PDA

View Full Version : TigerSwan Glock



okie john
05-12-12, 12:30
I learned about the TigerSwan Glock from this thread and others: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=99921&highlight=TigerSwan+Glock

I’ve always felt that I should be getting better accuracy from my Glocks, I’ve read good things about (some) aftermarket barrels, and I had an extra late Gen2 G17 lying around, so after a brief email exchange, I sent it to TigerSwan for the full treatment, plus a tritium front sight blade. When it came back it had
• Unpolished Scherer 3.5# connector
• Fitted Wilson match barrel
• LAV slide catch
• Glock extended slide stop
• Dawson Precision adjustable rear sight
• Tritium-filled front sight, .125” wide

Along with the new parts, TigerSwan returned all of the stock parts. This is unusual in my experience—most gunsmiths insist on keeping the old parts to offset the cost of work.

The 2,000 Round Challenge
I was worried that the pistol might not be as reliable with a match barrel, so I shot the 2,000 Round Challenge. The slide failed to lock back a few times the first day because I was riding the Glock extended slide stop with my thumb. I tend to do this even with a stock Glock slide stop but it’s worse with an extended one, so I reinstalled the standard slide stop that afternoon and the problem went away. The TSG17 finished the 2,000 Round Challenge with no other issues. This included shooting the IDPA classifier and an IDPA match, plus a lot of work from the holster on El Presidente, Mozambiques, training on parts of the IDPA classifier, Bill Drills, and general goofing around.

After I zeroed the pistol, I shot groups at 25 and 50 yards with S&B 115-grain ammo to get used to it. A few days later, I confirmed my 50-yard POI and tested the Wilson barrel against the factory barrel at 25 and 50 yards. Groups from the Wilson barrel were about 1/3 smaller. Once I was sure of my POI at 25 and 50 yards, I started testing at 100. The front sight blade is slightly narrower than an IPSC target at that range, so I held to see an even amount of target on each side and the top.

I started with a 15-shot group, slow fire, offhand. One shot missed the target entirely, but the other 14 fell into a round group with a 15.5” extreme spread. I also fired a 10-shot group, again dropping one off the paper, but got a group with an 13.125” extreme spread. About 60% of the hits in each group were out to the right, probably because of wind. Both groups were round as opposed to being strung vertically. POI was about 7” below POA, and groups were roughly centered for elevation on the A-zone.

Accuracy and POI Tests
I tested the TSG17’s factory barrel against the Wilson barrel at 50 yards. I fired a 10-shot string, then switched barrels, then repeated this twice for each barrel. The Wilson barrel put all 30 shots into a group at 50 yards with a 9” extreme spread. The group from the factory barrel was 3.25” lower than the group from the Wilson barrel. I missed the target once, but the remaining 29 shots went into a 14” group. Both barrels made groups that were basically round, with evenly dispersed shots. Again, all shooting was offhand, slow fire.


Notes on Parts
Scherer 3.5# connector
Unpolished. I would have preferred OEM, but it seems to work.

Wilson match barrel
I definitely saw more accuracy in slow fire beyond 25 yards. When I shot faster or at shorter range, groups were slightly smaller but probably not enough to matter. Whether that’s enough to warrant the price of the barrel is a personal matter, but the benefits of a better-than-stock barrel add up over time.

I did not chronograph loads in each barrel. The differences would have been the differences between individual barrels, not between all Wilson barrels and all factory G17 barrels.

LAV mag catch
This part is so well known that I can’t say anything about its quality or utility. It’s a bit too short for me—I prefer a factory extended mag catch that’s been shortened slightly and de-horned—but that has to do with my right thumb and nothing else. If it works for you, get it.

Glock extended slide stop
On the first day, I rode this slide stop with my thumb, which kept the slide from locking open, so I switched back to the stock part. Also, since this is a Gen2 gun with a 2-pin frame, it needs the slide stop with the little shark-fin thing that went away when the third pin came along. Again, this is a personal matter, not a flaw in the part itself.

