What makes a $2,000 pistol better?

[konkapot]

Lots of Kool Aid being drunk I see.

Dinner's cookin', so this will be quick:

Accuracy: Since most of us cannot outshoot our guns in the accuracy department, what utility is the (possible? probable?) greater mechanical accuracy of the $2k limited gun?

Are two alphas with a .40 caliber HK worth less than those shot with a STI?

Those who shoot better with the 2011 than they do with a non-2011; assuming that's true....do you shoot FOUR TIMES better? How much better?

To simplify this discussion, let's "DQ" all of the Top shooters; we can all agree that they would do just fine with most any reliable gun.

Does your average shooter benefit from a $2k gun?

That $2k spent on the STI.........could that perhaps have been better spent on practice ammo? A class with Manny/Frank/Phil/Todd etc?

FY42385

[scirocco38s]

They aren't just choosing anything. They are choosing the STI. And, a HUGE part of that is the contingency money.

If you all want to talk triggers...get in touch with a Tangfolio.

Flex, I have shot nice tanfoglio's and they have nice triggers, I could live with them with no problem.

I still think that 1911/2011 platform guns have a better trigger.

I will agree with you that alot of people are choosing sti because of the contingency program. Also remeber that SV doesnt produce the numbers of guns that sti does and of the ones they do produce, probably 40-50% of those are exported to other countries.

I would shoot sti before Tanfoglio because the parts to sti are easier to get in this country.

I will shoot a SV before a STI for other reasons, even without SV having a contingency program.

[scirocco38s]

Lots of Kool Aid being drunk I see.

Dinner's cookin', so this will be quick:

Accuracy: Since most of us cannot outshoot our guns in the accuracy department, what utility is the (possible? probable?) greater mechanical accuracy of the $2k limited gun?

Are two alphas with a .40 caliber HK worth less than those shot with a STI?

Those who shoot better with the 2011 than they do with a non-2011; assuming that's true....do you shoot FOUR TIMES better? How much better?

To simplify this discussion, let's "DQ" all of the Top shooters; we can all agree that they would do just fine with most any reliable gun.

Does your average shooter benefit from a $2k gun?

That $2k spent on the STI.........could that perhaps have been better spent on practice ammo? A class with Manny/Frank/Phil/Todd etc?

FY42385

! other benefit of owning a well built 2000 dollar gun is that after 120k+ rounds thru it, the only parts that have been changed are the springs. And the resale of said gun is still in the 1500-1600 range.

I know guys with glocks that have alot of rounds thru them and they have replaced alot of parts(especially the 40cals) because the gun is getting beat up pretty good. And these are cops that dont do anything to the gun but shoot it and when something breaks thay replace it with the same factory part via the dept armourer.

You cant rationalize the money end of it. If you had to everyone would drive the same car, have the same kind of house wear the same clothes, etc. It is more personal than that. Its something that you chose the way it is and have made it suit you and your shooting style.(be it good or bad)

[SA Friday]

Lots of Kool Aid being drunk I see.

Dinner's cookin', so this will be quick:

Accuracy: Since most of us cannot outshoot our guns in the accuracy department, what utility is the (possible? probable?) greater mechanical accuracy of the $2k limited gun?

Are two alphas with a .40 caliber HK worth less than those shot with a STI?

Those who shoot better with the 2011 than they do with a non-2011; assuming that's true....do you shoot FOUR TIMES better? How much better?

To simplify this discussion, let's "DQ" all of the Top shooters; we can all agree that they would do just fine with most any reliable gun.

Does your average shooter benefit from a $2k gun?

That $2k spent on the STI.........could that perhaps have been better spent on practice ammo? A class with Manny/Frank/Phil/Todd etc?

FY42385

John, you are obviously a great shooter and made GM very fast. If I remember correctly from another thread, you made GM in less than 2 years right? I'm curious, what did you shoot when you were learning (limited), what were you shooting when you made GM in limited, and what are you currently shooting in limited?

