Defensive Carry banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,354 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I prefer bigger bullets, but I continually read comments about how there is little difference in the actual effect of modern HP ammunition between 9mm, 357 Sig, 40, and 45. I can easily understand how a millimeter or two of diameter is not as important as an inch or two of exact shot placement.

Given the understanding that shot placement trumps caliber and follow up shots may be required, accuracy and speed of follow up shots are both important. Since we are not going to count on a “one shot stop” and could be faced with more than one assailant, a 6 + 1 or 7 + 1 capacity is unfavorable; I am including capacity as a factor in my choice of carry pistol.

Using my Glocks, I decided to obtain some fresh data with carry ammo.

First, I fired each 8 – 10 shots slow fire at 7 yards to make sure the horizontal adjustment was good, if needed I tweaked it. I prefer to aim right on that small red dot and have the bullet POI either right on or up to about 1’’ high. Satisfied with POI, next was double taps.

My emphasis is on 1st – 2nd shot follow up time. I want both the first and 2nd shot to hit a 6’’ circle. I put several 6’’ circles on a larger target at 7 yards. I had not used the shot timer in about a year, so I gave myself a couple of warm-up runs with the Glock 19 prior to data collection.

This is the method I used for my data: I would shoot 4 pairs (8 shots) then check to see if any shots missed the circle, after covering any misses I repeated with 4 additional pairs. In order to obtain what I considered to be a fair representation of performance, I eliminated the greatest (slowest) time from each of the four pairs; if a shot missed then I also eliminated the quickest time. The result was at least 4 pairs that remained (for each pistol) and they got averaged.

I use the flush fitting magazines in the 30SF but all subcompacts (26, 27, 33) have Pearce +0 bases.
All of the pistols have Meprolight night sights except the 33 which has XS Big Dots.

Results:
Glock 19 using Federal 124 gr. HST +P: average .26 sec with 13/16 hits.
Glock 32 using Winchester Ranger T 125: average .26 sec with 13/16 hits.
Glock 23 using Remington Golden Saber 165: average .27 sec with 13/16 hits.
Glock 30 SF using Federal 230 gr. Hydra-Shok: average .28 sec with 13/16 hits.
Glock 27 using Federal 180 JHP*: average .29 sec with 15/16 hits*
*I was skeptical with this result and Federal 180 JHP is not my carry ammo so I ran it again.
Glock 27 using Federal 180 gr. Hydra Shok: average .30 sec with 14/16 hits.
Glock 26 using Federal 124 gr. HST +P: average .30 sec with 15/16 hits.
Glock 33 using Winchester Ranger T 125: average .35 sec with 13/16 hits.

I was most pleased with the total cumulative POI from the 19, 23, 26 and 27.

I did not include my 29 SF in the test, because when I shot the initial 8 rounds slow fire to check POI it was higher than I prefer, even with light 155 gr. ammo and recoil was noticeably stiffer than the others.

Conclusion: Take what you want from this, but I am surprised by the slight to non-existent difference in follow up times (9mm vs. 40) with similar pistols and hits on target.

doubletaps.jpg
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,276 Posts
It's too bad you didn't use a good 147 gr. HST or Ranger T round for your 9mm. It'd be interesting to see those results go head to head with your 124 gr. +P 9mm results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,377 Posts
I appreciate you posting this. Very good info indeed! Nice shooting!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,304 Posts
What all this seems to show me is that if the gun fits your hands (comfortable without excessive pressure) and you have a proper sight alignment, one should be able to make multiple strikes within a specific radius....yours being six inches. With practice, which I believe is key to any shooting, that circle will get smaller.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,376 Posts
This is one of the best "caliber" debates I've witnessed. Good analysis and excellent data. From your results you arrived at with the G27, I would like to see the results of the 180 grain load run in your G23, I actually prefer the heavy .40's due to their being less snappy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
Excellent shooting and interesting findings, I need to practice more lol. I would really like to run a timer when I shoot but I would have to be the only one on the range which Never happens. I would like to see a follow up with some other pistols with the same ammunition if they are available to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,354 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I find it interesting that while your times are a fraction slower you are more accurate with the subcompacts.
Slower shooting = more accuracy? :boggled: :wink:

What all this seems to show me is that if the gun fits your hands (comfortable without excessive pressure) and you have a proper sight alignment, one should be able to make multiple strikes within a specific radius....yours being six inches. With practice, which I believe is key to any shooting, that circle will get smaller.
I'm 46 and don't shoot as much as I use to; the circle is not getting smaller. :blackeye: May not be long until I need glasses to see the front sight.

