quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:

quote:

Originally posted by amc:
I shoot my g34 better than my g19 and generally shoot full size guns better. The exception is my p938. I shoot this tiny subcompact better than my 5in 1911.

I'm not picking on you, but shoot one better than the other by what metric? Jones is talking about specific drills that he shoots to come up with his results.

I was going to type this response as well. To what metric?
Just standing still and trying to shoot a small group or drawing from a holster with a dynamic range, movement, reloads, and under stress of a timer?
I think th latter equates better to how you will perform with that pistol in an actual gun fight as opposed to just punching holes in paper and will showcase a lot more of the shortcomings or attributes.

Not by any metrics other than measuring groups on paper. Is it scientific, not really but sometimes the difference in how you shoot one gun from another is clear. As an example, i had a shield plus that i shot poorly enough that i wouldn't feel comfortable carrying it to defend myself.
Unfortunately my local range doesn't allow drawing from a holster. I usually carry my 938 in a pocket hoster which is certainly a disadvantage over OWB/IWB carry.
I do agree with the principle that it's hard to improve what you don't track or measure so maybe it's time to try idpa.

IDPA, USPSA, and local matches are an invaluable training resource for me.
They allow you to evaluate and experience gun handling as a whole. Marksmanship as far as shooting groups, trigger control, grip, etc play an important part but are still only a part. You have to put it all together to see how you interact with any given platform for the really reals.
It's the most wonderful way to evaluate how a platform performs with you.

quote:

Originally posted by henryaz:
I have never understood the love for the Commander size 1911. The part that factors most into concealment (the grip length) is the same for both.

Just like how not every gun is built for competition, not every gun is built for CCW. The pros for a lot of people is the shorter barrel on the Commander combined with the full size grip gives the gun better balance and moves the balance point from a nose heavy gun further back.

As for some BroScience:

I shoot a full size 1911 better than any other handgun. I shoot my Glock 19 better than my 17 and my 320 XCarry with dot is an absolute laser that rivals my Wilson Combat when it goes to the range and shoots groups.

So I guess for me it's the platform more than the size.

May not be the data that you are looking for, but I'm a revolver guy and have been for almost 50 years, having started out with a .22 LR revolver when I was about 10 years old, and working my way up from there.

I have found in .38 Special that the larger the revolver, the better that I shoot it. I shoot an L-Frame the best, then K-Frame and finally J-Frame the worst. Similar BBL lengths.

Fatigue sets in very quickly on the J-frame in particular.

No surprise, heavier is better. I have settled on a D-Frame Detective Special as my main CCW gun, at least for this year. Good balance of size and weight.

Again, not what you are looking for, but this represents decades of data , with about the only change being me, and moving from Unique to Win 231 about a decade ago.

I saw your post and tried it with my gen 5 19 and 34, and shit, same thing! I already made the choice to dump my gen 5 17, not sure I should keep the 34 for any other reason than it's paid for and can be a house gun that I can abuse without feeling bad about scratches.

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Talking about metrics, today I made 2 runs each with a G19 RMR and G17 RMR. Both were Gen5. The course of fire was the Trex 50 round pistol course of fire. It is graded on hit factor. Hit factor with the 19 averaged a 5.2. Hit factor with the 17....5.7.

That's a 9% delta. In a world of hit factors this is a crushing difference.

I’ve thought about this for several days. Could you help me understand the math behind this statement? Today, out of curiosity, I shot the same COF twice with the same G19. Back to back, I ran a cold HF of 5.2. Second run with the same pistol, was a 5.6. Times were a little faster and less Cs was the difference.

Well I’m not him but I can explain the math. .5 divided by the score of 5.2 is a 9% differential or delta. IOW, the one run was 9% better than the other slower (or worse hits) run. The math is sound, whether the reasoning is is another question entirely that you two can argue. Lol

Splitting the difference here, but I shot my best IDPA classifier with a P320 carry.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by YVK:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Talking about metrics, today I made 2 runs each with a G19 RMR and G17 RMR. Both were Gen5. The course of fire was the Trex 50 round pistol course of fire. It is graded on hit factor. Hit factor with the 19 averaged a 5.2. Hit factor with the 17....5.7.