[Flexmoney]

SA...you said the gun "does" matter.

I wonder what would happen if we gave Travis, Phil, and Taran Glocks (along with Dave) and put them up against the others? Maybe bring in Eric G. and his Tangfolio to shoot with Henning in Limited (Eric G. has placed in the top5 at our Lim Nats). We probably ought to throw Bob Vogel in the mix (I think he may have just made GM in Open with a Glock...wthout a red dot on it )

I'll bet we'd get...a whole lot of the same.

If you want to speculate, I wonder what Leatham would shoot if he didn't work for Springfield.

What would Jarrett shoot if he didn't work for Para?

Maybe exactly what they shoot now. Maybe not.

When shooters reach that skill level, in no longers matters whose logo is stamped on the slide.

Case in point. Julie hasn't missed a beat since she moved from Glock to Smith & Wesson

When I am deciding what I want to shoot, I don't base it on Travis, Phil or Taran.

Those guys can shoot anything well.

Hey...thanks for repeating the point I was making.

I want to shoot what I shoot best.

2011, unequivocally, hands down, without a doubt, 2011.

Tony

That's great. And, it I agree it is what you should do.

[Neomet]

I actually think having a very accurate pistol is more important for a mediocre shooter like me than for TGO. He can get all A hits with a Sterling that prints 3-4" groups from a Ransom Rest at 15 yards because he shoots with great accuracy. Me, I need the gun to be more accurate because I am less accurate. Will that improve as I practice more and take more classes? Yep, but buy and large these are not either/or questions for me. I can do both.

I think there is empirical evidence that a $2,000 S_I or Tanfo will bring better results to most shooters. Is the difference worth the extra bucks? That one is a personal call as to what shooting is to you and how much disposable income you have to put into the sport. I could drive to work almost as well in a 73 Pinto as I do in a new Caddy CTS. Both will get me there, the Caddy possible a little better. How much am I willing to pay for the "extras" the Caddy gives me in getting to work? Its the same question. An extreme example perhaps, and not meant to compare a Glock to a 73 Pinto (I also shoot an XD) but used to make a point.

[Flexmoney]

...and not meant to compare a Glock to a 73 Pinto

Ahhh..why not? They both blow-up don't they.

[Neomet]

...and not meant to compare a Glock to a 73 Pinto

Ahhh..why not? They both blow-up don't they.

Always glad to play the straight man.

[tgibson]

This may be echoing what has already been said, but here it goes in my own words.

I have the same thought process with my shooting gear as I did with my moto-x bike. I ask myself, "Am I ever going to use this piece of equipment to it's full potential?" Maybe not, but on that rare instance when it might make a difference, I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. Putting this into the pistol shooting world, when I am shooting at a 35y target and get an A that is 1/2" from the A/C line, I know that with my SV, that is exactly where I was aiming the gun when I released the trigger. With my Glock, it is a 50/50 chance it would have been a C.

Just so everyone knows, I shot a $900 box stock P16 until I decided I was going to take this game fairly seriously. Still use the Para for IDPA and was only down 2 at the match yesterday. Pretty happy with it's/my performance!

TG

[AlamoShooter]

And Leather seat in a car or truck is just as good as cloth seats.

OK I can add this 99.9% of the guys I shoot with do not even know that I have an STI Limited gun. I have had it six year and shot two matches with it -one of the matches was a night shoot. I would never let that gun go, even though I don't have time to shoot it. If I had free ammo and free match fees I would not have much interest in shooting a glock.

If I am going to "Spend" my non renewable resource =MY TIME I want to shoot something that is fast and fun.

It Cost the same time and ammo to shoot the best equipment as it does the ...the cheapest. Get the Best equipment you can afford and not stress over the cost. I think my guns cost three times as much shoot as they do to purchases, after I look at how long they last.

JF

Edited January 28, 2008 by AlamoShooter

[Merlin Orr]

And Leather seat in a car or truck is just as good as cloth seats.

