A few weeks ago, Karl Rehn published an article on NRA’s Shooting Illustrated discussing the difference in shooting difficulty between big handguns, which are more commonly used at the range recreationally, in training classes, and in competitions, and little handguns, which are more commonly used for defensive concealed carry. Reading this post got me thinking about the difficulty difference of different handgun types along with some commonly accepted wisdom and recommendations.

Let’s start the discussion with handgun types and look at the difference in performance using USPSA’s classifier data for different divisions. More specifically using the “high hit factor”, or HHF, for the different divisions across a few different classifiers. Before we do just that we have to define a few things so we are speaking the same language.

A Little Bit About USPSA

A classifier is a standardized stage used to classify shooters into different classes based on their performance. These special stages are set up in accordance with the design that specifies the layout of the stage and types of targets used to ensure consistency in scoring and classification across the country. The stage score for each USPSA member is submitted to USPSA headquarters for competitor classification and score aggregation. The aggregated scores are used to establish and periodically adjust the HHF for the stage which serves as the 100% performance baseline individual stage performance is compared to.

Hit factor is the scoring method used in USPSA matches. It is calculated by adding up the points earned on the stage divided by the time it took to complete the stage. The easiest way I’ve found to think of hit factor is a points per second measurement. Points are earned by the hits within the scoring zones of the target. Points are deducted for misses, hits on non-threat targets, or other procedural penalties based on the rules. Higher hit factor scores are better and are achieved by accumulating more points in less time. High hit factor, or HHF, for a given classifier, can be thought of as the maximum number of points collected in the least amount of time that is possible by performing at or very near the current limit of human performance.

Now that we have a basic understanding of classifiers, hit factor, and high hit factor, let’s talk divisions.

USPSA currently has nine divisions. Each division defines the types, accessories, modifications, and characteristics of guns that can be used to compete in that division. The following list contains a list of the division along with the types of pistol and configuration that is most prevalent in that each division:

• Open – Tricked out full size 2011 style pistols, like the Staccato P (but often larger), with gigantic magazine wells, frame mounted optics, compensators, and ported barrels.
• Limited – Iron-sighted 2011 style pistols with large magazine wells, but no compensators or ported barrels.
• Limited 10 – Same as Limited division but limited to 10 rounds, or iron-sighted single-stack 1911 pistols, like the Dan Wesson PM-45, using extended 10 round magazines.
• Limited Optics – Same as Limited division but with slide mounted optics.
• Production – Organization approved, mass produced, iron-sighted pistols (like the CZ Shadow 2 or HK VP9, but there are many more) without compensators, ports, or magazine wells limited to 15 rounds.
• Carry optics – Same as production, but with slide mounted optics and no capacity limit.
• Single Stack – Iron-sighted single-stack 1911 style pistols with flush fitting magazines.
• Revolver – Iron-sighted wheel guns (like the Smith & Wesson 929).
• Pistol Caliber Carbine (PCC) – Self explanatory, but PCCs with optics are prevalent.

Performance By Division

It’s worth noting that the divisions are set up so that competitors compete against each other using similar equipment. This suggests that there are inherent performance differences between different types of guns. The performance difference between divisions is further suggested by the difference in HHF for classifiers. For example, here are the current HHFs for the classifier 03-05 named, Paper Poppers, in ascending order:

• Revolver: 7.9055
• Carry Optics: 10.1437
• Production: 10.3
• Single Stack: 10.312
• Limited Optics: 10.4705
• Limited (and Limited 10): 10.4977
• PCC: 11.1348
• Open: 11.7506

The interesting thing here about this classifier is that all divisions are forced to perform at least one reload and should be able to complete the stage with only a single reload. We can see that even while performing at or near the current limit of human performance, there is a clear performance gap between revolvers and everything else. Additionally, we can see that mass-produced commonly-owned pistols are grouped together and performed just below all of the 1911 or 2011 style pistols and the PCC. We can also see that there is very little difference in the performance between iron-sighted pistol types and their counterparts using slide mounted optics.

Let’s look at another classifier and see how that performance ranking holds up. Here is the HFF ranking for classifier 20-01 named, Wish You Were Here:

• Revolver: 5.6126
• Single Stack: 7.2283
• Limited 10: 7.2283
• Production: 8.2
• Limited: 8.5677
• Carry Optics: 8.5679
• PCC: 8.7
• Limited Optics: 8.7775
• Open: 9.4933

This classifier is a little different because it requires movement. Also, the classifier requires a minimum of 12 rounds to complete which means low-capacity divisions (revolver, single stack, and limited 10) are forced to perform a reload while the other divisions can complete the stage without having to perform a reload.

We can see once again that there is a clear performance gap between revolver and everything else. The low-capacity iron-sighted 1911s and 2011s in the single stack and limited 10 divisions show zero performance gap, but didn’t perform as well as high-capacity division which makes sense given the extra task of performing a reload. It’s also worth noting that guns with optics out performed the iron-sighted production and limited division guns, but the performance gap between their counterparts with optics is within a few tenths.

