Interesting video HR. I'm a retired helicopter pilot and as one, as Harry Reasner once said, I am an anticipator of doom. Therefore I tend to shy away from electronic devices in personal protection firearms and tend to use conventional sights in my carry weapons. I know I know, but that is the way I am. Can't help it. What all this is leading up to is I would really like to see a comparison of those two handguns with just iron sites. Keep em coming HR, great content...
The real conclusion, as I see it, is either one is more than satisfactory. The optic on the Masada (larger) may be a tick faster than the one on the 9S which may be a bit more precise. But for defensive purposes, the user must be the judge. With the exception of my TP9 SFx, I have nothing optics ready, and no optics. Changing times and situations may decide I need a few and I am grateful to see them tested.
Might not hurt to buy an optic and test it on that SFX. At the end of the day you need to evaluate it for yourself. You're the one that has to be happy with your pistol setup. I know I was skeptical until I got hold of a gun rigged up for one and started to test it for myself, the concept has grown on me.
Another outstanding comparison, thank you! I had similar findings when I compaired my 2 dot equipped pistols. Final scores/percentages were the same for both, albeit I used a less stringent scoring method. For now, I'm sticking with the larger pistol, but I think my confidence level w/the smaller gun has improved, and that's a win, too. 👍👍
Always thought provoking subject. I have found that the single DOT I shoot better than with a circle or circle/dot, why who knows except maybe a better focus on that Dot. Dot sights once sighted in all you have to do is get on target and in general that is where the projectile will go, thus can be faster VS lining up the rear and front sight. It is what you can get use to when shooting. My 2 cents for what is worth. Best to everyone!
Good evening, HRFUNK and family. Another great in-depth video. Yes, more ammo manufacturers need to offer subscription on their ammo. I think thats a good idea. Especially they lock in your price
I think the larger gun's larger dot size made it lose. Either gun would be fine for carry. I like both of those guns. I do not own either one....yet. As you mentioned, that bigger dot got rounds on target faster because acquisition of the target was faster. Really, that is the crossroads. Each of us has to weigh that aspect and decide. The same is true for a fine reticle vs a thicker one with rifle scopes. For those, like my 30-30, the cross hairs are thicker, not a lot of magnification, the shots happen faster (usually), but the distances for that rifle are much shorter than my 30-06 used for longer distances in different, more open terrain. Everybody has to pick what they do best with. I am tickled pink there are so many options out there. I'm 65. The market has never been this diverse like it is right now for guns and optics!
@hrfunk Absolutely. You shot well. Either gun would neutralize the threat swiftly. It comes down to personal preference I suspect. I do want one of those Slims. IWI makes good equipment.
I feel like this was a good test to help with familiarization with the dots either. Wen I got into dots I was really slow. But now between dots and irons I'm probably faster with dots, but not by much. I am currently building a race piece and it's a long slide, optics only pistol and I am absolutely excited to get it done over winter so I can run it next year.
In some instances, that might be just the thing to do. In others, it could be detrimental. Imagine a scenario where someone is threatening a family member some distance from you. If you have to fire to defend your family member, precision might be more important than speed.
@@hrfunkfor the sake of discussion, understanding your proposed scenario, wouldn't this be a situation where target practice would help? My personal preference is for the larger frame. With either firearm, practice is paramount. Just my ¢.02.
Sorry to step on your forum HR. I don't have another way. KD. Tupperware works too. Plus the gel pack. It might be easier to arrange the space available. Pretend Tupperware is everywhere and is fine.
