Reliability vs Accuracy, whats more important to you?

[TonyT]

Unfortunately I want both reliability and accuracy. I had a SA 1911 target in 9mm which was very reliable but would not group better than ca 4-6 inches at 50 ft (after two trips to the factory). I replaced it with a Dan Wesson PM-9 which is equaly reliable and produces 1 inch groups at that distance.

 

[tipoc]

With a decent 1911 you have the most adaptable handgun made. You can have both reliability and accuracy. Why not have both?

tipoc

 

[camar]

Irregardless of the weapon if it is not reliable it is useless. You can correct this by taking it to a gunsmith or try change ammo.
The accuracy can be corrected with the ammo it likes and your skill which comes from practice, practice, and practice. Become more comfortable with your weapon than you are with your wife. Both of your lives may depend on that.

 

[ACP]

You need to focus your question.

Target competition gun? Accuracy. But I don't compete.

Carry gun? There's only a handful of requirements for a carry gun: portable, reliable, powerful enough. That means no x-frame .500 S&W's, nothing that's not 100% reliable all the time, and no .22LR or .25 ACP, etc.

 

[RedTag]

I agree with everybody that reliability is a main concern but reliability is relative. If you take care of your gun on a regular basis then you shouldnt have to worry about reliability and therefore accuracy is your main focus. Thats all i intended to say in my last post

 

[Sheepdog1968]

I'm going to go with reliability. For the most part, I've lost interest in shotting tight groups. I'd rather focus on the mix of speed and accuracy (under most circumstances a 4" group is good enough). I think 4" group at 25 yards is more than adequate for my needs. Just about any pistol should be able to do that. I mostly am concerned about reliability. Having said that, the Glocks, Sigs, XDs, Beretta's seem to be capable of being very reliable.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

For the range? Accuracy, that is why I went Baer and his 1.5" option
For carry? Reliability. I want a gun that will run and I will deal with its precision issues.

 

[PastorAaron]

Why not both?
I carry a Kimber Grand Raptor II as my edc. The thing shoots circles around me and has had 1 issue since purchase (hot day, dirty gun, cheap ammo). A pistol is a tool, and should fulfill a few requirements. I wouldn't buy a claw hammer missing one claw, no matter how good it was for pounding.
God Bless,
Aaron

 

[Damon555]

An accurate gun is of no use to me if it isn't reliable.....

 

[Ankeny]

It occurs to me that everyone can utilize reliability, but not everyone can utilize accuracy (past a given point). Some folks just don't need accuracy. In fact, I have owned handguns that would not group as well as I can shoot and I had no concerns carrying them.

 

[Dogguy]

Reliability. The accuracy is only as good as I am. That changes from day to day.

 

[Ringolevio]

2ifbyC:

There is an old axiom that states you could not hit the broad side of a barn with an M1911 and that’s when you are in the barn. With its loose tolerances, the M1911 was manufactured for reliability. Accuracy is a factor of the firearm and the shooter. I don’t believe Sgt York was using a Gold Cup when he shot and killed six charging German soldiers with fixed bayonets.

You took the words out of my mouth! Actually, you said it far better than I would've; I was just fixin' to say that if accuracy were more important, all of us 1911 pistoleros would carry Gold Cups for SD.

'Ever hear the old expression "It starts like a Ford"? A Ford might not handle like a Jaguar (I know, I know; Ford now owns Jaguar and the new Jags look like Ford Tauruses, but that's not my point), but when it comes down to which one will fire up when you turn the key, which would you bet on?

To continue the car analogy, most of us are not nearly "driver enough" for the cars we drive. But a truly skilled driver can whip a Crown Vic around like a sports car. I know that my SD guns are capable of far more accuracy than I can wring out of 'em, and that'll probably always be the case no matter how much I train or practice. But at least they'll go bang every time.

By the way, Sgt. York was a sharpshooter with rifle or pistol. But his G.I. 1911 was designed to be dragged through the mud of the trenches of WWI and still function reliably. It was certainly accurate enough to do the job!

