Glock compensated pistols

Super-Dave · June 5, 2010, 10:07 PM

Is getting a G17c worth the extra money?

Do you notice a significant difference over a regular G17?

Does the venting gases affect your sight picture?

WarlockFirearms · June 5, 2010, 10:29 PM

I'm not a big fan of compensated handguns, particularly guns that are intended for defensive purposes. With a Glock 17, a full-sized pistol in 9mm, recoil is very manageable with the proper grip and stance.

Super-Dave · June 5, 2010, 10:36 PM

Also how much velocity is lost on a G17c vs a G17?

Super-Dave · June 6, 2010, 02:32 PM

Also does the Factory compensated system from Glock work better than a long after market barrel with a compensator on the end?

2afreedom · June 6, 2010, 04:09 PM

I have had a G19 for years (the LGS was out of the regular model the day I bought one) but honestly I wouldn't buy another compensated model. They're slightly more expensive and honestly in 9mm you won't notice enough difference to justify the extra money. Also, you do have some flash out of the ports at night. You won't go blind or anything but it is there and there's no reason to have to deal with it for the small reduction in recoil. YMMV.

Glock_19 · June 6, 2010, 04:24 PM

The compensated pistols in 9mm are a waste. If you can't handle a 9mm then you shouldn't be shooting one. The ports on the barrel will cause flash at night and if you use the gun for carry they will just collect crud. Also you mentioned the loss of velocity, I don't have the exact numbers but why weaken an already manageable 9mm?

.357SIG · June 6, 2010, 04:51 PM

Having experience with both, I will tell you the myth of blinding flash and burning gas was generated by people who have never fired one of these guns. I really don't understand why people put in their 2 cents without any real working knowledge.

The recoil is redirected straight back, as opposed to up and out, making for much faster target reaquisition and follow-up shots. The downside is the sound is also directed up instead of out the barrel and away, making the report just about ear piercing to the shooter.

BTW, velocity loss is 30-50 fps. Not too much.

durian · June 6, 2010, 04:53 PM

I have a 19 and then a friend let me shoot his 34. It's ported and not compensated like a "c" model but talk about no muzzle lift! Very accurate!

HKFan9 · June 6, 2010, 04:58 PM

I agree with .357sig. I just sold the standard Glock 17 I had bought planning to use it for local IPSC type stuff. My local gun store owner shoots them and when I asked about the C models in the Glock he told me to save my money. He said for the price difference its not worth it, and in HIS experience, the only way to really mess a Glock up SOMETIMES is to compensate it. If you have the cash and would like less recoil I would say go for it. I would think even if there was an issue which I doubt anyways, Glock would make it right.

Super-Dave · June 6, 2010, 06:18 PM

So would it be better to get a G34 than a G17C?

roklok · June 6, 2010, 06:30 PM

I have a bit of experience with a 21c, muzzle lift is reduced. What worries me most about the compensated models is shooting from retention positions and getting a face full of blast and gas, not to mention how hard it would be on the ears without ear protection.

Glock_19 · June 6, 2010, 07:59 PM

Quote:

So would it be better to get a G34 than a G17C?

Depends what you're using this thing for. If you're going to be strictly competition shooting then the 17c is a good choice and the 34 is probably an even better one. If you're using this as a defense weapon I would strongly suggest looking into a 19 that is not compensated. Honestly, a 9mm is quite easy to handle I wouldn't worry about getting it compensated unless you're competition shooting.

Ultimately you should buy what you want, just my .02 cents.

Super-Dave · June 6, 2010, 08:15 PM

So for quicker follow up shots, the G34 will be better than the G17C?

This will be a range gun/fun plinker not a SD gun. I am sticking to 9mm because its easy to find around here.

.357SIG · June 6, 2010, 08:24 PM

I wouldn't worry about the gases. I've fired from retention with a 19C and felt nothing in my face or eyes. The "C" model's only possible detriment is getting a sliver of metal or a rock stuck in the ports, either causing the slide to lock up or obstructing the bullet...like that'll ever happen!

