1911’s in general, 9mm versions specifically

[Formidilosus]

Another question comparing CZ ergos and geometry to 1911. The CZs in general appear to have a noticeably lower bore axis, relative to the top of the grip beavertail. They also generally have a more undercut trigger guard. Seems like this would all help get a higher grip more in line with the recoil path (like a Rokstock). Assuming you had two platforms with same weight, length, ammo, no ports/comps, etc, would this not result in a flatter shooting gun?

Yes.

Or are there other details in the geometry that more than make up for this difference?

Other geometries matter too- sometimes/often more.

Also, the grip angles look almost identical between CZ and 1911s.

It’s not necessarily- or mostly the angle. It is the angle, width, length, thickness, depth/thickness, and overall shape.

CZ Shadows are excellent shooting pistols. When it comes to forgiveness in a comprised grip, torque, bad trigger press, etc; the 1911 is still better.

 

[TradLife406]

Got her!!!!

Had to buy a set of files and take a little off the back tabs of my trigger bow.

Y'all weren't joking about having to file stuff.

 

[RockAndSage]

For examples, for me right now:

Glock 19 or 17, Gen 3/4= 16 yards.

G19 or 17 gen 5 or M models= 25 yards.

Sig M18/17= 22-24 yards.

Tricked out Sig M18/17= 26-27 yards.

Staccato P= 32’ish yards

Springfield Pro/custom 1911 9mm that I’m currently carrying= 40+ yards.

They're almost like a Forgotten Weapons thing at this point, given how they've almost entirely vanished from these kinds of conversations, but where do Browning Hi-Powers stack up in all of this for you?

 

[Dobermann]

When I touch thumb-tip to finger tips, I have less empty space than some girls I've dated, even though my hands are comparatively enormous to theirs.

I'm not sure I understand what this means ... but then, I'm not sure that I want to know, either ...

 

[Formidilosus]

They're almost like a Forgotten Weapons thing at this point, given how they've almost entirely vanished from these kinds of conversations, but where do Browning Hi-Powers stack up in all of this for you?

Hi-Powers don’t do well with heavy usage historically. The Novak built ones that places used in the 90’s were basically done at 30’ish thousand rounds. MAs for shootability- they’re good when they were built up.

 

[RockAndSage]

Hi-Powers don’t do well with heavy usage historically. The Novak built ones that places used in the 90’s were basically done at 30’ish thousand rounds. MAs for shootability- they’re good when they were built up.

Ah, that's super interesting. Didn't have any idea about their durability, but a Novak with a beavertail was a bit of a grail gun for me at one time. Good to know.

 

[solarshooter]

They're almost like a Forgotten Weapons thing at this point, given how they've almost entirely vanished from these kinds of conversations, but where do Browning Hi-Powers stack up in all of this for you?

I've never loved the Hi Power ergos. Kind of blocky and square like a Glock. And the balance is a little strange to me, maybe rear heavy? Or maybe the grip angle feels off? Not sure. Also the safety is too small. Could probably be fixed but it's nowhere near as useful as the 1911 safety.

 

[B_Reynolds_AK]

The new SA-35 4" from Springfield looks pretty sweet for a modern Hi-Power, especially for the price.

 

[Formidilosus]

Ah, that's super interesting. Didn't have any idea about their durability, but a Novak with a beavertail was a bit of a grail gun for me at one time. Good to know.

Oh I’d like one too for sure.

 

[Fatcamp]

The new SA-35 4" from Springfield looks pretty sweet for a modern Hi-Power, especially for the price.
View attachment 1050204

First pistol I ever fired was a Hi-Power. I was 13 and my left hand was broke and in a cast. In Garden of the God's if that tells you anything about how long ago it was.

 

[RussDXT]

Between the HD 4x and the 3.6 what would be the overall recommendation?

 

[Escalante11]

Another question comparing CZ ergos and geometry to 1911. The CZs in general appear to have a noticeably lower bore axis, relative to the top of the grip beavertail. They also generally have a more undercut trigger guard. Seems like this would all help get a higher grip more in line with the recoil path (like a Rokstock). Assuming you had two platforms with same weight, length, ammo, no ports/comps, etc, would this not result in a flatter shooting gun? Or are there other details in the geometry that more than make up for this difference?

Also, the grip angles look almost identical between CZ and 1911s.

I'll preface this saying I'm a Shadow 2 fan, they are the easy button here, and in many ways and superior to 2011s of the same price range in my opinion. That said, I don't view them to be flatter shooting than 1911/2011s.

A bit of a tangent now but I don't believe how flat a pistol shoots it a reliable predictor of shootability or accuracy, and I think we over emphasize it in our pistol choices. Everyone talks about the bore axis of the CZs as being some mythical thing but it doesn't result in that meaningful of a difference in how flat or shootable they are.

