is it the trigger or the long barrel and sight radius?

[westernrover]

I recently asked a question, "do short barrels draw faster?" I had read advice from the past that suggested the snub-nosed revolver was "quicker to get into action" from concealment than guns with a longer barrel (like 4" automatics or 6" revolvers). This is drawing from IWB concealment, not a duty holster or a race gun holster. And this advice came from before shot timers existed. The discussion is in that thread, but my next related question, the answer to which is probably more subjective than what shot timers can tell us, is:

What's more important to making good, fast hits on your target with the first shot: a good trigger or a long barrel?

Let me define what I mean by "good trigger" vs. "demanding trigger." Let's not bother discussing crap triggers. A good trigger would be a short, crisp single-action trigger on a fine 1911, a CZ Shadow 2, or a hand-tuned revolver with an action job. A demanding trigger would be double-action trigger on a factory S&W, a Beretta 92FS or SIG P226. I imagine a good trigger on a polymer striker would be somewhere in-between.

But what about longer sight radius and longer barrels? A longer barrel is easier to point accurately even if you don't acquire sight picture, and a long sight radius is easier to be precise with than a very short one.

So what's easier to learn to shoot accurately? A snub-nose revolver with a crisp single-action trigger or a 6"-barrelled revolver shot in double-action? A single-action Kimber micro, Mustang, P238, or a 92FS from decock?

I can't answer the question from my limited experience. I have a steel DAO snubby and a long-barreled SA. I'm not incompetent with either, but I find shooting the big gun accurately much easier. Whether I'm point-shooting a milk jug at 4 yards or a soda can at 20 yards, it's far easier to make fast hits every single time with the bigger gun. That shouldn't be surprising. But how much of it is the trigger and how much is the long barrel and sight radius? I suppose to find out for myself, I'll have to get a snubby that can be cocked or a long-barreled DA or both. What do you suppose?

 

[DaStray]

If I had to guess, I`d say a good trigger although the speed difference between a snubby and 6" barrel would probably be measured at less than a second if you`re reasonably proficient with the gun. That being said, if you`ve had extensive practice then it shouldn`t make that much difference once the smoke clears.
I`d think that the most difference would be at what range the hypothetical shooter would be shooting at...4 yards or 20 yards? At 4 yards even a "demanding trigger" would be easy to score hits with whereupon at 20 yards most of us mortals would have to slow down a bit ( a lot for me) to score hits.

 

[9mmepiphany]

What's more important to making good, fast hits on your target with the first shot: a good trigger or a long barrel?

Based on the above, it sounds like you're referring to making hits after drawing the gun from a holster, But...

A good trigger would be a short, crisp single-action trigger on a fine 1911, a CZ Shadow 2, or a hand-tuned revolver with an action job. A demanding trigger would be double-action trigger on a factory S&W, a Beretta 92FS or SIG P226.

...the above leads me to believe that you're referring taking a carefully aimed (slow) shot. At speed, in competition, at up to 50 yards, it is just as easy to be accurate with any of these pistols

It has been proven over half a century ago that trigger type makes no difference in making an accurate first shot from the holster.

Ultimate accuracy at speed is determined by trigger management. A heavier barrel allows you to index the gun easier. A longer sight radius allows you to see aiming errors easier. The first adds speed, the second tends to slow newer shooters down.

So what's easier to learn to shoot accurately? A snub-nose revolver with a crisp single-action trigger or a 6"-barrelled revolver shot in double-action?

This is a separate question. A longer barrel that allows you to see your errors more easily makes corrections easier

 

[murf]

the heavier handgun will be more accurate. a longer barrel will be more accurate. a better trigger will be more accurate. best way to find out what's most accurate is to shoot and compare.

luck,

murf

 

[westernrover]

....At speed, in competition, at up to 50 yards, it is just as easy to be accurate with any of these pistols....

It has been proven over half a century ago that trigger type makes no difference in making an accurate first shot from the holster.

Thanks for the response. You lost me. I understand there may be a difference between concealed carry self-defense and competition. But it seems you've indicated that all of the triggers are easy to be accurate in competition and that trigger type makes no difference in the first shot from a holster. Can you elaborate? I'm particularly interested in concealed carry, self-defense and "practical" competition that attempts to be at least partially relevant to the street -- so like IDPA or if it's IPSC, then revolver or production not open division. I'm not so much interested in competition as what it might teach us about the equipment.

 

[westernrover]

It has been proven over half a century ago that trigger type makes no difference in making an accurate first shot from the holster.

