doc: remember, this is not a carry gun for me, this is going to be a dedicated target pistol. The G30 seems like it would not be ideal for this purpose, primarily because of its small frame. That said, I have seen statements by Mas Ayoob that he is getting 1" groups with the G30 at 25 yards, which is pretty impressive. Still, that would translate to at least double if not more at 50 yards.
most accurate out-of-the-box .45?
- Thread starter tuj
- Start date
- Status
doc.lonestar
Member
I understand - but if I am using this as a dedicated ccw then IMHO it would serve well as a target pistol. I have very high demands of my weapons and will download one in a second if it does not perform up to my standards... quickly. The G21 magazine adds a little extra grip if needed. For me I carry using 10 rounders (short mags) and find no difference in performance when compared to the longer g21 mags giving more realestate for gripping.
I make no claims to being a marksman but for me it is more than accurate for target use. If I am taking out the 10 ring at will using what I consider combat timing (mulitple shots in a very short period of time) then it will do even better when you slow down or put her in the hands of a marksman.
When I first started looking at the G30 it was Ayoobs reviews in magazines and websites that lead me in that direction. Could not find one to shoot locally so I bought this one on blind faith and have been more than happy.
I make no claims to being a marksman but for me it is more than accurate for target use. If I am taking out the 10 ring at will using what I consider combat timing (mulitple shots in a very short period of time) then it will do even better when you slow down or put her in the hands of a marksman.
When I first started looking at the G30 it was Ayoobs reviews in magazines and websites that lead me in that direction. Could not find one to shoot locally so I bought this one on blind faith and have been more than happy.
hardluk1
member
Witness elit match maybe the K2 and the lowest prices.
Doc: Then 10-ring for CHL is 100mm x 150mm I believe. For comparison, the closest distance for bullseye is the 50' B2 slow-fire target which has a 22.86mm diameter 10-ring (rapid fire B3 target is a 45.7mm diameter 10-ring). I think we are talking different standards for accuracy. Bullseye is also shot one-handed.
Mr.357Sig
Member
If you're going to go Glock, why not get the full size G21? Compared to the subcompact G30, the 21 offers a better purchase for your hands and a longer barrel and sight radius.
I've also heard good things about Ruger's new .45, the SR1911.
I've also heard good things about Ruger's new .45, the SR1911.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Pro tip for some of the folks here: giving advice on a subject you don't know anything about doesn't make you look any smarter. For instance, suggesting a Glock as a bullseye competition pistol proves that you shouldn't be giving advice about bullseye competition pistols.
Tuj:
You asked why .22's are inherintly more accurate than 1911's, the answer is that they have fixed barrels.
I'm an engineer, so sometimes I get way too analytical for my own good.
OK, 1911 dynamics, say you're shooting a 200 grain boolit at about 800 fps, it takes about .0006 seconds for the bullet to travel the distance of the barrel, this includes a bit of accelaration time in the first couple of inches of bullet travel.
The recoil of the bullet imparts an impulse of about 4000 inch ounces per second upon the gun, of which the slide and barrel are free to move rearward. This impulse gets the slide and barrel moving rearward at about 200 inches per second. In the .0006 seconds it takes the bullet to exit the barrel, both barrel and slide have moved rearward about 1/10 of an inch. During this travel the barrel can be moved around by several things, mainly the recoil lug as it drags along the slide stop pin. The front of the barrel can move around a bit if the barrel bushing isn't tight. You're launching a 200 grain projectile from a 20 ounce platform (the weight of the barrel and slide), and it definately moves around before the bullet leaves the bore, rubbing a few things on the way.
Now the .22 LR, here the barrel is fixed, and the dynamics have less disturbance on barrel movement before the bullet exits. OK, the physics: Lets say a .22 generates 15,000 PSI in firing, this imparts a force of about 700 pounds on the bolt face for an effective .0004 seconds. If the bolt weighs say 5 ounces, this gives an acceleration of about 72,000 feet per second squared. Acting over the .0004 seconds this gives the bolt a rearward speed of about 28 feet per second. So it also has moved about 1/10" in the time the bullet exits the bore.
Now, what does this have to do with barrel movement in the .22, almost nothing. The bolt is pretty free to move rearward, and its mass is very small compared to the rest of the gun, so even though it is rubbing on the rails and hammer and such, it doesn't affect the barrel much.