The G34 is really not any better than the 17C, but it has the lighter trigger connector. It could be argued that you would get better ballistics out of the slightly longer barrel as well, but that's splitting hairs.

Whichever model you choose, you will get good with anything as you use it over time. If someone sells you a DAO Beretta, you will eventually master the trigger system. The reason I bring this up is to tell you not to worry about the small stuff as much as reliability and quality. Any model of Glock should work as well as another.

The only downside I can see to the 34 or 35 is the length of the barrel for carrying concealed. Though the grip is the only hard part of IWB concealment, the barrel length becomes a problem with movement and sitting. I've noticed with my 5" 1911 in an IWB holster that sitting on a hard chair or bench can actually push the gun up and partly out of the holster, as the muzzle makes contact with the seat through my pants. I guess my ass just isn't fat enough to keep me high enough out of a chair (I'm 6-0 ft and 180 lbs...normal build). I've found the normal 4.5" barrel length is the threshold.

.357SIG · June 6, 2010, 08:26 PM

You will have faster follow-ups with the 17C, as the 34 is not ported. The slide has a relief cut on top, but the barrel is solid. You could possibly buy a spare barrel similar to the one on the 18C, but that's more money if you're on a budget.

IDAHO83501 · June 6, 2010, 08:49 PM

I have the 20C, the recoil is VERY light. I have not shot a model 20, I did hear a lot of people complaining about the bite of there model 20, but then again there are quite a few of shooters who **** and moan about how hard the recoil of a 40 S&W is. I like the 10mm round, and I like my 20C, would buy another one.

threegun · June 7, 2010, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Having experience with both, I will tell you the myth of blinding flash and burning gas was generated by people who have never fired one of these guns. I really don't understand why people put in their 2 cents without any real working knowledge.

Quote:

I wouldn't worry about the gases. I've fired from retention with a 19C and felt nothing in my face or eyes.

I also have experience with both and this is simply bad advice. I have been hit in the face with burning powder from a G-24. This with the firearm fully extended. In a retention position or other "improvised" shooting position the ports are even closer and usually lower giving an easier angle to those burning powders.

During an IPSC match my G-21c has cut the cardboard prop used to simulate a car window with only its ported gases.

Ported firearms should NOT be used for self defense duty unless one can insure that they will have eye and ear protection on and that retention/improvised shooting positions will not be needed. Pretty tough to predict so they shouldn't be considered.

Super-Dave · June 7, 2010, 01:40 PM

Based on info presented here. I think the G34 would be a better choice for me.

.357SIG · June 9, 2010, 09:45 PM

Well, that's your experience. I've never had gas in the face, but I don't put the muzzle an inch from my face. Also, on "cutting" power...you'd have to be pretty damn close to those ports!

Thousand or so rounds through a 19C and I've not experienced any of the "problems" people claim to have. The only credible issue is one I've stated before, and that's the sound level to the shooter.

Somewhere, a guy posted the effects of the ports from his G23C by holding a piece of white cardstock about a foot over the top. It made some dark marks (like powder residue) and that's it. Only thing I've ever felt was warm air in retention, but I just can't seem to find a way to direct the ports at my face. I guess I'd have to shoot over my shoulder or something.

Having said this...I don't carry a ported gun. Am I a hypocrite? Not really. I just choose not to deal with the nasty concussion it makes when shooting. That, and I am not recoil sensitive.

------
Edited. I mistook the powder burn you had for gas burn from the ports. My mistake. On that point, you can get burning powder on you from any gun, ported or not. I've been hit by burning powder from just about every gun I own once in a while. My .22 Walther P22 does it a lot. It is not indicative of a ported pistol in any way.

smince · June 9, 2010, 09:57 PM

Quote:

I've never had gas in the face, but I don't put the muzzle an inch from my face.