Sights
The rear sight is a Dawson Precision adjustable, which is very well made. I haven’t dropped it on pavement yet, but it’s probably just a matter of time until I do, and I’ll report back on durability at that point. That said, around the 1,900 round mark, which included two IDPA events, a lot of holster work, and some daily carry, the rear sight slide came slightly loose. Over the last 40 years, this has happened to me on every gun with adjustable sights that I’ve ever carried or used much in the field. A liberal application of blue LocTite to the sight body clears it up overnight, which is what I did in this case.

Click adjustments are positive and crisp. It took less than 20 rounds to center the POI and get elevation close at 10 yards. Then I fired a quick 10-shot group that held the 10-ring at 25 yards. Then I fired several 50-yard groups to tweak windage and elevation. This took maybe 20 minutes, and I shot less than 50 rounds. That beats the hell out of spending an afternoon with a sight press, a file, and a bunch of front sight blades.

There are a couple of less than desirable features about this sight. I ordered my gun with a 0.125” tritium front sight blade. The rear notch is a little too tight for a this blade. Glock factory night sights give a tighter sight picture than I prefer, and the sight picture with this setup is even tighter than that. Unfortunately, it looks pretty hard to open up the notch because of the rear sight blade’s thickness.

Also, TigerSwan talks about how you can rack the slide with one hand using this sight. You can, but the front of the rear sight body is only 0.20” tall. The front of a Trijicon HD rear sight body is 0.23” tall, so the Dawson offers slightly less surface for one-handed racking.

Overall Impressions
The TigerSwan G17 is not a fine work of art carved from raw steel like a Hagn single-shot rifle. Nor is it a gorgeous recrafting of an existing arm like a Bowen revolver. It’s an assemblage of thoughtfully chosen parts, and except for fitting the barrel, anyone can hang the same parts on their G17 that TigerSwan did on mine.

Each of these parts has a fine pedigree. For me, the draws were the Wilson barrel, the 3.5# connector, and the Dawson sights. The other parts were not well-suited to the way I shoot, but they do very well for others. You can always order the gun without the parts you don’t like, and I will next time.

Custom gunsmithing is always a mixed bag. You pay, often dearly, to change how a firearm behaves, which nearly always makes it less valuable to anyone else. And the more you invest, the lower the percentage of that investment you’ll get back if you sell the gun.

The pistol cost me $389.00. TigerSwan’s work cost $377.94 (essentially the cost of the parts) for a total of $766.94 plus tax and shipping. On one hand you could say that I’ve paid for an HK and gotten a Glock. On the other, you could say that I have HK accuracy with cheap magazines, easy maintenance, and a wide range of holsters and other gear, plus Glock’s logistical tail and customer service. And if I need to sell this pistol, I can easily return it to stock condition and resell the custom parts to recoup some of my investment.

Would I buy another one? Yes. The accuracy is nice but I’m not sure that it matters as much as I once thought. I definitely appreciate the ease of zeroing. Most important is the ability to get a precise zero, which has driven me nuts with fixed sights on Glocks for the last year or so. (In my experience, different loads shoot to different places in the same pistol, and the shift isn’t just in elevation. Being able to zero quickly and easily is HUGE.) I’ve carried it concealed for several weeks now, so I trust its reliability, but the rear sight has chewed holes in a couple of my shirts. I’d definitely like to have a G21SF with these mods for hunting deer in the thick brush that we have in western Washington. I’ve killed several with revolvers, and I’d like to try it with a street gun.

Let me know if you have questions.


Okie John

mkmckinley
05-12-12, 12:57
The pistol cost me $389.00. TigerSwan’s work cost $377.94 (essentially the cost of the parts) for a total of $766.94 plus tax and shipping. On one hand you could say that I’ve paid for an HK and gotten a Glock. On the other, you could say that I have HK accuracy with cheap magazines, easy maintenance, and a wide range of holsters and other gear, plus Glock’s logistical tail and customer service. And if I need to sell this pistol, I can easily return it to stock condition and resell the custom parts to recoup some of my investment.