I don't know what you're referring to, but I imagine there must have been some evaluation of the M9 compared to the M1911 based on the proposition that the DA first shot could be inferior to the M1911's SA trigger. Presumably, the result justified the adoption of the M9. But if that's true, then what has precipitated the proliferation of striker guns if it's not an advantage in the trigger?

 

[Hookeye]

I'm pretty picky on my gun's grip.
1911 for me needs an arched MS housing.
Like Hogue rubber grips on revolvers.

 

[bersaguy]

I think between the two, it depends on the shooter. A long barrel on a handgun with a heavy trigger, the mass and sight radius may mitigate the tendency to pull off target where a light, crisp trigger may mitigate the trouble of keeping a short barreled gun lined up through the sights. But take a gun like the Taurus TCP...long, mushy, heavy trigger, short barrel, nearly non existent sights...I have to really concentrate to hit center target. It will do it, just not fast. Just depends on what works better for you. Best in my opinion is a moderately hefty gun with a 5" barrel and a crisp single action trigger...now if I only knew of a platform like that....

 

[9mmepiphany]

But it seems you've indicated that all of the triggers are easy to be accurate in competition and that trigger type makes no difference in the first shot from a holster. Can you elaborate?

That is exactly what they proved back in the 60s at the birth of what we lump together as Action Pistol competition.

It doesn't matter is the pistol is SAO or DAO, or even if it is a SAA which needed to be thumb cocked. None were able to produce a clear superiority to any other in the speed to a first accurate shot...because the time needed to present the gun from the holster, bring it to eye level and push it to extension was more time than needed to prep the trigger to fire an accurate shot as the hands/arms reached full extension.

Obviously if the shooter isn't using the optimal technique and waiting until their arms were extended before looking for the sights or prepping the trigger, there would be more of a difference.

I run a revolver in IDPA and have no problem being competitive over a course of fire with folks running a 1911 or a striker fired pistol...certainly not in my Classification. Where they have an advantage is in the number of rounds they reload with and the speed of the reload of proficient shooters

 

[9mmepiphany]

I imagine there must have been some evaluation of the M9 compared to the M1911 based on the proposition that the DA first shot could be inferior to the M1911's SA trigger.

I doubt that ever came up. The adoption of the M9 was based more on logistics and politics

Presumably, the result justified the adoption of the M9. But if that's true, then what has precipitated the proliferation of striker guns if it's not an advantage in the trigger?

Reliability and ease of maintenance of the platform in the field and ease of training

 

[Labguy47]

To quote Days of Thunder “Smooth is fast, and on the edge of out of control!” The other good piece of advice I usually give is consintrate on the front sight. That’s where the lead is gonna go.

It is a record of fact that most gunfights are 3 rounds in 3 feet in under 3 seconds.

 

[tipoc]

I don't know what you're referring to, but I imagine there must have been some evaluation of the M9 compared to the M1911 based on the proposition that the DA first shot could be inferior to the M1911's SA trigger. Presumably, the result justified the adoption of the M9. But if that's true, then what has precipitated the proliferation of striker guns if it's not an advantage in the trigger?

Price. The original purchase price is lower (reflecting a lower cost of production). The cost of parts is lower. The cost of routine maintenance is lower. They also work as they should.

It was found that shooting well with a da/sa pistol was no harder than shooting well with a double action revolver. Both have enabled good shooters to shoot well. It's the mechanic and not the wrench that does the work.

 

[9mmepiphany]

It is a record of fact that most gunfights are 3 rounds in 3 feet in under 3 seconds.

Bear in mind that this is an average figure based on FBI collection of data.

The average is a bit skewed by suicides which usually end with 1 shot at 0 feet and 0 seconds

 

[tipoc]

But what about longer sight radius and longer barrels? A longer barrel is easier to point accurately even if you don't acquire sight picture, and a long sight radius is easier to be precise with than a very short one.

The above is often said, very often said, but is only theoretically true. In practice shorter barrels are just as accurate and sometimes more so. It's easy to prove this.

A 2" barrel can be just as accurate out to 100 yards or so, sometimes more, as an 8" barrel. It will vary some on caliber and gun of course.

Pick up a gun and aim it at something. The barrel will wobble. It always wobbles. That wobble will be more pronounced in a longer barrel than a shorter. That's true of handguns just as it is of pool cues or a stick. If there is an error in your aim it has the potential to be magnified with a longer barrel. This is also true of any shooter errors like anticipating the shot, in the various forms that that takes. Meaning pushing forward just as you pull the trigger, gripping the gun harder as you pull the trigger, etc. The longer barrel can magnify this error down range.