 

[tipoc]

I don’t believe Sgt York was using a Gold Cup when he shot and killed six charging German soldiers with fixed bayonets.

Correct he was carrying a GI 1911 that was tested for acceptable service accuracy and standards of the time at 25 yards and had passed that test. When and if the guns failed to meet those standards they went back for service. The standard was to place 5 rounds of GI ball ammo, not match ammo, in a group smaller than 4" at 25 yards when fired by a capable shooter. This was acceptable service accuracy from a GI 1911. The guns were both reliable and accurate.

Accuracy is directly related to the task and the task determines what accuracy is needed.

You can have both.

tipoc

 

[Orance Fine]

WillBoz61, if you're referring to a fighting weapon the answer is reliability. That is the first criteria of a carry weapon.

Any target you will address in a self-defense situation wil be large, close and (probably) mobile. If your weapon can reliably place a quick magazine within a six inch circle at across-the-room distances, that's accurate enough. It means that your rounds are never more than 3 inches from the point of aim, and is sufficient . . . as long as the gun cycles and fires.

If your gun doesn't work, you will die happy, with an accurate pistol in your hand.

I once had, as a young shooter, matched pairs of 1911's and P-35's given the full treatment by a (still) famous gunsmith. I chose him because I though his work beautiful. When I took the guns to the range, none of the four could manage a full magazine. The gunsmith refused to address the problems and I finally sold (with full disclosure) both sets to a dentist who wanted safe-queens. Subsequently, dentists have been my salvation on several occasions and I recommend them to others.

YMMD. Everyman must find his own salvation.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

Nothing even comes close to reliability. Even on a "'range' gun" (a concept I don't personally subscribe to), I don't enjoy shooting it if it has any stoppages. I currently have a new pistol that, in the last 100 rounds I fired through it, had two double feeds. If your car's engine misfired that often, you would send it back for repair. As for accuracy, even something that "groups into a #3 washtub" at 50 yards will still shoot into ~2 inches at 7 yards.

 

[1911Tuner]

There is an old axiom that states you could not hit the broad side of a barn with an M1911 and that’s when you are in the barn. With its loose tolerances, the M1911 was manufactured for reliability.

That old axiom becomes more amusing every time I hear it. Mostly, it comes from people who never handled a USGI or 30s production commercial Government Model that was still in good condition...before it was abused and worn completely out. The early ones were actually pretty tight, and the WW2-era pistols were quite good when they were new.

It's also interesting to note that competition pistols were selected from regular inventories by test-firing from a machine rest with match grade ammo, and the ones that held 10 rounds in 3 inches at 50 yards...without tossing out the first shot from a cold gun...were sent to the armorers for match tuning. If a pistol shot 3.1 inches, it was rejected. 3 inches. There are a good many high end semi-customs that won't do that.

 

[Ghost Tracker]

There are a good many high end semi-customs that won't do that

If they are...

competition pistols

...then they sure better do that well.

 

[2ifbyC]

I have a Model 1927 Ejercito Argentino that I bought at K-Mart in 1970 while in the USAF for $50. It was manufactured under Colt license; basically the same as the M1911.

While it would barely pass the barn test, I never had it malfunction; it's pretty well worn. After forty years of sitting in a drawer, my plans are to get into prime operating condition. I read that the metal used in its construction is not suitable for match grade but it will make for a fun gunsmithing project.

Who knows? It may replace my Sig P220 as my bedside defense gun; they do share the same ammo. Then again, probably not!

 

[Pyro]

Reliability for me.
Not much can be said about being accurate if your gun won't shoot.

 

[Ringolevio]

2ifbyC:

I have a Model 1927 Ejercito Argentino that I bought at K-Mart in 1970 while in the USAF for $50. It was manufactured under Colt license; basically the same as the M1911.

While it would barely pass the barn test, I never had it malfunction

What you describe is actually a Colt Sistema, Model 1927. "Ejercito Argentino" means Argentine Army. I also own one; mine was made in 1948. I have stated here several times that, among several Colt 1911s that I own (including a stainless Combat Commander bought new a little over a year ago), it's the Sistema that I'd most confidently bet on for reliability. And it's plenty accurate enough for me!