This is the conundrum I'm having with a couple of pistol-upgrade projects I'm considering. I'm at the point where I want to try a pistol with better accuracy but I don't necessarily want to give up my Glocks or M&Ps. In a lot of ways upgrading a Glock is a bad investment from a financial standpoint. You spend a bunch on gunsmithing to get the thing how you want it, fine, but you're never going to recoup that cost if you decide to sell it. Furthermore you might be better off just getting a factory weapon with the quality/features you want i.e. an HK P30.

However you've pointed out some very important advantages of going with the upgraded Glock. Namely the advantages inherent to Glocks: they're easy to work on, mags are cheap/plentiful, parts are easy to get, and for many of us the parts commonality with other guns in the inventory (not just parts but holsters, tools etc). I also have more practice on a Glock than any other gun so there's something to be said for sticking with them vs. buying something like an HK.

Your post has helped me make up my mind. What I really do want is an upgraded Glock and the package from Tigerswan seems very reasonable. In any case thanks for the writeup, this is good information. Now where are the pics?


Edit: Couple questions

what was the turnaround time?
Did they do any deburring/polishing of the fire control parts ala Grant's recent tutorial?

okie john
05-12-12, 13:06
Here are typical 50-yard targets.

With the Wilson barrel:
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee68/okie_john/TSG17WilsonBarrel50Yards.jpg

With the factory barrel:
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee68/okie_john/TSG17StockBarrel50Yards.jpg

I'll try to send pics of the gun itself later today. But I warn you: it's just a Glock with adjustable sights, so don't expect much.

Let me know if you want to shoot it. I'll be at the range both days this weekend.


Okie John

JHC
05-12-12, 13:07
Great write up.

Did you compare 25 yard groups?

Thanks much.

okie john
05-12-12, 13:10
Edit: Couple questions

what was the turnaround time?
Did they do any deburring/polishing of the fire control parts ala Grant's recent tutorial?

Turnaround was about a week or 10 days. I didn't see any deburring, but I didn't look closely for it.


Okie John

okie john
05-12-12, 13:18
Great write up.

Did you compare 25 yard groups?

Thanks much.

Thanks.

I did. The Wilson barrel tended to group about 1/3 better than the factory barrel, but at 25 yards both were pretty close. I didn't really see a difference until I got beyond 25.

If you look at the 50-yard target I made with the factory barrel, you can see two 25-yard groups covered with pasters up around the neck. The upper group is circled. I made it with the Wilson barrel and the lower one with the factory barrel.

I also noticed that 5-shot groups can be downright misleading. I did a lot of shooting on two targets side-by-side, swapping barrels between strings. Several times, the first five-shot groups from the factory barrel were as small as those from Wilson barrel, but once you got more than about 10-15 shots on one target, the Wilson barrel clearly grouped better.


Okie John

okie john
05-12-12, 13:43
OK, crappy cell-phone pics, but better than nothing:

Left side of the gun. You can see where I've hogged out the trigger guard bow.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee68/okie_john/TSG17Left.jpg

Rear sight detail.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee68/okie_john/TSG17RearSightDetail.jpg


Okie John

CarbonCycles
05-12-12, 17:45
Quick request:

Can you repeat your accuracy tests once again but this time supported?

I really want to see what the TS Glock can do by eliminating as much of the human factor as possible.

I'd like to get a better idea on what the mechanical accuracy/precision of this setup is before I start sending my stuff out for upgrades (I'm always looking for ways to push my gear).

In addition, if you do repeat your accuracy tests, can you randomize your barrel swaps (e.g. fire several from the factory barrel then switch to the Wilson). I want to make sure that there is no induced bias setup from shooting one barrel for an extended amount of time.

Otherwise, your post has piqued my interest. TIA!

JHC
05-12-12, 18:27
Thanks.

I did. The Wilson barrel tended to group about 1/3 better than the factory barrel, but at 25 yards both were pretty close. I didn't really see a difference until I got beyond 25.

