_________ is a crutch for accuracy?

[556A2]

I have read several threads on here, and elsewhere about certain handgun choices are simply crutches for accuracy.

Mostly it deals with 1911s since it is pretty well know there have been significant advances in handgun technology in the past 100 years. However the 1911 does have great ergonomics, and nice triggers which is part of its popularity.

Where does one draw the line on what handguns & mods create "a crutch".

Does one have to be able to shoot a Sigma, VP70Z, or AMT Backup accurately at 25 yards?

Does lightening the trigger pull beyond X lbs make it a crutch?

If someone shoots a particular gun extremely well, but not others as well does that mean they are simply using that gun as a crutch?

Just thinking about this because I got another used 92FS over a NIB G17RTF2 yesterday even though they were the same price. I use both as carry guns, but I got another Beretta because I shoot the 92 series so well. I can shoot Glocks pretty good, but never as good as a 92. I just have a little bit of buyers remorse since the Beretta weighs more, requires more maintenance, and some parts are just a PITA to change. However, I absolutely love shooting the 92, have lots of magazines, and no other handgun comes close in the accuracy department for me.

So could it be considered I'm using the 92 series as a "crutch" for my handgun accuracy, or is it considered to stick with what you are the most accurate with?

(Not trying to come off as a prick, genuinely curious about this concept).

[skyugo]

I'd say carry whatever you shoot best. The only time i'd knock a guy for carrying anything different is if it was a reliability or safety hazard. 1911's and super light triggers can each posses these qualities.

[Outrider]

This invokes the expression of "gear as crutch." To me, the expression means it is folly for a person to spend money on upgrades or snake oil in lieu of training and practice. And honestly speaking there is no substitute for good training and good practice. People buy gear because they can show it off and if need be sell it off. Training and practice are time, effort, and money that are invested to gain/improve a skill. They can't be sold off or shown off the same way one might do with a physical item.

Does one have to be able to shoot a Sigma, VP70Z, or AMT Backup accurately at 25 yards?

Generally speaking, people are not going to have to hit at 50 yards or better with a pistol. If you are military, ideally you are going to have a long gun. If you're a civilian (including law enforcement) most of your engagements will take place well within 50 yards. That said, you had better able to hit accurately at 50 yards or better with a pistol. The reason I say this is that it all comes down to basics. People with solid basics can use a pistol to hit a 25 yard (or longer) shot. The weaker your basics, the harder it is to hit at longer distances. Writing off a 25 yard shot with a handgun is essentially writing off the fundamentals.

If you can hit the longer shots reliably, the closer shots should be even easier. Unless a person's vision is failing and he or she needs glasses (that are not being worn), it is entirely possible (albeit challenging) to hit a plate at a 100 yards with a pistol so doing so at 25 yards isn't really much to brag about. It is not unfair to expect someone to be able to accurately place a shot on center of mass with a pistol at 25 yards. I'd say that is a bare minimum standard. -Go through Larry Vickers' Pistol I course if you want to learn about why accuracy is very important.

Does lightening the trigger pull beyond X lbs make it a crutch?

If someone shoots a particular gun extremely well, but not others as well does that mean they are simply using that gun as a crutch?

Lightening a trigger pull or making an action sweet can make sense up to a point, but you run into some problems in the real world. Too light and you run the risks of reliability issues and unintentional discharge. There are things people do with competition firearms because the biggest consequences they face are losing a match or being DQ'd from a match. I'd say if you are serious about shooting, you should have the skills to be reliably accurate with any decent quality, stock firearm you pick up. It's nice to have your favorite that is your everyday carry. However, if you know what you are doing, you should be able to hit accurately in the black whether you are using a tricked out 1911 or a stock Glock or whatever. The whole "prima donna" routine of a person can only be expected to be good with his pistol of choice is silly. Again, a LAV course can disabuse you of the notion you only have to be competent with your preferred type of pistol.

[rob_s]

It's an entirely personal choice. Too often the phrase is used to bash someone over the head rather than encourage them to get training.

