Recently I sold both of my 10 mm pistols, which were cool but not working out for me. The EAA/Tanfo Hunter was nice off a rest, but I could not control my flinch when standing on my hind legs! Looking to go down to a 9 mm. I don't really compete, just want something for casual Bullseye-type shooting with friends (we alternate between one- and two-handed stances, but both in boring old Bullseye match structure). I'm never going to be very good (you should see how much "essential tremor" I have...barf), but I'm somewhat serious about improving enough to stay ahead of my wife, if possible, who just took up shooting a few months ago and is improving rapidly! I doubt I'll get into any run-and-gun games, although stranger things have happened... I abhor the common argument "the gun is more accurate than I can shoot," since even if I can only hold a 4" group at 25 yards, a gun that mechanically shoots 0.75" at that range is going to score me plenty more points than one that shoots 2". (A 0.75" shooter vs. a 1" shooter? Well, yeah, there maybe we're looking at diminishing returns.) My current contenders are the Dan Wesson PM9 and the CZ Custom Accu Shadow Lite. Both are a few bucks more than my ideal price point, but not a problem if they pay off in performance. How do they compare in the following regards? 1. Mechanical accuracy, meaning what the gun does from a Ransom Rest. 2. Practical accuracy, meaning how much difference a barely halfway decent shooter is going to find between them because of things like trigger quality, recoil management, sight radius and other ergonomic factors. 3. Resale value, just in case I decide I made a mistake. The least important issue, but could be a tie-breaker.