That's a 9% delta. In a world of hit factors this is a crushing difference.

I’ve thought about this for several days. Could you help me understand the math behind this statement? Today, out of curiosity, I shot the same COF twice with the same G19. Back to back, I ran a cold HF of 5.2. Second run with the same pistol, was a 5.6. Times were a little faster and less Cs was the difference.

Since the hit factors come from the world of competition, I thought of your numbers from that prospective. In your previous testing, average HF with G19 were 5.2 and with G17 5.7. The absolute difference between the two was 0.5, which is 9% relative difference. In competition, that I referred to as a "world of hit factors", a relative 9% is huge, considering that similarly skilled shooters often times are separated by a fraction of a percent.
A question of whether the absolute 0.5 pps difference is meaningful for other purposes is best left to the individual judgment.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Well I’m not him but I can explain the math. .5 divided by the score of 5.2 is a 9% differential or delta. IOW, the one run was 9% better than the other slower (or worse hits) run. The math is sound, whether the reasoning is is another question entirely that you two can argue. Lol

Nah, I was interested in the math. When he said it was 9 percent delta, I was thinking a “D” hit on a USPSA target. So scoring it major at 2 points, minor at 1, or at zero Points for a hit in the “D” scoring ring, I could not make the “D” hit point value equate to 9 percent of either run. If that makes any sense. Understanding that Delta is simply the deviation percentage between the runs, it makes sense.

I just couldn’t figure out the math looking at the hits on the targets to equate 9 percent hits in delta scoring ring and make the math work out. Now that you explained it, it makes perfect sense. I’ve just never had anyone explain it to me in those terms. And it doesn’t help I’m a little math challenged.

Thanks to both of you.

Good point though; next time I will not use the word "delta" to describe "difference", especially when referring to competition-style scoring.

Maybe. Or maybe it’s just I’ve been putting the “special” in Special Operations for many years.

Don't overthink it. The Glock 19 is a Great White Shark. It was born perfect. Evolution happened, but wasn't really necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by andronicus:
Don't overthink it. The Glock 19 is a Great White Shark. It was born perfect. Evolution happened, but wasn't really necessary.

Nice!

quote:

Originally posted by henryaz:

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Colt Commander is nearly the same as a 5 inch 1911.

I have never understood the love for the Commander size 1911. The part that factors most into concealment (the grip length) is the same for both. A bit less weight in the Commander, but more barrel length in the full sized. I have owned one Colt Commander, and two full sized Colts. When started I moving away from the 1911 platform, the Commander was the first to go.
 
I have settled on a pair of 10mms for my pared down retirement guns, a SIG P220 Stainless Elite Nitron SAO, and a Ruger GP-100 3" (the Wiley Clapp model). Naturally, I shoot the 220 more accurately, but the smaller revolver is not far off.

Where the Commander length shines is in the lightweight versions. The alloy frame lessens the weight significantly and changes the balance as well. I've got a Smith 1911SC, Commander length slide with a full height scandium frame and it would be one of the last guns I'd sell. I shoot it as well as a Government and it is significantly easier to carry.

Another option is the CCO style 1911's, Commander length slide with allow Officer height frame. I've got a Sig C3 in this configuration. Prior to getting my P36, it was my most frequently carried handgun.

I have Wiley Capp Colt. It had a comander lenght and Offercers model Grip.

I had a series 1 Kimber Lightweight Pro Carry in 45 acp. Wish I didn't sell it as it was the best carrying 1911 I ever owned.

Gents,

Talking about 1911's...I'm 72 and fired my first 1911 at age 8, so that comes out to 64 years with the 1911. I've learned a thing or two about them. Owned all versions. Government, Commander, and Officers Models.

Of them all I vote for the Commander as the best for carry. Nothing wrong with the Government of Officer's Model. Both are worthy, but over the years I've learned that nothing tracks onto the target faster than the Commander length pistol. Points better, too. For me, the Commander just works better.

Just one old farts observation, but it's held true for me and I'm here because of it.

Wes

quote:

Originally posted by henryaz:

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Colt Commander is nearly the same as a 5 inch 1911.

I have never understood the love for the Commander size 1911.
 

I have never understood any 1911s.

40 something ounces and holds 7-8 rounds.

No thanks.