I'll look into them.

Thanks.

 

[ChristopherG]

The ruger won't dissappoint. The Desert Eagle, though, isn't made in a 9mm; its fixed barrel design runs off gas pressures that demand magnum loads, like 357, 41, and 44. If anyone makes a fixed-barrel 9 (in a handgun), I'm unaware of it.

If economy and accuracy are both concerns, you might consider taking up reloading. You can produce ammo for your GP100 that will outshoot anything you can buy for 5 or 6 bucks a hundred after your set-up costs. I've said before, that the perfect first centerfire handgun is a 357 revoler; and the perfect second gun is a reloading press.

 

[WarMachine]

If anyone makes a fixed-barrel 9 (in a handgun), I'm unaware of it.

The HK P7 series were all fixed barrel guns.

 

[ChristopherG]

Dang, you're totally right, WarMachine. They're great guns--though it'd be a pretty lucky day to find one for 800 bucks. Fixed barrel, excellent accuracy, sweet handling gun, in the neighborhood of a g.

 

[Shear_stress]

It's true that a good revolver will usually have some accuracy advantage over most tilt-barrel semi-autos. However, the average, or even above-average shooter will be not able to tell the difference. Most shooters simply do not operate near the edge of their guns' capability. I know I don't. If you can regularly shoot 1-2" groups offhand at 25 yards, than you may need more gun than 800 bucks is going to buy you.

 

[jlh26oo]

Well I can put all six shots in less than a 2" diameter circle from 25 yards with my GP100, but only by resting on sandbags. Not even close standing up. I know that's not impressive, but if I shoot a less accurate gun, I can't even do that well. So even though I'm not pushing the limits of my gun's accuracy, I think more accurate guns help even novice shooters to a certain extent.

I bet that H&K is indeed bad ass, but whether I'm ready for it or not, I won't be shelling a grand for anything. I just bought a 9mm yesterday at the gunshow that I know will DEFINITELY NOT be as accurate as my revolver, but at least I know I am getting what I paid for- It was a new P89 for $289 out the door. Since it was so cheap, it won't burn me as much that I won't be able to shoot as accurately with it (so long as it works). It only would have been a burn had I spent six or $700 on something expecting it to shoot at least as well as my $400 GP. These aren't fair comparisons, I know. Just how I'm geared.

And I can live with a turd 9mm because I'll still have my mkII for economy target accuracy. Whenever it gets here that is (was supposed to be shipped friday- still no tracking number to be found in my inbox ).

It's good to know that there is something for about a grand that is built with a fixed barrel. Maybe in the future.

 

[shooter1]

If you really must have a fixed barrel 9mm------------there's always the Hi-Point.
str1
By the by, most of my 9mms will shoot 3" or less at 25yds-------not a fixed barrel in the bunch!