Right - and to add to that line of reasoning.....

Until you tasted caviar peanut butter does just fine. There are those who feels peanut butter is superior......

[konkapot]

Dinner was great and now I'm back with a lot to say.

Thanks for the props SA Friday; I am not by a-n-y stretch a "great shooter" but rather a dude who will probably never be a great shooter, but will certainly make the attempt.

I shot an STI/SV/Caspian/Springfield from 1/00 until 12/05, when I switched to a Beretta. I found that I was having to replace my limited gun about every 18 months. I shot a Beretta for a year, then switched to HK, which I shot all of last year, and have just now started shooting a Sig.

I shot mostly L10 with the HK, but did shoot a very little bit of Limited with it. Beretta was production, and this Sig will be L10.

Part of my passion for this argument stems from seeing people (cops and USPSA shooters) try to/believe they can "buy" their way into being a better shooter.

Example: The last PD I worked for issued Mini-14s; great guns, held up for the "amount" we shot them, and were great impact weapons when needed. Officers had the option of buying their own AR15. Some did, and everytime those guys came to the range, we had to assign them a one-on-one instructor because we knew they were going to be a safety problem, or have some sort of "I don't know how to use my Redi-Mag" problem. 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.

To some, a gun is a fine cigar, or something to spend discretionary income on. Great. If buying the most expensive bullets, loaded over the most expensive powder, shooting them through a fantastically beautiful limited gun is important to you, go nuts. Some people drive Hummers, some drive Yugos. We both get to work at the same time.

I stand by my position that a $425 Glock will put two alphas in a cardboard (or human) target just as well as the $2k gun. The difference in cost can then be applied to the variable of the equation, which is the human part of it.

FY42385

[sfinney]

I'll put a slightly different slant on this.... from my own very limited experience and observation (all IMHO)

In my experience, for the average shooter with poor or average trigger control, a nice 1911 type trigger is easier to shoot accurately, at speed. In that, without lots of practice and dry firing, the 1911 type trigger forgives alot of issues, and requires less practice to be accurate with. I'd also argue that for most shooters, a S_I reload is easier to be both more consistent and faster (its more forgiving)..... its just physics.

Glock triggers can be made to be very nice, 98% of a 1911 maybe, and can be learned and shot accurately at speed, with practice. Glocks can also be reloaded as quickly as S_I pistols....with practice. LOTS of practice.

So for the guys who don't put in the practice, or lots of dry fire (whether because they don't have time, don't want to, or don't care), I'd argue a S_I is much more forgiving, and easier to shoot fast.

For those that DO burn in the dry fire and practice, are disciplined, and shoot at higher levels, the equipment is secondary....they could probably shoot a Glock as well as an STI (or any other platform they decided to dedicate themselves to, on any given day) if they decided to......but even then it would be more WORK to do so, as a Glock (at least for me) requires much more practiced consistency and discipline.

FOR ME there is a 10% + increase in points for shooting an STI over a Glock... but I'm the first to admit I don't practice enough, with either type gun.......

I've decided I'm just to lazy to shoot a Glock, so I shoot an STI.

Edited January 28, 2008 by sfinney

[sfinney]

I stand by my position that a $425 Glock will put two alphas in a cardboard (or human) target just as well as the $2k gun. The difference in cost can then be applied to the variable of the equation, which is the human part of it.

This is what I'm talking about.... the difference in cost between a $425 Glock and a $2000 STI, to achieve the same performance, all other things being equal, must be an increase in the value (practice, ammo, training) of the the person shooting it.... (or a just inhuman natural ability to bond with tupperware, that some appear to have )

Edited January 28, 2008 by sfinney

[38superman]

Hey...thanks for repeating the point I was making.

Great minds think alike

Why all the fuss?

Pay your money and take your choice.

Shoot whatever you want.

Pass the popcorn Flex.

