J frame vs compact pistol ... expectations

Status
Not open for further replies.
I bought my first semi auto(Sig P226 9 Legion) four years ago and initially shot it fairly well. When I started shooting my revolvers and my Sig on the same range trip I started shooting the Sig consistently low. Shooting a revolver and my Sig on the same trip with different sight pictures and grip techniques before I mastered the semi auto was my downfall. I was considering selling the Sig it was so frustrating. I started dedicating my range trips to the Sig only and working on a proper grip and not flinching. The difference was immediately obvious with most of my shots on target with an occasional low shot when not concentrating. It was a very good day when I made the break through. Stick with it and shoot closer distances until you get your shots where you want them.
 
I'm not familiar with your Walther, but I have used other small automatics. A big key may be weight, more so than barrel length. If the weight is equal to your Smith Model 60, I see no reason why with time and practice that you can't do just as well with the Walther.

450 rounds over four months isn't a lot. I'd be amazed if anyone could do that with the Model 60 with such a low round count, if they didn't have a backlog of experience from shooting something else.

You've proven that you're willing to take the time to learn, to pay your dues. If you're not satisfied with your rapid fire shooting doing the same thing over and over again isn't likely to change anything. You can't shoot better fast than you can shoot slow. I'd back off the speed and shoot slow fire until I had a group I liked. Then, I'd gradually pick up the pace. To be able to put a round a second in the target you're using at the distance you describe isn't an unreasonable expectation, but it is better than the vast majority of pistol shooters can do with a small gun.

You're way ahead in that you understand that the number of rounds you put downrange means nothing. Only the hits count.
 
I'm sure the small revolvers can be very effective, but a smaller semi does everything better for me. I've never shot the small revolvers nearly as well. And it's not just about ammo capacity, my G43 only holds 1 more round, but I not only shoot it more accurately, but find it easier to carry. And 9mm +P in the semi is a lot more comfortable to shoot than the hotter 38+p from a revolver.
 
I have had and shot a lot of different guns in my life and shoot everything pretty good. I started with mostly crisp SA or DA triggers e.g. 1911s and DA/SA revolvers. The 2 stagieness of striker guns gave me fits for a while but practice and persistence prevailed and now as long as the trigger is on the bottom n sights on top I'm GTG.
I think you'll find with more use the auto will become much easier to shoot. My suggestion would be to get a cheap laser for the rail on your Walther and practice trigger control dry firing.
 
Kudos for trying to create real data, to answer your question. That sort of thing is worth a lot more than internet jabber.

The flip side is, I'm puzzled by your choice of testing procedure. 50 feet is starting to get out there for a rapid fire test, especially with little guns. But the yes or no of a steel hit doesn't really give very fine data about accuracy.

I would suggest some of the standard drills, (El Presidente, Vice Presidente, etc.)

A few other things. "1 shot per second..." That phrase seems to suggest that you were shooting a cadence. That's something they warn competitive shooters against; if you get into a rhythm, you can real easily pull the trigger because "it's time to shoot," rather than because you see sights on target.

450 rounds... That's not too shabby; it's more than a lot of people shoot. But are you doing any dry fire? If I were learning a new gun, I'd be doing enough live fire to figure out what grip I needed, things like that, and then really refine it and "burn it in," through dry fire. I usually look for at the very least a 10:1 ratio of dry to live, if not more like 100:1.

Lastly, little guns are always harder to shoot than their big brothers. It might be beneficial to start with something bigger, and "work down."
 
Transitioning from a J-frame to a semi-auto can be a problem and require some training to avoid developing bad habits. Bad habits can be costly. I suggest you get with a competent person to watch your shooting skills and give you adequate feedback to correct any deficiencies or enhance your skills. An hour with a skilled trainer is worth more than a few boxes of ammo shot up trying to solo at the range.
 
I'm not familiar with your Walther, but I have used other small automatics. A big key may be weight, more so than barrel length. If the weight is equal to your Smith Model 60, I see no reason why with time and practice that you can't do just as well with the Walther.

450 rounds over four months isn't a lot. I'd be amazed if anyone could do that with the Model 60 with such a low round count, if they didn't have a backlog of experience from shooting something else.

You've proven that you're willing to take the time to learn, to pay your dues. If you're not satisfied with your rapid fire shooting doing the same thing over and over again isn't likely to change anything. You can't shoot better fast than you can shoot slow. I'd back off the speed and shoot slow fire until I had a group I liked. Then, I'd gradually pick up the pace. To be able to put a round a second in the target you're using at the distance you describe isn't an unreasonable expectation, but it is better than the vast majority of pistol shooters can do with a small gun.

You're way ahead in that you understand that the number of rounds you put downrange means nothing. Only the hits count.

First time I ever fired a J-Frame it was a Model 60. I rolled off 5-Shots DA at 3 Yards at 1.0 second per shot pace. I made a 5-leaf clover about 0.5" between centers. I decided right then to buy one.

