Steel vs Plastic

[Aglifter]

Very few shooters, myself certainly included, approach the limits of their own ability.

Frankly, I'm not sure any shooter approaches those limits, rather a few may have reached the limit of what people think about shooting, at this time. (EG, Jerry Miculek, in slow motion, appears to take a great deal of time between shots)

Until you are approaching that limit, I doubt the platform will really matter.

[Bob Hostetter]

The platform will always matter.

Some guns are better suited to certain types of shooting then others. Winning handicap trap shooters rarely use a .410 shotgun, benchrest champions rarely successfully use Rigby .416's, you don't see to many S&W 500's at the IRC. Obviously extreme examples but valid ones never the less. Buying the best possible pistol for CDP or whatever won't make you a winner overnight but it will make it easier to compete at your best.

Are there people out there shooting less then ideal platforms successfully? Of course, money is a powerful motivator especially if you are getting enough to completely redesign the pistol on the inside. Shooting a TTi Glock 24 with a short, crisp, 2 lbs trigger is not the same as shooting a box stock Glock 22, it is a lot closer to shooting an STI then they want you to think.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Bob Hostetter

[GOF]

I think shooters have to find the platform that works best for them. My semi-autos for USPSA, Steel Challenge, and IDPA are 9mm and .45 ACP M&P polymer guns. They shoot accurately enough for those tasks and are very reliable. The big reason I settled on them, however, is that their grip angle is virtually identical to the Ruger GP-100s I use in IDPA & ICORE. When any of those guns come from the holster to the target the sights are right were I'm looking, and there is little transition time required for me to shift from auto to revo. Glocks tend to point high and I have to consciously drop the front sight, while 1911s point low and I have to raise the front sight.

The M&Ps and the revos don't require I do anything other than draw and shoot. It makes life simpler, at least for me. The M&P platform works because it fits with my revos. If I didn't shoot as much revo as I do, another semi-auto platform might work better.

[Jim Watson]

Looking at the Nationals, there was a lot of overlap in ESP and SSP scores but at the Master level the ESPs were several places ahead at the top. The Experts and Sharpshooters were just about a match. Of course not all ESPs are steel and not all SSPs are plastic... but that is the smart way to bet.

I still think SSPs should be held closer to Stock and the ESPs should be allowed more, uh, enhancements. And CDPs more customization.

[MJPLEO]

I use my STI Tactical 3.0 2011 in .40. I can tailor the loads for several games and be very competitive doing so. There is no substitute for practice but I do think that if whatever you choose makes you feel even the least bit more confident in your abilities then that can't be a bad thing.

Good Luck,

Matt

Edited September 15, 2014 by MJPLEO

[Butterpuc]

I believe there is a distinct advantage for steel over plastic. I have always used plastic (M&P and Glock both). After one match, I asked a few of my buddies to hang around and let me shoot there 1911 and 2011 9mms. I'm the one who asked and there was a line forming behind me by other shooters to shoot their guns too.

All I can say is shooting a 1911 9mm feels like cheating... Seriously. And I literally said that to my buddy, after shooting it for the first time. The 2011 has just a tad more recoil, not hardly noticeable though. The one huge advantage the 2011 has over the 1911 is the ease of reloads, this is a distinct advantage.