IS THERE A BEST PISTOL?

- Part II-

Chuck Taylor

The test format was simple -- eight simulations of typical handgun situations. Specifically, they were:

(1) Single Targets X 5, at ranges of from 7 to 25 meters, weapon presented from Holster. 2 hits required.
(2) Single Targets X 5, at ranges of from 50 to 100 meters, weapon presentation from Holster. 2 hits required.

(3) Multiple Targets (5), placed one meter apart, center to center, at ranges of from 7 to 25 meters. Weapon presentation from Ready. 1 hit on each target required.

(4) Multiple Targets (5), placed one meter apart, center to center, at ranges of from 7 to 100 meters. Weapon presentation from Ready. 1 hit on each target required.

(5) Tactical Multiple Targets (5), placed at various ranges and in various configurations at from 7 to 50 meters. Weapon presentation from Holster. 1 hit required on each target.

(6) Partially Obscured Targets (2 left & 2 Right), 40% obscured, at ranges from 7 to 25 meters. Weapon presentation from Ready. 2 hits required on target.

(7) Small Targets X 2. Head Only showing from behind cover, at from 7 to 25 meters. Weapon presentation from Ready. 1 hit required on target.

(8) Hostage Situations (2 left & 2 right). 40% of target's head obscured behind hostage, at from 7 to 15 meters. Weapon presentation from Ready. 1 hit required on target.

Instead of paper, we elected to pursue maximum realism, using 25 lb. 18x30-inch knockdown steel silhouettes. Why? Because they respond much like people. Good hits will take them down, while peripheral or low hits sometimes don't or, if they do, sluggishly so. Scoring was kept simple -- each target was worth 10 points and there were time-block penalties if the target was not hit the requisite number of times as dictated by the drill or a hostage was hit. Moreover, to insure a truly useful perspective was achieved on the data obtained, we decided on three categories of scoring: (1) Elapsed Time; (2) Points-Per-Second, and; (3) Points-Per-Round-Expended.

Since the test was intended to determine if any particular design was indeed "better" or, if so, whether or not the shooter could make the difference, instead of naming each participant, we simply called them Shooters A, B, C, D, & E. Here is a list of what gun and holster/spare magazine carrier they utilized:

Shooter A -- Smith & Wesson M-39 9mm (DA). M-D Labs Taylor-Thunderbolt holster and spare magazine carrier.
Shooter B -- Browning P-35 9mm. Standard M-D Labs holster and spare magazine carrier.

Shooter C -- Glock M-22 .40 S&W. Glock plastic belt-slide holster and magazine carrier.

Shooter D -- Colt LW Commander .45 ACP. Gordon Davis "Taylor-Omega" holster and .45MP dual magazine carrier.

Shooter E -- Colt Government Model .45 ACP. Gordon Davis "Taylor-Omega" holster and .45MP dual magazine carrier.

Each gun was in "duty" configuration, meaning that all weapons had high-visibility fixed sights, a trigger of from 3.5 to 5 lbs. and an appropriate finish. No super-tuned match guns were used. to insure international continuity, we used 124-grain NATO 9mm and WCC-62 .45 ACP ball and Winchester 180-grin FMJ .40 S&W ammunition throughout the entire test. Furthermore, each shooter carried realistic a "basic load" of ammunition/spare magazines appropriate to his weapon. A listing of this follows:

Shooter A -- 9 rds. in gun; 2 spare 8-rd. magazines.
Shooter B -- 14 rds. in gun; 2 spare 13-rd. magazines.

Shooter C -- 15 rds. in gun; 2 spare 14-rd. magazines.

Shooter D -- 8 rds. in gun; 2 spare 8-rd. magazines.

Shooter E -- same as Shooter D.

As the testing ran its course, a number of Failures To Stop (targets that did not fall due to peripheral or low hits, thus requiring follow up shots to complete the problem) were experienced with all calibers, even at close range, thus dispelling the widespread, but erroneous, notion that velocity (9mm) or bullet mass (.45 ACP) alone could somehow compensate for marksmanship. It quickly became clear to all concerned that these occurred most often when the shooter failed to properly balance accuracy and speed, the two hallmark principles of combat shooting and gave us all a graphic re-education in what we at ASAA call, "The Three Secrets" -- Sight Picture, Sight Alignment and Trigger Control, the rock-bottom fundamentals of shooting itself!

