What makes a $2,000 pistol better?

[AustinMike]

You might enjoy one of my favorite qutoes...

Boy, it's a lot easier just to think I could add a tungsten guide rod and a fiber optic sight, and get a better score.

DogmaDog

Been there! Or how about buying an Open gun thinking it will make me a better shooter? I'm ashamed to say I did that only to find that for me, it meant that I'd have to practice even more to master dot shooting. It had almost the opposite effect, with several frustrating matches trying to find the dot. I've put it away in the safe and told myself I must just be an iron sight shooter. I'm often tempted to get a S_I limited gun, and one of these days when I have the extra money, I probably will. I've thought about just selling the open blaster to buy a Limited gun, but I'm saving it to give it another go later on. I do love the look and feel of a custom Limited gun. Seeing all the beautiful guns in holsters around here makes me want one. Someone let me handle one of Benny's Fat Frees recently and it's enough to push a guy over the edge and dip into the savings account! But I know that unless I practice, the nice expensive gun with the slick trigger isn't going to help much.

After a couple of years of shooting in this sport, the higher class guys still find flaws in my basics, such as draw, stance, and movement. None of them have ever suggested that I need better equipment. All them say to practice and dry fire. My problem is that I work about 50 hours a week and take 3 college classes at night. I'm lucky if I find time to reload and make 2 or 3 matches a month. Would buying a nice Limited gun help improve my game? Maybe. Would it be $3000 worth? Doubtful. I think it depends on who you are. I'm just an average Joe who shoots on the weekend for fun and stress reduction. It's my golf. I very rarely ever shoot big matches due to the time and expense. Spending thousands in the hope that it might shave a little time and add some points to my score in the local matches I shoot doesn't make much sense. I'm afraid in my current life state that if I spend the money, I'll just be disappointed if I don't see a substantial immediate improvement. If I had time to follow up with practice, it would probably make more sense to pay a GM to give me personal training on what I've got. For now, my schedule is just too tight.

[SA Friday]

Did you forget the opening question? And, you ongoing position is that the gun matters...that it's not the shooter. I've never stated that the shooter does not matter, but my position has been that the gun DOES matter. This is a subtle difference in opinion as to what my position is, but it's very relevant to the original question. When a GM is looking for a ride, they will take the best ride they can get. Once they know what gun they are going to drive, they practice the hell out of it till they can earn their ride. Yes? OK, now take all the sponsers out there and make everything equal in their offer to every GM. I believe the GM's selections diven by 'choice' of what is best would result in a lopsided sponsership of shooters by STI/SVI. I'm not saying its the gun not the shooter, that's a falicy, but I am trying to show that the majority of shooters in USPSA are not simply vein in their choice of a 1911 style double stack platform to shoot this game with. At the GM level, it may account for that one point edge. At the beginner to intermediate level, I think the learning impact could be a difference of learning faster and easier.

I can tell you what I have seen...over and over. For the upper shooters, as a shooter becomes "good", they start shopping for a ride. If they don't find one...that STI money looks plenty good.

Let me change that up a bit...

What makes a $2K or $3K pistol such as a fully customized 1911 worth its price when compared to a tweaked STI Spartan (which you can have for around $1,000)? These are both essentially the same platforms. Apples and apples. A Glock compared to a S_I? Definately not both apples .

Edited due to lack of coffee intake.

Edited January 28, 2008 by SA Friday

[sfinney]

What makes a $2K or $3K pistol such as a fully customized 1911 worth its price when compared to a tweaked STI Spartan (which you can have for around $1,000)?

For our game, nothing.

[ChrisStock]

While I believe it's generally true that it's the indian, not the arrow, you have to at least have straight arrows of the correct length to start with. By this I mean a gun that is capable of running reliably and one that feels right and makes YOUR hand happy, not someone else's.

I have an M&P .40 tricked out that I believe will run evenly in Limited with guns costing 3-4X as much $$, and I have been beaten in Production by someone with a straight stock XD over my CZ Custom that cost twice as much.