I used the 1911 as a crutch for years, and if certain circumstances were the same I still wood, and very likely will again. I still sucked with it, I just sucked less.

Idealistically I'd like to get to the range each week, dryfire every day, do 500 presentations from my holster a week, cycle my carry ammo at some known interval, etc. But it just doesn't happen. So if I can use one handgun better given the limitations of my reality, is it wrong to do so? Again, idealistically yes, or as a way to justify the hours spent at the range and dryfire for some people yet, but that has to be weighed against real life.

and either way, what someone else chooses to carry or shoot shouldn't be an issue.

In-particular for the 1911 it's out of favor again with some of the younger instructors, which means that it's out of favor with their parrots and Moonies. Which again is their problem, not yours or mine.

[JHC]

Glocks are my crutch for lackadasical maintenance habits.

92FS is a perfectly fine choice IMO.

[Shawn.L]

Is my automatic transmission a crutch for my lack of fundamental driving skills ?
Or is it just an easier way for me to reach my end goals ?
Or when someone says the 1911 is a crutch ask them if there 9mm is crutch to cover up their recoil managment flaws.

I bought into that stuff for a little while, really did. Sounded like it made sense. And Im always looking to improve and challenge myself. That and some other factors and I went froma 1911 to a M&P45. 2nd or 3rd trip to the range and I shot my best score on "the hack" to date, a 280, its such a stars alighned moment I dont even really like to tell anyone I shot that as Im normally in the 250 range. It wasnt the gun though. It was because I wasnt shooting for score, I was shooting paying attention and trying to get acclimated to the new gun.
The M&P I had wasnt living up to my reliability expectations, so I went to a Hk P30 LEM. Right out the gate I look a advanced Vickers pistol class first week with the gun (of course people told me I was nuts) and shot just as well as I normally do. Came home and shot a 620 on the 700 aggregate.

So now Im a guy who spent the majority of his serious pistol shooting on a 1911, shooting striker fired and double action guns just as well as I shot "the crutch".

So its my feeling, from my personal experiance, that those who are covering up major flaws wont be shooting that well to begin with as I dont feel you can really cover up serious flaws with any gun (or else everyone would, and should, shoot that gun). You may be able to mask or take the edge off some errors though. But if you get quality initial training, hold yourself to high standards, and work on the fundamentals then its not going to matter (much) what hardware your using.

Good friend of mine and shooting buddy is a Master class IPSC shooter, great guy and hands down the best all around shooter I personally know. I asked him one day some time ago about how he shoots a 2011 in USPSA, a GLOCK in IDPA, and carrys a 1911. Dont you have trouble switching plaforms, grip angles, triggers, controls, ect ect ect ? I asked. "They all have sights and a trigger."

FWIW Im shooting a GLOCK now, great gun.

Shawn1911shooteratheart.L

[John_Wayne777]

Where does one draw the line on what handguns & mods create "a crutch".

If someone is using a 1911 because they have poor trigger control habits and the only way they can get anything approaching acceptable hits on a target is by using a big heavy gun with a light trigger that moves straight back into the grip, then it could accurately be described as a "crutch".

If they're content at that level, that's fine. It is, after all, a personal choice.

It only gets silly when people insist that you can't hit anything with a Glock because they can't hit anything with a Glock.

If someone simply prefers the 1911 or if they find that they have a significant advantage in the use of the pistol over something else...and if they are willing to do what it takes to get a reliable 1911 and keep it running...then that's fine. What I encounter on a regular basis are people who are using the 1911 because they suck the least with it and they've formed very definite opinions on very bad data. Then they spread that on the internet, where bad advice and ideas seem to have the robustness of malaria.

[Beat Trash]

Where does one draw the line on what handguns & mods create "a crutch".

