Socrates,
glad you found my thread. I was going to post a reply in the other thread, but didn't want this subject hijacking the original posters thread and didn't want this topic hidden in another thread. It's been asked too often.
Quote:
|
How about posting targets, or, describing your version of 'accurate'.
|
That was your request, and this thread was my response.
Not to compare my shooting abilities with anyone else, but two guns on the same day with the same shooter. One a target gun, known to be very accurate, and the other, a glock thought of as only being combat accurate.
Comparing one shooter to another with different guns is not an accurate comparison.
Quote:
|
An accurate hand gun for me is 2-3" at ONE HUNDRED YARDS, not 7.
|
We do have a difference, not in what we think is accurate, but what is to be expected of any service pistol. I doubt there are many bone stock service guns that might be capable of this accuracy. And I also doubt if that there are many shooters who can hold this within reasonable circumstance for practical purposes. I myself, cannot even see that type of accuracy. Shooting rifle, I have to center within the frame. I cannot see an apple at 100 yards. Most peope can't, and if they can, the sight blade is going to be way bigger than the object.
Even the best bullseye guns claim 1.5 inches at 50 yards. But only the top shooters can wring that out of the gun. The best 1911's and some David Sams 9mm berettas can do this.
Quote:
|
HVR: Funny, but you haven't posted a target of a Glock 30 shooting accurately.
|
I would if I could, but I can't!
Don't have one, just the 29 I showed.
The only .45 right now is my Chow colt series 70 bullseye .45 with probably one of the cleanest 3# triggers I've ever shot. Besides the SW model 52 2# trigger that is. I know what a clean trigger is, having owned FWB's FAS, etc.
Yeah, the glock took some getting used to, but it's grown on me. I don't have too much problem switching back and forth between a clean target trigger and the glock as you can see by the photos of the IZH and the glock targets.
That glock has around a 4# trigger, having dropped in a 3.5 connector into it.
On glocktalk, they are claiming 2.5 triggers with the glock 3.5 connector and polish job. But myself, I sorta like a slightly heavier trigger. It seems to give a nice "wall" to push against for the break. My Sig trailside got so light, that it's more like a rolling trigger. You can hardly feel the difference between the takeup pressure and the break pressure. You just have to pull through like a double action. I hate that feeling. I like that "icicle" break.
Quote:
|
'Accurate', in glock of phile language is NOT what an accurate handgun seems to be...
|
I disagree on that point. I think that any gun that can consistently achieve a 2" group at 50 feet is accurate in any world of shooting. In bullseye, if you could hold that all day, you would be shooting master class. I showed a target that is close to that, but given the poor quality of the operator, you would have to guess that the glock would be capable of 2" groups all day with the right shooter.
I was stationed on the line at a match, close to a guy right out of the olympic shooting center, and he shot clean two inch holes through his 50 foot match the whole day. But not much better. He shot a 870 out of 900.
The big difference? He could do it all day long, and I can only do it occassionally in a few shots. But it's the shooter, not the gun.
Am I going to take my glock 17 to my next match. No, but someday.
I like the .45 with the bigger holes.....more chances to cut the line!
But I don't see many Freedom arms on the lines either.
Sorry for the long ramble, and NICE SHOOTING SILVANUS!