I spent what I needed to spend to find the best combination of pointability, balance, and reliability for me. The rest is up to my own sorry a$$ to make it happen.

[spook]

Comfort/trust is a HUGE factor. You may not notice it on the timer or on the paper. But in a sport where the mental game is 90% of the whole sport, you'd better shoot a gun that you're absolutely comfortable with. For whatever reason.

If you think you will do better with a 2011 or worse with a Glock, you're probably right.

Edited January 28, 2008 by spook

[sfinney]

Just like most racing activities, the driver is the deciding factor in who's going to win the race..... but, people still spend a highly disproportionate amount of dollars to get that last 2 or 3% of performance out of their cars and engines, "to be competitive". Whether its racing slot cars, Formula 1, NASCAR, long range rifle shooting, or IPSC some people are always going to send the most money possible to make sure they have the "best" equipment. Then gripe when they are beat by someone with a "stock" setup.

Our hobby, like most others, is about doing what you enjoy. Especially in gun related hobbies, a certain part of the fun can be in the "collecting", or ownership of nice things. If you like expensive, fancy guns, then by all means own/shoot them. If you like the challenge of shooting a stock service pistol and putting all the focus on your own shooting skills, by all means do so. Shoot for fun, however you measure that. Just get it clear in your own mind which kind of shooter you are.

[Carlos]

They thought that buying an AR was going to make them better.

I see people come to USPSA as new shooters. The first thing they HEAR is about all the shjt they need to buy. The first thing they SEE is $2k (and up!) guns with ultra hicap mags. Then they come to this forum, and the first thing people TELL them to do is to go buy THIS, THAT, THE OTHER, and ONE OF THESE. Rarely if ever is a newer shooter told to spend the money on bullets and shoot the gun they have. Flex did it recently, and he is the only one that I remember doing it. There is more to getting better at shooting than buying crap.

Money is tight, this sport is already expensive, and I feel that we do ourselves a serious disservice by emphasizing that spending money somehow makes you "better" at this sport. It sets unrealistically high expectations for new shooters. They come, play "monkey see monkey do" and buy some of those fabulous guns, and then..............they leave. Never to come back.

I could not agree more - and very well said! I see the SAME thing here in our area.

Frankly, I am sick of seeing USPSA being the "S_I and Glock Show" - and frankly, the situation is bad for America. Why?

The high dollar guns so prevelent in our sport DO have a profound impact on the handgun owners we are trying to attract. The reality is, we (USPSA) are tiny. We are miniscule. Go to the SHOT show sometime & you will see what I mean. Even the Cowboy/single action shooters are far larger than us - and WE came before them! Not only that, USPSA and IDPA are supposed to be the "practical" sports - but we're smaller than a group using replica antiques.

And what do you see every time you go into a gunshop? Its not S_I. The gun-owning public is buying handguns more than ever. But, when they show up at our shoots, they see or are told (or both) that what they just bought is somehow "not good enough" - at least not good enough for "our" shoots. And then they are gone. True - there are many reasons newbies don't stick with the sports besides the universal $2000 guns. But the prevelence of $2000 guns is a big part of the turn off (including the $2000 CDP guns).

So, USPSA/IDPA stay tiny & insignificant because "handgun-owning-America" stays away from us. That is, I believe, a lose-lose situation that hurts America since we could otherwise help out the millions of handgun owners who desperately NEED help with their gun-handling and shooting skills.

And, is what the average own really "not good enough" ?? Even for L10? Hardly. The situation could be improved if they saw & met USPSA competitors shooting guns like those that are actually sold in the average gunshop, and sold to the very people we need to attract: the average gun owner.

Finally, I appreciate our sponsors (thanks guys). But the $2000+ guns that have been the trend over the past 15 years and that virtually EVERYONE uses in Limited and Open have become counter-productive and unecessary. I hope that trend changes as it would be in everyone's best interest.

Edited January 28, 2008 by Carlos

[38superman]

Comfort/trust is a HUGE factor. You may not notice it on the timer or on the paper. But in a sport where the mental game is 90% of the whole sport, you'd better shoot a gun that you're absolutely comfortable with. For whatever reason.