The barrel of a .22 does move a bit, but since it's fixed the mass of the gun makes it very steady. Just as a rough estimate, lets say the barrel in a .22 has an effective mass of 25 ounces (this roughly takes into account rotational inertia of the frame and barrel geometry, and free travel of the bolt). Using the same impulse calculation as on the 1911, the .22 barrel has moved less than 1/50" of an inch as the bullet leaves the muzzle. And since the .22 barrel is fixed, it's movement is more consistant than a floating barrel which bumps around a bit as it unlocks.
The accuracy of a .22 is probably more dependant upon the quality of the bore and rifling and the condition of the crown, while the 1911 has way more things going on before the bullet is sufficiently downrange to be beyond the effect of the machine that launched it.
Oh, and your other question, about 1911 alternatives, there are plenty of autoloaders that shoot very accurately. Smith made the model 52 target pistol (I beleive they can still be had from the custom shop in 9mm), Sig makes the 210 series. I understand the CZ 75's are very accurate. I had an EAA Witness (CZ clone), that was very accurate. I also have a stock Browning Hi-Power that shoots 1" to 1 1/2" groups at 25 yards with cast boolets (I shoot most of my pistol targets at this range).
Bullseye used to be shot with revolvers predominantly, they are incredibly accurate, usrally right out of the box, but then we're back to the fixed barrel thing.
Sorry about the way boring post, like a friend of mine says, "always leave em wanting less".
You asked why .22's are inherintly more accurate than 1911's, the answer is that they have fixed barrels.
I'm an engineer, so sometimes I get way too analytical for my own good.
OK, 1911 dynamics, say you're shooting a 200 grain boolit at about 800 fps, it takes about .0006 seconds for the bullet to travel the distance of the barrel, this includes a bit of accelaration time in the first couple of inches of bullet travel.
The recoil of the bullet imparts an impulse of about 4000 inch ounces per second upon the gun, of which the slide and barrel are free to move rearward. This impulse gets the slide and barrel moving rearward at about 200 inches per second. In the .0006 seconds it takes the bullet to exit the barrel, both barrel and slide have moved rearward about 1/10 of an inch. During this travel the barrel can be moved around by several things, mainly the recoil lug as it drags along the slide stop pin. The front of the barrel can move around a bit if the barrel bushing isn't tight. You're launching a 200 grain projectile from a 20 ounce platform (the weight of the barrel and slide), and it definately moves around before the bullet leaves the bore, rubbing a few things on the way.
Now the .22 LR, here the barrel is fixed, and the dynamics have less disturbance on barrel movement before the bullet exits. OK, the physics: Lets say a .22 generates 15,000 PSI in firing, this imparts a force of about 700 pounds on the bolt face for an effective .0004 seconds. If the bolt weighs say 5 ounces, this gives an acceleration of about 72,000 feet per second squared. Acting over the .0004 seconds this gives the bolt a rearward speed of about 28 feet per second. So it also has moved about 1/10" in the time the bullet exits the bore.
Now, what does this have to do with barrel movement in the .22, almost nothing. The bolt is pretty free to move rearward, and its mass is very small compared to the rest of the gun, so even though it is rubbing on the rails and hammer and such, it doesn't affect the barrel much.
The barrel of a .22 does move a bit, but since it's fixed the mass of the gun makes it very steady. Just as a rough estimate, lets say the barrel in a .22 has an effective mass of 25 ounces (this roughly takes into account rotational inertia of the frame and barrel geometry, and free travel of the bolt). Using the same impulse calculation as on the 1911, the .22 barrel has moved less than 1/50" of an inch as the bullet leaves the muzzle. And since the .22 barrel is fixed, it's movement is more consistant than a floating barrel which bumps around a bit as it unlocks.
The accuracy of a .22 is probably more dependant upon the quality of the bore and rifling and the condition of the crown, while the 1911 has way more things going on before the bullet is sufficiently downrange to be beyond the effect of the machine that launched it.
Oh, and your other question, about 1911 alternatives, there are plenty of autoloaders that shoot very accurately. Smith made the model 52 target pistol (I beleive they can still be had from the custom shop in 9mm), Sig makes the 210 series. I understand the CZ 75's are very accurate. I had an EAA Witness (CZ clone), that was very accurate. I also have a stock Browning Hi-Power that shoots 1" to 1 1/2" groups at 25 yards with cast boolets (I shoot most of my pistol targets at this range).
Bullseye used to be shot with revolvers predominantly, they are incredibly accurate, usrally right out of the box, but then we're back to the fixed barrel thing.
Sorry about the way boring post, like a friend of mine says, "always leave em wanting less".
