TexasCHLforum.com

My wife and are are interested in possibly getting into competitive shooting and I was wondering if the size of the gun (barrel length, grip, etc.) plays a large role in overall performance. I currently have a Glock 27 with magazine extensions. My previous gun was a Walther P99, and I feel I was much more accurate and confident with it. I know both are quality guns, so I think there must be more to it than that. I'm currently in the market for a new gun. My choices are to trade the Glock on a nicer small frame for concealing, or keep the Glock for carry and get a midrange priced larger frame. Unfortunately there aren't any places close to where I am that offer rentals, so I'm a bit in the dark.

Anyone else ever run into this issue or have any advice?

Yes. A larger handgun is easier to shoot accurately. Three primary factors:

• A longer sight radius allows you to aim more accurately.
• A grip long enough to let you hold it firmly with all three fingers improves your ... um ... grip and allows faster recovery from recoil.
• Greater weight increases stability and reduces recoil.

Of course, you don't want something so heavy that you can't hold it for multiple shots; and calisthenics can improve your abilities in the direction..

After that, you get into fine points of ergonomics where a particular weapons suits a particular shooter for some subtle reason.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Yes. A larger handgun is easier to shoot accurately. Three primary factors:

• A longer sight radius allows you to aim more accurately.
• A grip long enough to let you hold it firmly with all three fingers improves your ... um ... grip and allows faster recovery from recoil.
• Greater weight increases stability and reduces recoil.

Of course, you don't want something so heavy that you can't hold it for multiple shots; and calisthenics can improve your abilities in the direction..

After that, you get into fine points of ergonomics where a particular weapons suits a particular shooter for some subtle reason.

- Jim

what about reliability as opposed to just accuracy?

I think the original question was about competition. I don't know if the O.P. was asking about bullseye target shooting or tactical shooting. Reliability, meaning the pistol goes bang every time you pull the trigger, is important for timed shooting but not so important for untimed competitions.

- Jim

Glock 23 wrote:

seamusTX wrote:Yes. A larger handgun is easier to shoot accurately. Three primary factors:

• A longer sight radius allows you to aim more accurately.
• A grip long enough to let you hold it firmly with all three fingers improves your ... um ... grip and allows faster recovery from recoil.
• Greater weight increases stability and reduces recoil.

Of course, you don't want something so heavy that you can't hold it for multiple shots; and calisthenics can improve your abilities in the direction..

After that, you get into fine points of ergonomics where a particular weapons suits a particular shooter for some subtle reason.

- Jim

what about reliability as opposed to just accuracy?

To me, the reliability doesn't have quite as much to do with the frame size as the construction of the pistol itself. Good quality revolvers of any size will be very reliable and have few failures (other than bad ammo.)

Semi-autos have more issues with malfunctions due to the complexity of their method of cycling. Smaller pistols with lighter weight slides seem to have more of an issue with failing to go back into battery or getting stove pipes due to weak wristing the pistol. The slide needs to have enough inertia to push the next round into the chamber after ejecting the spent round, so larger frame and heavier pistols seem to do better.

To add to the complexity, depending on the pistol design, some semi-autos have very short and steep feed ramps. This adds to the need for more inertia and spring strength to push the round out of the magazine, angle it up the feed ramp and push it into the chamber. Smaller semi-autos usually have steeper feed ramps.

While not frame size related as much, the magazine also can play a part in the process as resistance from it to release the new round pushing back against the slide coming forward and can slow or deter the rounds movement and cycle time.

Improper lubrication, dirt/grime, and poor fit on slides to frame add even more issues. Smaller light weight slides will not be as forgiving as a heavier slide.

These are my observations and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer (as they are anti-gun in the first place. ) YMMV.

Nice post, Keith.

From what I remember reading on this forum regarding other people's experiences, 3" barrel 1911 type pistols have frequently been finickier than the 4" or 5" barrel variants. Small frame Keltec and Kahr pistols have reputations for being jamomatics, though such problems can be overcome with effort, patience and repeated returns to the manufacturer.

