Recoil comparison: M&P vs PPQ vs G19

[Sam]

With all of the opinions on recoil sensation between the above three pistols, let's conduct a non-scientific just for fun test.

Next time you folks who has all three of the above pistols go to the range, set up this test. I don't care if you shoot just one run per gun or multiple runs and get an average per gun, just shoot it, like I said above, it's an unscientific test just for fun.

If you only have only two of the guns, that's ok. All three would be better.

To keep the test simple and universally easy to conduct, let's pick one drill. I can't think of any drill as simple as this one. The Bill Drill.

7 yards, 6 shots on either an IDPA or USPSA target. I know the two targets have different A zones. But again, it's a just for fun test. Keep the rounds in the respective A zone or -0 zone. I know the USPSA target has a slight advantage due to the vertically elogated A zone. But WTF, just do it. If you don't have access to either of those targets, use an 8" paper plate. Only a clean target counts.

Use a real electronics timer, not stop watch or your buddy counting one thousand one, ......

To eliminate other clutters, start with the gun aimed in on the target, finger on the trigger. At the buzzer, 1,2,3,4,5,6. That's it. :)

List the "clean" time for each gun and let's compare.

I will have to wait until Saturday to do this.

Don't cheat.

Let's roll.

[YVK]

Only a clean target counts....



List the "clean" time for each gun and let's compare.



I know you're trying to make it simple, easy and fun, but reporting clean time x 1 can bias things significantly. One can shoot 5 runs with gun A, get one run clean with excellent time out of five , and then get 4 out of 5 clean with good time shooting gun B. Which one is more controllable?

A humble suggestion is to report first 3 runs with each gun, noting if it was clean run or not. A bit more investment of time and ammo, but quite a better info.

[Sam]

Here it is, ammo used was 115gr. Winchester white box, shot cold with no warm up. Target was IDPA, set at 7 yds. Started position was gun on target and finger hovering above trigger. Time shown with points down in parenthesis. All guns had stock trigger and action.

First up was the G19 (second generation) with Heinie Straight 8 sights:

1. 1.92 (-1)
2. 2.09 (-1)
3. 1.91 (-1)
4. 1.81 (-3)
5. 1.96 (-2)
6. 2.13 (-4)

Average: 1.97 seconds (-2 pts. down)

After six runs and the points down kept dropping I put the 19 up and switched to the M&P. Stock 2 dots rear and front Ameriglo Hackathorn front sight.

1. 2.00 (-2)
2. 1.98 (0) FINALLY A CLEAN RUN !!!!
3. 2.11 (-2)
4. 1.84 (-3)
5. 2.09 (-1)
6. 2.16 (0)

Average: 2.03 (-1.33 pts. down)

Then finally the PPQ with factory 3 dot sights:

1. 2.65 (0)
2. 2.07 (0)
3. 2.15 (-1)
4. 2.25 (0)
5. 2.04 (0)

I quit after 5 runs.

Average: 2.23 (-0.20 pts. down)

So that was my so unscientific test. It's not mean to be made into some kind of "chart" :) or anything and I didn't even wear a visor. :secret:

The average time was very close between the G19 and the M&P with the PPQ a quarter a second slower. Shooting all three one after another did reveal that the PPQ had a little more muzzle flip. I still feel the M&P had less muzzle flip than the G19.

Even with a pretty rough factory trigger with no feel of reset at all, the M&P yielded better accuracy than the "perfection" G19.

The PPQ was hands down the accuracy champion in this fun test.

I'll continue tomorrow.

[Cazwell]

Fun to see the results with these three guns. Hope the thread gets more contributors.

[Magic_Salad0892]

Gen4 G19 at 5 meters. 10-8 sights.

Today. (I didn't do this intentionally for this thread, I just happened to do a few of these today. Then noticed this thread.)

1.) 1.98 (-1)
2.) 2.12 (0)
3.) 2.08 (-1)
4.) 1.99 (-2)
5.) 6.34 (-3)

I swallowed a fly, and teared up on the last one.

[Sam]

Magic salad: your results is very similar to mine.

At the end of the session, I fired 3 shot group from each gun at 25 yards, standing, using the head portion of the IDPA target as the aiming zone. You can see the black magic markers writing for the gun type:

http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/IMG293.jpeg

Again, the PPQ gave the smallest group. The G19's group was the widest and the M&P was a little bigger than the M&P. Did somebody say the M&P is inaccurate?

[Littlelebowski]

Some M&Ps have problems. What year of manufacture is yours?

Great thread!

[Sam]

Some M&Ps have problems. What year of manufacture is yours?