Edited January 28, 2008 by 38superman

[SA Friday]

I agree that nobody can 'buy' their way into a better shooter. Ultimately, it's the practice that gets one to a higher level of shooting. I think that some platforms for shooting are easier to learn with though. Do you (John) think you could have gotten to the same level of shooting (in limited) that you are now in the same amount of time if you would have started and learned with a G35 instead of the 1911 double stack platforms? Would it have taken more time, ammo, etc?

One of my stances in this thread is essentially cost off-set, the best bang for one's buck. If learning with a gun that's easier gets a shooter to a higher level of competition faster, would spending the money for the more expensive gun offset the price of additional ammo and time in the long run. If you have a new shooter that you know is going to be around for the long haul in this sport, and is putting the practice time in already, would getting an STI up front offset some of the cost of the learning curve? IMO, this is not trying to buy equipment to get better, but utilizing what $ I'm spending to get better faster. Much like buying reloading equipment. A shooter going through 20,000+ rounds a year can easily save in that first year more than the reloading equipment cost.

Wow, as I sit here and ponder (yep, got waaay too much time on my hands), I can only see this cost offset being more towards a shooter that has already started out, but still fairly new. Someone who has tried out competition shooting and has made the decision to dedicate themselves to getting as good as they can get. I still think this may have some merit, though.

[grandbagger]

im waiting on Henning, Phil, Chris, Manny's take on this one...

save me some popcorn flex!

[DMS42]

I come from a bullseye background--both rifle and pistol. I have shot some IPSC type off and on from the early 80's. I have heard the same questions asked since I can remember. "How will the fancy, expensive gun help me?" There really are no good set answers. It all depends upon what the person asking the question wants out of his shooting. And to some extent what his budget is.

Some can afford to buy the expensive gun, some can't. Will the expensive gun help? Yes, but it depends.

You can get to be good with a less expensive gun by lots of practice along with some good coaching. You'd get there with the expensive gun given the same practice and coaching. Will there be a difference in scores? In IPSC maybe. In bullseye--for sure. I don't care what anyone says--you can buy points.

How can you buy points? You buy points by having the best guns, ammo and equipment that you can. I'm remined of an old article I read many years ago aimed at bullseye shooter titled "How big is your target?". I don't remember all that much about what the article said, but it boiled down to accuracy. A gun/shooter/ammo that could hold and shoot a six inch group at 200 yards will normally be beaten by a combo that shoots a 4 inch group. How can the 6 inch group guy get better? More practice will help, but spending money on a better gun will most of the time gain more points faster. New barrel or different gun.

I've seen lots of guys show up at a rifle match with box stock ARs. They do shoot good, but usually not as well as one that has been worked on. Difference between a 5 inch group and a 4 inch group. Yeah, I know that most ARs will shoot minute of angle at 200 yards. Some smaller, but most of the time those that shoot sub MOA have been worked on.

Trying to compare a Glock to a race gun is kind of trying to compare a stock M1 rifle to a tricked out match AR. You can make Master or higher with either. But the expensive MATCH gun will get you there faster and easier.

If you like the Glock and can shoot well with it--do so. I shoot in some Glock matches and have fun. But I have more fun shooting my SVI Limited or Open gun because I can shoot them better. The same for my bullseye pistols. I have fun shooting my box stock Remington-Rand M1911A1, but enjoy shooting the match grade .45s because I can shoot them better. I even shoot better with the SVI Limited than I do with a Custom built Para in .45.

While you can shoot a Glock in Limited Class, and they do shoot well, I think that an S_I or equiv will let you shoot better (for most people). Is it worth the extra money? Depends. What do you want out of your shooting?

For me I will always try to have the best equipment that I can afford to buy. I don't want my equipment being the reason that I'm not doing the best that I could be. I could compete with lesser guns, but I wouldn't be as happy.

I probably haven't answered any questions about the difference between a Glock and a $2000.00 gun. Is the difference in price worth it? For some it is, for some it isn't. Each person has to make their own choices on what they want to shoot and what they can afford to buy to shoot. Or what they are willing to spend. Sometimes you want the expensive gun but can't afford it.