If you think you will do better with a 2011 or worse with a Glock, you're probably right.

Spook absolutely nailed it.

The real worth lies in the confidence and comfort level of the shooter.

Let me share with you what prompted me to buy my open gun.

A while back our local club sponsored Angus Hobdell to come and give a steel shooting seminar.

During that seminar, I mentioned to one of the other members that I had never shot an open gun.

He loaned me his wifes gun along with a couple of mags of ammo and said "see how this feels to you".

Angus set up identical arrays of steel for side by side competition.

I stepped up with an unfamiliar gun and hung right in there with him on several runs.

At the end we took turns shooting a fixed plate down range at about 30 yards.

After unloading a magazine on it, neither of us had missed it.

I turned to the guy that loaned the gun to me and said "this is like cheating, its too easy".

The gun was a Brazos 5" BCG Pro and it was magical.

I felt like I absolutely couldn't miss with it.

I fell in love with the gun and knew I had to have one.

Soon thereafter I bought a Pro Sx and never looked back.

It wasn't about trying to buy my way into the winners circle.

It was about finding something that just feels right to you.

That feeling of confidence when you step to the firing line is priceless.

If you get that feeling when you pick up a Glock or XD, fine.... you're shooting the right gun.

Tony

[Ron Ankeny]

I know this has been hashed to death, but I'll toss this in for consideration. I started USPSA with a single stack shooitng L10. I had a chance to buy an almost new Les Baer PII for $650.00 with a bucket full of magazines and I couldn't pass it up. When I decided to try Limited, I bought a Glock 35. I shot that gun a lot, but going back and forth between the G35 and the 1911 wasn't cutting it for me. The grip angle of the Glock seemed to make the gun point unnaturally high and the flat panels didn't fit my hands. I couldn't get my support hand "behind" the gun and I kept losing my grip. I had Arizona Response Systems do a grip reduction and I shot the gun off and on for a year, mostly off. I just didn't like the gun because it was so different than my 1911.

Then I shot a friend's Edge. The Edge had the same natural pointability as my 1911, the controls were the same, and it actually felt better in my hands than my 1911. I also really liked the big old magwell. I was bitten by the bug and I had to have one ASAP. The price tag was a shocker and I wondered if I could justify even going into Limited. In a conversation with Benny Hill, he told me, "There is nothing wrong with going to the line with the best gear you can afford." There is a lot of merit to shooting a gun that fits, operates flawlessly, and one that you can shoot with confidence. Was my 2011 based Limited gun better than my G35? At the time, yes it was and I don't regret the change.

Subsequently, I dabbled in Revolver division with a 610, Production with a CZ75B, and in Open with a 2011 based blaster. I shot all of those guns well enough to get an M card in all divisions. Now that I am about half blind I have been shooting Open exclusively. If it weren't for Open division, I would probably stop shooting USPSA and steel altogether. Around here, I feel like the proverbial "duck out of water" shooting Open because there are so few shootiers in that division. Now that I have nothing to prove (don't even go there) I'll be shooting some Production. I have shot CZ, M&P, XD, and Glocks. Any of them will work just fine. I'll be using a G17.

As for shooting a Glock in Limited, I have come full circle. The trigger isn't that hard to learn and neither is the grip angle. The "flat" panel can be fixed with a $10.00 grip sleeve or some abrasive tape. Even though I like to joke around with the Glcoksters, there is nothing wrong with shooting the Glock platform. Nothing at all... They are good guns no matter what the shooter's classification.

As for the expensive guns. The only draw back to them is the perception by some new shooters that they need them to be competitive.

[SA Friday]

So, Ron, am I reading this right? You felt the STI was easier than the glock to learn with because it fit you better. But now that you have advanced to a higher level of shooting, you don't mind shooting a Glock instead. The platform makes less of an impact.

[lmccrock]

Noting the original question:

What makes a $2K or $3K pistol such as a fully customized STI Edge worth its price when compared to a customized Glock (which you can have for around $1,000)?

