Are compact/sub compact guns really inaccurate?

[doddg]

Interesting read for a noobie like myself.
I totally agree with sentiments expressed: I have my CC gun for very, very short distances so I don't care about accuracy.
While it is fun at the range (accuracy) and I like having something "accurate" to shoot, my eyesight with glasses is compromised even when using my beloved Henry lever-action rifle at the entire range length just for fun (I can't even see where my bullets are hitting, .
I have even taken my binoculars but I can't use them with my glasses, so it is too cumbersome with ear protection on (sliding glasses on and off).
I have to bring the targets close enough so I can see where I'm hitting to adjust.

For the reality use (quick, no sights-aim, in a hurry), I use the recommended FBI input: 7ish yards.
I practice I little under, a little over the 7 yds.
I will put the target down range more at first for a few rounds just for fun since I can use the same target over when bringing the target closer: yes, I'm that "thrifty."

I enjoy using my little tilt-up barrels at close range as much as anything I shoot, although when I take my S/W 38 4" and put rounds through it, I'm thrilled at how accurate it is compared with other smaller guns I use, which I know is the fault of the user: ME!!!

But, I'm still having fun.
Just like the last time was into guns (1973 - 1990ish),
I will eventually lose interest and move onto something else, or maybe after being retired (1.5 - 5.5 yrs.) I won't have the money flow for ammo and range time (at least that is what my wife implies ).
This time, however, I will keep more than a NAA single action 5 shot SS and my Colt Mustang .380.
I will not have multiple CC guns: narrow down the field, which I don't have to do for now.

I'll probably never let my S/W 5 shot SS 642 hammerless .38 go:
perfect CC for me. (I would like to try the small Ruger the same size to see if they really do have less recoil,
but since I put that "Delta" strangely-angled grip on it: an improvement.
It is an example of a gun I don't "enjoy" shooting it at the range:
it is for concealed carry: period.
Practicing is for muscle memory only, no joy.

Joy is my 1911 Sig Sauer .22 (love to have a more expensive 1911 style, but they cost twice as much and until I "know" which is the "best" I'll have to settle for what I have.
I did see a Kimber 1911 SS for $535 that I came close to buying,
but he never answered my usual litany of questions about ownership background to see if it fit the "profile" I look for and if I'm going to spend the "big" money: crucial.
I was counseled that the Kimber isn't what it used to be and produces the usual mass-produced gun like Smith and Walther, so not superior as it used to be in its custom-made history which reputation they are benefitting from with their higher prices.

But, what do I know: only what others tell me and what I read.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Bullet shape, jacket material, powder type, consistency of the powder charge can all effect the accuracy.

All this, plus consistency of size of bullet, bullet to barrel fit and how well it engages the rifling, if the bullet is stabilized correctly (different twist rates are designed to stabilize different weights), etc.

Bullets aren't all the same diameter in a given caliber, and barrels aren't all the same spec. For revolvers, throats can be cut out of spec. Especially when tolerances have stacked, you can have a particular ammo that just does poorly in a certain gun. My P245 does *not* shoot Critical Duty very well at all, but every other type of .45 I've ran through it is fine. Why? No idea. Target doesn't lie, though.

 

[BE Mike]

IMHO, most quality handguns are more than accurate enough for the intended purpose, i.e. target shooting, self-defense and hunting. There are a few exceptions, like the requirements for bullseye pistol shooters who shoot at 50 and 25 yards. Most of them require a modified "accurized" pistol. Gun writers today don't seem to want to test most handguns beyond 7 yds. I can understand that for sub compact "pocket" handguns, but I don't understand it for compacts and full size. I've been told that it is because of the lack of skill by the majority of handgun owners. It could be that the popularity of defensive pistols has them in the hands of those who lack basic marksmanship skill. Although that may or may not be the case, often I see questions about handgun "accuracy". I really don't understand it. Shooting a handgun at 7 yds. will not give one any real idea of how the gun or ammo will perform. I've heard that when compact pistols are tested at 25 yds. and the shooter obtains a 3"-4" group that many of the newer adherents to handgunning will challenge the veracity of the shooter. On the other hand, when a manufacturer claims 2" groups from a pistol at 50 yds. the same folks will remain silent. I've been shooting for a lot of years and am way over the hill. I'm no "great shakes" as a handgun shooter. I went to the range yesterday and shot my fairly new Sig 320 Compact. I was shooting 115 gr. fmj bullets at 25 yards. I was shooting two-handed, standing and unsupported. I think a machine rest or a good bench rest shooter could do better, as well as, a better off-hand shooter. Let me add that IMHO, probably any good quality compact handgun will shoot this good with quality ammo and some better. I fired 10 shots at a reduced B-27 silhouette. The target simulates 50 yards at an actual distance of 25 yds. Of the ten shots fired, 7 were in a group of less than 1 1/2". The other three flier shots were shooter error, IMHO. Two of them opened the group up to 3 1/2" and the last one that I put into orbit, opened the group up to 4 3/4". A lot of you will claim that the distance and carefully aimed shots aren't relevant to the real world of self-defense, and mostly, I'd agree, but when the subject of accuracy comes up, I think it is a confidence builder to know that the gun and ammo are capable of good accuracy.