Last edited:
GotLead: thanks, I am an engineer by training as well and I figured as much about the fixed versus moving barrels as to the accuracy issue. I guess what surprises me in that in the .22 arena, one can find many dedicated target pistols of exceptional quality (Pardini, Hammerli, FWB, Walther SSP, Benelli) which have incredible grips and extremely low bore-lines. Yet when one looks to buy a .45 for bullseye, the only route seems to be a 1911 worked over by a well-known smith specifically for bullseye. There does not seem to be a market for accurate .45's that depart from the traditional 1911 design. This leaves me confused. One might think that a unique design such as gas-operation or rotating barrel (ala PX4) might prove to be superior to the traditional 1911. I have nothing against 1911's, I'm just surprised that no one has improved upon the design in terms of accuracy. Is this because of the legality/unpopularity of .45's in European countries (which tend to manufacture the best high-end .22's)?
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
There are a lot of reasons why 1911s dominate bullseye pistol shooting (among other shooting sports) in the US.
Super-accurate .45 caliber guns with light single-action trigger pulls are very much a niche market, so you aren't going to see a major gun maker do a clean-sheet design just so they can sell 50 guns a year that group fractionally tighter at 50 yards than an old bullseye 1911. There is no real money in it.
Pistolsmiths who already know how to make a 1911 that wins bullseye matches have no incentive to branch out into accurizing another design when almost all their customers are used to shooting the 1911 and the 1911 has a much bigger pool of aftermarket parts to work with.
Shooters who trained on the 1911 have no incentive to re-learn how to shoot with a different platform unless the accuracy gain is huge, which is pretty unlikely.
Super-accurate .45 caliber guns with light single-action trigger pulls are very much a niche market, so you aren't going to see a major gun maker do a clean-sheet design just so they can sell 50 guns a year that group fractionally tighter at 50 yards than an old bullseye 1911. There is no real money in it.
Pistolsmiths who already know how to make a 1911 that wins bullseye matches have no incentive to branch out into accurizing another design when almost all their customers are used to shooting the 1911 and the 1911 has a much bigger pool of aftermarket parts to work with.
Shooters who trained on the 1911 have no incentive to re-learn how to shoot with a different platform unless the accuracy gain is huge, which is pretty unlikely.
I loved your post. I have technical questions on stuff and hope someone of your caliber can help point me in the correct direction when I post them.
How true. You know a lot depends on the game. Bullseye shooting is a game that goes at least as far back as WWI . The military set the rules around the service pistols of the era and since it is a game, it carried on long after the M1911 was out of service.
Today, at Camp Perry you can still shoot in the service pistol category with a M1911. And the M1911 has to be “GI” configuration. There are allowances for better sights, but it is now the NRA description of what GI configuration. I know it means no beavertails.
A bud of mine was forced to remove his hex head grip screws and replace them with slotted screws. The line judges told him it was not a service pistol with hex head screws. I agree with my bud that the rules had some loose screws.
So, if you are looking for a bullseye accurate 45 ACP, it is going to be based on M1911’s for historical reasons, for accessories, for gunsmiths.
From bud’s who shoot bullseye, the M92 Beretta is displacing the 45 ACP. Less recoil seems to be the reason.
SwampWolf
Member
You still are required to shoot .45s in NRA Bullseye sanctioned matches if you plan on competing in all three stages (.22rf/centerfire/.45). If the op has to stay around a thousand dollars and still wants a pistol capable of competing at the typical fifty yard, slow-fire distance, I'd look for a used Series 70 Colt Gold Cup or a used Smith & Wesson Model 945 in good condition. You minimally need a 1911 pistol, chambered in .45 ACP and having open sights to participate in at least one event at Camp Perry and other ranges.
slamfire1 said:
The M9 becoming more numerous on the line during the Distinguished Service pistol shoots and the President's 100 for a couple of reasons. One is that it is the Service pistol being used in the Services, and the military guys will more likely be using them.
Another reason is that the 9mm can be made a little more precise as well compared to the .45 acp.
However, accrurizing the thing has proven to be a real bear and requires a lot of modifications. David Sams in Centerville, VA is probably the #1 guy out there to make a 9mm shoot worth a hoot. but, like mose smiths of his talents they run about 12-18 months wait.
However, although the Berretta is becoming more often seen, I see them at most 1-5 out of a 100
It's been quite a few years, but if I remember correctly, bullseye consisted of 3 matches, .45, centerfire, and .22. A lot of competitors used their .45's for the centerfire match as well, consequently needing only 2 guns. Some competitors used a third gun, usually in .38 special for the centerfire. Two of the more popular ones were .38 special 1911's and Smith & Wesson M-52's.