Not sure these points have been explicitly made...

1. Those willing to spend $2k+ on a gun will more likely spend time and money to improve their skills.

2. It takes progressively more money to get the last bit of "quality", by whatever means you measure quality (accuracy, trigger pull, reliability, etc.). So a $1000 gun is 90% as good as a $2000 gun (or whatever). It is expensive to wring out that last 10%.

Lee

[Crusher]

O.K. I'll bite. Trick question right?

It has been said (this thread) that the price of the platform is relatively small (regardless of initial cost) when compared to all other costs. For a minute exclude match fees, lodging, travel expense and the price of the platform adds roughly $ .01-.03* per round fired over a 4 year period (based on 60k total rounds fired practice/match). Even a Dillon 1050 is not that expensive when capitalized over a several year period but one does not need a 1050 to produce quality reloads.

Toss in match fees and travel/lodging and the price per round to attend the local matches goes up $.35-.65 per round fired and for majors it's well over $ 1.50 per round fired, the more matches shot, more cost.

What make one better over the other NOTHING it's a matter of want/desire not need.

* cost based on reloading and average expenditured for 15k round fired anually.

[SA Friday]

O.K. I'll bite. Trick question right?

It has been said (this thread) that the price of the platform is relatively small (regardless of initial cost) when compared to all other costs. For a minute exclude match fees, lodging, travel expense and the price of the platform adds roughly $ .01-.03* per round fired over a 4 year period (based on 60k total rounds fired practice/match). Even a Dillon 1050 is not that expensive when capitalized over a several year period but one does not need a 1050 to produce quality reloads.

Toss in match fees and travel/lodging and the price per round to attend the local matches goes up $.35-.65 per round fired and for majors it's well over $ 1.50 per round fired, the more matches shot, more cost.

What make one better over the other NOTHING it's a matter of want/desire not need.

* cost based on reloading and average expenditured for 15k round fired anually.

At least from my input to this thread, you are missing a [potential] differental in here. The difference in savings in accelerated learning, thus less perishable cost for equal gain for a fairly new shooter who has made the decision to dedicate themselves.

Edited January 28, 2008 by SA Friday

[Jake Di Vita]

Ok, when comparing a customized STI vs. a customized Glock, what is it that makes the STI better?

Is it the trigger? I don't buy that, a Glock trigger can be made nearly as light as an STI...the difference between 3 pound and 1 pound is not enough to matter....this is coming from someone who had a 3/4 pound trigger in his Open gun.

Is the trigger harder to learn? Again I don't buy that...regardless what the platform is, all you have to do is keep the damn sights on the target till the bullet leaves the barrel. Anyone who is having problems getting used to the Glock trigger has more than likely talked themselves out of it long ago or read too many posts saying how horrible the trigger is.

Is it reliability? Haha...no.

Is it accuracy? Definitely not. Glocks may or may not be as inherently accurate as STIs (or the other way around), but since we are talking about customized guns....not an issue.

Is it reloading? Sevigny doesn't even use a magwell when he shoots Limited. "But he's a pro..." Yeah, because he practiced a lot. But let's assume that doesn't matter....you can still throw a magwell on it that works just fine.

Is it the grip angle? Are you kidding? Saying it's a bad grip angle that messes up your shooting means you're trying to justify your bad performance rather than diagnosing the problem and working to fix it...ie - copout.

[boo radley]

Noting the original question:

Not sure these points have been explicitly made...

1. Those willing to spend $2k+ on a gun will more likely spend time and money to improve their skills.

Hmm...not sure I agree with that, IMHO.

I think those *working* to get better always concern themselves with equipment choices, and maintenance.

I think those concerned with equipment choices and maintenance, are *not* always working to improve.

One thing about S*I -- you won't spend cycles gloating or being concerned with beating other shooters with cheaper pistols. Nor will you wonder how much better you might shoot with a Glock.

Bouncing between the platforms is *not* a recipe for success, IMO, though some can do it. I wish long ago I'd heeded Merlin's advice to "pick one, and don't look back."