Well, Howard, I thought this was an outstanding video, one of your finest, your protocols were very well considered and excellent, and I was VERY interested in the accuracy results and in your conclusions (with which I fully agree). I’d like, however, to raise an additional matter that favors 4.1 inch - and obviously longer - barrels. In the video’s conclusion you mentioned “ballistics” once, but I respectfully suggest muzzle velocity may actually be a rather important criteria. Why? First, most hand guns are (as we all know) poor lawful instantaneous fight terminators (as Clint Smith once more-or-less stated, “pistols poke holes in people, rifles blow through people, and shotguns blow big hunks of tissue and bones out of people”). So, the 50+ FPS muzzle velocity advantage afforded by the larger Masada conceivably might be crucial, due to projectile penetration and expansion. Second, while this certainly is ammunition dependent, the ubiquitous, roughly three-inch-barrel, micro-compact 9mm’s may not uniformly provide full expansion, whereas their 4+ inch barrel (and especially those of, let’s say, 4.4 or greater barrel length) brethren are more likely to do so. Third, absent a CNS or heart hit, handguns principally depend on the felon “bleeding out” to positively end the threat. As was tragically demonstrated in the Bureau’s April, 1986, Miami firefight, multiple sidearm hits may certainly be lethal, but may not do so rapidly enough to preclude deaths and serious wounds. Thus, accuracy (and both autoloader clearly attain this for most attribute), penetration and expansion can make a decisive difference, and I’d speculate that a 50+ FPS advantage might be vital. At any rate, that’s one guy’s thoughts.
I don't disagree with anything you stated Roy. Since this was an accuracy comparison I didn't go too far down the "Terminal Ballistics" road. Maybe I'll take that on in the future. Hmm, maybe 9mm vs. 45 ACP. Has that been done yet?
Hahaha re 9 versus 45 . . . and you’re right, it was an accuracy test and accuracy (imho) is the most important variable. FWIW, last nights low was in the teens and we’re awaiting Wednesday’s great thaw.
An interesting experiment. You did well with both and I don't see enough difference to make a difference. The red dots do tend to even things out IMO. A friend and I, both seasoned seniors, shoot pistols at steel 8" plates at 25 & 35 yards. We stand still and use both hands, taking our time. I once went 74 hits in 75 shots at 25 yards with my Canik MC9 and Holosun 2 MOA red dot. I have not been able to duplicate that or come close with any of my full size pistols with red dot sights. Anecdotal I know but that little MC9 is amazingly accurate. At 7 & 15 yards doing drills on 50 foot silhouette targets, I do pretty well too.
Very similar to my results with a Glock 26 vs 19 & Hellcat vs Pro, all with XS Big Dots that I prefer. The smaller guns typically group a bit better at defensive distances even though I really don't like the G26 grip shape. The G19 & Hellcat Pro do a bit better beyond 25 yards. My 1911's are the opposite though with the full size always grouping better. I recently bought a Glock 29 & it will be interesting to see how it stands up to my Glock 40 at more hunting appropriate ranges. As a final note, I found almost immediately that the 32moa circle with 2moa center dot may be easier to pick up but it makes my sight picture busy to the point of distraction whether on rifle or pistol & can hurt both accuracy and speed for me. It was bad enough I wound up giving away an Eotech that was on a used rifle I bought. Good evaluation & as always, thank you sir.
This would be relevant test to see on rifles as well. Could literally use same lower with same trigger and matching optics on uppers. Say a 10.5” vs a 16” great video. Thanks.
A couple of observations. The reticle puts your shots in neighborhood but you can still slow down for a precision shot so I would say the win just might go to the duty gun based on the better sight. It would be interesting to see how the 9S does with the other sight. The other missing factor is a test in adverse conditions, that is, cold weather. How controllable and accurate are you with winter gloves on for each pistol. I carry a duty size pistol this time of year because single digit and subzero temperatures are common and I wear arctic gloves.
This reminds me of the bore-axis test you did. The conclusion you keep demonstrating is that conventional wisdom isn't all that wise. I suspect that psychological perception of each pistol weighs heavily for all of us.
Good morning HR. Good video as always. The group with the full size was larger but also to the left. Some right adjustment on the red dot and it might have been a tie. I'll have to try this with mine when it gets warmer. I've got the Holosun with the ACSS reticle on the Masada and one with the circle dot on the Slim. Glad to see that you didn't step on Chewy.😂
For whatever reason, he likes to lay on the floor right in front of my bench when I’m recording video. He is often just below the level of the camera’s image.
I'd like to see further distance with both. That's where rds shine but also the reticle difference will show their issues. The small dot may be too nervous, the circle may cover too much of the target. Can you check out that latest Taurus revolver with a rds? Snubbies can go far.
