glocks ARE accurate!

[HighValleyRanch]

So, in another thread about the glock 30, Socrates, who I usually agee with, asked to see pics of glocks owners definitions of accurate.
I agree what is accurate to one person is not the same to another.
Since the glock is considered to be only a self defense weapon, most people say, yeah, it's accurate enough at 7 yards.

But I have shot bullseye since the mid 1980's and know what accurate means in that world. I own over ten .22 bullseye accurate .22's, a Chow 1911, and a SW52. Is the glock as accurate as a bullseye tuned 1911. I would say no, but I shot this target yesterday one handed in a bullseye stance at about 55 feet. Not quite twenty yards. Ten shot group.
. Now, I don't own a ransom rest, but do own many bullseye guns. So comparing with the same distance, one handed bullseye stance with my super accurate Baikal olympic IZH, the group shot with the glock was VERY comparible. Same shooter, same distance, same target, same range conditions is a good relative comparison basis.
This was the best target with the glock, but the other targets were very close.

Yes the POI was off, but in comparing group sizes, that doesn't matter.
I shot the IZH first and with the iron sights was holding OK. The glock compares pretty good relative to my centerfire abilities, but with a 1911, 90% are in the black at this distance slow fire.
I'm just an above average bullseye shooter having made it to expert class at one point, but have shot next to some of the top world competitors. I would have to say that with extra work (because of the trigger) one could shoot some decent scores with the glock. One would be slightly handicapped by the trigger, but the gun itself is accurate enough. If you can shoot one group like this, there should be no reason other than the shooter that you could not shoot tiny groups all day. It's not the gun, it's the shooter!

[scorpiusdeus]

Congratulations, nice shooting.

[127gr+p+]

...But not as accurate as sigs.


Good shooting!

[B.N.Real]

HVR,groups like that make me want to own a pistol like that.

Nice shooting.

Close to twenty yards.

[ElectricHellfire]

Pretty nice shootin!

[Glockeroo]

Who said Glocks weren't accurate?

[YukonKid]

Look out everyone...Glockeroo is on the prowl

I don't think, anyone said they were not accurate, but i think that some, myself included believe there are more accurate combat weapons. Sigs for starters.

YK

ps, nice shooting.

[IanS]

Who said Glocks weren't accurate?

People who can't shoot them worth a damn.

The basic rules of proper trigger manipulation applies. Whether its a Glock, SIG, 1911, or DA revolver. But people will always resort to blaming the gun.

I don't think, anyone said they were not accurate, but i think that some, myself included believe there are more accurate combat weapons. Sigs for starters.

I agree, there are pistols that are intrinsically more accurate than others. For instance, I do find the P226 9mm a bit more accurate than a G17. But enough to make difference, esp defensive shooting? IMO, most people who complain about an inaccurate handgun (Glock or not) often can't consistently make fist sized groups at 7 yards.

[Silvanus]

Nice shooting, HighValleyRanch

I find it funny that some people say Glocks are only "combat accurate". Those people simply can't shoot (Glocks) well. They are certainly on par with SIGs or H&Ks. But I admit that it's easier to shoot those accurately due to their nice SA triggers. If you get some trigger time with a Glock though, you'd be surprised how well they shoot.

This is all shot between 15 and 20 meters (closer to 15 than 20, but there are not clear markings at the range).









edit:

there are more accurate combat weapons. Sigs for starters.

That's exactly what I meant. But please tell me how they can be even more accurate. Do you shoot through one single hole all day long or what? It's the shooter, not the gun...

[Socrates]

I'm not just ragging on Glocks with horrible triggers. My S&@ 360PD has by far the worst trigger I've ever used. I'm going to go through it with new springs, and, if I can't get the trigger to a better level....

I have noticed that the guys shooting 9mm glocks next to me had tighter groups then I did. Not saying you can't do it, just don't see much use in learning the skill.

Here's my take: First off, Glocks aren't anywhere near a Freedom Arms revolver. From www.gunblast.com



Gunblasts tests of a Glock in 40 caliber look like a shotgun in comparision.
For me, the only intresting guns are accurate guns.
At the same 7 yards I shot my targets, I should be under an inch, if the Glock was as 'accurate' as my Detonics Mark VI. I was disgusted with my Colt Trooper Mark III when SA, my group was about an inch at 11 yards...Figured it should be
more like one hole.

If you get used to an excellent trigger pull, a Glock, stock, is REALLY hard to shoot, likewise my POS 360PD, with it's 20 pound trigger pull DA, and special 80 grit garbage internal parts.

Now, I can put up with the 360 for only one reason: it weighs 12 oz, and, I can pocket carry it. Can't say that about the Glock 30, 29, but, I might give it a shot with the G39.

However, I see NO reason to change my shooting style to accmodate a new trigger design, when CCO or commanders are close enough in size and weight to allow both a safer safety system, and, a far better trigger.

The big thing the glock has going for it is a lot of people seem able to get them for around 400 dollars, and, if I see one for that, I might well pick it up. Most around here are 600.

[Silvanus]

Gunblasts tests of a Glock in 40 caliber look like a shotgun in comparision

Honestly, I don't care if some people from "Gunblast" shoot Glocks well or not. I do and that's all that really matters to me.