If you look at the 50-yard target I made with the factory barrel, you can see two 25-yard groups covered with pasters up around the neck. The upper group is circled. I made it with the Wilson barrel and the lower one with the factory barrel.

I also noticed that 5-shot groups can be downright misleading. I did a lot of shooting on two targets side-by-side, swapping barrels between strings. Several times, the first five-shot groups from the factory barrel were as small as those from Wilson barrel, but once you got more than about 10-15 shots on one target, the Wilson barrel clearly grouped better.


Okie John

Indeed if Ayoob's rule is true . . . best 3 of 5 = machine rest; I've got several 1" Glocks. ;) The 10-15 tell the tale.

Personally, while I only have Glock OEM barrels now, I think that level of improvement is worth and have been toying with the idea of the Wilson barrel or going all the way to a fitted BarSto for my RTF2 G17.

Thanks again!

okie john
05-13-12, 01:51
Quick request:

Can you repeat your accuracy tests once again but this time supported?

I really want to see what the TS Glock can do by eliminating as much of the human factor as possible.

I'd like to get a better idea on what the mechanical accuracy/precision of this setup is before I start sending my stuff out for upgrades (I'm always looking for ways to push my gear).

In addition, if you do repeat your accuracy tests, can you randomize your barrel swaps (e.g. fire several from the factory barrel then switch to the Wilson). I want to make sure that there is no induced bias setup from shooting one barrel for an extended amount of time.

Chances are that I won't repeat my accuracy tests shot for shot.

First off, shooting any firearm off the bench well enough to drastically eliminate human factors is a very specific skill set, and I'm not very good at it. Repeating these tests over a rest would tell you only how my pistol shot in my hands on a given day, which might not be much better than I shot offhand that day.

Also, I described specific groups in my first post, but I shot dozens of groups using hundreds of rounds over about six weeks. The ones I mention are typical of the trend I saw, which is that the Wilson barrel shoots groups about 1/3 smaller than the factory barrel. The money I spent on ammo, targets, and gas to get to the range to re-shoot them could buy Wilson barrels for a couple of my other pistols.

People have already figured out how to customize designs like the 1911 and the K-frame, so we can expect them to perform in predictable ways. We're just beginning to understand how to make a Glock shoot well. In a few months or a year, we may see some completely obvious things that we're overlooking right now, especially when it comes to barrel fitting. What's important is that this Wilson barrel in this pistol in my hands tends to make groups about 1/3 smaller than this factory barrel in this pistol in my hands. With any luck, you and your pistol will shoot rings around me and mine.

But I will shoot a few groups at 25 and 50 yards from a rest and let you know how it goes. I predict that the Wilson barrel will still shoot about 1/3 better than the factory barrel, but that the groups will be a somewhat smaller.


Okie John

PS I did the barrel swaps as you described: 10 rounds from each barrel, switch, and repeat.

CarbonCycles
05-13-12, 08:58
Thanks for the response.

I should have specified that I did not mean repeating the entire set of evaluations but a subset to establish a trend, which it appears you have already identified.

Your results are promising, and I will start tracking more of these threads for additional data points.

Also, if you do repeat your 25/50 yard supported evaluations, it would be a very solid data point on precision of your setup, which I (and probably a lot others) would appreciate!


Chances are that I won't repeat my accuracy tests shot for shot.

First off, shooting any firearm off the bench well enough to drastically eliminate human factors is a very specific skill set, and I'm not very good at it. Repeating these tests over a rest would tell you only how my pistol shot in my hands on a given day, which might not be much better than I shot offhand that day.

Also, I described specific groups in my first post, but I shot dozens of groups using hundreds of rounds over about six weeks. The ones I mention are typical of the trend I saw, which is that the Wilson barrel shoots groups about 1/3 smaller than the factory barrel. The money I spent on ammo, targets, and gas to get to the range to re-shoot them could buy Wilson barrels for a couple of my other pistols.