Good video and drill; thanks for putting in the work! Scoring for time would have been instructive. I pocket carry a P365, so this video reinforced my conclusion that the ease of concealment is an acceptable tradeoff for whatever 'shootability' I may be giving up. Thanks again!
Very interesting video and info. The sights that I have seen w the circle and dot can be switched to either or both modes..... I guess an important test would be to have similar dot sizes in both? Maybe you can grab the slim better....that is another variable.....
Very interesting comparison between the pistols. I do wonder if you had the same sights on both pistols whether the group sizes might have been closer in size between the two? I was sort of forced into testing similar pistols of different sizes when my late wife bought a Golt Officer Model for purse carry. Her being a new shooter she had difficulty in placing shots that she didn't when shooting my Government Model. Both were Series 80 with the 3 dot sights. After working with her pistol for a few range sessions I was able to keep about the same group size out to 15 yards with her pistol as I was getting with my GM, but I sure had to bear down on that little pistol to achieve it. An interesting aside, after shooting her O model for a while and then picking up my GM, I was smoking the bulls-eye at 15 yards with very little effort!
Awesome video Howard ! I would think maybe an optic could be a little faster than irons , I do use both. But that depends on the situation, I saw Jerry mitchulek fire a revolver faster than a firecracker! I’m nowhere near that speed ,so around town and home I’ll stay with my irons .
Nice video. Interesting. I think you are right that a RDS obviates the longer sight radius of full size handguns. You might still shoot a full size better due to grip/recoil, etc. but the sight advantage is mitigated by RDS. I am surprised you didn't switch the Hi-Lux TD-3C to just the red dot to match the other RDS. Maybe then the shot pace and accuracy would have been the same for both guns. Anyway, another great video! Thanks!
So what about a laser for practical accuracy? One advantage of a laser is that when things are in close quarters you can fire as soon as the laser paints the target without having to take the time to get a sight picture. If you are at very short range, use the laser, if you are out past 5 yards or so, then take the extra second to aim with the sights.
Here’s a video I recently produced on that topic: MRDS vs Laser Sight: Is There a Winner? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ES2Ns9JK6t8.html
Good Idea.. Next time I go to the range, I'll try this with my Sig P320's. I have an X Compact (3.6 in) and Full sized (4.7in) both with Leupold DPP sights. I like the idea... Thank You... Mort
I would have used the same reticle on each gun, with the same brightness setting. Another test that would be interesting is to use Holosun optics with their choice of different reticles to see what works the best....or to see if a red reticle or a green reticle is more accurate.. These are just thoughts...
You’re right, it would probably have been better to do it that way. Even so, I kind of like the contrast that this video revealed with regard to the different reticles. Stay tuned for more testing (when it warms up some!)
Great video HR. I really like the process you decided to evaluate the options. I also like that you used two different optic setups to help add nuance to the comparison. I recently purchased the MeCanik for my Canik MC9 and while it’s my first optic and I really like it, I find myself having to look for the dot. I know most of this is simply my learning curve with a red dot but it’s good to see you mention the same issue even though you are experienced with optics.
Thanks for an interesting video! I think what you've actually demonstrated here is that you can shoot more accurate groups when using a pistol with a more accurate sight. Albeit more slowly! I suspect that barrel lenght, or grip size had very little to do with the result. It's a shame you couldn't run the drills with the same sight on both pistols. I feel that practical accuracy has far more to do with the skill of the shooter than the pistol they are using!
Lots of factors at play. I predominately shoot a larger handgun more "accurately". The shorter ones, it's a mixed bag. Some easy to shoot, some not so much. I am sure the optics play an important place in you test, but the variables are vast, if you are putting them under the shooting microscope. I try to think, hey, what are you going to use this for, and take it from there. The majority are going o wind up as concealed carry pistols, which one blends for your own needs, that is the question. Testing your skills with a short barrel, I think improves your skills. If you can shoot with a short barrel, then you can most likely shoot with a "full size".
Thank you for the information. Maybe doing a chronograph test and switching the red dots between the two may provide answers to some of the questions raised by the first test.
You shot the S model better because of an optic better suited to you. With conventional sights on both pistols, the longer sighting plain on the larger pistol might have produced better accuracy. Would you recommend the S model for duty with or without an optic over the larger model?