Seamustx provided a good answer to the original poster's questions regarding the shooter-to-handgun interface and 2-25 yard marksmanship.

Eventually, most people who seriously CCW (not those who get their CHL and only shoot once every five years for qualification purposes) figure out that 21st century high fashion and dressing for concealment are frequently (if not always) mutually exclusive themes. The loose, extra fabric necessary for concealing a full-size autopistol is not always present in the clothes that fashion houses, high-end retailers and the MSM try to persuade us to buy and wear.

5.11/Royal Robbins-type garb is practically the uniform for IDPA, but tends to attract unwanted attention away from the gun range.

Furthermore, excess non-essential bodyfat can further compromise concealment of handguns, spare magazines and other typical CCW items.

In my opinion, it is undesirable to conceal a small handgun that is difficult/impossible to shoot well, nor is it desirable to haul around a full-size handgun that prints ridiculously. Unfortunately, I suspect many make the first choice, with the rationalizations of having the gun, minimal discomfort and obeying the law regarding concealment with ample margin, yet such individuals fortunately seldom have their marksmanship tested in the real world. (If they ever have to shoot when lives are at risk, hopefully they are not faced with technical shooting problems.) Those who carry a J-frame revolvers day-to-day and only shoot full-size pistols in IDPA are a classic example; I am/have been guilty of this.

If the original poster can make it to the Houston Galleria area, I know Top Gun offers rentals. Ordering inert red/blue guns may be a way to test successful range candidates for concealability, but this also requires getting holsters that may not be kept and used in the case of a gun that shoots well on the range, but cannot be effectively concealed. (The dead holster drawer on this forum, or sympathetic members here, may be a source for holsters.)

I am not sure whether what I wrote above is fully coherent, but I hope it helps.

seamusTX wrote:Yes. A larger handgun is easier to shoot accurately. Three primary factors:

• A longer sight radius allows you to aim more accurately.
• A grip long enough to let you hold it firmly with all three fingers improves your ... um ... grip and allows faster recovery from recoil.
• Greater weight increases stability and reduces recoil.

Of course, you don't want something so heavy that you can't hold it for multiple shots; and calisthenics can improve your abilities in the direction..

After that, you get into fine points of ergonomics where a particular weapons suits a particular shooter for some subtle reason.

While I would generally agree a larger handgun can be easier to shoot, I would really stress you last sentence as being most important.

If you take the Glock design as an example, my best groups come from my Glock 19. My shooting does not get better with a G17 or any of the large frame models becuase the G19 fits my hand perfectly while the longer grip G17 sized frame tends to move around in my hand more. The 3rd generation finger grooves of the G19/23 frame also contribute to this fit as the large frame Glocks have the grooves spaced out to much for me...

Plato wrote:If you take the Glock design as an example, my best groups come from my Glock 19. My shooting does not get better with a G17 or any of the large frame models becuase the G19 fits my hand perfectly while the longer grip G17 sized frame tends to move around in my hand more. The 3rd generation finger grooves of the G19/23 frame also contribute to this fit as the large frame Glocks have the grooves spaced out to much for me...

There are many factors like this. Trigger force or "weight" could have its own encyclopedia. Some people like smooth triggers and others serrated. Same for checkered and smooth grips, rubber and wood.

- Jim

Well, that's a lot of information to take it. Thanks everyone!!

I think after reading this, it's a combination of size and ergo that affects my shooting with the Glock. My hands are big, so I have to squish my fingers to fit on the grip even with the mag extensions. The trigger also feels awkward because my fingers are longer and it's hard to find a consistently comfortable position. It just never has felt like a glove the way my Walther did. I have only fired 2-3 handguns (semis at least), and I didn't want to fork over big bucks on a hunch without consulting the more experienced.

yerasimos wrote:Unfortunately, I suspect many make the first choice, with the rationalizations of having the gun, minimal discomfort and obeying the law regarding concealment with ample margin, yet such individuals fortunately seldom have their marksmanship tested in the real world. (If they ever have to shoot when lives are at risk, hopefully they are not faced with technical shooting problems.)

I think you pegged my there.