View Full Version : Glock Accuracy Question
So I have a basic question. I was shooting my G19 very well the other day. It made me wonder what all of this talk of Glocks having less accuracy than sigs and HKs and 1911s. Here is what I don't understand. Don't the top shots in the world compete with Glocks... like David segivney, jesse abbatte... ya know? Not trying to start a flame war or anything... just curious. Aren't a glocks or M&Ps accuracy just fine for competition and even some precision shooting sometimes?
SWATcop556
01-17-12, 13:15
This has been covered here elsewhere but I would be willing to be that unless there is a defect with the firearm they will be more accurate than 99% of the shooters out there.
I think that the type of firearm has very little to do with the "accuracy issues" that most people profess on the inter-turd.
my point exactly. I can and prob never will out shoot my g19. I think sometimes people need something to b#$$# about. If the glock is one of the most used pistols in competition... how could it NOT be accurate. But ya, the people that argue on glocks accuracy probably don't really know any better?
If someone is used to a 1911 or light trigger on a DA/SA pistol's cocked shots then a glock is probably going to seem "less accurate" to them. I know it did to me the first time I shot one after being used to single action triggers. But with practice > trigger control I'm much better with it than before. I can still shoot a 1911 a little better than my g22 but that is poor trigger squeeze on my part not a problem with the gun.
Arguing that an average Glock is capable of more mechanical accuracy than a top shelf 1911 is daft.
Practical accuracy is of course, another story.
USPSA and other action pistol sports accuracy requirements, in and of themselves (excluding speed), are not that demanding.
Arguing that an average Glock is capable of more mechanical accuracy than a top shelf 1911 is daft.
Practical accuracy is of course, another story.
USPSA and other action pistol sports accuracy requirements, in and of themselves (excluding speed), are not that demanding.
Who said glocks were more accurate than 1911s?
Ya, i know a well tuned gun like a good 1911 is more bench rest, target accurate. I think my point was that a glock is damn accurate enough for its intended purposes. AND they are used for some accurate shooting.
I've always felt that there were two things regarding Glocks that have been blown insanely out of proportion by internet posters. #1 is the accuracy issues, of which I've had no negative incidents from 9/40/45 at all over the years.
And the whole grip angle complaint that's constantly quoted on other sights as the main problem of individuals not liking them.
Glocks are accurate enough for their intended purpose, and often the largest variable when it comes to accuracy is the guy doing the shooting. I wasn't aware these were points of contention.
That said, it isn't a precision rig and many shooting competitions don't require bullseye level accuracy.
SWATcop556
01-18-12, 00:34
I'll disagree a little bit with the grip angle issue. I carry a Glock daily and it's the only platform I use for social purposes but the pistols point high for me even after years of shooting one.
The M&P has a MUCH more natural POA for me (and many others). The only reason I don't exclusively carry the M&Ps is purely a department policy issue. Glock gets the job done and I'm very comfortable and confident in the platform but given my druthers it is not my first choice. One of the big issues I have is the grip angle.
I would put "modern" handguns (hard to call a smith revolver or 1911 a modern handgun) into 4 categories accuracy wise based on my personal shooting of them:
1)modern combat polymer autos- glock/x-d/m&P
expect 3-4 inches at 25 yards as best case for these, and the accuracy does not hold up very well at 50 yards (expect 8-10 inches at 50)
2)modern combat alloy or steel frame guns-beretta/sig/smith third gen( also your box stock basic 1911 generally)
expect slightly better from these maybe 2.5-3.5 inches at 25 yards and the accuracy going out to 50 tends to hold up better than the polymers-6-8 inches or so.
3) smith and wesson revolvers- (don't do much with colt's or ruger but would expect similar)
2-3 inch accuracy at 25 yards that holds up very well out to 50- my old skinny barrel model 10 will hold a 5 inch group at 50 yards!
4) your semi custom 1911 like les baer or wilson-expect under 2 inches hand held at 25 yards and easily under 4 inches at 50
of course all the above are operator dependent. I can switch between all the above in a single range seesion and maintain the above accuracy standards. Some other people find they can only shoot optimally with one or two platforms.
for close in run and gun inside 25 yards the accuracy differences start to be irrelevant and gun fit/comfort etc tend to start playing more of a role than simple mechanical accuracy.
Pretty much the similiar observations as Cavdoc. Esp the part how much harder I've found Glocks to shoot pretty 50 yard groups vs 25. The geometry of distance and the trigger challenge is brutal for me.