But can you guarantee that you won't have it that close in an actual fight?

.357SIG · June 9, 2010, 10:01 PM

Quote:

But can you guarantee that you won't have it that close in an actual fight?

You cannot guarantee anything in a fight, whether fists or guns are used. Having said that, you will receive terrible powder burns from a non-ported gun if it is 1" from your face as well. I will admit, the closer the ports get to the face, the more likely it will hurt you. I know that hurts my argument, but I'm not going to lie. My point is the chance of this being an issue is slim.

BGutzman · June 9, 2010, 10:01 PM

Glock compensated? Does this mean they give you back some of your money for the low quality of the weapon? There finally fessing up?

Sorry couldn't help it

.... nothing wrong with a glock other then the glockism, but just not my kind of weapon...

Kermit · June 10, 2010, 01:02 AM

a comp'd glock or more mags -- go w/ the mags. Purely defensive pistol and in 9mm DOES NOT NEED TO BE COMP'd.

.357SIG · June 10, 2010, 09:32 AM

Funny thing is no one brings up this controversy when speaking of revolvers. I find that odd, as the cylinder gap spews out more crud and gas than the ports on the Glock. Additionally, the cylinder gap is in a place where hands could easily get in the way, causing injury. After a long session with my Taurus 85, I have black fingers on both hands from the burnt and unburnt powder. Imagine firing it next to your face in a fight (as was asked above), or firing it from a canted position in retention. At least the ports are directed away on a Glock "C" model firing from retention.

Anyway, I'm not arguing this to hurt feelings, etc. I'm doing it because a person asked a question about these guns (as a range toy, so this argument is out of place anyway) and their usefulness in reducing recoil. Unfortunately, the OP has been scared away from a great gun that he/she would have enjoyed thanks to the nit-picking.

ClydeFrog · June 10, 2010, 09:55 AM

I looked into a few of the Glock C models, but for general use I wouldn't get one. The 10mm or .45GAP/.45acp models may benefit from the ported barrel design better than the smaller calibers but the amount is very small.

The increased muzzle flash, wear on the front sight with extended shooting and the fact that you can't switch barrels as quickly w/o custom parts makes the concept a bad idea.

In the late 1990s I had a Beretta 96D .40 with an extended, ported match grade barrel. It worked well and lowered the recoil but the increased size made the pistol less practical.

June 5, 2010, 10:07 PM	#1
Super-Dave Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 795	Glock compensated pistols Is getting a G17c worth the extra money? Do you notice a significant difference over a regular G17? Does the venting gases affect your sight picture?

June 9, 2010, 09:45 PM	#19
.357SIG Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 1999 Posts: 1,023	Well, that's your experience. I've never had gas in the face, but I don't put the muzzle an inch from my face. Also, on "cutting" power...you'd have to be pretty damn close to those ports! Thousand or so rounds through a 19C and I've not experienced any of the "problems" people claim to have. The only credible issue is one I've stated before, and that's the sound level to the shooter. Somewhere, a guy posted the effects of the ports from his G23C by holding a piece of white cardstock about a foot over the top. It made some dark marks (like powder residue) and that's it. Only thing I've ever felt was warm air in retention, but I just can't seem to find a way to direct the ports at my face. I guess I'd have to shoot over my shoulder or something. Having said this...I don't carry a ported gun. Am I a hypocrite? Not really. I just choose not to deal with the nasty concussion it makes when shooting. That, and I am not recoil sensitive. ------ Edited. I mistook the powder burn you had for gas burn from the ports. My mistake. On that point, you can get burning powder on you from any gun, ported or not. I've been hit by burning powder from just about every gun I own once in a while. My .22 Walther P22 does it a lot. It is not indicative of a ported pistol in any way. Last edited by .357SIG; June 9, 2010 at 09:58 PM.

