Posted: 11/23/2005 9:41:27 AM EDT
| Posted this in the Glock forum but only got 1 response , so here goes again. Probably going to buy a Glock 17 for my next purchase and want to know what to expect accuracy wise. I like 2" at 25 yds. from a rest with most handguns or they proably won't stay. Is this reasonable with Win white box or Blazer, etc.? Any other standard ammo you can recommend? How do you like the Glock adjustable sights? Worth the extra $$$ ? |
|
Accuracy: IMHO - too much is made about this, often by those (not yourself) that don't shoot well. Having said that - I would have every expectation that it would hold 2"at 25 yrds. Having watched lots of folks run these in stock service and production - they shoot plenty well enough to win. As for Adj sights - I like them IF they are durable. You can tune the POA / POI to you. You can also tune it to a load. Good luck |
| I can "generally" hold 2" from a rest. Not that I shoot a handgun that way all the time. But to test ammo and guns and set the sights, I do it so I'll know what it's capable of. Plus, I get a kick out of shooting out to 100 yds. from time to time. It's mostly that an inaccurate gun just BUGS ME!!! I mean what's the point of owning an inaccurate gun??? |
|
Accuracy lies in the operator my friend, not the tool. I have a Ruger P89 that will shoot 2 inch groups at 25 yards all day long. I also have a HK USP Tactical that will shoot 2 inch groups at 25 all day long. I have an XD 40 that will shoot 2 inch groups at 25 all day long. I guess what I am saying is that all of my guns seem just as accurate as I am!!!!! Now my precision rifle....that is a little different story. That thing makes me look like I shoot better than I actually do. |
| Accuracy is NOT just in the operator. That's like saying speed is just in the driver and then saying a Neon will perform like a Viper. Accuracy is a combination of barrel/gun, ammo,trigger,sights and last but not least, the shooter. All I'm saying is that 2" groups is my baseline for handguns and asking if I can expect that from a G17. And what kind of ammo works well. Does anybody have any firsthand EXPERIENCE? Thanks, Peasant. |
Thanks for clearing that up for us. As for the G17, I have one, but couldn't tell you how good it shoots. better than me. But I have never shot it off a rest. |
|
are the parts straight? If the barrel is straight obviously by physics what comes out spinning must be going in the direction of the barrel opening. not trying to be a wise guy, but I have not seen ANY modern handguns that are not accurate enough to hit a target reliably at 15 yards |
|
Again, Accuracy lies in the operator not the tool. Your analogy on speed is not correct. The correct analogy would be which car goes straighter, a neon or a viper. It lies in the operator. If you would like to debate this more, I would be happy to show you my credentials as a LEO and the various firearm tests that I have been through. Of course if you want to get into a technical debate I will start. Theoretically a gun that is completly imobile (vice or other means), that uses the same ammo loadout, same bullet weight and same atmospheric conditions will put a bullet in the same place every time. That is physics my friend. I happen to have a degree with a minor in physics. Therefore if you take a rifled barrel and shoot the same bullet weight with loadouts that are a little different (ie what is found in commercial ammo) as well as a battery lock up with minute variences (ie not a match barrel) you should be able to still shoot....again with an imobile gun.... with the holes touching eachother as the degree in change will be negligible at 25 yards. It is ignorant to say that accuracy lies in the gun. Maybe that statement would be true during the revolutionary war, where we had smooth bore rifles and had to load our own powder with varing black powder consistancies. My advice would be to learn how to shoot better and not worry about which platform to shoot it with. Human error is the MAIN reason we have 2 inch groups, not the gun. Of course, don't take my word for it, do a search on google for gun accuracy and how guns work. That might be a good start for the misinformed. |
An Excellent piece of advice that 90% of the shooting world should heed....  instead of the continually asked "What's the Best" or What's the Most accurate" or my personnel favorite.."What does Delta Use" ........  And the Answer is Delta could take you worst and most Inaccurate weapon and still shoot it better then you... 