People have already figured out how to customize designs like the 1911 and the K-frame, so we can expect them to perform in predictable ways. We're just beginning to understand how to make a Glock shoot well. In a few months or a year, we may see some completely obvious things that we're overlooking right now, especially when it comes to barrel fitting. What's important is that this Wilson barrel in this pistol in my hands tends to make groups about 1/3 smaller than this factory barrel in this pistol in my hands. With any luck, you and your pistol will shoot rings around me and mine.

But I will shoot a few groups at 25 and 50 yards from a rest and let you know how it goes. I predict that the Wilson barrel will still shoot about 1/3 better than the factory barrel, but that the groups will be a somewhat smaller.


Okie John

PS I did the barrel swaps as you described: 10 rounds from each barrel, switch, and repeat.

paul556
05-13-12, 18:27
seems like a waste of money for all these "upgrades",i've never had accuracy problems from any glock in the twenty years i've been owning and shooting them

okie john
05-13-12, 20:17
Here’s a quick comparison shot from the bench at 25 and 50 yards this afternoon. Ammo is S&B 115-grain FMJ. Disregard the differences in POI—I’ve found before with other guns that bench POI is rarely the same as offhand POI.

Wilson barrel, 20 shots at 25 yards: Extreme Spread = 4.5”
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee68/okie_john/WilsonBarrel25Yards.jpg

Factory barrel, 20 shots at 25 yards: Extreme Spread = 6.5”
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee68/okie_john/FactoryBarrel25yards.jpg

Wilson barrel, 20 shots at 50 yards: Extreme Spread = 8”
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee68/okie_john/WilsonBarrel50yards.jpg

Factory barrel, 20 shots at 50 yards: Extreme Spread = 19.0”. The flyer in the right shoulder is my fault. Without it, the group is more like 10.5”.
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee68/okie_john/FactoryBarrel50yards.jpg

Before anyone gets worked up over these groups, remember that I’m not very good off the bench. There are definitely aspects of bench technique that evade me. (I've also heard from several posters here that a Glock does about as well offhand as it does from the bench. I tend to agree, even though this could reflect a collective lack of ability to shoot from the bench.) Shooting from the bench well enough to drastically reduce human factors takes more practice than I’m willing to devote to it—I’d rather spend that time and money shooting offhand.

What these groups reveal largely matches what I’ve seen with another Wilson barrel in a different G17. Groups from both barrels have a central cluster. The Wilson barrels tend to produce a tighter central cluster that contains a higher percentage of the shots fired. Factory barrels also tend to produce a central cluster, but it tends to be larger and to contain a lower percentage of the shots fired. (This is also evident on the targets shown above.) The shots outside the central cluster represent my need to improve. For example, I shot these groups offhand at 25 yards today, alternating between the Wilson barrel and the factory barrel in a different G17. The Extreme Spread of both groups is about the same because of my flyers. But the central cluster from the Wilson barrel contains 13 shots and is just over 2” in diameter, while the central cluster from the factory barrel contains 11 shots and is just over 4” in diameter.

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee68/okie_john/Pistol2Groups.jpg

Let me know if you have questions.


Okie John

CarbonCycles
05-13-12, 20:41
Okie John, thank you for taking the time to do this. Really solid and POSITIVE data point.

It does appear that you have continued to demonstrate the tightening trend of using a non-factory barrel.

Do you expect the following trend to carry over to a G19 by chance?

okie john
05-13-12, 21:32
seems like a waste of money for all these "upgrades",i've never had accuracy problems from any glock in the twenty years i've been owning and shooting them

Welcome to M4Carbine.

A lot of folks probably agree with you, but there’s a significant minority who’ve had a different experience and we’re trying to find a way forward.

Since you’re new here, why not tell us more about yourself? Which Glock do you use and prefer? Can you share the results of your tests with us? If you’ve got something to show us, then we’d love to learn from you.


Okie John

samuse
05-13-12, 21:39
You're definitely a better shooter than I.