For good measure, let’s look at one more classifier, 06-05 named, Fluffy’s Revenge 2. Here are the HFF division rankings:

• Revolver: 9.4829
• Production: 13.3166
• Single Stack: 13.3461
• Carry Optics: 13.4141
• Limited (and Limited 10): 13.4494
• Limited Optics: 13.7764
• Open: 15.1956
• PCC: 17.1691

This classifier requires no movement and a minimum of 8 rounds. That means that all divisions can complete this stage without a reload. There is a soft exception to that in the revolver division for which some competitors are limited to 6 rounds depending on their guns power factor declaration. Power factor is not something we will get into in this post as it has little bearing since it is possible for revolver competitors to complete the stage without a reload depending on their configuration (and some certainly have).

That aside we see a similar trend with revolvers having a performance gap. With the exception of Open and PCC divisions, the remaining divisions show only a small difference in performance. Once again we see similar types of pistols with slide mounted optics performing ever so slightly better than their iron-sighted counterparts (this is a trend that is present more often than not in other classifiers). Open is once again out performs all other pistol divisions. We also see PCC jump out ahead and take the performance win by a good margin while once again remaining in the top three.

Rationalizing the Performance Differences

What does the data mean? The three classifier examples we looked at show different performance ranking results which can be explained based on the different tasks required of different divisions. However, I believe the data supports the notion that there are some inherent performance differences between different types of guns even if we are painting with broad strokes.

The most glaring suggestion is that revolvers are hard to shoot. At least, more difficult to shoot well than other types of handguns. The most obvious explanation to me is the long heavy double action trigger pull which requires a lot of work to master. The heavier the trigger pull, the more work it takes to fire a shot without disturbing the muzzle-target alignment. Another way to think about it is that revolvers are less forgiving to less than perfect marksmanship fundamentals.

Think about that for a second. It is entirely possible for a B-class shooter, which is a classification that still requires a commendable degree of marksmanship proficiency, with a striker-fired wonder nine like a Glock might be able to compete against a Master-class shooter, which requires a highly degree of marksmanship excellence, with a revolver. To me that means that suggesting a revolver to a beginner is not a good idea and only sets them up to start on a longer, more difficult road to shooting well.

The data also seems to suggest that 1911s and 2011s are capable of performing slightly better than most of the common modern mass-produced pistols that are marketed for defensive applications to the general public. Consequently, that suggests that 1911s and 2011s are more forgiving to less than perfect marksmanship fundamentals. Whether or not that is worth the price difference between the more affordable mass-produced pistols and the more expensive 1911s and 2011s is debatable, but ultimately up to the individual making the purchase while also considering the differences in the manual of arms and safety features between the different types of pistols.

What I found most surprising was that the performance difference between optics and irons on similar types of pistols was not as pronounced as I expected. I suspect this a side effect of comparing data limited to what’s currently possible at or near the current limits of human performance. Nevertheless, I expected to see a larger gap given I hold the option that it is easier to develop marksmanship proficiency using pistol mounted optics than using iron sights. However, skill development and peak performance, while related, are different things.

Seeing PCCs consistently in the top three HHF rankings by division appears to suggest that shooting a shoulder mounted long gun well is easier than shooting a handgun. Especially under the right conditions with the right combination of shooting tasks. Certain tasks, such as reloading and movement, appear to notably narrow the performance gap rather quickly. Or at least, more than I expected.

But What Does This All Really Mean?

These are mere observations and postulations that appear to support some common notions shared among some competitive shooters and firearms instructors. Notions such as some handguns being more forgiving to imperfect marksmanship skills than others or some handguns being more difficult to master than others. This is by no means a counter argument to Karl Rehn’s post illustrating the difficulty differences between small and large handguns. Rather, I think it supplements his findings by supporting the notion that small snub-nosed revolvers are among the most difficult of handguns to master or shoot well.

I’m painting with very broad strokes here and the HHF data doesn’t come close to painting a complete picture. However, I think it might help explain the current market trends for compensated pistols outfitted with pistol mounted optics and weapon mounted lights with large capacity magazines. Particularly the ones of the 2011 variety which appear to be overly abundant at SHOT Show as I’m writing this (or at least that’s what I’m inferring from SHOT Show related social media posts).

Just because these high performance 2011 pistols are more forgiving and therefore easier to shoot, it doesn’t mean that this is what every person, especially new shooters, should be shopping for. There are plenty of reasons to still opt for the ubiquitous polymer-framed striker-fired wonder nines that are prevalent among owners. There are even some use cases and scenarios where a revolver makes for a good starting point for the untrained shooter.

Context is everything. The intended or most likely application for a handgun should be balanced against the abilities, physical characteristics, and motivation for improvement held by the end user when attempting to make the best match possible. That includes considering the available opportunities for skill development and likelihood of participation. Not to mention, the opportunity for and likelihood of performing necessary routine maintenance along with the complexities involved with that. Performance, shoot-ability, ease of use, manual of arms, and size are all characteristics of the handgun that should be considered for a given context. At the risk of sounding trite, the saying goes “mission drives gear selection”.