Originally Posted by Overkill0084
I never really bought into that theory in the first place. However, for the purpose of busting the myth, I would have preferred to see a more conclusive method used.
First, what is the expected level of accuracy? It's a milspec pistol. I'm certain there is an expected standard of accuracy it must achieve IAW DoD contract guidlines. I would assume it to be a specified group size group at a standard distance with a specified ammunition.
In other words: Just how accurate was it designed/required to be? Does your particular example meet the established standard? Does that established standard meet your particular standard of "accurate?" How about that of the general shooting public?
Bonus question: How do the results compare to similar pistols (CZ Sig etc.)?
Until we have an average group size to compare to a set standard, we won't really know.
To be fair, I do believe that it is more accurate that many people give it credit for, but then most quality pistols are.
If it didn't live up to any of the DoD guidelines, they most likely never would have purchased it.
That said, the reason military and police are given training on how to properly use firearms is so they can become accurate with them. No matter how accurate a gun is designed to be, if you don't know how to shoot properly, you wouldn't hit the side of a barn.
As stated by Therewolf, Hollywood is to blame for most people believing it's accuracy sucks. Because we all know that you can shoot a person on a rooftop some 600 years with a handgun and get a head shot every time...