Sounds like you didn't really like anything but the barrel.

I've always hated adjustable pistol sights.

okie john
05-13-12, 21:42
Okie John, thank you for taking the time to do this. Really solid and POSITIVE data point.

It does appear that you have continued to demonstrate the tightening trend of using a non-factory barrel.

Let's not oversell this. I can only talk about the two Wilson barrels I've actually used. There could be better barrels. There probably are worse ones.


Do you expect the following trend to carry over to a G19 by chance?

I have no idea.

It would be nice if it did, but I’m not sure that barrels are the issue with the G19. Many trainers report that their students with G17s outshoot their students with G19s by 10-15%. Most of that shooting is under run-dodge-and-jump conditions, so the differences are probably more about handling ("shootability"?) than they are about pure accuracy. For instance, I shoot my G17s better than my G19s. I feel like that's because there's more of the the G17 in my hand, so it’s a little easier to get a solid grip during the draw stroke and more to hang on to in rapid fire. The differences in sight radius are probably inconsequential. The little testing that I’ve done to compare the two isn’t enough to draw a solid conclusion either way.

The bigger issue with G19 barrels is the market for them. Competition shooters buy the most aftermarket Glock barrels—law enforcement agencies won’t touch them and most private citizens who carry a Glock will use the factory barrel. Match shooters use a G17 for the magazine capacity, so the barrel market for the G19, G26, and their counterparts is probably pretty slim.


Okie John

okie john
05-13-12, 21:55
You're definitely a better shooter than I.

Sounds like you didn't really like anything but the barrel.

I've always hated adjustable pistol sights.

Thanks.

The barrel is good. Adjustable sights aren't everyone's cup of tea, but I'm willing to live with them so I can have a precise zero and so I can rezero as needed when I change loads. I just wish the ones on the market were more durable.

The underlying issue is that most people don't understand the benefits of having (and knowing) a good zero. They never get a proper zero, so they don't know where their pistol hits at a given range. They figure that if they can clang an 8" steel disc at 7m most of the time, then they're good to go. They probably are, but there's a whole new world out there if you're willing to look for it, and it's really not hard to find. And think about it: if you had to shoot for blood tomorrow, then wouldn't you want to know exactly where that bullet is headed?

Having a match barrel AND adjustable slights is like 2+2 = 7.


Okie John

JHC
05-14-12, 08:46
Adjustables never gave me a problem on the S&W revolvers for so many years, I'd take 'em on most of my Glocks too. The idea that adjustable sights "have no place" on a combat pistol is one of those myths that dies very slowly.

paul556
05-14-12, 12:57
Welcome to M4Carbine.

A lot of folks probably agree with you, but there’s a significant minority who’ve had a different experience and we’re trying to find a way forward.

Since you’re new here, why not tell us more about yourself? Which Glock do you use and prefer? Can you share the results of your tests with us? If you’ve got something to show us, then we’d love to learn from you.


Okie John

my sarcasm meter is going off but i'll ignore it. i've been a member since 09 i just don't post very often. i prefer the glock 17 but for carry i used the 19,30sf,26 and 36 up until recently. now i have switched to the PPS for daily carry. as far as "testing" goes i haven't run any,they always hit what i am at so i've never given a thought to doing any sort of testing. as i said i've never had an accuracy issue with a glock pistol they have all shot outstanding for me at least.

i've been shooting since the age of six so that might have something to do with it. i have found that some just need to learn how to shoot a glock specifically and once they do accuracy issues are no longer a problem. proper grip and mastering the glock trigger will do wonders in resolving any accuracy issues.

F-Trooper05
05-14-12, 13:18
my sarcasm meter is going off but i'll ignore it. i've been a member since 09 i just don't post very often. i prefer the glock 17 but for carry i used the 19,30sf,26 and 36 up until recently. now i have switched to the PPS for daily carry. as far as "testing" goes i haven't run any,they always hit what i am at so i've never given a thought to doing any sort of testing. as i said i've never had an accuracy issue with a glock pistol they have all shot outstanding for me at least.

i've been shooting since the age of six so that might have something to do with it. i have found that some just need to learn how to shoot a glock specifically and once they do accuracy issues are no longer a problem. proper grip and mastering the glock trigger will do wonders in resolving any accuracy issues.