 

[mljdeckard]

My first experience tinkering with 1911s was when I was in the army in Germany in 1992. We were about to switch out 87 1911A1s for new in grease M-9s. I had heard all the stories, 1911s are basically slingshots, you are just as likely to get a hit with a wrist rocket throwing 230 gr bullets, etc. We were going to one more range with the old .45s before we turned them in. I told the armorer I didn't want to qualify with a 1911, because I didn't think I could hit anything. He told me to look close, he pulled out what I later realized were a new barrel, link and bushing, and installed them on a pistol. He told me when we went to shoot, he would make sure I had that one. Magical, 39/40.

I asked him why we didn't fix all of them, and he said that the army had given up on them, and they were so old that as long as they fired and functioned, no one cared how accurate they were. Soldiers weren't trained to shoot that well anyway. If he asked for new triggers, barrels, bushings, and links for every pistol in the rack, they would tell him that there was no reason to fix pistols that were about to be scrapped anyway.

 

[jad0110]

The gun has to work, otherwise accuracy is irrelevant.

That said, these two characteristics aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, most handguns from reputable manufacturers are reliable and sufficiently accurate (grouping 4" or less at 25 yards) for defense purposes.

Reliability. The accuracy is only as good as I am. That changes from day to day.

That is an excellent way to sum it up. Most of us can't extract all of a handgun's built in "mechanical" accuracy anyway. So it comes down to what we shoot best (be it a 1911, Glock, HK, Ruger or S&W revolver, etc) and at that point we make darn sure it's reliable before betting our life on our chosen tool.

For the record, most of my S&W and Ruger revolvers are capable of 2" or better accuracy at 25 yards (the guns, not me ), and all are 100% reliable. More proof that you can have your cake and eat it too.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

As previously state, accuracy and reliablity are not mutally exclusive. You can have both. Accuracy generally comes from repeatability of gun lockup. This is a function of the barrel bushing and barrel/slide lug fit. Neither of those two fitting points has a great effect on reliability.

I'd send the gun to a 1911 specialist, tell him about the accuracy problem. While it was there, I'd have him do a reliability package, trigger, etc. When it's returned, you should have a reliable, accurate gun.

 

[buckhorn_cortez]

For the record, most of my S&W and Ruger revolvers are capable of 2" or better accuracy at 25 yards (the guns, not me ), and all are 100% reliable. More proof that you can have your cake and eat it too.

I had a S&W model 25 that jammed 2x to the point I had to take it home and dissassemble it. Once the problem was found and fixed, it worked reliably after that. My point is, there is NO gun design or type that is unconditionally 100% reliable - and shouldn't be represented as such. Your emperical experience with your guns cannot be extrapolated to be a "fact" that can be applied to every gun of that design all of the time.

Your 2-inch groups are not good for any gun at 25 yards. If that's all you're getting out of revolvers, you need to take the guns to a revolver specialist and have him time the action, shim the cylinder, and work on the trigger. All of my revolvers take a trip to the gunsmith for work as the action and fit from the factory are "acceptable" but not "good." All of them are far better than 2-inches at 25 yards - including the S&W .44 special with the 2-inch barrel. The worst is the S&W Chief's Special .38 - but, that has more to do with using the fixed sights than the gun itself.

Probably the best fitment in a production revolver was the Colt Python as they were assembled in a separate room at the factory by gunsmiths who specialized in assembling only that gun. However, send a Python to a good revolver specalist and he will make the gun even better.

I don't buy into the revolver reliability versus automatic - simply because, either gun can be made to malfunction OR be reliable. Is it easier to get a revolver to be reliable? Sure - fewer interactive moving parts. Is it impossible to get an automatic to be reliable? No - it's done every day.

Some automatics even tout their "perfection" in reliability...

 

[Wanderling]

For target shooting, accuracy. I can fix FTFs if needed.

For self defense, I'd take reliability over accuracy any time. I don't think there are many handguns which I wouldn't be able to hit the center of mass from 5-10 ft with.