|
|
Agreed, In fact I love showing people how inaccurate a tec 9 is...LOL I always shoot great groups with one and ppl look at me dumbfounded. Granted I am not the best shooter in the world, but I will be there soon. Only about 25 more competitions to go on the national level.....bleh BTW I love shooting IPSC, you should see my .45 that I use. Just a bone stock 1991A1 with some "extra" features. |
 You're welcome. I hope I didn't exaggerate, because I don't actually measure my groups with an instrument. I don't always get 2 in. groups either. That usually only happens with a rest too. On a good day, after some warm up I can make some good little groups at the 25 yard line(as long as the timer's not on, then I get a little sloppy). They could be a little bigger than 2 In. Not much though, and I usually shoot Winchester White Box. I'm not a bullseye shooter. I am only concerned with getting inside the center mass of an IDPA size target. I only shot it from the rest one time because of the range I was shooting on, and because everyone else was doing it. If I was asked to go out back right now and make a 2 inch group from 25 I probably would get about a three or four incher. American Eagle makes good affordable ammo too. Those cans of NATO ammo are pretty good as well, and sometimes you can get a good deal on them. The cans come in handy. I usually get Wally World WWB. I don't recomend the adjustable sights for several reasons, and YMMV. For your average shooter, like myself, they are completely unnecessary. I don't shoot in competition where I am adjusting for windage and such. I would be hesitant to use them to rack my slide when shooting strong hand only as well(not that I know that this shouldn't or couldn't be done) . I have never had any training that required their use. I know that in a situation where I am fighting with my pistol, I will not stop to adjust my sights. I want them zeroed and ready in the way I train with them. If you adjust them for a special purpose, you have to adjust them back, and that takes away time that I could be using to shoot. One of the best instructors I have ever trained with discouraged their use as well, at least for guys that weren't Navy SEALS, or highly trained precision shooters. He said not to bother with them, and he doesn't even use them. Now, this is all just my opinion, and take it for what it's worth. I don't know what you plan on using this pistol for, so that limits my ability to comment, but based on what you asked, I think you'll be happy with the Glock 17. |
I cannot comment on the G17. I just purchased my first one yesterday. I might be able to help with the adjustable sight question. My background for the last 17 years has been revolvers. I use them for Competition(Master classIDPA, USPSA) and for hunting. The adjustable sight's are nothing more than liability, not an asset. They tend to shift and move on you. You can lock them down with loctite(sp), but this only makes a mess when you have to adjust for a different bullet weight. None of my revolvers either competiton or hunting wear adjustable sight.'s The only time an adjustable sight would be helpful is for Bulleye. Any other time, they are nothing more than a liability. Just something else than can go wrong. |
| Thanks to doc and Hillbilly. I like to know what a given gun will do. That usually means 25 yds. for pistols and 100 for rifles. BUT - I also get a kick out of shooting paper plates at 100 w/ handguns. That means it has to be pretty well dialed in and the right ammo at 25. Same principle for rifles if I go to 250 yds. I'm currently shooting 3" at 250 with a Bushmaster chrome lined HBAR (cut to 18") and XM193 and Q3131A. Simmons 3-9 on a flattop RRA upper and lower. RRA 2 stage trigger and floated bbl. VERY happy w/ this setup so far and about to try Black Hills and Hornady tomorrow. |
|
My G17 is a very fine pistol. It will hold less than 2" at 25 yds all day, provided I hold up my end of the deal. The G17 is not a target weapon. It was designed as a fighting weapon from the start. They are rugged, and extremely reliable. Avoid the adjustable Glock sights. They aren't any better than the standard sights as far as sight picture goes. They just add a bit of convieniance in zeroing the weapon. Glock has different height fixed rear sights available, for dialing in your elevation. I shoot only handloads out of my Glocks, so I can't really suggest a factory load. Standard capacity mags are real cheap for the Glocks, also. Less than $20 at most places. |
| I have fired 10s of thousands of rounds from Glocks in several configurations. I have shot duty guns with NY (heavy) triggers, I have shot long slide competition guns, and one of my GLocks has a measured 3 1/4lb trigger. Glocks are not about shooting little groups. Think reliability. From an adjustable rest, I can get 2"-3" groups at 25 yards. That is not impressive if you want to shoot Bullseye matches. On the other hand, A bad guy will not know the difference. Intrestingly, just the other day, some co-workers and I, were shooting 6" Blackwater falling plates from prone ,at 50 yards, with G-35s. I was suprised to do that. The Glock is "combat" accurate, but dont expect to have a gun that will outshoot you. As for the previous argument that the shooter is ultimatly responsible for accuracy, I only partly agree. Some guns are admittedly easier to shoot, but how do you explain group sizes when guns are shot from mechanical rests? |
I went out back today and shot my G17 for accuracy and to make sure it's still fun. I did a few drills from 3,5,7,10,15 yds. and then went to 25 for an accuracy test. I took my time, and the second three round group I shot was right at 2 inches. Two of the three holes were closer, but the one round spread it out to two inches. I stopped doing accuracy testing after that, because I was satisfied I wasn't bull$hitting anybody. That and my neighbor called on the radio that everyone was pissed about me shooting while they were deer hunting. 