In the pre-war period bulls eye shooters knew this and had heavier barrels made for their guns or added weights to the barrel. King's Gunsight Co. of San Francisco, Ca. was a innovative leader in this. This extra weight up front helped dampen the natural wobble of a gun held in one hand, or even two. In the post war period both Colt (with the Python) and S&W went to heavier barrels just for this purpose. It also helped in recoil management. It can't eliminate the wobble just dampens it. That wobble it less an issue with a shorter barrel. Particularly at speed where we index off the sights rather than shooting through them.

tipoc

 

[Hookeye]

I think it different.......longer bbls make for finer aiming, and the extra weight lessens wobbles.
However, the long bbl does mean longer bullet time of flight in said bbl, and that can magnify shooter variability.
Nothing is for free LOL

 

[Pat Riot]

What's more important to making good, fast hits on your target with the first shot: a good trigger or a long barrel?

For me, it’s a good trigger. But, it’s also knowing my firearms and practicing with them.

 

[luzyfuerza]

I once compared a Kimber Classic (5" government model with a nice trigger in 45 acp) and a Glock 36 (single stack baby Glock with 3 3/4" barrel in 45 acp) by shooting several of the old IDPA classifiers over a period of a couple of weeks from leather IWB holsters, with concealment, using my reloads.

My total scores with the Kimber were a couple of seconds better than with the baby Glock, but not really enough to matter.

In those tests, neither barrel length nor trigger (nor weight, grip size, sights, 1911 safety, nor a myriad of other subtle differences) mattered enough to make a real difference.

The ONLY real variable that matters is your skill level, and your skill level only changes as a result of a commitment to dry and live practice of proper techniques.

Within reason, it really IS the indian, NOT the bow or arrow.

 

[ATLDave]

There's a lot of stuff in here to unpack. There's at least three potential uses of "accurate" being thrown around in here, each of which is quite different than the others:
1) Pure mechanical accuracy - how accurately a gun can be shot by a perfect human, or out of some kind of fixed rest;
2) Human-influenced accuracy - how small a group a person can shoot with a given gun; and
2) Combat-practical accuracy - how easy it is to get repeated hits on a single target or hits on different targets "at speed."

Barrel length doesn't really have anything to do with #1. Barrel length will have some impact on #2 for one of two reasons: longer sight radius allows extra precision in sight alignment* and the extra inertia of the barrel's weight tends to "tamp down" some of the wobble - to a point. Trigger crispness and, to some degree, weight, will have a similar impact - little or none on #1, more on #2.

#3 is where a lot of stuff starts to come together. That's where extra weight out front - to a point - and its ability to tamp down recoil pays big dividends. Similarly, time to first shot isn't where the big payoff for a nice trigger is... it's hammering out fast splits (short times between shots) where all the attention is on the sights and target, no consciously on manipulating the trigger carefully. This is part of why the DA/SA model continues to do very well in USPSA/IPSC-type competitions (in divisions where 1911-style SAO triggers are not allowed by the equipment rules); yes, the initial shot of the stage is a little more challenging with the long and somewhat heavy trigger, but all the subsequent shots get the benefit of a "nicer" trigger than the striker guns.

But a lot of #3 is personally variable. Some people like 4.25" guns because they find they transition a little faster - either because they can start they swinging more easily, or because they find less "overswinging" that requires "coming back" to the 2nd target. Other people like a 5.5" gun for the sight radius and recoil reduction, which helps with faster splits. But there are basically no shooters in that game using barrels under 4" and few using barrels beyond 6" (excluding compensators as part of barrel length in open guns and the 6.5" barrel length on S&W 929 revolvers). Most people tend to gravitate towards 4.5-5.5" guns in the iron-sighted divisions. This suggests that somewhere in there is likely to be the optimal barrel length for rapid shooting with some accuracy.

*Because a longer sight radius will make equivalent off-target-axis deviations show up as a larger deviation from equal-height-equal-light sight pictures compared to a shorter sight radius.

 

[ATLDave]

I run a revolver in IDPA and have no problem being competitive over a course of fire with folks running a 1911 or a striker fired pistol...certainly not in my Classification. Where they have an advantage is in the number of rounds they reload with and the speed of the reload of proficient shooters

But, even aside from the capacity, there is no doubt that your gun is testing your skill more critically than, say, a 1911. Revolvers can be run very fast and accurately.... but for any particular level of speed and accuracy, it takes more shooter skill to keep the sights on target while managing the long trigger pull, and ripping off fast splits at close targets requires a stronger finger.