Great thread!

I was being semi sarcastic. The M&P that I used for the comparison test was manufacturered in 2010. Except for the front sight, the gun is stock. I have an older M&P that's been tricked out with Apex parts, I did not use that in the comparison.

[mtdawg169]

Great idea Sam. I'll give this a try on my next trip using my PPQ and M&P 9 with Apex FSS.

[chadil1ac]

5.) 6.34 (-3)

I swallowed a fly, and teared up on the last one.

Still laughing about this.

To keep this on topic, I will do this with my Glock 19 on Saturday.

[Sam]

Finally got a chance to go back to the range today. Ran a few more bill drills with the PPQ and the stock M&P, among other things.

Ran each gun 4 times. The best time with clean score was with the PPQ at 1.75 second, other clean times were from 1.85 to 1.98.

Times with the stock M&P ranged from 1.95 to 2.25 with clean scores.

[warpedcamshaft]

I posted this in another thread... but felt it was also relevant to this thread, despite the fact that the drill I have been using is different.



The CSAT 5 and 1 drill is my "go to" drill for speed comparisons.

The drill is set up like this: From the high ready press out and fire 5 rounds into the a zone of an IPSC target followed by one round to the head. Par time is 3 seconds.

This drill allows me to really see how well I can control a handgun...

I can often shoot this drill clean in 1.89 seconds with a Glock 17 or 19. (Grip force adapter equipped)

When I first started with the M&P 9mm, I was slower until I gave it a bit more trigger finger and switched to the large back strap... Then I was hitting the 1.89 to 1.92 mark.

The PPQ has taken a bit of adjustment, however, I can routinely clean the drill with the PPQ in the same 1.89 to 1.95 mark. I had to make some adjustments to get there, but all 3 guns are capable of excellent speed if you put the time in and get them figured out.


The PPQ does have a different "feel" to the recoil than the M&P and Glock. However, the differences seem to disappear with familiarity and training.

[Sam]

I am familiar with the CSAT drill, Paul introduced it to us in the carbine class, it applies to both long guns and handguns. It is a great skill drill.

Your results did show the any additional recoil was easily overcome by applying the correct technique. The PPQ "felt snappier" than the other pistols.

Any multiple rapid fire string can be used to test the ability to control the recoil of a weapon. I just picked the simplest one and eliminated all unnecessary clutter of drawing, presenting and transitioning the aiming point. It was just my very unscientific/informal/uncertified fun test.

[Magic_Salad0892]

I wanna bring this thread back from the dead.

With the coming release of 10-8 sights, and Dawson's sight options, I'm curious as to if sights make a difference for people's PPQ times.

[Sam]

I haven't had much time to shoot much lately. But I've shot enough to make the PPQ as my primary full size carry polymer gun over the M&P, and that speaks a lot. I've added a Trijicon front night sight and a new iwb for it.

[HES]

What IWB?

[Sam]

Comp Tac MTAC.

[warpedcamshaft]

I wanna bring this thread back from the dead.

With the coming release of 10-8 sights, and Dawson's sight options, I'm curious as to if sights make a difference for people's PPQ times.

I have recently put Trijicon sights on my PPQ M1, and the difference is amazing... It changed the PPQ for me.

I broke my Hackathorn standards record first try with the new sights, and am getting some of the fastest split times I have ever shot out of this little gun (.14-.15 at 7 yards on IPSC A zone.) This is mostly because of the trigger, but the sight tracking is much better for me with the clearer front sights and crisp front dot.

[warpedcamshaft]

I will add some other notes here from a previous thread in which I compared these pistols and the HK P30.

My "wall" split times for each design for a controlled pair or the 2 body shots for a failure drill on a 7 yard IPSC a zone breaks down as follows (I shot these drills many times over a long period and found a time that was consistently repeatable):

PPQ: .15 split (sometimes .14)
Glock 19 with grip force adapter: .16
M&P fullsize: .17


The PPQ feels like it recoils more, but the trigger characteristics are what seem to make the difference for me in being able to shoot it a bit faster.

However, the difference in splits doesn't really matter to me personally... I am honestly pretty happy with anything under .25

Because of an apparent mental illness, I am constantly chasing my tail and trying different designs... and trying to squeeze as much performance as I can out of every pistol.

[DanTSX]

I feel that the M&P 9FS has the lowest felt recoil of the three by far. But it is interesting to see the data speak. This proves that wow a pistol "feels", and how it performs are two different things. And I think most of us here understand that distinction. However, I am pretty certain that is not a common sentiment amongst the masses.

Well done!