 

[HEADKNOCKER]

Damn you Ayoob for making me re-look at the Glock 26 Gen5

 

[Falschirmjaeger]

I agree that the compact gun is not inherently less accurate. Smaller guns, however, usually have a shorter sight radius that does make them harder to aim accurately. The following may explain itmbetter than I can.

https://www.pewpewtactical.com/sight-radius
.
.

In my experience, this is absolutely right. A shorter sight radius will magnify small deviations in sight picture, and result in apparent loss of accuracy versus larger frame guns of the same make and model. That said, I'd say most modern handguns irrespective of size are capable of far greater accuracy (true accuracy, as in what the handgun is capable of in perfect conditions fired from a rock steady bench) than the person using them. In other words, it is the relative difficulty of aiming a shorter handgun that makes it appear to be less accurate than a larger handgun. Unless you're Ayoob.

 

[Hoosier45]

Subcompacts can be hard to shoot. Depending on the gun, more muzzle flip. The shorter grips can be harder to control. Which makes them less fun to shoot, which often equals less practice time. So I think sometimes the belief that subcompacts are less accurate is due in large part to people not putting enough practice in get good with them.

 

[BE Mike]

Subcompacts can be hard to shoot. Depending on the gun, more muzzle flip. The shorter grips can be harder to control. Which makes them less fun to shoot, which often equals less practice time. So I think sometimes the belief that subcompacts are less accurate is due in large part to people not putting enough practice in get good with them.

I agree. I think that often folks confuse the term "accurate" with "shootability". Accuracy really is a test of the gun and ammunition. Shootability brings into the mix, the shooter. What makes a gun more shootable? I think it is good sights, quality of the trigger action, grip and sight radius. Because we are all a little different in physical makeup and all have various limiting factors, like old age maladies, bad eyesight, etc., it is important to choose a gun that bests suits each of us. There are other factors to consider like reliability of the gun, ease of reloading, etc.

 

[Hoosier45]

I agree. I think that often folks confuse the term "accurate" with "shootability". Accuracy really is a test of the gun and ammunition. Shootability brings into the mix, the shooter. What makes a gun more shootable? I think it is good sights, quality of the trigger action, grip and sight radius. Because we are all a little different in physical makeup and all have various limiting factors, like old age maladies, bad eyesight, etc., it is important to choose a gun that bests suits each of us. There are other factors to consider like reliability of the gun, ease of reloading, etc.

Couldn't agree more. That is why guns should be personal choices for what fits a person best, instead of buying what the internet or gun magazines tell them to buy.

 

[russc2542]

Other factors making small guns less favorable for accuracy (when fired by a human) not mentioned yet:
-trigger quality (distance traveled, smoothness, overtravel, etc) is generally not as nice (and not as fixable) on smaller guns. Generally, far from always.
-trigger weight is often high and trigger-to-gun weight ratio unfavorable. 6lb trigger on a 1lb gun is a lot less fun than a 6lb trigger on a 8lb gun.
-smaller grip doesn't fit the hand as well, amplifying other issues.

Mechanically, there are ways shorter guns are less accurate as well. While the long sight radius helps align the sights, it's the same with the barrel on a semi-auto. let's say there's .001" play in the barrel-slide fit at the muzzle. that .001" error has the same affect on accuracy as sight misalignment on respective slide lengths. shorter lever=greater MOA range. That being said, shootor-induced inaccuracy is about a million times more of an issue.

 

[OutdoorsGuy]

Subcompacts are difficult if you have large hands. It makes trigger control and accuracy very difficult. I have a Ruger SR9C which is super accurate right out of the box. It's compact enough for a good feel in your hand and accurate enough to help the shooter feel confident hitting the center of the target. Unless you're just unhappy with compacts you might find yourself looking and trying subcompact for some time. NO doubt in the end you'll get a subcompact but want to replace the trigger.

 

[Twangbanger]

From all that I've been told the fired bullet leaves the barrel before recoil has a chance to divert its path. This leads me to believe any gun fired correctly should hit what it is aimed at. After seeing Jerry Miculek (sp?) hit a target 100 yards away with something smaller than full size pistol I don't believe the size of the gun has anything to do with PRACTICAL accuracy. Now time to get back on target after a shot is another matter.