|
|
A two inch group at 25 yards is pushing the envelope for a Glock, or any other duty grade handgun. Glocks are known for many things, but tack driving accuracy isn't generally one of them, It can be done, but don't be surprised if it doesn't. Anything less than four inches at 25 yards would be considered in spec by most manufacturers. Remember the Glock was designed to shoot minute of bad guy not minute of angle. Also remember most of the lower priced brands of ammo are not likely to give you premium accuracy. You may need to experiment to find what brand your particular Glock likes. And yes, I own Glock and like it. And Beretta, Smith, SIG, Walther, Ruger............ |
|
To Rock 71, A mechanical Rest is just that. I did say "theoretically" in my argument. There was a test that was done a while back using a large machine with a barrel (can't remember the name of the test, it will come to me) using different riflings ( the machine was only to test rifling patterns etc.). What they found is that a certain rifling pattern in the barrel produced and I quote "identical hits" time and time again. It is this pattern that modern rifling is modeled after. They also fired the machine in an almost clean room of sorts with no other effects on the bullet flight. They also used a neumatic press to "fire" the bullet so it wasn't even gunpowder. A mechanical Rest uses the actual firearm and of course you are going to have lock up issues and varing tollerances. The wind may be blowing just right etc. My whole point was that a gun will shoot where you want it to if you know how to shoot. Modern firearms are built with such high tollerances that a handgun can shoot, by a human, 2 inch groups at 25 yards. This is of course with commercial ammo, in varing atmopheric conditions etc. so there are of course "groups." It is just a pet peeve of mine when someone asks is "such and such" an accurate gun. I just smile and say, "only if you are accurate." But then again this is the internet and I love writing a book to get one simple point across: Learn to shoot better and train how you will fight. When you need to fight you will fight exactly how you train and not anything else. |
Then why bother with match guns at all? I guess all those proffesional shooters need a crutch when competing. But a crutch isn't "theoretically" possible, as all guns shoot where you point them.  You sound like a well educated guy, but your theory on handgun accuracy is not very comprehensive. The factors you list that determine accuracy are not the only factors to consider when looking at a handguns potential accuracy. I would love to see some source that validates your proposal that any modern handgun can shoot a 2" group. That's just not true. The way you are using the term "tolerance" doesn't take into account the clearance of the gun. Just because it has high tolerance doesn't mean it has tight clearances . Splitting hairs I know. For example, the mechanical parts of an SAR-1 have greater clearance than an AR15. This aides in reliability, but degrades accuracy. Most people would say greater tolerances, but that is incorrect. Tolerance is a deviation from the standard. The AK was built intentionally with loose clearance, the same way some handguns are. |
|
That is very true, but the real difference between match guns and combat guns would be how easy they are to reduce human error. Again, I am a very educated person and I understand clearance issues, chamber tightness, headspace etc. Here is the rub: A Barrel that is air tight, has less outside influences then say an AK chamber with barrel that can shoot rocks through it. Remember, the more stable the bullet through all parts of the firing process the more that the bullet will stay on course. Maybe it was slightly foolish of me to say that all guns can shoot 2 inch groups, because they can't. They will only shoot 2 inch groups by someone who CAN shoot 2 inch groups. And yes a match gun will be easier to shoot then a non-match gun, but I have seen some of the best shooters shoot regular old beater guns better than most can shoot the best match guns. Does that mean it is the gun that is accurate? I think not!!! I rest my point. |
I disagree with this statement entirely. A basic government model 1911 differs from a match 1911 in a number of ways. Most of these differences fine tune the function of the pistol. Human error is of little consequence to the fundamental functionality of a pistol. Even with human error removed, some pistols shoot much better than others. Your statement implies that human error is the only, or primary issue of consequence with regards to accuracy. This is not the case. I don't think you are taking into account all the little things that affect a pistols inherent accuracy. The list is a long one. Some pistols operate more efficiently than others, like any machine. Do you think tightening up a slide is done to reduce human error? How does a match barrel bushing on a 1911 reduce operator error? I could go on and on with this list. Believe it or not, there are a great number of modern pistols that couldn't even come close to getting a 2 or even 3" group at 25yds. no matter who was shooting it. I do agree that a good shooter can shoot better than a bad shooter. I do not agree that a great shooter can magically make a crappy pistol shoot like a match grade pistol. Machines have limitations, as do shooters, BUT a $3000 pistol does not make someone a great shot, anymore than owning a steinway piano makes someone a concert pianist. Sorry to digress from the original topic.
