[picosp]

I have been shooting my SIG 229 .40 for about 6 months with very good accuracy. Recently i purchased a p2000 v3 9mm for my wife since the .40 had too much recoil for her. This weekend i used the p2k for the first time and OMG that thing i was insanely accurate all the way to the full length to indoor range. It was almost boring how easy it was.
My question is the HK that much better than the sig or did caliber play a major part?

 

[Landpimp]

I shoot 9mm and 45 better than 40...but figured it was just me, the recoil of the 40 is "snappy" and bugs me beat up elbow after 100rds...so I dont shoot it as well.

 

[Burke888]

I have been shooting my SIG 229 .40 for about 6 months with very good accuracy. Recently i purchased a p2000 v3 9mm for my wife since the .40 had too much recoil for her. This weekend i used the p2k for the first time and OMG that thing i was insanely accurate all the way to the full length to indoor range. It was almost boring how easy it was.
My question is the HK that much better than the sig or did caliber play a major part?

Well there are many factors in accuracy. The HK P2000 is not inheritantly more accurate than the SIG 229. That is to say, if you put both in mechanical rests and tested the accuracy of both, they should both be nearly equal.

What most likely is taking place is that for some reason, your hands like the P2000 better. The gun "fits" you better than the SIG 229 did. This allows you to more easily manipulate the trigger without throwing the gun off target in the process. Another possibility is that the higher recoil of the .40 S&W round had caused you to develop an involuntary flinch, causing the weapon to be pulled off target as well. This is very common and takes practice to overcome.

 

[Solidgun]

I agree that it is the gun and the improved grip. I have small hands and I shoot my USPc 45 better than 92fs 9mm (this is the only pistol that I don't feel comfortable holding).
However, this is the only comparison I can make as the only 45 I own is the USPc and I own 5 other 9mm.....

 

[H&K 4 LIFE]

Rest assured that both pistols are just as accurate as one another. I'm sure if you had a SIG 9mm as well you would find it easier to shoot then your SIG .40S&W. The reduction in recoil is the only thing making it seem like the HK is more accurate than the SIG. I think we can all say we get tighter groups with rimfire .22 then we do with any centerfire caliber for one reason, less recoil.

Personally I love the .40S&W. My advice is to shoot your .40S&W like it was your 9mm, just don't give it any thought when you switch between guns and you will do better. I shoot my G19 (9mm) as well as a G23 (.40) so it is possible to get good with both, although during rapid fire my follow up shots are more precise with the 9mm.

 

[picosp]

Eventhough i shot better with the p2k 9, i didn't particularly like the trigger pull. i thought the Sig's trigger was a lot better. I thought pull was a little too long. but maybe that helped me. what do i know? i am relatively new to this.
i am just happy i have 2 GREAT guns.

Thanks all!

 

[sfguard]

Both of what you ask IMHO

 

[LCSO264]

I would say go with accuracy/comfort... I have handguns in just about every major caliber.... I happen to shoot my .45 caliber handguns just as well as my 9mm and .40 cal handguns.. So for me the bigger hole is the tie breaker... but, if I shot the 9mm or .40's significanlty better than the .45 I would likely carry the winner....

It just happens that my dept. requires .45 cal carry for duty, so this works out for me........

You should go with what ever you shoot instictively the best, because that is what will save your life... If you can't shoot .45 or .40 accurately, then 9mm is likely the caliber for you... If you shoot all three similarly, then you have to choose what you are comfortable with..... for me, it is the bigger hole therory.........

good luck

 

[MaD HuNGaRIaN]

I shoot 9mm and 45 better than 40...but figured it was just me, the recoil of the 40 is "snappy" and bugs me beat up elbow after 100rds...so I dont shoot it as well.

Ditto.......

I shot .40 for years, and when I bought my wife her 9mm, I shot it for fun and ended up ditching my .40. Now, I have a P2KSK 9mm and a MK23.

 

[picosp]

I would say go with accuracy/comfort... I have handguns in just about every major caliber.... I happen to shoot my .45 caliber handguns just as well as my 9mm and .40 cal handguns.. So for me the bigger hole is the tie breaker... but, if I shot the 9mm or .40's significanlty better than the .45 I would likely carry the winner....

It just happens that my dept. requires .45 cal carry for duty, so this works out for me........

You should go with what ever you shoot instictively the best, because that is what will save your life... If you can't shoot .45 or .40 accurately, then 9mm is likely the caliber for you... If you shoot all three similarly, then you have to choose what you are comfortable with..... for me, it is the bigger hole therory.........

good luck

Now that i think of it, since i have small hands it has to be the smaller grip of the P2000 that gave me better control thus better accuracy.
I am very accurate with my Sig 229 but precise with the P2000. the HK is for my wife so i'l stick to my SIG and try to achieve the same control and accuracy as the P2000.

Thanks to all.

 

[Reoze]

I'm willing to bet it's the grip. The first time I picked up a USP .40 I also rented a P99.

Was getting about 6 inch groups at 15 yards with the .40 and 2 inch groups firing twice as fast with the .22 due to the smaller grip.

I will say though after getting used to the .40 I prefer it over the .45 the recoil is a little more "snappy" but I can also get the gun back on target much faster than the .45

I've only rented one 9mm but it was a beretta 92 and I just think it's user preference when it comes down to it.