Would you disagree?

No and yes.

When Jerry Miculek first gained notoriety clearing off bowling pin tables in sub-4 times, he was doing it with a Model 27 with an 8,3/8 inch barrel. He later moved to smaller guns, but not much smaller.

You applied the qualifier "practical" in front of the word "accuracy," so we'll stick to the caveat that you're not talking about "Ransom Rest Accuracy;" you're talking about what a human can do with it in his or her hands.

No less of a long-range handgun shooter than Elmer Keith had this to write about it:

"Today, most shooters think a sixgun is useless beyond about 50 to 100 yards. Nothing could be further from the truth. They do not question the fact a good artilleryman can hit a building three miles away and over a hilltop regularly with a 6-inch howitzer once the big gun is bedded down properly. For the ranges involved, its barrel is even shorter in proportion than that of a sixgun...." [Long Range Sixguns, E. Keith]

...Elmer went on to say that he preferred 7.5" inch-barreled guns to the 10- and 12-inch Buntline models, because having the sights closer together kept both sights nearer to being in the same focal plane, and were easier for his eyes to focus on both. However, shorter than 7.5" made it harder for him. (One wonders what he could have accomplished with an RMR-equipped gun and its "infinite" sight radius...assuming you could get him to use one).

Not many people do that kind of shooting. But nonetheless all the factors people write about in the posts above relate to "practical" accuracy. When guns get smaller, "practical accuracy" really suffers once you get below a certain size. Bigger guns are better. Within reason, you can handle them better, you can control their recoil better, and the faster you go, the more divergence there is between big and small.

My personal low-end threshold is the Glock 26. You can do some great shooting with that gun; but for me, smaller than that isn't a "real" gun anymore, it's a compromise. (The exception is reloads; my pinky hangs off the bottom when the gun is mag-less, and you have to work to keep it out of the way when putting the new one in). Your mileage may vary depending on what you do.

 

[BE Mike]

No and yes.

When Jerry Miculek first gained notoriety clearing off bowling pin tables in sub-4 times, he was doing it with a Model 27 with an 8,3/8 inch barrel. He later moved to smaller guns, but not much smaller.

You applied the qualifier "practical" in front of the word "accuracy," so we'll stick to the caveat that you're not talking about "Ransom Rest Accuracy;" you're talking about what a human can do with it in his or her hands.

No less of a long-range handgun shooter than Elmer Keith had this to write about it:

"Today, most shooters think a sixgun is useless beyond about 50 to 100 yards. Nothing could be further from the truth. They do not question the fact a good artilleryman can hit a building three miles away and over a hilltop regularly with a 6-inch howitzer once the big gun is bedded down properly. For the ranges involved, its barrel is even shorter in proportion than that of a sixgun...." [Long Range Sixguns, E. Keith]

...Elmer went on to say that he preferred 7.5" inch-barreled guns to the 10- and 12-inch Buntline models, because having the sights closer together kept both sights nearer to being in the same focal plane, and were easier for his eyes to focus on both. However, shorter than 7.5" made it harder for him. (One wonders what he could have accomplished with an RMR-equipped gun and its "infinite" sight radius...assuming you could get him to use one).

Not many people do that kind of shooting. But nonetheless all the factors people write about in the posts above relate to "practical" accuracy. When guns get smaller, "practical accuracy" really suffers once you get below a certain size. Bigger guns are better. Within reason, you can handle them better, you can control their recoil better, and the faster you go, the more divergence there is between big and small.

My personal low-end threshold is the Glock 26. You can do some great shooting with that gun; but for me, smaller than that isn't a "real" gun anymore, it's a compromise. (The exception is reloads; my pinky hangs off the bottom when the gun is mag-less, and you have to work to keep it out of the way when putting the new one in). Your mileage may vary depending on what you do.

Good points. I'll also add that for a EDC gun, there is always some compromise. If I could and was willing, I'd carry a rifle everywhere I go.

 

[STEEL CORE]

Not mine, depends on how far your shooting them, close combat, accurate, five hundred meter range, not so much eh?

 

[Voldemort]

I can shoot the pecker off of a hummingbird with my LCP.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Mechanically, there are ways shorter guns are less accurate as well. While the long sight radius helps align the sights, it's the same with the barrel on a semi-auto. let's say there's .001" play in the barrel-slide fit at the muzzle. that .001" error has the same affect on accuracy as sight misalignment on respective slide lengths. shorter lever=greater MOA range. That being said, shootor-induced inaccuracy is about a million times more of an issue.