And if you wanted distinguished, you also shot a leg match with .45 ball (change out them wadcutter springs boys!). Some competitors had specialized ball guns, tuned to shoot the ball ammo. Consequently, another gun.
I remember marveling at the contents of some of the competitor's range boxes, from the spotting scopes, to perhaps 6 or more highly accurized 1911's, M-52's, M-41's and Supermatics, a person could have a $10,000 bill into one of these boxes. This is where I saw my first Smith M-52. I was absoultely drooling over the deep mirror blue finish, and the comfort of the grips.
You know how you get an idea stuck in your head and it doesn't go away, well the 52 was like that for me. One day there she was, a dash nothing, perfect, unfired in the gunshop for a hundred spot less than a grand. "You're not going to actually fire that thing are you?" Yup.
I'm still looking for that bullseye .45
And if you wanted distinguished, you also shot a leg match with .45 ball (change out them wadcutter springs boys!). Some competitors had specialized ball guns, tuned to shoot the ball ammo. Consequently, another gun.
I remember marveling at the contents of some of the competitor's range boxes, from the spotting scopes, to perhaps 6 or more highly accurized 1911's, M-52's, M-41's and Supermatics, a person could have a $10,000 bill into one of these boxes. This is where I saw my first Smith M-52. I was absoultely drooling over the deep mirror blue finish, and the comfort of the grips.
You know how you get an idea stuck in your head and it doesn't go away, well the 52 was like that for me. One day there she was, a dash nothing, perfect, unfired in the gunshop for a hundred spot less than a grand. "You're not going to actually fire that thing are you?" Yup.
I'm still looking for that bullseye .45
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
That sounds like a friend of mine who was a high-level bullseye shooter. He also had some kind of really rare .32 caliber Sig (I think?) target pistol that was apparently made from the Lance of Longinus or something, ancient customized Colt National Match guns in .45 and .38 Special, and a bunch of others besides.
got_lead: no I am not reloading at this point. I am planning on buying handloads from a local or from Brian Zin's new line, and hoping to find something factory that's cheap to practice with. I am reluctant to also commit the capital for handloading as I only would be using it for this gun (the .45, obviously can't reload .22's) at this point in my shooting progression. I do understand the wad guns need a fairly specific load. Is there no factory loading that would suffice?
[btw, nice evangelion refererence from sean!]
[btw, nice evangelion refererence from sean!]
I would say a highend 1911.
Even my Colt Combat Elite is a pretty damn accurate pistol.
I shot a buddies old Remington Rand Type I 1911 a while back, and I was hitting pretty close to what I was aiming for with it old school sites and all. It surprised me how accurate it was being an old service gun built in either late 1942, or early 1943.
Even my Colt Combat Elite is a pretty damn accurate pistol.
I shot a buddies old Remington Rand Type I 1911 a while back, and I was hitting pretty close to what I was aiming for with it old school sites and all. It surprised me how accurate it was being an old service gun built in either late 1942, or early 1943.
Get R Done Guns
Member
Colt Combat Elite +1 is a great accurate gun. Give you the target to prove it to!
Tuj:
It has been my experience that the best accuracy is obtained by tuning the load to the gun. As a rule of thumb, what shoots well in one gun will usually shoot well in others, however, this is not always 100%. One of the loads that shoots well in my Springfield 1911 (200 gn cast RNFP with 4.3 grains of Titegroup) also shoots well in my XD. I found a good 9mm load that shoots a 1" to 1 1/2" group from my Hi-Power also shoots well from a 6" Luger, however, it does not do so well in my 226. The 226 shoots better with slightly more powder, and this load doesn't shoot accurately in the Hi-Power.
I really don't know how loads interchange between similar guns, say 2 or 3 different 1911's. My guess is that they would share similar charactaristics, however, one gun preferring a .1 or .2 grain charge difference over another. My Smith 52 for example gives me the best accuracy with 2.3 grains of Bullseye behind a 148 grain cast WC, while the accepted conventional load for this gun is 2.5 or 2.7 grains of BE, these loadings open my groups up about an inch at the 25 yard line over the 2.3 grains.