I had a good bit of experience with a K-Frame and a DW 15-2 already.

I know 3 Yards doesn't an accuracy test make but it told me I would be able to shoot it.

A Walther PPK is a torture implement commissioned just for me. I likely would be more accurate throwing it one handed over my back than shooting it.

A PPS M2 on the other hand I would liken more to my .45 Shield which I shoot very well. Better than a Model 60 at 15 Yards and not much worse than a G19 sized M&P M2.0 Compact.
 
Last edited:
I can share my experience as an instructor - I offer a fleet of handguns for new shooters to try before they buy something else, and almost universally, shooters will do better with a pistol than a DA revolver. Longer sight radius, shorter & lighter trigger, at least after the first shot (for all but DAO), lower bore height over the wrist... blame it on whatever you like, folks shoot pistols more naturally and more effectively than snubnosed revolvers.

But also universally, folks will be most effective with whatever handgun they are most practiced. Right now, you’re most practice with your revolver.
 
I'm the same. I'm middle-aged and grew up shooting revolvers. I just can't shoot the average service or CC semiautomatic as well as I can shoot a similar revolver.

I shoot them equally often these days, but apparently old habits die hard.
 
Well folks , the input has been plentiful , informative , well thought out and well intended. To go back over a couple of points ... I know that I can deal with short sight radius because I do well with a variety of snub nose revolvers. Regarding my choice of target and distance , the criteria described in my opening post is one of many I used in practice ; on the day cited I had decided to do a side by side comparison between the PPS and the .38 snub , and that was my set up at that time. FWIW , I had fired the PPS almost exclusively in the past several shooting sessions going into the informal test. As far as rate of fire is concerned , I was not striving for a cadence , rather shooting at a rate at which I could acquire the target reasonably well without turning it into slow fire target shooting. In that effort to acquire the target I was slower with the PPS , but still with poorer results.

Now I could hook up with an instructor and invest more hours and ammunition , or I could accept the reality of the fact that I have been striving to improve my semi-auto shooting for several years now , and in the course of that time certain patterns have become evident , primarily : I do not perform well with semi-auto pistols that have square slide sections (slab sided / flat topped) - even those with longer sight radii and decent sights. I know that there are ergonomics at play aside from the sight picture - grip angle for example - but I know from experience that I am a better shot with my 1 7/8" snub w/ minimal sights than I am with any 4" 3 dot Glock. I can regularly go well under 1 second per target in steel plate with my Ruger MKI (exposed barrel) or my Beretta 92 (mostly exposed barrel and rounded slide) , but I struggle to hit a stationary , larger target at the same distance and much slower rate with any box-slide pistol , including the PPS. I can point and shoot my worn surplus High Power with good results and little effort.(rounded slide with rib). I wanted to like the PPS , I really did. I think it is well designed , great trigger as strikers go , sits in the hand nicely , and so on.

But - I just sold it. I knew that with enough training and practice I could improve somewhat , but I believe that the degree of effort required of me was saying "not your gun". So now what? The PPS left me with a very positive impression of the quality of Walther pistols. After much reading I have decided to give a P99 AS a whirl . My semi auto carry preference is sa/da pistol , round chambered , hammer down , safety off. That way I can draw and fire without needing to actuate any control but the trigger. That's what I like ; it's comfortable for a revolver guy like me. The P99 is a bit uncommon in that it is a striker design with a sa/da option , and it has a contoured slide with a rib. I like the rib - for me it really aids in pointing. I expect the ergonomics to be good , I like the optional backstrap panels. (long fingers.) The longer sight radius can't hurt.

So , that's my next move. I made that decision this weekend after much consideration and reading. This thread is full of good advice which will be applied to my training with the P99. I am pretty excited by the prospect ; we'll see soon if my reasoning is sound or just wishful thinking.

I will update when the time comes ; thanks to all who chimed in.
 
A J frame is a compact pistol. What you'll probably notice is a tendency to shoot low in transferring from a J frame to a semiauto. Such guns are short-range guns, and the sight sits higher over the bore. Not much, but enough to change things.

In the world of trapshooting, it is acceptable to use the 'new gun excuse for 1000 rounds( ten 100's)...then you're expected to fall back on 'bug in my eye' or 'raised my head' etc.
Of course, I'm kidding....sort of.
The switch from a j frame to a semi auto is a big switch. Two very different guns.

Good luck with the P99.

So I have 500 left on the Ljutic. Good to know. ;) I have a session with a Garmin Xero S1 set up in the near future. Bug in my eye, never tried that one. :thumbup:
 
Such guns are short-range guns, and the sight sits higher over the bore. Not much, but enough to change things.

That makes sense , but my main concern was the looseness of my groups rather that consistent low groups. Low tight groups are something I could have adjusted.
 