Just thinking about this because I got another used 92FS over a NIB G17RTF2 yesterday even though they were the same price. I use both as carry guns, but I got another Beretta because I shoot the 92 series so well. I can shoot Glocks pretty good, but never as good as a 92. I just have a little bit of buyers remorse since the Beretta weighs more, requires more maintenance, and some parts are just a PITA to change. However, I absolutely love shooting the 92, have lots of magazines, and no other handgun comes close in the accuracy department for me.

Don't sweat it. And don't worry about your decision and having buyers remorse.

For a defensive handgun, one needs a reliable platform, in an adequate caliber. After that, it's all on the shooter to use good tactics and to have the appropriate skill to put rounds on target fast enough. You can't go to a gun store and buy skill and good tactics.

You pick the Beretta 92 fs, going into the decision with your eyes open. You are aware of the faults of the design (size, weight, increase maintenance) but are willing to work with them. For that reason alone, I commend your choice.

The bottom line is that the gun works for you. I will never speak ill of an individual who's choice of carry gun was made after much thought and research.

I get annoyed with those who refuse to put forth any effort to do any research, or test any guns for themselves. They clog the airways with polls and posts asking which gun should I buy. To me it's like starting a poll in which the individual is about to move out of their mother's basement and plan on losing their virginity. They then start a poll asking "Which mail order bride should I buy, Blond or redhead?".

Even more annoying are those who chose a gun such as the Beretta 92fs and refuse to admit there any faults with the design. When someone tries to point out any of these faults, they instantly resort to insults such as "Glockboys". These types generally are the ones who would never dream of shelling out money on a training class, or ammunition. God forbid their new safe queen should get dirty!

I really like the Beretta 92fs. I own two. I personally prefer the M&P9 and the Glock 19 for a carry gun. But I'm not you. You gave very sound reasons why you prefer the Beretta 92 vs. the Glock 17 for a carry gun. Enjoy you new gun....

[Failure2Stop]

Sights and trigger control are the only "crutches" when it comes to pistol marksmanship. If someone does extremely well with one platform but sucks with another, I would question what their definition of "acceptable" is. If one has problems when moving from a 1911 to another platform (especially TDA or DA only), it's simply a problem with trigger control.

I have never met a person that, in a standardized and demanding setting, will perform well with one full sized pistol and suck with another.
Introduce a vastly different platform (such as going from a quality 1911 to a J-frame), and there will most certainly be an issue in the precision department, but really it comes down to the fact that the trigger feels vastly different (making trigger control more difficult) and the sights are lacking (making acceptable sight deviation and precise alignment more difficult to gauge, especially at speed).

Further, I don't think that there are many credible instructors or users out there that recommend against 1911s because they are a "crutch", but rather that they do not have a sterling reputation for robustness or ease of repair unless one has devoted a significant portion of one's life to mastering the maintenance and repair of that specific platform and getting magazines that actually work consistently. I was a die-hard 1911 fan, having spent easily 6k on 1911s and the work associated with them. I transitioned fully from the 1911 to a G23 with a few days of dedicated practice. The only real changes that needed to be made were work on wrist angle on presentation, prepping the trigger on presentation instead of just taking out the slack, and buying different holsters and mag pouches.

[rob_s]

If someone simply prefers the 1911 or if they find that they have a significant advantage in the use of the pistol over something else...and if they are willing to do what it takes to get a reliable 1911 and keep it running...then that's fine. What I encounter on a regular basis are people who are using the 1911 because they suck the least with it and they've formed very definite opinions on very bad data. Then they spread that on the internet, where bad advice and ideas seem to have the robustness of malaria.

This is an important distinction in a lot of things.

Saying "I use a XYZ because I acknowledge I suck and need all the help I can get" is one thing. Saying "I use a XYZ and you should too because it's the best thing since sliced bread is quite another". The former statement really can't be argued with. The guy assessed his reality, assessed his needs and his limitations, and found the tool that worked best in that paradigm. The second is the kind of thing that should be avoided.

The A-Answers is always "Instruction, Training, and Practice", but these are not always realistic answers to the level that some people on the internut would lead others to believe.