HK new striker fired pistol VP9! Pics inside!

[C4IGrant]

Grant...if poking the same hole multiple times is your definition of accuracy...

You are not understanding the difference between someone that CAN shoot small groups and having a gun that CAN shoot small groups. If you are a good shooter and can put "hole in a hole" then your ability would be mitigated by a gun that cannot deliver said accuracy. Is that a good idea? No.

On the other hand if getting multiple rounds on center mass while moving and shooting on a dynamic range is your definition of combat accuracy....

I will take the word of the former US Navy Seals I am privileged to train with, who have the training and combat experience to convince me they know what they are talking about, with all due respect to the experts here.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Combat accuracy is STILL being able to shoot hand size groups at 10yds or back and fist size groups inside of 10yds. Remember that if you cannot deliver these groups on the square range (with no stress), how well are you going to do when someone is shooting back??

I am not giving you advice per "Grant." It is coming from PEOPLE with FAR more experience than you and I combined. I would suggest you take a Kyle D4 class. He will be the first one to tell you that he wasn't that good of a shooter while in NAV, but because of his time at Blackwater years later. His accuracy standards are very tight and not "combat accurate."



C4

[KCBRUIN]

I should've been more clear when I said I have 5 Glocks. I wasn't trying to diss the Glock trigger or act cool. I should have added that I am a very big fan of Glocks hence why I own 5 of them. In my opinion, the triggers are only similar in the way that every striker fired trigger is similar. Again this is in my opinion. I'm not selling my Glocks or trash talking them.

Accuracy from a ransom rest is one thing.

Combat accuracy quite another.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

A gun inherently more accurate from a rest will be inherently more accurate in combat. The gun doesn't know it's in combat.

[.XL]

I like my G23 gen4, but I enjoy my Steyr L9-A1 and prefer my PPQ. So, I will be getting the VP9. Ahh! Life is good.

[Striker]

Grant...if poking the same hole multiple times is your definition of accuracy...

On the other hand if getting multiple rounds on center mass while moving and shooting on a dynamic range is your definition of combat accuracy....

I will take the word of the former US Navy Seals I am privileged to train with, who have the training and combat experience to convince me they know what they are talking about, with all due respect to the experts here.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

I still don't understand how combat accuracy is different from just accuracy when the subject is the gun minus the shooter. When you say combat accuracy, to me that now involves the shooter. Am I wrong? Because to me, when you're talking about the pistol itself, accuracy is simply that. And if combat accuracy involves the shooter, then no matter how you handle fear, a more accurate pistol is still more accurate in a stress situation. Here's what Brian Searcy wrote awhile about the Tigerswan Glock and why the changes. http://soldiersystems.net/2012/07/25...-talks-glocks/ The target with the Wilson barrel is more accurate by any standard. And when someone says it's not enough matter, there's no way to know that. Every situation is different.

I like Glocks, especially in 9mm; but, in my experience unless you install an aftermarket barrel, they're usually not as accurate as an HK or classic series Sig. These are just my observations. And honestly, I don't even care about the VP9. Do I think it's going to be a good pistol? Yes I do. HK is good about working the bugs out of their guns before releasing them. For me though, unless they expand the caliber choice, I'm not really interested right now. I think Glocks work really well, add the aftermarket barrel and you get accuracy on par with just about anything for about the same price. And for me I don't see any reason to change unless I just want something new.

[DreadPirateMoyer]

This shouldn't even be a discussion in this thread, let alone a discussion at all. Mechanical accuracy is mechanical accuracy, even in "combat." All else equal, a bad shooter with an inaccurate gun will be less accurate than a bad shooter with an accurate gun. A guy that can't keep a laser beam within 5 inches at 10 yards will shoot more accurately with a 1" gun than a 5" gun. And a shooter like Jerry Miculek that can keep an accurate handgun within the area of a half-dollar, under stress, won't be able to do so with a 5" gun versus a 1" gun, no matter how good or bad he is. It's not subjective. It's completely objective. Using nebulous terms like "combat" accurate doesn't change that.

The VP9 is more accurate than the Glock. All HK's are. End of story. This discussion needs to die and the trolls need to start a new thread to discuss this nonsense instead of derailing this one because they've got a brand bias.

[_JD_]

But but but but buzz words matter!

Sent via Tapatalk and still using real words.

[GTF425]

Accuracy from a ransom rest is one thing.

Combat accuracy quite another.

From Tier 1 friends with multiple deployments under their belts they never engaged targets with a handgun at 25+ yards and in one case his handgun of choice was a Glock 21 because it handled dives so well.

From your combat experience, what have you found to be acceptable combat accuracy?

[TMS951]

Grant...if poking the same hole multiple times is your definition of accuracy...

That is what accuracy is.

On the other hand if getting multiple rounds on center mass while moving and shooting on a dynamic range is your definition of combat accuracy....

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

I think what you mean here is shooter skill, as the accuracy of the gun has not changed do to being in combat conditions. The shooter skill level will change under stress however.

Did HK not send you one to review, is that what's going on here?

Lol, I'm going to say they didn't. And based on how he 'defines' accuracy I wouldn't want him reviewing my product either. I would prefer having individuals who understand basic concepts and terms involving firearms review them.

[TiroFijo]

Let's compare a gun+ammo combo that shoots into 2" at 25 yds (from a mechanical rest) vs another that shoots into 3":

Shooter with a 3" wooble zone: groups open to 5" and 6", respectively. That's a 20% larger spread diagonally.

Shooter with a 2" wooble zone: groups open to 4" and 5", respectively. That's a 25% larger spread diagonally.

Shooter with a 1" wooble zone: groups open to 3" and 4". That's a 33% larger spread diagonally. The best shooters benefit more from the more accurate guns. I wonder how many shooters here can shoot 3" groups on demand, slow fire, two handed...

Now add stress, movement, rapid fire, etc. and logically groups open up more, much more in many cases. The best shooters now have a 3"+ spread and the gains look smaller again.

No doubt the more accurate gun is always more accurate, but how much does it really count?

[Omega Man]

From Tier 1 friends with multiple deployments under their belts they never engaged targets with a handgun at 25+ yards and in one case his handgun of choice was a Glock 21 because it handled dives so well.



We can all share anecdotes.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

Hater's gonna hate.