June 9, 2010, 10:01 PM	#22
BGutzman Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 2009 Location: Frozen Tundra Posts: 2,414	Glock compensated? Does this mean they give you back some of your money for the low quality of the weapon? There finally fessing up? Sorry couldn't help it.... nothing wrong with a glock other then the glockism, but just not my kind of weapon...

June 10, 2010, 09:55 AM	#25
ClydeFrog Junior member Join Date: May 1, 2010 Posts: 5,797	Glock ported models, uses... I looked into a few of the Glock C models, but for general use I wouldn't get one. The 10mm or .45GAP/.45acp models may benefit from the ported barrel design better than the smaller calibers but the amount is very small. The increased muzzle flash, wear on the front sight with extended shooting and the fact that you can't switch barrels as quickly w/o custom parts makes the concept a bad idea. In the late 1990s I had a Beretta 96D .40 with an extended, ported match grade barrel. It worked well and lowered the recoil but the increased size made the pistol less practical.

June 5, 2010, 10:29 PM	#2
WarlockFirearms Junior Member Join Date: June 5, 2010 Location: Oregon Posts: 13	I'm not a big fan of compensated handguns, particularly guns that are intended for defensive purposes. With a Glock 17, a full-sized pistol in 9mm, recoil is very manageable with the proper grip and stance.

June 5, 2010, 10:36 PM	#3
Super-Dave Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 795	Also how much velocity is lost on a G17c vs a G17?

June 6, 2010, 02:32 PM	#4
Super-Dave Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 795	Also does the Factory compensated system from Glock work better than a long after market barrel with a compensator on the end?

June 6, 2010, 04:09 PM	#5
2afreedom Senior Member Join Date: April 29, 2007 Location: Southern by the Grace of God Posts: 266	I have had a G19 for years (the LGS was out of the regular model the day I bought one) but honestly I wouldn't buy another compensated model. They're slightly more expensive and honestly in 9mm you won't notice enough difference to justify the extra money. Also, you do have some flash out of the ports at night. You won't go blind or anything but it is there and there's no reason to have to deal with it for the small reduction in recoil. YMMV.

June 6, 2010, 04:24 PM	#6
Glock_19 Senior Member Join Date: April 19, 2010 Location: Virginia Posts: 123	The compensated pistols in 9mm are a waste. If you can't handle a 9mm then you shouldn't be shooting one. The ports on the barrel will cause flash at night and if you use the gun for carry they will just collect crud. Also you mentioned the loss of velocity, I don't have the exact numbers but why weaken an already manageable 9mm?

June 6, 2010, 04:51 PM	#7
.357SIG Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 1999 Posts: 1,023	Having experience with both, I will tell you the myth of blinding flash and burning gas was generated by people who have never fired one of these guns. I really don't understand why people put in their 2 cents without any real working knowledge. The recoil is redirected straight back, as opposed to up and out, making for much faster target reaquisition and follow-up shots. The downside is the sound is also directed up instead of out the barrel and away, making the report just about ear piercing to the shooter. BTW, velocity loss is 30-50 fps. Not too much.

June 6, 2010, 04:53 PM	#8
durian Member Join Date: September 5, 2007 Posts: 48	I have a 19 and then a friend let me shoot his 34. It's ported and not compensated like a "c" model but talk about no muzzle lift! Very accurate!

June 6, 2010, 04:58 PM	#9
HKFan9 Senior Member Join Date: May 3, 2008 Posts: 3,057	I agree with .357sig. I just sold the standard Glock 17 I had bought planning to use it for local IPSC type stuff. My local gun store owner shoots them and when I asked about the C models in the Glock he told me to save my money. He said for the price difference its not worth it, and in HIS experience, the only way to really mess a Glock up SOMETIMES is to compensate it. If you have the cash and would like less recoil I would say go for it. I would think even if there was an issue which I doubt anyways, Glock would make it right.

June 6, 2010, 06:18 PM	#10
Super-Dave Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 795	So would it be better to get a G34 than a G17C?