But you are right about the trigger. It probably is the source of the poor accuracy some shooters seem to achieve with Glocks. I personally never really understood that, but then again, I started shooting with a Glock and DA revolvers. If you can shoot those, you can shoot everything. For me the trigger action is one of the last things to consider when I buy a new handgun.

Here's my take: First off, Glocks aren't anywhere near a Freedom Arms revolver.

That's kinda funny

[Socrates]

Quote:
Here's my take: First off, Glocks aren't anywhere near a Freedom Arms revolver.
That's kinda funny

Heck, I don't like the stock 5 lb FA trigger, either. I like 2 lb target triggers, period.

GUYS THAT TEST GUNS WITH RANSOM RESTS TAKE THE TRIGGER OUT OF THE EQUATION, AND YOU GET WHAT THE GUN IS CAPABLE OF, NOT THE SHOOTER.

My other concern is when you try and shoot a heavy, relatively, trigger, like the 360PD S&W, or a Glock,
it's hard to go back to the great triggers on a tuned 1911.

After about 100 rounds with my 360PD, my hands were shaking, and, I doubled my 1911 right after that, and, I wasn't trying.

What do you have to do to get the glocks down to a 3 pound or less trigger?

HVR: Funny, but you haven't posted a target of a Glock 30 shooting accurately.

My thing is if my finger is in the trigger guard, I'm shooting, so, I'm not real concerned about a light trigger pull, and the lack of safety on the Glock.

[HighValleyRanch]

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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!

[Socrates]

I've also noticed that most of the targets posted are 9mm.:barf:

That, said, one of my major problems 30 years ago was trying to find a 9mm as accurate as my Detonics. Never did.
Looks like Glock makes some pretty good shooting 9mm's, or the shooters shoot best with 9mm.

[Bullet94]

Dang those pictures of the Glocks are pretty, but then you probably already know what fine lookin guns they are. They look perfect.

[YukonKid]

Well, Silvanus, Bullet and Glockeroo...all from the church of Glock, I did not say your holy weapon was inaccurate. I personally shoot Sigs better then I do Glocks. I like the triggers more, and i think some of it is mental. As for your one hole jab, no I do not shoot one hole groups, wish i did. They are combat handguns with combat accuracy, nothing more.

My friend shoot my Sig better than he shoots his own Glock. I think its in the shooter, but the weapon and the way it is configured is definitely part of it and a SA trigger pull is better than the Glock/MP/XD constant pull.

with all respect that is due,

YK

[Socrates]

YK:
If I'm in a SD situation, I want my first shot on the money. Watching Brave One, or a remake of the Getz story, with a girl...

Glocks first shot sucks. Sigs aren't much better, but, the sigs I've shot have been incredible with the SA trigger.

My 360PD has by far the worst DA trigger I've ever shot, and, if it doesn't get better, it's gone...

[HighValleyRanch]

YukonKid,
But you did post this:

Well, Silvanus, Bullet and Glockeroo...all from the church of Glock, I did not say your holy weapon was inaccurate.

Yet you stated:

Glocks are combat handguns, and therefore give combat accuracy. Someone said theirs was "very accurate," it just makes me wonder how much experience they have with other weapons.

As to infer somewhat that anyone who states their glocks are "accurate" are beginners or have no knowledge of the idea of accuracy.
Well, wonder no more. I have been shooting competition since the mid eighties, and do know something about accurate weapons.
They give more than just combat accuracy.

[Socrates]

Anybody got glock targets at 100 yards????

OH, can't fit it on the screen...

[Axion]

Anybody got glock targets at 100 yards????

OH, can't fit it on the screen...

You shoot handguns, with iron sights at 100 yards?

[Officer's Match]

If you've seen his handguns, you wouldn't ask that.

[Silvanus]

My friend shoot my Sig better than he shoots his own Glock. I think its in the shooter, but the weapon and the way it is configured is definitely part of it and a SA trigger pull is better than the Glock/MP/XD constant pull.

We all agree on this point.

I just think that with enough training to get proficient with your chosen platform, the accuracy you can achieve with most quality service handguns (you know, SIG, Glock, S&W, H&K, Walther, ect.) today it almost the same.

Glocks first shot sucks

Glocks second, third, fourth, ....... eighteenth shots sucks too, the trigger pull is always the same

Anybody got glock targets at 100 yards????

OH, can't fit it on the screen...

Come on...You can't compare a service handgun to your nice Freedom Arms big bore revolvers. We all pretty much agree that Glocks are accurate for what they are (actually more accurate than they need to be) and for those who still don't believe it, we posted some targets to underline that claim. Why are we still arguing?

[WESHOOT2]

Perhaps a more appropriate comment would sound like this: "Certain specific guns are accurate."

Some manufacturers are more able to deliver more specific examples, maybe?



Oh, don't I just sound so smart?

[DWARREN123]

I "think" that most firearms are more accurate than their operators, so accuracy depends a lot on the operator.

[Shadi Khalil]

I "think" that most firearms are more accurate than their operators, so accuracy depends a lot on the operator.

+1