Here's sum funny.

One is that most pistols are what the average Cletus would call a "tack driver". Doesn't matter what the gun is, it'll probably shoot under 4" at 25 yards. But most shooters can't really do that, and mostly, how bad the sights suck is the real limiting factor.

Now, this is the part where you run to your favorite gun rag, and start pointing out a bunch of guns that didn't shoot 4"/25y in "testing". Protip: gun'riters scrape a living out of writing about guns. Not shooting guns, not shooting good groups, just "writing about guns". What would you rather read--the incoherent ramblings of a barely-literate pistolero, or a well-written article by an average shooter?

Two is that competitive shooters buy expensive, highly-accurate pistols because of feedback, not points. Take, for instance, my own match 1911. It's a fair bit more accurate than I am. I'm generally happy shooting five or six 10s (10-ring being a .9" circle at 50 feet, for these purposes). My pistol will happily print that same size group at 50 yards.

The reason I shoot a pistol that is literally three times as accurate as I am, is because if I shoot a 9, I know it was me and not the pistol.

As to professional shooters, I don't know very many. Most of them are on this thing called the AMU, and I know a bunch of guys that are excellent competitive shooters that are professional marketers and such, but really, I don't know of too many guys making a living off winning pistol matches. In any case, all of them have accurate guns because accurate is part of The Best, and it doesn't matter what The Best costs. They're gonna have it.

So let me get this straight.

You're gonna take this Uber Precision High-Stakes Shot, and you want the target to be moving as much as possible? Seems legit.