This is one of the best "caliber" debates I've witnessed. Good analysis and excellent data. From your results you arrived at with the G27, I would like to see the results of the 180 grain load run in your G23, I actually prefer the heavy .40's due to their being less snappy.
I actually shot the Federal Hydra-Shok in the 23 for the initial "check sight" and also shot the Golden Saber which had the same POI. Since they had the same POI I went ahead and used the GS for the drill in order to save a few of the Hydra-Shok. I prefer the Federal Hydra-Shok, part of that is because Federal primers display a more positive impact than Remington. The Golden Saber is not as snappy as some of the 165 grain loads (Ranger T) and produces a power factor PF nearly the same as the 180 gr. I do not think it would have changed the result if I had used the 180 HS instead of the 165 GS.

Glock 27: (chrono average for 5 shots)
Federal Hydra-Shok 180 @ 930 fps / 167 PF
Golden Saber 165 @ 1,018 fps / PF 168

Excellent shooting and interesting findings, I need to practice more lol. I would really like to run a timer when I shoot but I would have to be the only one on the range which Never happens. I would like to see a follow up with some other pistols with the same ammunition if they are available to you.
Thanks. :hand10:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,563 Posts
The only difference in follow up shot time there is per caliber is directly proportional to the time and work you put into mastering it. Of course the preference in platform can make a difference too.

In the real world I doubt it matters much.
But thank you for the test. It's always interesting to see what people find for themselves, which in my opinion is more reliable info than baseless banter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,444 Posts
Those targets look familiar. Practice makes perfect. If I were to teach "the concept of follow up shots" it would start on a sporting clays range with shotguns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,465 Posts
Good work with the Glocks, would like to see same test with Glock 45acp ESP G36 and 1911s using 230 gr. ammo.

I find I am faster and more accurate with follow up shoots with G36 than 5" 1911 tactual.

IMO your test is a great way to get some needed info, thank you!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,354 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Good work with the Glocks, would like to see same test with Glock 45acp ESP G36 and 1911s using 230 gr. ammo.

I find I am faster and more accurate with follow up shoots with G36 than 5" 1911 tactual.

IMO your test is a great way to get some needed info, thank you!!!!!
I included a 30SF (45 acp) in this past weekends "test"; it was .28 sec. average with no place for my pinky, using 230 gr. ammo.

The last time I used the timer was early last August, almost a year ago.
I did shoot a 1911 that day, along with a couple Glocks; I have less detail, but I do have some average 1st - 2nd shot times.

1911: .23 average 1st - 2nd shot time.
Glock 23: .24 average 1st - 2nd shot time.
Glock 32: .25 average 1st - 2nd shot time.
Glock 27: .29 average 1st- 2nd shot time.

Given that a 1911 weighs about 39 oz +- versus about 24 oz +- for a Glock it's not a surprise that it could be a little quicker.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,887 Posts
Fun test to read. Thanks for posting it. Seems like realistic results.

"I prefer bigger bullets, but I continually read comments about how there is little difference in the actual effect of modern HP ammunition between 9mm, 357 Sig, 40, and 45. I can easily understand how a millimeter or two of diameter is not as important as an inch or two of exact shot placement."

That's why the .25 ACP is so important. After all, it's only a mere tenth of an inch smaller than the 9mm, which is only a tenth of an inch smaller than the .45. Really, the .25 ACP ought to be used and carried more often. One could probably get 35-40 of the little buggers in a full-sized automatic. Just think: then you'd have "lotsa bullets."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aceoky and CDW4ME

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,622 Posts
Slower shooting = more accuracy? :boggled: :wink:



I'm 46 and don't shoot as much as I use to; the circle is not getting smaller. :blackeye: May not be long until I need glasses to see the front sight.



I actually shot the Federal Hydra-Shok in the 23 for the initial "check sight" and also shot the Golden Saber which had the same POI. Since they had the same POI I went ahead and used the GS for the drill in order to save a few of the Hydra-Shok. I prefer the Federal Hydra-Shok, part of that is because Federal primers display a more positive impact than Remington. The Golden Saber is not as snappy as some of the 165 grain loads (Ranger T) and produces a power factor PF nearly the same as the 180 gr. I do not think it would have changed the result if I had used the 180 HS instead of the 165 GS.

Glock 27: (chrono average for 5 shots)
Federal Hydra-Shok 180 @ 930 fps / 167 PF
Golden Saber 165 @ 1,018 fps / PF 168



Thanks. :hand10:
Perhaps XS Big Dot Sights would be worth consideration. Links below to two good videos on them

XS Sight Demo - Part 1 - YouTube

XS Sight Demo - Part 2 - YouTube
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,354 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Fun test to read. Thanks for posting it. Seems like realistic results.

"I prefer bigger bullets, but I continually read comments about how there is little difference in the actual effect of modern HP ammunition between 9mm, 357 Sig, 40, and 45. I can easily understand how a millimeter or two of diameter is not as important as an inch or two of exact shot placement."