It's all a matter of priorities. Guns or butter. Glock or S_I. Your choice.

And it's not my place to tell you which way to go. All I can do is offer advice and coaching if you want it. Although I can also offer to let you shoot any of my guns and then let you make the decision. And I'm a pretty good coach if you want to shoot bullseye. Several of the people that I've coached have gone on to earning their Distinguished Pistol Shot or Distinguished Rifleman badges.

[havotec1]

I started out with the standard glock for production and saw all these rich guys shooting the 2011 platform guns and thought I'll never need one of those. Then one day I did a stupid thing I shot one and it was a very costly mistake (if you know what I mean). Of course now I have one and would never go back. I've only been in the game for a couple of years, however I know that every club I have shot at there would be several fellow shooters that would be more than happy to let you try theirs. I would suggest doing a couple of drills with both and see what works best for you. good luck

[SA Friday]

im waiting on Henning, Phil, Chris, Manny's take on this one...

save me some popcorn flex!

I would love to hear their takes on this also. I pretty sure flex's stance is well established: buy a glock and feed it. That's why I'm picking John's brain on this. Any other GM's out there want to weigh in on this? Jake, you have been pretty quiet .

There's gotta be more to it. I have a hard time believing the majority of USPSA shooters are cattle simply being led around by alure of STI, SVI, Caspian, Para influence. There has to be a reason that statistically these are the guns that shooters at all levels choose. All these cops and military shooting competitively, and I see the forementioned in their hands a lot more than their duty weapons.

[Flexmoney]

There's gotta be more to it. I have a hard time believing the majority of USPSA shooters are cattle simply being led around by alure of STI, SVI, Caspian, Para influence. There has to be a reason that statistically these are the guns that shooters at all levels choose. All these cops and military shooting competitively, and I see the forementioned in their hands a lot more than their duty weapons.

Your logic is rather circular.

How did all these other makes and models get into the mix?

Did you forget the opening question? And, you ongoing position is that the gun matters...that it's not the shooter.

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.

*****************

Lets change this up a little. Lets compare apples to apples...based on the original question.

Cy asked:

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)?

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)?

[Loves2Shoot]

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...

[austinkroe]

Well, I have been sitting in the peanut gallery on this one all day long (unlike flex and his popcorn gallery) and I think it is time for me to add my thoughts.

I have taken many of my friends shooting. I would say that I am the gun nut of my law school (I have even taken a teacher shooting). Some of them had shot before and some have not. The majority of them had their own guns (XD, Glock, Sig, Ruger, stock 1911, etc.) and wanted me to see if I could help them shoot better. I always start them off with something simple like a red dot .22 and work up to other stuff. All of them have shot my custom gun better than anything else I have for them to shoot with iron sights. I think it is the 2lbs trigger. However, they have all said that they like the feel of how the custom gun shoots over other guns. Maybe they are skewed by knowing how expensive the gun is but I cannot be sure.

Case in point, one of my friends has a stock Springfield 1911 GI and he can keep all of his shots on the paper at 10-15 yards with his gun but he can keep them all in the 8 ring with my gun. I do not think that it is the mechanical accuracy at all here. I can shoot his gun almost as accurately within 15 yards as I can mine but it takes more concentration.

Now, we have a local open GM that I have been told a story about. This guy is a great shooter and I believe the story so I think it is worth sharing. The story goes that he showed up to a local match and a guy wanted him to try out his CZ prod gun. THis guy says sure and borrows the entire set up to shoot the match with. He does a few practice trigger pulls in the safe area and then goes out an beats everyone else. Hands down beats everyone else at the match with borrowed gear that he has never used before in a division that he does not shoot. So, it is most definitely the shooter that drives the gun that wins the match and not the other way around.