I remember when I first started loading, I was about 19 or 20 years old, and had loaded some ammo for my Marlin 30-30. I had been meticulous about the charges, seating, case prep, etc. For the load I had selected the one highlited as "Accurate" from my Lyman reloaders handbook. For the occasion, I mounted a 4 power scope on the rifle and headed to the range. How could it be anything but perfect? I shot a target at 50 yards, 5 rounds printed into abour 4 inches. OK, barrel needs to foul in. I shot 5 more, ant then 5 more, no better, I was very disappointed. Later that week I was at the gun counter at GI Joes lamenting my disappointment, and a gentleman asked me if I was just getting started reloading. I said I was and related the story of my 30-30 reloads. He said I should tune the load to the gun, starting a couple of grains low, then working up in .2 or .3 grain increments. He said the first groups may be loose, then I should see a tightning trend, continuing to tighten until the smallest group was obtained, then as the load progressed heavier, it would open up again. I kind of didn't beleive this would happen, but in desperation, it was worth a try. So I did as he suggested, started low, and worked up in .2 grain increments.
And so I headed to the range to try this work-up. viola!! Just like he said, the groups at 50 yards went from 4 inches down to 1/2", then opened up again as my loads went over this sweet spot. Every centerfire I own, rifles and pistols follow this same pattern. Some are more inherently accurate, and some take more work. Sometimes you get lucky with factory ammo, sometimes it only shoots mediocrely.
Typically with non-tuned ammo, I expect 3 to 4 inch groups at 25 yards out of most pistols, both automatics and revolvers. With load tuning this can be reduced to groups of 1 1/2" or less.
The revolver has perhaps an edge on inherent accuracy because of the fixed barrel, and can be made to shoot a little easier than the autoloader. For automatics, if the gun is tight, you can get a 1 1/2" group, if the gun is tight, yes I said that twice. Most new auto's lock up pretty tight, Sigs, CZ's, XD's, Brownings all have pretty good lock-up right out of the box. 1911's can go either way, their reputation will preceed them. Old military imports, parts guns, etc, can be pretty loose, and shoot accordingly.
Anyway, you seem to be in the same boat as me, looking for a 1911 that has match grade potential, for less than a second mortgage on the house. Popular opinion seems to favor the Springfield Range Officer, as a pretty tight gun for less than $1000, I am also looking at some of the S&W 1911's, the ones I have looked at seemed pretty tight.
It too bad we can't hit the range together to work on bullseye, I'm always looking to try to improve my shooting.
It has been my experience that the best accuracy is obtained by tuning the load to the gun. As a rule of thumb, what shoots well in one gun will usually shoot well in others, however, this is not always 100%. One of the loads that shoots well in my Springfield 1911 (200 gn cast RNFP with 4.3 grains of Titegroup) also shoots well in my XD. I found a good 9mm load that shoots a 1" to 1 1/2" group from my Hi-Power also shoots well from a 6" Luger, however, it does not do so well in my 226. The 226 shoots better with slightly more powder, and this load doesn't shoot accurately in the Hi-Power.
I really don't know how loads interchange between similar guns, say 2 or 3 different 1911's. My guess is that they would share similar charactaristics, however, one gun preferring a .1 or .2 grain charge difference over another. My Smith 52 for example gives me the best accuracy with 2.3 grains of Bullseye behind a 148 grain cast WC, while the accepted conventional load for this gun is 2.5 or 2.7 grains of BE, these loadings open my groups up about an inch at the 25 yard line over the 2.3 grains.
I remember when I first started loading, I was about 19 or 20 years old, and had loaded some ammo for my Marlin 30-30. I had been meticulous about the charges, seating, case prep, etc. For the load I had selected the one highlited as "Accurate" from my Lyman reloaders handbook. For the occasion, I mounted a 4 power scope on the rifle and headed to the range. How could it be anything but perfect? I shot a target at 50 yards, 5 rounds printed into abour 4 inches. OK, barrel needs to foul in. I shot 5 more, ant then 5 more, no better, I was very disappointed. Later that week I was at the gun counter at GI Joes lamenting my disappointment, and a gentleman asked me if I was just getting started reloading. I said I was and related the story of my 30-30 reloads. He said I should tune the load to the gun, starting a couple of grains low, then working up in .2 or .3 grain increments. He said the first groups may be loose, then I should see a tightning trend, continuing to tighten until the smallest group was obtained, then as the load progressed heavier, it would open up again. I kind of didn't beleive this would happen, but in desperation, it was worth a try. So I did as he suggested, started low, and worked up in .2 grain increments.
