Moonduck

Thanks =)

[qoute]Keep in mind that (1) there was a guy shooting his .44 magnum (hand cannon) in the stall next to me. Everytime he fired a concussion wave hit me. (2) I was more concentrating on putting rounds through it and seeing that it wouldn't jam. (3) I wasn't braced at all... this was standing with two hands and new unfamiliar sights. and (4) It is a 3" barrel. I'm not shooting a competition with a bull barrel and a scope. A three inch barrel with iron sights does have limitations. [/quote]

I can certainly understand distractions. Frankly, I'd rather have them, as any Real World scenario wherein a firearm would be needed would likely come with unpleasant distractions as well (bad lighting, adrenalin rush, terror, high heartrate, etc).

As to the gun, I don't even own a scope on a rifle, let alone a scoped handgun. I see no reason to put a scope on a handgun except hunting, and for hunting I'd rather use a long gun. As to rifles, I just don't go for scopes usually. I have rings installed on a .30-06 that I own, but haven't found a scope that let's me still use the iron sights. Bottom line for me is that iron sights are far more reliable than scopes and far more likely to be on anything I carry, thus that is what I train with. (Sorry for getting off tangent into a scope rant. I just think that too many people rely on them instead of building good shooting skills without them, then learning to use scopes to hone good skills to a razor's edge)

[quote][b]In any case... with my 9mm as a home defense gun 8" groups unbraced and in semi rapid fire will be more than sufficient to do the job it was intended. Trust me... if I propped myself against a brace, steadied all my shots and the wire my target was hanging on wasn't swinging violently downrange, I'm sure my shots would be much tighter.[b][quote]

I would hope. 8" groups may do the job on a target giving you a full deflection frontal target, but it won't do the job on an assailant in profile, nor will it allow you to deal with partial cover. Not terribly important for civilian shooters lke us, but it is so easy to improve your accuracy beyond 8" groups that there is no reason not to work on it.

Honestly, there really are a lot of good techniques out there to improve your shooting. If you are interested, let me know (here or PM) and I'll see what help I can provide informationally.

5-6" is much better. Frankly, 5" groups are about minimal acceptable accuracy for a back-up gun in my estimation. I can accept poor accuracy from a short-barreled gun in theory, especially if the sights are poor quality. Then again, I've got a snub-nosed hammerless .38 special with ramp-front and groove-rear that prints consistent 3.5" averages at 10 yards out of the box, so it is not impossible to squeeze accuracy from small guns.

Let me stress again that I am not giving you grief for 5-6" or even 8" groups, just asking for confirm. Well, asking for confirm and offering info if you want it.

Oh, the gun I mentioned, for those who might be interested, is a S&W M-640 hammerless (so it is double-action only, or long, heavy trigger pulls only if you are not familiar with the designation) with Pachmayr grips. I have no explanation as to why it is as accurate as it is. Even friends of mine that don't like revolvers find this one shoots like a dream.

Turbodriven, if you don't mind me asking, how old is that Taurus? If it is late 80's production, it may very well just be a dog of a gun. Their QA was very spotty, turning out great guns one day and utter shite the next. Buddy of mine had one of their revolvers chambered in .357 magnum built in the 80's. I consider myself a pretty good shot and I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with that gun using a tripod. (Neither could anyone else) He took my advice, ditched the gun, and replaced it with a nice used Ruger. He's much happier now, and can actually hit what he aims for.