[el pres]

Alright, just to beat it a little more!!

What makes it worth $2000.00, I dont know, go shoot one and see!!

What makes a Wilson SS 1911 worth that much?

I think we all got hooked the same way, everybody thought they were a waste of money until they shot

one.. I never heard of a shooter shoot a 2011 and say, this thing sucks, my Glock is much better.. They are either hooked

and run home to check how much is left on their credit card or, simply reply,"that is really nice but $2000.00 dollars, I'm

not ready for that right now..

Altough I think there is great benfit to starting with a production gun. Longer travel higher weight triggers are safer for

beginers pulling a pistol out of a holster and teach better trigger control habits. Also when you have some expirience behind

the gun is when you'll be able to apprieciate the feel of the higher end gun. In the begining you'll know it shoots nice but not

why and when it comes to custom features you wont know what you want anyway, (Well it looks cool!)

The Qustion I belive was asked from a newbie point of view and I must say, when I first got my 2011 (coming out of

shooting XD's) I ADed three times while coming out of the holster. No one caught on cause it was during trigger prep but it

sure scared the cr8p out of me. My point is there are alot of gun handling skills to be learned from a duty gun... As far as trigger, when I use to play guitar I would put on really thick heavy strings and practice, practice. Then put the regular light

electric strings back on to play and man my fingers were smoking, it was a joke to work those light strings!!!!

[ofcrfs242]

I am relatively new to this sport. I shot a couple dozen matches 10 years ago at 15 years old. Just recently started getting back into it. Growing I shot mainly 1911 style guns. When I joined the local Police Department was issued a Glock and HATED it. I simply could not shoot the Glock like I could the 1911's. As stated earlier the grip angle was akward. As soon as I was eligible to carry something other than the Glock I did. Went through several 1911 style guns. After a lot of though I went back to carrying the Glock. I am now shooting a Glock 22 in competition and am enjoying it. I had to teach myself to shoot the Glock.

As Flex says the gun is a tool. At my limited skill level would the most expensive "tool" help me shoot better? Possibly a little but not near enough to get me to lay out that kind of $ now. I know that my limitations at this point can be overcome with more trigger time, more rounds down range, and coaching.

It comes down to what you are comfortable with. Learning to shoot a different platform can be time consuming but for most can be learned. I have learned that a lot of this game is mental. If you have the mentality that you can not shoot the Glock then you are right. If you believe that your scores will improve by going to another platform they probably will to an extent.

I will take this from Flex "shoot that tool." Whichever one you decide on.

[Flexmoney]

At least from my input to this thread, you are missing a [potential] differental in here. The difference in savings in accelerated learning, thus less perishable cost for equal gain for a fairly new shooter who has made the decision to dedicate themselves.

Maybe so. I don't know that I see that oportunity too often. I guess it depends on the shooter. I'm just as likely to see the shooter struggle with ammo..struggle with mags. (Then again, most that put a extra $500+ into their Glocks end up making them less reliable in the process too.) I can think of plenty of examples of each.

[zhunter]

Ok, when comparing a customized STI vs. a customized Glock, what is it that makes the STI better?

Is it the trigger? I don't buy that, a Glock trigger can be made nearly as light as an STI...the difference between 3 pound and 1 pound is not enough to matter....this is coming from someone who had a 3/4 pound trigger in his Open gun.

Is the trigger harder to learn? Again I don't buy that...regardless what the platform is, all you have to do is keep the damn sights on the target till the bullet leaves the barrel. Anyone who is having problems getting used to the Glock trigger has more than likely talked themselves out of it long ago or read too many posts saying how horrible the trigger is.

Is it reliability? Haha...no.

Is it accuracy? Definitely not. Glocks may or may not be as inherently accurate as STIs (or the other way around), but since we are talking about customized guns....not an issue.

Is it reloading? Sevigny doesn't even use a magwell when he shoots Limited. "But he's a pro..." Yeah, because he practiced a lot. But let's assume that doesn't matter....you can still throw a magwell on it that works just fine.