Having said that, my personal preference is to the 2011. I have shoot almost every semi-auto on the market and I like some more than others (I think the CZ/Tan would be #2 on my list for competition). However there is more that plays into the equation than just liking a gun. There is the lemming effect. The more shooters that shoot a type of gun the more manufacturers there are trying to compete in that market. I think the availability of parts is a big part of my fondness of the 2011. If something breaks there are a myriad of people out there to get replacement parts for 1911 guns. I like knowing that in 10 years if I need to fix something on my gun that it will be easy to get the part (political winds can change on imported parts).

I shot a HK USP Tactical for a couple of years in competition and I loved that gun. It was reliable and I could hit just about anything with it. Then I decided to treat myself to a custom built 2011. It was a mistake. I have not shot that HK in a year or so. Everything about my 2011 just makes me happy. The mechanical accuracy is ridiculous and it makes me sure that I earn every C, D, or M that I get. I think the dangerous thing about a $2,000 gun is that you might want more of them.

Shoot everything that you can get your hands on and make the decision for yourself. I think it has been said before that you need to shoot whatever you are happy with at a match and have a good time. There are plenty of other people out there shooting stock guns and having a great time. There are GMs shooting factory guns too. A quality gun will not hold you back but you may find that one gun puts a bigger smile on your face than the rest of them. Just make sure you try before you buy because dropping $2k just to find out you like the Glock better than anything else is not the best plan. Heck I am sure I could go out and thrash most, if not all, of the the local guys in L10 with my HK but I prefer to drop the hammer on my STI.

Is the extra money worth it? Only if you are getting exactly what you want. You could spend $2k on a Glock if that is what you are into. The general forum mantra is, "it is the Indian not the arrow." However, the arrow still has to be good. Make sure your gun runs and is capable of hitting a target; then the rest is up to you.

[austinkroe]

Lets change this up a little. Lets compare apples to apples...based on the original question.

Cy asked:

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)?

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)?

I like L2S's thought of the cool factor but I think there is more to it than that.

I think that for the most part it is not as important as many would have you believe. However, once you have shot enough there are little details about a gun that you prefer and having. A gun that is built exactly to your specs makes you more comfortable and therefore more able to focus on the shooting. I like thumbguards and cocking serrations right in front of the ejection port neither of which are offered stock anywhere that I know of. I would rather take a box of parts to a smith and tell them what I want than to bring them a spartan and change what I want. In the end I think the price would be close. Could I shoot a stock spartan well? Sure I could. I don't NEED all of the nice things but I sure like them and that is my point. Although I do not think those details make a huge difference in my scores.

Also, a custom gun might last longer than a stock Spartan. I am not saying that the Spartan won't last a very long time. I am saying that a good custom gun will have all the details paid very close attention to and MIGHT have fewer wear problems down the road.

You may not need a $2k gun but you might want one and isn't playing this game about what you want to do more than what you need to do? It is a hobby and people are going to do what they want to. TGO could whip me silly with a Spartan if I was shooting some high zoot SS. But look at what he shot in L10 and Lim this year, those guns were most definitely not stock and I am sure he had a reason for it. We drop the dough for quality and personalization and that is good enough reason for me no matter what frame you choose to use.

Flex, as to your contingency theory:

I think it may play into things a bit but there are plenty of people out there shooting STIs without being in the program. I know that I had never heard of the program when I had my gun built. I picked my frame over a Caspian, SV, or Para because of price, mag availability, and gunsmith preference. Besides once the contingency program enters into the equation you are looking at dropping almost $2k or more on a gun anyway. I don't think many people spend an extra $1k on a gun just to get into the STI program unless they are super competitive and know they will be winning some money back in product. I do think the contingency program does a great job of getting the STI name out there and that affects some people's purchases but I do not think it is THE motivating factor of choosing STI over Glock as the original poster had asked.

[Flexmoney]

Part of my passion for this argument stems from seeing people (cops and USPSA shooters) try to/believe they can "buy" their way into being a better shooter.

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