As the ranges reached 50, then 75 and a full 100 meters (after all, there are a few "big-name" writers who claim the pistol is quite effective out to that range!), the absolute important of these fundamentals made itself even more obvious. If you don't believe this, take a look at the results of all three evaluative categories of Tests 2 & 4 and see for yourself! Even though all five shooters chose to use the highly stable Rollover Prone position, on those occasions where execution of any one of "The Three Secrets" did not take place, the results deteriorated correspondingly.

If you don't feel that such long range shooting is a fair challenge for service pistols, then simply ignore all of Test 2, the 50, 75 and 100 meters portions of Test 4, and concentrate instead upon Tests 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and the 7 to 25 meter portions of Test 4. See what I mean? No matter what the tactical problem, the fundamentals of marksmanship influenced results more than any other single factor.

Past that point, bullet mass was a factor in that we could readily see that 180-grain .40 S&W FMJs and .45 ACP 230-grain "hardball" hit substantially harder and took the targets down faster than 124-grain 9mm Ball. On the other hand, the faster 9mm load shot noticeably flatter, thus simplifying the marksmanship problem at longer ranges.

So, is there really a "best" pistol? Technically, if we eliminate shooter skill from the equation, yes. When interviewed after the tests, all participants agreed that the big Colt Government .45 (SA) had the best all-around combination of power, "user-friendliness," accuracy and functional reliability, while the Glock M-22 .40 S&W ("semi"- DA) and LW Commander .45 (SA) tied for second. The Browning P-35 9mm (SA) was rated fourth and the Smith & Wesson M-39 9mm (DA) last.

However, regardless of weapon design, if the shooter is willing to put in the required extra work to achieve the necessary skill levels with his weapon, the equation changes. The least popular design, the DA S&W M-39 9mm, performed sufficiently well in the hands of a Combat Master to not only successfully complete the extremely difficult ASAA Handgun Master Course, but also handily defeated the other weapons used in the tests in all three evaluative areas -- Elapsed Time, Points Per Second and Points Per Round Expended. Does this make the DA better? Not in my view, because of the extra effort needed to achieve this level of performance. Putting it in another way, think of how well Shooter A would have done if he'd been using a pistol that was easier to shoot well under stress! How did he and the DA auto outperform the other shooters and guns? Look at the scores again and the answer is clear. Regardless of weapon, they simply didn't concentrate as hard on discharging the fundamentals of marksmanship! Could they present a pistol as quickly as Shooter A? Yes. Could they assume field shooting positions as quickly? Yes, without a doubt. Clearly, the most influential factor was the operator, not the weapon itself. Obviously, the weapon design was sufficiently efficient that Shooter A could overcome its weaknesses and, in this case, even turn in a superior performance! Were the weapon a piece of junk, this would have been impossible.

So, when we consider that the operator is really the weapon, while the gun is merely a tool, we can conclusively state that a skilled operator can indeed get by and even produce superior results with a less-than-optimum weapon design, if he is willing to do whatever he must to achieve the necessary skills with that weapon. If the design is harder to work with, then the shooter must simply put in more time and effort to accomplish the goal.

On the other hand, the tests also showed the truth of the often-stated premises that: (1) some designs are better than others, and; (2) why struggle more than absolutely necessary -- the tactical problem is already difficult enough...why make it worse?

Again, as stated in the opening paragraphs of this text, it all depends upon your perspective on the subject of defensive handgunning. The data discovered in the test is most enlightening and confirms what I've believed all along -- that the shooter is more important than anything. And, a quick review of Points Per Round Expended score confirms something else of interest -- that, when the chips are down, magazine capacity, too, means little, something else I've been saying for the last fifteen years!

But a warning here...we must be careful not to lose our perspective. To me, all other things being equal, when "push comes to shove," the weapon that allows me to "get the job done" the most quickly and efficiently is the "best."

How about you?