Keep in mind the boys at TigerSwan are fairly locked on individuals who know better than most about the capabilities and limitations of Glocks. And while I agree with you that aftermarket barrels are unnesicary for most people, there is a very elite minority of shooters who can out-shoot the gun.

okie john
05-14-12, 13:22
my sarcasm meter is going off but i'll ignore it. i've been a member since 09 i just don't post very often. i prefer the glock 17 but for carry i used the 19,30sf,26 and 36 up until recently. now i have switched to the PPS for daily carry. as far as "testing" goes i haven't run any,they always hit what i am at so i've never given a thought to doing any sort of testing. as i said i've never had an accuracy issue with a glock pistol they have all shot outstanding for me at least.

i've been shooting since the age of six so that might have something to do with it. i have found that some just need to learn how to shoot a glock specifically and once they do accuracy issues are no longer a problem. proper grip and mastering the glock trigger will do wonders in resolving any accuracy issues.


No sarcasm intended. I'm sharing what I've learned about a product that addresses the Glock accuracy issues that I and many others (including Larry Vickers and Kyle DeFoor) have encountered. If you have something substantive to add, then we'd love to hear it.


Okie John

Matt O
05-14-12, 14:52
as i said i've never had an accuracy issue with a glock pistol they have all shot outstanding for me at least.

We're all looking for the same thing - maximizing performance with our chosen tools. If you have an alternative opinion or experience (which is great as this is a discussion forum after all), it would be helpful to include some quantifiable data - e.g. groups unsupported/supported at 25; score on B8's, etc.

I also don't think one necessarily has to be able to "out-shoot" the gun in order to see an improvement from a match barrel. Accuracy is the combination of your pistol's mechanical capability and your own trigger/grip control. Software solutions should always come before hardware solutions, but when you reach a certain skill level, it may be a good idea to explore modifications that expand your pistol's capability and therefore your own.

SWATcop556
05-14-12, 16:14
The Tiger Swan Glock was designed for shooters who have the shooting ablility to out shoot a factory barrel and who can benefit from a match barrel. 97% of the shooters out there will not be able to see a significant improvement in accuracy that would justify the price. There are those (such as the instructors from Tiger Swan) who do see a marked improvement and benefit from the barrel.

Buy what you want. Glad the gun is working out. This was not addressed at any particular person. Just the people who have participated thus far.

Okie John, thanks for the pics and the info. Looks like you have a keeper.

deuce9166
05-14-12, 19:53
Thanks John, very interesting post.

paul556
05-14-12, 23:45
i see your point and i can understand if someone is able to shoot it better then it isn't a waste of money. it IS about performance after all. i considered an aftermarket match barrel but strictly for the ability to shoot lead cast bullets.

FChen17213
05-15-12, 00:10
Have you all seen the original Tigerswan Glock thread? The TS instructors all can out shoot their Glock 17s. I bet Mr. Searcy shot those 25 yd groups freestyle offhand. Those guys are truly some of the best shooters in the whole world. Many of the sme's here used to work for Tigerswan or were in the same unit as the TS founders. There is no doubt that when they put together that G17, they knew what they were doing as Tier 1 end users.

mkmckinley
05-15-12, 00:50
i have found that some just need to learn how to shoot a glock specifically and once they do accuracy issues are no longer a problem. proper grip and mastering the glock trigger will do wonders in resolving any accuracy issues.

No doubt, but the OP has that stuff covered.

okie john
05-15-12, 12:49
Do you expect the following trend to carry over to a G19 by chance?

I think that a match-grade G19 is a very interesting proposition, so I emailed Wilson yesterday on this one. The response came this morning: "No we have no plans on them at this time."

Now you know what I know.


Okie John