Recently, a co-worker of mine visited the compound for a little trigger time. As any range day would necessitate, he brought along his recently purchased Staccato P equipped with a Holosun EPS Carry optic. To say this firearm was a work of art and American craftsmanship would be an understatement. Of course, the Staccato’s quality carries with it a hefty price tag in the $2,000 plus range.
While running through drills, a topic of discussion arose — which matters more: a gun equipped with an optic or the quality of the firearm? Before delving into this topic further, I should clarify what is meant by quality of the firearm. By no means do I compare a Jennings or Hi Point to a Staccato. Undoubtedly, there is a point where firearm quality is so inconsistent or unreliable that it should be ignored from the dataset. In this case, our discussion focused on how much of an immediate improvement would a shooter experience if they transition from a reliable, reputable firearm (e.g. any of the numerous polymer frame pistols of today) to a high-end firearm like a 2011 series pistol from Staccato or STI.
Furthermore, we opined further as to how much a pistol optic would provide immediate improvement for a shooter. Taking curiosity a step further, what if the high-end pistol was equipped with an optic? Questions abounded and needed answering.
In another article, I discussed and tested how dry fire and optics dictate competency with a firearm. In this iteration, we focused on the immediate gains a shooter experiences if they transition from a non-optic pistol to an optic pistol and, finally, to a high-end optic pistol. After several hundred rounds in muggy Midwest summer temps, the conclusions gleaned from our testing were fascinating.
Firearms and Metrics
For evaluation, we utilized three handguns: a Glock 17 Gen4, Glock 17 MOS Gen4 with Holosun SCS, and a Staccato P with Holosun EPS Carry. While a Staccato with iron sights only would have been ideal to add to the mix, we didn’t have one available and, unfortunately, the supplied Staccato’s iron sights were not compatible with a mounted optic. As such, we cut our losses and kept the testing with the three configurations available.
The goal of this study was to evaluate our sample shooters (me and my coworker) to determine what immediate gains, if any, were experienced by changing the weapons platform and with the addition or deletion of a pistol-mounted optic. The study utilized drills that stressed speed as well as accuracy, target transition, and precision.
In Figure 2, the tests are listed in the order they were conducted. In an effort to offset shooting these drills “warm” versus “cold” and to acclimate the shooter to the firearm, we were each allowed a magazine of 17 rounds to warm up on a pistol. We practiced some rapid shooting on steel at 10 yards followed by precision shots at 15, 20, and 25 yards — just enough to get a feel for the firearm. All tests were conducted with the firearm at low ready, pointed at the ground approximately 10 feet in front of the shooter.
The targets used are listed in Figure 2. For the IPSC targets, hits were scored as full score (five points) if in the “A” zone and zero points if anywhere outside. A miss is a miss as far as we’re concerned. For Chuck Pressburg’s “No Fail” drill, times were calculated based on the total par time of 25 seconds. From there, the “hit factor” was calculated for each drill. Hit factor is the total score (5 points x the number of hits on target) divided by the time to complete the drill. The higher the hit factor; the more hits made in less time. The test was shot in order of firearm cost: Glock 17 then Glock 17 with optic with the Staccato with optic rounding things out.
Results
After several hundred rounds and sweltering temps, we obtained an interesting snapshot of data and initial impressions. As a longtime polymer striker-fired pistol shooter, I have tens of thousands of rounds through a wide variety of those platforms. My coworker has primarily trained on striker-fired pistols as well. In comparison, we have experience on single-action pistol platforms like 1911s, 2011s, and their variants — but not to the level of our Tupperware pistol counterparts.
The Staccato was an impressive firearm and screamed quality and accuracy. The single action trigger felt like cheating. While the recoil on the Staccato was soft, it was easy for the gun to “get away” from you. The short reset of the trigger and light, crisp pull weight made splits exceptionally fast. For example, I shot the Bill Drill in a blistering .74 seconds (keep in mind this was from low ready, not from the draw) but threw the last shot as my trigger finger exceeded my ability to maintain proper grip and sight alignment of the gun. This example was one of many during this study that provided a reminder that you should practice with your carry or duty firearm extensively and know it well. An unfamiliar weapon platform, especially one you’re pushing to the limits of your skills, is more of a liability than an asset.
Overall, hit factors increased from Glock with no optic to Glock with optic. The Staccato with optic saw a further increase. The most interesting component was the gains observed from no optic to optic averaged around a 30% increase in hit factor. That is a substantial jump in speed and accuracy with the simple addition of an optic on the pistol. Nevertheless, this shouldn’t be a shock to rifle shooters. Which is easier to make accurate hits on target: a rifle with an optic or a rifle with iron sights? The answer follows the rules of common sense.
When evaluating data from the Staccato with optic, the overall gain from the non-optic Glock was nearly 40%. On average though, we gained approximately 12% in hit factor by going from the Glock with optic to the Staccato. It wasn’t as nearly as drastic of a jump from no optic to optic, but substantial nonetheless. It’s hard to argue against an immediate 10% increase in hit factor by switching weapon platforms.
There are a lot of numbers to review in this snapshot of data. Times, misses, and hits from each drill tell us an interesting tidbit of information that provide a larger, thought-provoking picture about the role of a high-end pistol as well as optics on pistols.
Conclusions
For most of us, budget is a major consideration when shopping for a defensive firearm. For others, we may want to save up and get the latest and greatest pistol to add to our collection or a daily carry. The decision to purchase a firearm and/or optic is not to be taken lightly. When I transitioned from a standard Glock 17 to my current Glock 17 with Holosun SCS, I spent around $1,000 for optic, firearm, and duty holster. I considered conducting a complete transition to the 2011 crowd with a Staccato. Unfortunately, the expenditure was far more significant (excess of $2,000) to go to the 2011. Ultimately, I made the decision to stick with the familiar pistol platform and spent the rest of the money on ammo and familiarizing myself with the optic.
When presented with a budgetary conundrum to upgrade to a handgun optic or upgrade the pistol entirely, this study gives some insight into the pros and cons of doing so. From the data, a shooter can see significant and immediate gains with the addition of an optic. By contrast, the purchase of a more expensive, but refined, firearm has its benefits — but not nearly as significant as the more cost-effective option of adding an optic. Thus, if deciding between upgrading your firearm or just upgrading your current carry firearm to one with an optic, the optic may be more cost-effective AND beneficial to seeing immediate improvement in performance. Nevertheless, a firearm is only as good as the shooter and their mastery of the fundamentals. Go train, practice, and perfect the fundamentals first; then go for the gear upgrades; as your budget allows, of course.