A bit of a tanget but related here, I don't think how "flat a gun is really translates to much about it's shootability. A great example of this is the Walther PDP Pro. It's a lightweight striker fired pistol with a terrible bore axis. To the eye it screams "terrible" shooter. That said, and everyone who has shoot them knows, there is something magical about the overall ergonimics and grip of those things that make them stupid easy/fast to shoot. They are not a flat shooting pistol but they defy expectations with how quickly and effortlessly the dot/sights return to zero.

 

[rbutcher1234]

I'll preface this saying I'm a Shadow 2 fan, they are the easy button here, and in many ways and superior to 2011s of the same price range in my opinion. That said, I don't view them to be flatter shooting than 1911/2011s.

A bit of a tangent now but I don't believe how flat a pistol shoots it a reliable predictor of shootability or accuracy, and I think we over emphasize it in our pistol choices.

A great example of this is the Walther PDP Pro. It's a lightweight striker fired pistol with a terrible bore axis. Everything about it screams "terrible" shooter. That said, and everyone who has shoot them knows, there is something magical about the overall ergonimics and grip of those things that make them stupid easy to shoot. They are not a flat shooting pistol but there is something magical about how your dot, or sights, return to you aimpoint effortlessly and quickly.

I think sights returning to your aiming point effortlessly and quickly at speed is the exact thing people mean when they say a pistol is “flat shooting”.

If you think flat shooting means something else, what do you think it means?

 

[JohnJohnson]

Just watched a video on that subject.

 

[RockAndSage]

I think sights returning to your aiming point effortlessly and quickly at speed is the exact thing people mean when they say a pistol is “flat shooting”.

If you think flat shooting means something else, what do you think it means?

I'd actually describe that as "fast", rather than flat. To me, flat means the dot doesn't rise as high inside the window. Fast means it can rise a lot, or even right out on smaller guns, but then comes right back down quickly as the gun completes its cycle.

 

[Escalante11]

I think sights returning to your aiming point effortlessly and quickly at speed is the exact thing people mean when they say a pistol is “flat shooting”.

If you think flat shooting means something else, what do you think it means?

What I'm saying is that how flat your pistol is on recoil (or how limited the muzzle rise is) does not by itself translate to shootability or speed of a given pistol.

How naturally your pistol returns to your original aim point is just as, if not more, important than how "flat" you gun is and these two factors are not mutually attached. There are guns that are "flat" but not as natural to return to center. There are also guns that are "not flat" but return back to center effortlessly with little input required from the shooter.

For example, Glock 19/45s are undeniably "flatter" shooters than a PDP Pro. They are a softer platform with less muzzle rise. That said, most people can shoot PDP Pros materially faster, including myself. There is more disruption in my sight picture with the PDP Pro, but it always settles right back on center without much, if any, shooter input. The Glock 19/45s exhibit less disruption in my sight picture on recoil, but I have to force and find the dot back to my center aim point.

Limited muzzle rise on recoil is a great characterisitic to seek in a pistol. But how quickly and naturally a pistol returns to zero after recoil is more important in my opinion. Ideally, you have a gun that exhibits both i) limited muzzle rise, and ii) a natural return to zero. An easy and forgivable trigger is obviously a third key input to this all.

 

[rbutcher1234]

Ok great, I appreciate the clarification. There seems to be a lot of terms used by people that end up referring to the same thing, so I was trying to avoid confusion here.

 

[Nine Banger]

If you think flat shooting means something else, what do you think it means?

Flat Shooting:

 

[RockAndSage]

Ok great, I appreciate the clarification. There seems to be a lot of terms used by people that end up referring to the same thing, so I was trying to avoid confusion here.

Yeah, it is a problem, and an easy one for someone to swap meanings with depending on who they're talking to. Been guilty of that myself.

A good example would be the differences I've experienced between the Staccato C and DWX Compact. The C has an excellent return-to-zero, but I wouldn't call it either "fast" or "flat shooting" in the gun-nerd sense - but it's fast as hell in indexing onto a target and returning that dot back to point of aim. Softer and more pleasant to shoot than any other commander/G19 sized gun I can think of, but I also wouldn't call it "soft shooting" in the gun-nerd sense. It's a really good venn-diagram blend of fast, flat, and soft, but not really any of them. The DWXc is a violent little machine, really snappy with a lot of muzzle rise comparatively, but "fast" in getting that dot back to target.

 

[RockAndSage]

Just watched a video on that subject.

Enjoyed that video, good to see someone talking about it and trying to get to some common understandings.