That's why the .25 ACP is so important. After all, it's only a mere tenth of an inch smaller than the 9mm, which is only a tenth of an inch smaller than the .45. Really, the .25 ACP ought to be used and carried more often. One could probably get 35-40 of the little buggers in a full-sized automatic. Just think: then you'd have "lotsa bullets."
I see what you did there. :sly:

Trying to sew seeds of doubt in my fickle mind. :28:

I commented, "I was most pleased with the total cumulative POI from the 19, 23, 26 and 27.", but I never said which one I intended to carry. :7a:

The point of the test was for me to see if there was a "combat" accuracy difference in those pistols, or if I was at a speed disadvantage for using a 40 instead of a 9mm; I proved to myself that I was just as "combat" accurate with the 40 and there was essentially no difference in my ability to place a follow up shot quickly (one or two hundredths of a second is nothing).

A 40 may not be a 45, but it begins with a 4 (Col Cooper would approve) and sacrifices little capacity to the 9mm's I tested.

23 & 27 :first:


Perhaps XS Big Dot Sights would be worth consideration. Links below to two good videos on them

XS Sight Demo - Part 1 - YouTube

XS Sight Demo - Part 2 - YouTube
I like XS Big Dots, have them on the 33.
I have felt like they held an edge in my little test before, but when I went to shoot them over the weekend the Big Dot may have actually contributed to the slightly slower time of the 33 compared to the 26 & 27. I had been looking at Meprolights for the entire drill, the 33 was shot after those and I think the change / difference was a factor.

Having to hit a 6'' circle at 7 yards at the speed limits of the shooters ability will quickly reinforce this one basic idea:
front sight, front sight, front sight, front sight. :eek:k:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aceoky

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,058 Posts
Interesting test, but if I understand the results correctly, the differences aren't enough to matter in a self defense situation.

That said, thanks for the interesting post.

Next time you feel like a test, I'd suggest you consider using the first part of the IDPA classification test. Draw from concealment and fire a 3 shot string. Do it three times with each pistol as a timed run. The three shot string is 2 to COM, one to the head. Repeated three times (as three seperate timed shot strings) on three targets at different heights. Time each string from beep to last shot and keep score per IDPA rules, time and points off. I expect you will notice significant differences between the guns. I do anyway.

To me, the important part of that is how long to the first shot, total time, and score. My times for 0 points off runs are in the mid to high 2 second range for the draw and fire 3 shot string at one target with the G26 and G19. Almost a full second longer with the XDs, SIG C3 and G30. I tend to push for as fast as I can go with no points off on the basis that I can't miss fast enough to win.

The double tap dynamics of Glock 26 happen to be an almost perfect match for my hands and arms if I pull the trigger as fast as I can which with my 71 year old hands results in ~1/4 second split times. Drawing from cover, typical double taps with 1/4 second split times look like this (split time between the double tap and the head shot is about 0.6 to 0.7 seconds):



The next three targets were draw from cover and shoot double taps only with the G26, again with about 1/4 second split times - total times in the 1.9 to 2.2 second range:







Fitch
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,354 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Interesting test, but if I understand the results correctly, the differences aren't enough to matter in a self defense situation.

That said, thanks for the interesting post.

Fitch
Thanks.
Interesting drill you did.

Agree, my hundredths of a second difference of 1st - 2nd are insignificant in the big picture.

Last year when I did the 1st - 2nd shot split time there was another component to it, total time.
Not drawing from concealment.
I had the shot timer on a table to my left, I held the pistol at low ready position.
I would push the start button which results in a brief yellow wait, followed by red and start time.
I watched for the red, then turned toward target (same 6'' circle as always) acquired and double tap.
The 1911 was cocked & locked at low ready.
Glocks had 8# NY trigger.

In order of quickest total time:
Glock 23: average total time 1.84 / .24 1st- 2nd
Glock 32: average total time 1.85 / .25 1st - 2nd
Glock 27: average total time 1.99 / .29 1st - 2nd
Glock 33: average total time 2.00 / .32 1st - 2nd
Glock 26: average total time 2.08 / .28 1st - 2nd
1911: average total time 2.2 / .23 1st - 2nd

If I had put them in order of 1st - 2nd shot time the 1911 would have been 1st.
Again, insignificant differences in time.
I learned that it made no difference (in my total speed + accuracy requirement) if I carried a 1911 or Glock 23

This is similar to your drill:
19-20 years ago when I was a cop (for a couple of years) I carried a Glock 21.
We would stand a couple of yards, maybe, from a silhouette or cardboard target (like yours).
The target was so close it was point shooting, "my" current drill definitely is not.
Drill began with a clipboard in hand, like you might be writing a ticket (citation).
On the auditory signal (beep) you drew from a level whatever retention holster and double tap the target, not a 6'' circle.
My total time, according to the range master, was about 1.5 sec.
I shot thousands of rounds (of my ammo) in practice that year versus a few hundred this year.

:thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,908 Posts
Very interesting , thanks for taking the time to do the tests and post the results!
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top