To the OP, it is possible you have better trigger control-with the revolver. When I started NRA action pistol, I tried to shoot a 9MM semi auto. My trigger control was horrendous. Then I tried a S&W 686 with 6” barrel. My groups tightened and I was able to shoot faster because of the long smooth double action trigger.
 
That may well be. That would be part of why I do well with revolvers compared to auto loaders. But the fact is I do much better with some semi autos that others ; this has been confirmed as I have ramped up my shooting volume during the last 12 months.
I believe that my thought process , that which led me to my recent decision, is valid.

We'll soon see.
 
And of course, if all your efforts to improve with the Walther lead you nowhere pleasant, you can always go and get a second revolver and thereby double the amount of ammo ready for good, precise handgun fire!
Greetings
Carsten
 
Yesterday I did a comparison exercise. The target was a steel torso silhouette about 2/3 life size (approx 18x20"), the range 50 ft. At about 1 shot per second , unsupported , my hit rate with the pistol was about 65% , with the S&W m.60 J frame (da) 90% .

I shoot 3"X5" index cards at that distance and expect 80% from my Sig P365 and my Glock 42, and the misses are still rather close. 8 inch circles at 25 yards are not difficult with either. I couldn't come close to that with a J frame. It also is uncomfortable to shoot 100-200 rounds in a session. I gave up on J frames years ago.
 
First of all, revolvers and autos are measured differently in terms of barrel length. If you measured both from the rear of the cartridge the barrel length would be about the same. Second, are the sights really that much better with the auto? You should be well aquainted with your M60 sights by now. Next, I think your biggest issue just may be grips. Revolvers are much better than autos as you can more easily find grips that fit you and point naturally. Last, as someone has already said, practice at a closer range (5-10 yards) not 50 feet. Do you really anticipate a defensive shot at 50+ feet?
 
And of course, if all your efforts to improve with the Walther lead you nowhere pleasant, you can always go and get a second revolver and thereby double the amount of ammo ready for good, precise handgun fire!
Yes , I am familiar with the "New York reload" practice , and occasionally go that route.

What if you run out of time before you run out of ammo?
Accuracy matters.
Agreed. That is why I still carry my 60 ; have not yet reached the point at which I can justify the switch.

It ... is uncomfortable to shoot 100-200 rounds in a session. I gave up on J frames years ago.
I gave up on alloy and polymer J frames a long time ago. I find a steel/ stainless J frame to be quite comfortable and manageable - with standard .38 sp loads , NOT .357 , or even +P.
After all , the J frame was designed to be built of steel and chambered in .38 special ... right? (Potential thread drift warning - my fault.)

Do you really anticipate a defensive shot at 50+ feet?
That question has come up here and elsewhere often. At another risk of thread drift , I will respond. My 60 is quite suitable for some scenarios , such as : bad guy demands wallet and otherwise threatens in retail parking lot - close range , 5 rounds likely to resolve the situation or fail to do so without expending all ammo. General close quarters self defense in general , I am confident with that revolver.
Different scenario --- Mad man decides to shoot up a church congregation. Bad guy is at front or rear of church , defensive shooter is in mid congregation. Longer distance. Bad guy must be disrupted asap as to minimize casualties. Defensive shooter reveals his location and intent by returning fire. In that situation I would hate to burn off the 5 rounds without totally neutralizing the threat , thereby becoming a sitting duck.
The recent defensive shooting in Texas - 1 perfect shot , threat neutralized , is what one would hope for , but one cannot count on it.

Some might say that it is a stretch for me to speculate in such a fashion , but we carry for a reason , - preparation for defense against a deadly threat. I think it makes sense to give consideration as to what form that threat may take.
Short response : I am not comfortable with 5 round limitation in the church setting.
 
In general, I prefer competency over capacity, echoing a previous commenter. I'd rather a service .38/.357 (or even .45 Colt) I can put rounds on target with, than a G19 I can't hit the broad side of a barn with. I truly prefer a 1911 Gov't. For concealed carry, one should carry what suits their lifestyle. Generally a capable caliber, compact enough to carry concealed in the method chosen, but large enough to shoot and handle adequately.
 
You know , the High Power would suit my purposes perfectly if it weren't for the condition 1 situation... (some will disagree with the following) the HP would require me to carry either be dependent on the safety or carry half cock. I am not comfortable with option 1 because the safety does not seem "positive" enough for me , plus I prefer to not have to deal with any safety - I want to draw and deal with trigger only. Hence my quest for the P99 which has sa/da function. I considered carrying the HP in half-cock , but with that particular gun 1/2 cock is actually about 1/5 cock , and the force necessary to bring that hammer over the top is formidable. One slip and it's no go ; not comfortable with that either.

Too bad because the High Power points effortlessly for me ; my results with it equal that with any of my revolvers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top