And so I headed to the range to try this work-up. viola!! Just like he said, the groups at 50 yards went from 4 inches down to 1/2", then opened up again as my loads went over this sweet spot. Every centerfire I own, rifles and pistols follow this same pattern. Some are more inherently accurate, and some take more work. Sometimes you get lucky with factory ammo, sometimes it only shoots mediocrely.
Typically with non-tuned ammo, I expect 3 to 4 inch groups at 25 yards out of most pistols, both automatics and revolvers. With load tuning this can be reduced to groups of 1 1/2" or less.
The revolver has perhaps an edge on inherent accuracy because of the fixed barrel, and can be made to shoot a little easier than the autoloader. For automatics, if the gun is tight, you can get a 1 1/2" group, if the gun is tight, yes I said that twice. Most new auto's lock up pretty tight, Sigs, CZ's, XD's, Brownings all have pretty good lock-up right out of the box. 1911's can go either way, their reputation will preceed them. Old military imports, parts guns, etc, can be pretty loose, and shoot accordingly.
Anyway, you seem to be in the same boat as me, looking for a 1911 that has match grade potential, for less than a second mortgage on the house. Popular opinion seems to favor the Springfield Range Officer, as a pretty tight gun for less than $1000, I am also looking at some of the S&W 1911's, the ones I have looked at seemed pretty tight.
It too bad we can't hit the range together to work on bullseye, I'm always looking to try to improve my shooting.
i loves my gun
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 77
glocks are accurate but not that accurate, if its gonna be dedicated to just that, then why not just wait save up some more money and get the real deal...
Magnumite
Member
The SA Range Officer is a no frills Trophy Match, basically. The Trophy Match is a bullseye gun. They guarantee 2.5" at 25 yards but realistically, you'll get around 1.5 to 2.0" at that mark for the TM and now I am hearing the RO.
Some claims here are very misleading. Before anyone can say their gun can do bullseye required groups at 50 yards, you need to shoot the gun off bags at that distance or you're misleading the poster into possibly making a poor purchase for his needs. Good groups at 15 yards can easily break up into shotgun groups at 50 yards.
That said, many posters with bullseye background have given good information. You'll have to pay more than 1K for the 1.5"/50 yard gun. And that is with good match softball ammo. Professional bullseye smiths go through great, I mean great pains to get a gun to shoot into 1.5" at 50 yards from a Ransom Rest. Those are sometimes 10 shot groups. If you are starting out, as you say you are and looking for a reliable, reasonably accurate gun, look around for a clean, used, unaltered Springfield Trophy Match or a Wilson, Bear or Brown used 1911. You could even get the SA RO and have a good 1911 smith fit a good barrel and do a trigger job for you. That will get you there in just about $1,000 and you'll have a competitive gun until you can scrape up the cash for a well built bullseye gun. In this case, with honest sales, you'll get what you pay for.
Some claims here are very misleading. Before anyone can say their gun can do bullseye required groups at 50 yards, you need to shoot the gun off bags at that distance or you're misleading the poster into possibly making a poor purchase for his needs. Good groups at 15 yards can easily break up into shotgun groups at 50 yards.
That said, many posters with bullseye background have given good information. You'll have to pay more than 1K for the 1.5"/50 yard gun. And that is with good match softball ammo. Professional bullseye smiths go through great, I mean great pains to get a gun to shoot into 1.5" at 50 yards from a Ransom Rest. Those are sometimes 10 shot groups. If you are starting out, as you say you are and looking for a reliable, reasonably accurate gun, look around for a clean, used, unaltered Springfield Trophy Match or a Wilson, Bear or Brown used 1911. You could even get the SA RO and have a good 1911 smith fit a good barrel and do a trigger job for you. That will get you there in just about $1,000 and you'll have a competitive gun until you can scrape up the cash for a well built bullseye gun. In this case, with honest sales, you'll get what you pay for.
Last edited:
usp9
Member
HK USP Elite. It was made to be accurate... nothing but accurate. Last I saw them at CDNN they were going for $899!
i loves my gun
Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 77
i got an elite in 9mm, it takes names
Ala Dan
Member in memoriam
I will have to second the opinion of my internet friend Tony Angel; as
my old West German SIG-SAUER (not to be confused with SIGARMS), is a fine
tact driver. And it just maybe me, but I can shoot it better than I can my much
more expensive Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special~! Guess I need more practice
with the Baer, uh~?
my old West German SIG-SAUER (not to be confused with SIGARMS), is a fine
tact driver. And it just maybe me, but I can shoot it better than I can my much
more expensive Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special~! Guess I need more practice
with the Baer, uh~?
- Status
