There are three types of accuracy. Scientific accuracy: a gun’s ability to hit what it’s aimed at from a bench rest when fired by Number Five (yes, he’s still alive). Practical accuracy: any given shooter’s ability to hit a target with a particular gun at a gun range. And SHTF accuracy: the gun’s utility for a shooter who’s firing his weapon like a New York City or Chicago cop. The above video is a practical accuracy shootout between a $3080 Wilson Combat Bill Wilson Carry Pistol and a $539 Glock 30. [SHTF demo ater the jump.] I fired Winchester White Box .45 ammo from five yards. I’m an OK shot, it wasn’t my best day and the light was in my eye (kidding). I’ve put more than a 1000 rounds through each gun; I’m tuned-in to both the 1911 breaking glass rod single-action trigger and the Glock’s controllable CLICK reset striker-fired go pedal. And the winner is . . .
Not the bad guy. If you’re as good/bad a shot as this humble scribe and you keep your wits about you in a self-defense scenario, the perp or perps are going to be leaking bodily fluids all over the place. I reckon an experienced Wilsonian or Glockinado could hit a bad guy’s center mass from ten yards every time, all day. Provided the perp stands as still as a gun range target.
Yes, yes I know: eight rounds (Wilson) vs. 11 (Glock) and questioned (if not questionable) reliability vs. perfection (absent any discussion of Glock’s recent recall, which did not affect this gun). But I’m not talking capacity or reliability. I’m speaking here of a self-defense gun’s ability to help one defend oneself.
Bottom line: both guns are more than accurate enough to do what they’re designed to do. Minute of bad guy? Done.
If, however, you want to choose which button on the BG’s shirt to hit, advantage Wilson. I think. Maybe. That depends on your hand size and whether you share my ability to get a good grip on the Glock. (It’s an SF BTW, which stands for “Short Frame.” I wouldn’t stand for anything less, if I were you.)
Also not a winner: my bank account. I paid for both guns. But the basic point is unavoidable: in the hands of an amateur, the Bill Wilson Carry Pistol is not six times as accurate as the Glock 30SF. At least not when you’re taking your time. When you’re shooting like a madman, the Wilson Combat Bill Wilson Carry Pistol really comes into its own.
A loaded Bill Wilson Carry Pistol weighs-in at 38.5 ounces. Mit Kuglen, the Glock tips the scales at 33.86 ounces. The Wilson’s “extra” five ounces are a boon to a ballistic loony. The Wilson handgun’s heft helps the, uh, “rushed” shooter reacquire the target more quickly than its polymer pal.
I know you can buy a top-notch heavyweight 1911, gravity-sucking ArmaLite AR-24 or just about anything else for five to six bills. I understand that the Glock’s relative weight is one of the gun’s main selling points—although slim beats light for comfortable carry (just sayin’). I get that the Glock’s trigger is a LOT safer than the Wilson’s.
But if we’re comparing these two guns for balls-to-the-wall, screw-the-sights-my-ass-is-in-a-sling combat accuracy, advantage Wilson.
And there you have it. Well, not entirely. I shot both guns at 25 yards and . . . What difference does that make? (Yes, the Wilson won there too.) You better have one hell of a reason to shoot someone at 25 yards. And, preferably, a rifle.
So is the Wilson Combat Bill Wilson Carry Pistol more accurate than a Glock 30SF? Yes, but not by much for most people. Does that matter? Only if it matters to you. Now, let’s talk about style . . .