Inaccuracy stems from inconsistency. As long as that .001" is consistent, it just changes the point of impact and a bit. Prior to Gen 5, the Glock 26 was often touted as the most accurate 9mm Glock from a rest, despite being a "snubby" in the Glock world. I don't know the hows of it, some say the stiffer barrel or different recoil spring, but it was simply very consistent. Glock improved the lockup for the Gen 5 and that's credited as part of the reason they have improved accuracy over previous generations.

 

[BE Mike]

Inaccuracy stems from inconsistency. As long as that .001" is consistent, it just changes the point of impact and a bit. Prior to Gen 5, the Glock 26 was often touted as the most accurate 9mm Glock from a rest, despite being a "snubby" in the Glock world. I don't know the hows of it, some say the stiffer barrel or different recoil spring, but it was simply very consistent. Glock improved the lockup for the Gen 5 and that's credited as part of the reason they have improved accuracy over previous generations.

How much more accurate are the Gen 5 Glocks than the previous Glocks? What size groups have been tested, with how many rounds in a group and at what distances?

 

[cedartop]

Interesting read for a noobie like myself.
I totally agree with sentiments expressed: I have my CC gun for very, very short distances so I don't care about accuracy.
While it is fun at the range (accuracy) and I like having something "accurate" to shoot, my eyesight with glasses is compromised even when using my beloved Henry lever-action rifle at the entire range length just for fun (I can't even see where my bullets are hitting, .
I have even taken my binoculars but I can't use them with my glasses, so it is too cumbersome with ear protection on (sliding glasses on and off).
I have to bring the targets close enough so I can see where I'm hitting to adjust.

For the reality use (quick, no sights-aim, in a hurry), I use the recommended FBI input: 7ish yards.
I practice I little under, a little over the 7 yds.
I will put the target down range more at first for a few rounds just for fun since I can use the same target over when bringing the target closer: yes, I'm that "thrifty."

I enjoy using my little tilt-up barrels at close range as much as anything I shoot, although when I take my S/W 38 4" and put rounds through it, I'm thrilled at how accurate it is compared with other smaller guns I use, which I know is the fault of the user: ME!!!

But, I'm still having fun.
Just like the last time was into guns (1973 - 1990ish),
I will eventually lose interest and move onto something else, or maybe after being retired (1.5 - 5.5 yrs.) I won't have the money flow for ammo and range time (at least that is what my wife implies ).
This time, however, I will keep more than a NAA single action 5 shot SS and my Colt Mustang .380.
I will not have multiple CC guns: narrow down the field, which I don't have to do for now.

I'll probably never let my S/W 5 shot SS 642 hammerless .38 go:
perfect CC for me. (I would like to try the small Ruger the same size to see if they really do have less recoil,
but since I put that "Delta" strangely-angled grip on it: an improvement.
It is an example of a gun I don't "enjoy" shooting it at the range:
it is for concealed carry: period.
Practicing is for muscle memory only, no joy.

Joy is my 1911 Sig Sauer .22 (love to have a more expensive 1911 style, but they cost twice as much and until I "know" which is the "best" I'll have to settle for what I have.
I did see a Kimber 1911 SS for $535 that I came close to buying,
but he never answered my usual litany of questions about ownership background to see if it fit the "profile" I look for and if I'm going to spend the "big" money: crucial.
I was counseled that the Kimber isn't what it used to be and produces the usual mass-produced gun like Smith and Walther, so not superior as it used to be in its custom-made history which reputation they are benefitting from with their higher prices.

But, what do I know: only what others tell me and what I read.

NYPD veteran?

 

[russc2542]

Inaccuracy stems from inconsistency. As long as that .001" is consistent, it just changes the point of impact and a bit. Prior to Gen 5, the Glock 26 was often touted as the most accurate 9mm Glock from a rest, despite being a "snubby" in the Glock world. I don't know the hows of it, some say the stiffer barrel or different recoil spring, but it was simply very consistent. Glock improved the lockup for the Gen 5 and that's credited as part of the reason they have improved accuracy over previous generations.

yes, that's what I was getting at.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

How much more accurate are the Gen 5 Glocks than the previous Glocks? What size groups have been tested, with how many rounds in a group and at what distances?

I don't recall the particulars, but I think I've posted it before if you want to dig for it. If a general overview is enough, they are more accurate to the point the worst Gen 5s did better than the best Gen 4s in the FBI testing. The best Gen 5 shot .76" at 25y. I *think* they are 5 shot groups, but again, don't recall for sure. Almost all of them shot 1.5" or better using off the shelf 147gr 9mm. HST, maybe?

 

[HEADKNOCKER]

Your post almost makes me want to skip the Gen4 G43 I've been looking at..
OR make that a reason to get the Gen4 even cheaper!! THANKS!! HaHa!!