👍👍great video, it seems that choice of optics had a lot to do with the outcome as much as the firearm did. For me that’s not enough difference to matter…….and that’s just for me as other people might fill differently.
IMO the different sights and not calculating for the time made it inaccurate. i believe that the IDPA system makes more sense by combining the quality of hits and the time it takes to make them. i also believe that the relatively long barrel of the 9s as for the popular 365 makes less of a difference between the full size and the compact as for other manufacturers' models. a 365 to 365XL would be a better representation of the category IMO. all the rest of the methodology is great I think that a lot of shooters appraise the diifferent platforms incorrectly by shooting them only from a contact distance and with both hands which in that your process was spot on. it's also seems that the 9s have better fit for your hand size the shots with the full size are to the left.
Great test, do you think it would be worth doing again with the same sight system on both pistols? Maybe reshoot using a shot timer to compare shot placement and time?
Perhaps Longer Sight Radius was over rated. I did a similar Does Size Really Matter vid with 3.2" Micro and Full Size 5"..25 yards had surprising results & the full size has better trigger. Paul Harrell did a vid as well with Dan Wesson different barrel lengths...I think sight radius is more a factor when from a rest or hunting. People repeated sight radius as a copout to explain why they couldn't shoot snubs for crap, instead of admitting their grip and trigger control was the issue. Seems like the Slim is suiting you well as a pretty easy carry option. P.S. I don't think Greg is going to join us.
Paul Harrell is big on practical accuracy. Most of his tests show the differences generally don't "make enough difference to make a difference." There is a lot of lore out there that people believe that either isn't true or only makes a difference in bullseye competition. Defensive shooting is not precision shooting in the generally accepted definition of the term. It is a good enough accuracy kind of thing.
@johnshepherd9676 yes indeed. Though where I may be ok with a 1 1/2" variation in POI from 12 yards, Paul seems to want to very precisely know it's POI. Every Marine a Rifle Man......
So….my assessment would be this: If you shot at the same tempo, accuracy for the full size would have been just as the smaller pistol BUT, in a gun fight, slowing down isn’t an option. On paper? Sure. When bullets are coming back at you, not so much. I don’t think “practical accuracy” can be evaluated without speed of those shots being figured in too. The other issue is as you mentioned, the reticle difference. The Slim has an RMSC mounting footprint, right? I have a Holosun 507K I could send you for the test or a Swampfox Justice (single dot) for the full size for future tests. I’d need them back though! Lol Good video. Interesting topic. I am 6’2” and 250ish and I dress so I can conceal a larger pistol easily. I prefer to have a long slide to aid with recoil control with a compact grip,15 rounds or so. Think Glock 17 with Glock 19 grip. Or P320 Full slide on a compact grip frame. Also, as you mentioned, velocity advantages or the longer slide aids in HP performance. Let me know if you would like one or the other MRDS, I’ll send them out.
Thanks Skip, I appreciate the offer. I think, however, I'm going to go a slightly different rout. I have an optic that just arrived for testing that will allow me to test several different reticles on the exact same pistol. Stay tuned!
In my humble opinion, the difference in barrel length was not sufficient. In your law enforcement experience, is the uniform officers handgun usually a 4 inch or 4.5 inch. Furthermore, most compacts for CC are, I believe closer to 3.1" , i.e. HellCat. What is your informed opinion and response ?
For uniform carry, handguns are usually 4”-5”. There are some outliers, but most fall within that range. For CCW, the entire spectrum of possible barrel lengths is in play. Some (like me at times) carry a J-frame revolver with a 1 7/8” barrel. At the other end, I’m sure there’s someone out there who carries a Desert Eagle. I would guess most are 3”-3.5”.
The conclusion is not surprising. Snub nose revolvers are accurate but difficult to shoot. It's the balance of accuracy and control that's important. Get video and boy did it look cold.
I agree with your analysis. If you were to swap the red dots on these pistols, I expect the results would be reversed. Are you going to run the same drills with iron sights?
I don’t know. It seems that the pistol with the longer sight radius would have a clear advantage. Then again, it might be fun to try it with wheelguns.