The dozen Glocks I've owned generally displayed more potenntial accuracy than most of the 10 1911's I've owned with the exception of the TRP and a Dave Sams Custom. Basic service grade Colts, SA's, Ithaca - ran from 3-5" guns for 5 shots/25 yards rested whereas the Glocks a little tighter (2-3"); the star being a Gen 4 G17 that would do 1.5" with its favorite load (my avatar). The TRP and custom equalled that in my hands but especially the Sams 1911; I think has a lot more in it than that. If Ayoobs dictum about the tightest 3 of 5 has merit its a one inch or better gun. lol
But one Colt GM could only manage soccer ball sized 25 yd groups. Nice gun other than that.
Now the Glock trigger IMO takes more work to extract all that than a nice 1911 trigger of course.
jasonhgross
01-18-12, 09:41
I am just an average shot, and I was able to hit at 115 yards on the walk back drill in a LAV class. Pistol is stock except extended slide release, LAV mag release, and Heinie sights (self installed and I am not a gun smith). So the answer is, as accurate as you can be with it.
I think mechanically they may be less accurate than a well made 1911 however most people will never out shoot either gun. For some people 1911's are easier to shoot well due to the light and crisp single action trigger. I personally have noticed the same thing. But I have always thought my glock 19 had excellent accuracy
When I was "tuned" with my G23 (and many other glock in other calibers as well, from friends) I could consistently hit 4 out of 5 IHMSA full size steel pigs at 100 m. The targets are irregular, about 15"x22" in the extreme edges, with a "core" about 12"x18".
Several friends that were accomplished IHMSA shooters performed about the same if they were used to the glock triggers.
Outside of a slow-fire bullseye competition, pure accuracy is not that important for handguns.
jmlshooter
01-25-12, 12:05
I'm as confident in my Glock's reliability as I am in where I will go when I die. No improvement in accuracy would encourage a change.
That being said, the Glock's accuracy CAN be improved without changing barrels. I've installed TR Graham's "match grade slide lock" on two of mine, and the results are remarkable.
I can't say that I've measured it in a mechanical rest, but I've measured it against what I know my skill level to be.
So I have a basic question. I was shooting my G19 very well the other day. It made me wonder what all of this talk of Glocks having less accuracy than sigs and HKs and 1911s. Here is what I don't understand. Don't the top shots in the world compete with Glocks... like David segivney, jesse abbatte... ya know? Not trying to start a flame war or anything... just curious. Aren't a glocks or M&Ps accuracy just fine for competition and even some precision shooting sometimes?
Where I notice the difference is 20 yards and beyond. I've shot a Sig P226, a Springfield TRP and a Glock 17, and an M&P 9mm and both the Sig and the TRP are more accurate at longer distances. The Smith was the least accurate, which I hear is sort of a hit and miss thing. At 25 yards, there's a definite difference.
I own a Glock 17 and love it. At speed, moving, doing drills, it's very fast for me. The Sig is more accurate, but I'm not as quick with it. I think a good 1911 is the best blend of the two, but you have more maintenance to do and you only have seven or eight rounds. There's always compromises.
Outside of a slow-fire bullseye competition, pure accuracy is not that important for handguns.
I disagree with this. Provided you shoot the gun well at speed, the better the mechanical accuracy of the tool, the more accurate you're going to be with it. Shots placement is important and I want the tool I'm most accurate with.
I don't know... any stock glock can shoot into 3" at 25 yds with good ammo, and 98% of shooters (including me) can't do it consistenly, at least not using a rest. For me, the trigger is the main problem to get pin point accuracy.
It would be difficult to measure an improvement with a barrel change unless you are a REAL good shooter ;)
I disagree with this. Provided you shoot the gun well at speed, the better the mechanical accuracy of the tool, the more accurate you're going to be with it.
Agreed and not inconsistent with what I wrote.
Shots placement is important and I want the tool I'm most accurate with.
For most folks, it does not matter whether your gun is .5 inches less accurate than another when shooting an 8 inch plate, or a COM. For the few folks that this level of accuracy does matter, the most accurate tool is a bullseye pistol which is completely inappropriate for carry.
I was shooting my G19 very well the other day.
Have you thought about becoming a Glock Armorer?
Have you thought about becoming a Glock Armorer?
Fail.
Unless you're shooting from rest, I doubt you'll see much of a difference.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.