Is it the grip angle? Are you kidding? Saying it's a bad grip angle that messes up your shooting means you're trying to justify your bad performance rather than diagnosing the problem and working to fix it...ie - copout.

Good post!!

Buy what you can afford/want, and just practice.

[TMC]

Let me change that up a bit...

What makes a $2K or $3K pistol such as a fully customized 1911 worth its price when compared to a tweaked STI Spartan (which you can have for around $1,000)?

Cool factor...

I'm suprized nobody had brought up the all important SNOB factor. Even if you can't shoot good people can be impressed with your gear......can't they?..............please say yes, please say yes, please say yes..

[Neomet]

Not to slide too much back into the fuzzy koolaid sipping philosophical side of this discussion which I admit to being prone to, but as others have said, I think one needs to look at what this sport/hobby is to them and what they enjoy about it. Is it attaining you GM card? Is it climbing the local results board? Is it showing that you can beat more expensive guns with superior skill? Is it using a handcrafted instrument to the best of your ability? All goals are equally valid. If we all came here to win the next nationals I think most would become quickly disenchanted and take up some other activity. My answer was predicated on the fact that what I enjoy is practicing my butt off and seeing my own improvement no matter how slow itis while using an extremely well made pistol. So for me the 2K answer is yes. Now that answer probably doesn't fit the question exactly, but my answer is still yes.

When I started this I shot my XD, and still do from time to time. I had never competed in any shooting sport and had only carried for protection. The XD served me quite well even if I was shooting a .45 in production. I was happy just learning to calm down and to get two hits on each target with some passing regularity. After I proved to myself that I was serious enough to practice daily with dry fire drills, range practice, taking classes, etc I moved up to my Angusized CZ. I was comfortable that it would not sit in my safe coming out only once every couple of months. Now after shooting the CZ for most of a season I realize that a huge limiting factor for me are my 52 year old diabetic eyes. The frustrations I have in not being able to train around this have gotten me to the point that I am having an open gun built. Well, that and everyone says the Dark Side has cookies.

Will I get better scores on a COF with my CZ compared to my XD. Yup, every time assuming I don't do something stupid along the way. Does it feel better as I run the COF? Yes again. Certainly a subjective assessment but it is what it is. Do I regret paying more for the CZ? Not for a second. My break point for diminishing return was there. I couldn't justify dropping 3K on a limited gun as I felt the CZ brought me what I was looking for. But that is just me, what I am looking for in the sport and my level of disposable income. I don't think there is a singular answer that fits all.

We now return you to the regularly scheduled programing of detailed empirical analysis.

[GentlemanJim]

What Drama

eventually you will end up with a smith built high end gun anyway....it just works that way

If you can pony up the $$$ ...just bypass the learning curve.

I wish I had

Jim

[Nik Habicht]

At least from my input to this thread, you are missing a [potential] differental in here. The difference in savings in accelerated learning, thus less perishable cost for equal gain for a fairly new shooter who has made the decision to dedicate themselves.

Want accelerated learning? Buy a Glock, some better sights, polish the trigger friction points, slap on some Tru-grip, and spend the savings over a 2011 on reloading components. Shoot those components, following a productive practice plan over the first year. I'll wager, that if two shooters start with the same dollar total available, and follow the same dryfire schedule, that the guy who can put more rounds downrange will be the more proficient shooter when the money is exhausted.....

[el pres]

Let me change that up a bit...

What makes a $2K or $3K pistol such as a fully customized 1911 worth its price when compared to a tweaked STI Spartan (which you can have for around $1,000)?

Cool factor...

I'm suprized nobody had brought up the all important SNOB factor. Even if you can't shoot good people can be impressed with your gear......can't they?..............please say yes, please say yes, please say yes..

I'm in! Sexiness and intimidation by gear is cool!!! ha! ha!

Limited SNOB!!

Edited January 28, 2008 by DIRTY CHAMBER

[Neomet]

Hey, stop it! If I keep coming back to this thread it is going to mess up the faux carbon-fiber stenciling job I am doing to my frame.