I mean, I love shooting revolvers DA-style. I do it pretty much every time I go to the range. I find it is helpful to all of my shooting... in the same way that swinging a weighted club makes a regular golf club feel very light and easy to swing fast!

It's funny to me that revolvers are so often presented as good "beginner" guns, given that they are the most demanding, in terms of shooter skill, of all the practically-useful handgun types. Take two totally new shooters who have never fired a round before. Give a good instructor 3 hours with each of them, and give them 3,000 rounds to practice. Now have them shoot against one another under some kind of hit-factor or time-plus scoring. If one of them was given a wheelgun at the outset and the other a nicely set-up 1911 or 2011... do you think there is any chance the revolver shooter is going to win? Even if the arrays are all 6-shot arrays? I don't think so. Because when the revolver shooter messes up his pull, that shot is going much further away than when the SAO gun slaps his trigger. The DA trigger is just less forgiving of shooter mistakes in technique. That's what I see, anyway.

You guys who run a revolver well enough to beat bottom-feeders shouldn't sell yourselves short! It means you have acquired some rather difficult-to-master skills.

 

[tipoc]

A better and smoother trigger with a crisp break always makes a difference.

Give some thought to the common barrel lengths used in various types of sport shooting or competitive shooting. Note where longer barrels dominate. Longer meaning 6" and beyond, out to 12". These are generally used in hunting handguns in powerful cartridges. You also see them in metallic silhouette shooting. International Metallic Silhouette Shooting Union (IMSSU). There are occasionally other more or less informal long range pistol competitions.

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2017/9/1/long-range-handgun-shooting-worth-practicing/

This relates mostly to iron sights where the longer sight radius can help, and/or getting the most from a powerful round moving through a longer barrel.

In bullseye where accuracy and precision count greatly barrel lengths of from 4" to 7" are found. With 5.5 to 6 being common.

Lengths of from 4" to 5.5" are mostly found in the speed shooting and combat oriented sports. These guns are full size service guns or compact guns (guns with a full size frame and shorter slide). This is because the size and weight of the guns facilitate easy handling and manipulation. A 6 or 7" barrel is often a detriment in these sports.

None of the above tells you much about concealed carry or guns used in self defense.

 

[earlthegoat2]

IMO, a snubby is not really meant to ever be shot single action. Everyone has different viewpoints on this but I think that everyone would agree it is at least very important to become very proficient with a DA trigger pull on a snub nosed revolver as they are generally used for defense and as such are usually deployed rapidly.

Nonetheless, as to your question, my answer is that short barrels draw faster and as such can shoot faster. However, do they shoot as accurately as fast as a longer barrelled gun? Or the equation of both speed and accuracy? And whether single action matters or not?

I say the longer barrel is better to a point. A snubby takes a bit of practice to master accuracy and even still will never have the practical accuracy of a longer barrelled counterpart.

I have a lot of time with snub nose revolvers and every second I spend practicing with one only makes me that much better when I shoot longer barrelled revolvers.

Specifically I think the 4” barrel is the cutoff point of accuracy versus speed. I also think the single versus double action trigger pull becomes a moot point as the user further learns and masters the DA trigger pull.

As one can infer, I am a proponent of DAO revolvers and DAO and SAO handguns. I know they are not for everyone but I personally believe that if you can master one or both you need not worry about which is “better”.

 

[Zendude]

How do you prep a DA trigger before bringing it to eye level? Is that the same as staging the trigger? That sounds dangerous

 

[9mmepiphany]

How do you prep a DA trigger before bringing it to eye level?

You can't prep a DA trigger, you just pull it straight through as the sights come onto target during the Push Out portion of your presentation

Is that the same as staging the trigger? That sounds dangerous

While it may seem/sound the same as staging, it isn't.

Staging a trigger is bringing the trigger to a point in the travel just before the sear breaks, making a final adjustment to the sight alignment, and pressing off the shot like a SA trigger. The goal is a SA trigger release at the end of a DA trigger stroke. A common result of this practice is a jerked trigger pull due to anticipation of the sight alignment.

Prepping a trigger is done with a SA trigger. It is taking up all the slack, after reset, and applying pressure to the trigger < enough to release it. As the sights are perceived as aligned, the final pressure is applied. You're not correcting the sight alignment, you're allowing the sight alignment to cue the final pressure.

A revolver trigger, which should always be run in DA (at less than 50 yards), is run slightly differently as the trigger doesn't really stop moving, unless you're done shooting, between releases. The shooter's job is to get the sights back on the target before the hammer falls. If you wait for the sights to return onto target before starting your trigger stroke, you'll be way behind the curve, you are very likely to jerk the trigger trying to catch up