June 6, 2010, 06:30 PM	#11
roklok Senior Member Join Date: October 20, 2008 Location: Fort Yukon, Alaska Posts: 735	I have a bit of experience with a 21c, muzzle lift is reduced. What worries me most about the compensated models is shooting from retention positions and getting a face full of blast and gas, not to mention how hard it would be on the ears without ear protection.

June 6, 2010, 08:15 PM	#13
Super-Dave Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 795	So for quicker follow up shots, the G34 will be better than the G17C? This will be a range gun/fun plinker not a SD gun. I am sticking to 9mm because its easy to find around here.

June 6, 2010, 08:24 PM	#14
.357SIG Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 1999 Posts: 1,023	I wouldn't worry about the gases. I've fired from retention with a 19C and felt nothing in my face or eyes. The "C" model's only possible detriment is getting a sliver of metal or a rock stuck in the ports, either causing the slide to lock up or obstructing the bullet...like that'll ever happen! The G34 is really not any better than the 17C, but it has the lighter trigger connector. It could be argued that you would get better ballistics out of the slightly longer barrel as well, but that's splitting hairs. Whichever model you choose, you will get good with anything as you use it over time. If someone sells you a DAO Beretta, you will eventually master the trigger system. The reason I bring this up is to tell you not to worry about the small stuff as much as reliability and quality. Any model of Glock should work as well as another. The only downside I can see to the 34 or 35 is the length of the barrel for carrying concealed. Though the grip is the only hard part of IWB concealment, the barrel length becomes a problem with movement and sitting. I've noticed with my 5" 1911 in an IWB holster that sitting on a hard chair or bench can actually push the gun up and partly out of the holster, as the muzzle makes contact with the seat through my pants. I guess my ass just isn't fat enough to keep me high enough out of a chair (I'm 6-0 ft and 180 lbs...normal build). I've found the normal 4.5" barrel length is the threshold.

June 6, 2010, 08:26 PM	#15
.357SIG Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 1999 Posts: 1,023	You will have faster follow-ups with the 17C, as the 34 is not ported. The slide has a relief cut on top, but the barrel is solid. You could possibly buy a spare barrel similar to the one on the 18C, but that's more money if you're on a budget.

June 6, 2010, 08:49 PM	#16
IDAHO83501 Senior Member Join Date: March 2, 2009 Location: Lewiston, Idaho Posts: 337	I have the 20C, the recoil is VERY light. I have not shot a model 20, I did hear a lot of people complaining about the bite of there model 20, but then again there are quite a few of shooters who **** and moan about how hard the recoil of a 40 S&W is. I like the 10mm round, and I like my 20C, would buy another one.

June 7, 2010, 01:40 PM	#18
Super-Dave Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2008 Location: Florida Posts: 795	Based on info presented here. I think the G34 would be a better choice for me.

June 10, 2010, 01:02 AM	#23
Kermit Senior Member Join Date: February 6, 2001 Location: California Posts: 3,020	a comp'd glock or more mags -- go w/ the mags. Purely defensive pistol and in 9mm DOES NOT NEED TO BE COMP'd.

June 10, 2010, 09:32 AM	#24
.357SIG Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 1999 Posts: 1,023	Funny thing is no one brings up this controversy when speaking of revolvers. I find that odd, as the cylinder gap spews out more crud and gas than the ports on the Glock. Additionally, the cylinder gap is in a place where hands could easily get in the way, causing injury. After a long session with my Taurus 85, I have black fingers on both hands from the burnt and unburnt powder. Imagine firing it next to your face in a fight (as was asked above), or firing it from a canted position in retention. At least the ports are directed away on a Glock "C" model firing from retention. Anyway, I'm not arguing this to hurt feelings, etc. I'm doing it because a person asked a question about these guns (as a range toy, so this argument is out of place anyway) and their usefulness in reducing recoil. Unfortunately, the OP has been scared away from a great gun that he/she would have enjoyed thanks to the nit-picking.