|
|
Well, you are allowed your opinions. I am going on what I have seen and what I have personally shot. You can make any gun shoot better with a better shooter. However I will stand by my post that accuracy lies in the shooter not the gun. And yes a tighter lock up and match bushings allow the gun to be more consistant, but that consistancy is negligible at 25 yards like I was saying. If you can hit the bullseye at 25, then you should be able to hit the bullseye at 25 with any gun. I have done it many times with a tec 9, 1911, mp5, g3, Glock 22. Just curious, what guns can't shoot 2 inches at 25 from a mecanical rest using match ammo. (the ammo must me consistant so it will need to be match) or hell even with commercial ammo? And don't say hi point, cause I have done it with that 95 dollar POS gun. I don't think I have ever seen one. And I shoot a lot of guns. |
Thanks, I appreciate that you understand that I am not trying to be abbrasive. I like friendly debate about guns.  I don't however think it's a matter of opinion that I am debating. I can get a number of test results that have been published from reputable firearms testers that show how different guns perform from a rest at 25 yds. I just reached over and grabbed a random American Rifleman magazine. There is a Smith&Wesson 1911 SC evaluated in it. It was tested from sandbags, not a rest like it should be, but it couldn't get under two inches at 25 yds., and this is a pretty nice pistol. The average spread was 3.84". A second random American Rifleman has a S&W Walther PPK. The smallest group they got with that was just under 3". I would challenge you to get a 2" group from 25 yds. with a Lorcin Jennings. It's not going to happen. I don't have my collection of magazines with me here, but I could get them and report more test results if you're not convinced. I do agree that it's more important to be a good shooter, than to have the most expensive slick pistol on the market. One should not rely on a pistol to make up for one's shooting deficiencies. I think we're on the same page here. We just seem to disagree on the actual amount of difference a good pistol can make in a shooter's accuracy. I respect your familiarity and experience with firearms, and I'm not trying to say you are wrong, because you are making a good point. I just don't agree to the degree that you do. |
|
I looked up some as well. The ones you quote are shot by people from a bench or sandbag. I am saying that the guns need to be fired from a mecanical rest or fired by a machine to eliminae all human error. Again, until you show me the sources from a machine firing the gun in a controlled enviornment then I will disagree with you. Although I like your challange and may try it out. My point is that I have SEEN with my eyes what a machine rest will do with a barrel or gun. When there is no human behind that trigger, the results are amazing and show you how accurate a gun really is when NOT in the hands of a human. Even though Jennings pistols are POS, I will try your challenge. I will do my best to try and find one to shoot. But again, I am human so I will have errors etc. But I am pretty confident in my ability to at least shoot it and show you if it can do 2 inches. If it can't then I will blame me not the gun. Again, I have shot 2 inch groups with a hipoint pistol and that thing is a super POS. |
Both of you make valid Points. And even thought I agree with the "Not all pistols" shoot 2". I would have to say that since the Majority of Shooters (well over 50%) that I have seen shoot handguns over a 21 year period in the service pretty much suck (to coin a technical term.. )I've watched hundreds of Soldiers shoot NIB M-9's that struggled to get a decent group. were talking a Full size sillouete at 25 yds where rds actually miss the target. Then they turn around and tell me it's the Pistol........  Truth of the matter is, Pistols are and always have been a challenge to shoot accurately due to the short sight radius. and the majority of pistols will always shoot better then the majority of shooters firing them. But the age old issue of pride and shooters not really understanding and knowing their limitations and having wayyyyyy to much pride to actually seek instruction. Cause you know were all born with the instinctive ability to shoot ANY firearm proficiently. Everyday shooters get on here and ask questions like, What's the best? What's the Most accurate? What's Delta using? What's the best defensive ammo? etc, etc. but how many really have the capability to utilize any of that....? or would openly admit to not being able to?? Like Dirty Harry always say's " A man's got to know his limitations" |
| I started this asking for "opinions" on Glock 17's and ammo. Here's my "understanding" after 40 years of shooting. Take it for what it's worth. Every component in shooting is a variable. Ammo varies from round to round. Barrel lockup and other factors within the gun vary from round to round EVERY time. In addition, some barrels are better than others even within a given production run. Match guns and quality ammo aim to reduce the variables. To say that a shooter can overcome all the possible variables and make ANY gun shoot 2" is silly. To respond further to such a claim is obviously going to be a waste of time. All I wanted was just a little feedback from Glock owners. Excuse me while I go shoot my 1965 Remington pump .22 at the 200 yd. steel target(iron sights).Maybe I'll move it out to 250 today. After all, I need to work on my shooting............Thanks to all with actual feedback. |
|
I think folks are being a little hard on the original poster. He really just asked if the Glock can be considered an accurate pistol, and everybody jumped down his throat and told him to learn to shoot. A little harsh, don't you think? It is true that the bullet is exiting the barrel consistently every time, and that if all external factors are accounted for, accuracy should be near perfect. but you CAN'T account for all external factors. How true and square are the sights? How close to perfect is the barrel/side alignment? How much looseness and play is there in the gun's parts? These things will affect even a good shooter's ability to be consistent. The real question is, will the Glock 17 be accurate FOR YOU? Do the sights, sight picture, grips, and other ergonomic factors match your body well enough to allow you to be consistent? This is the real question. In my experience, all the Glock pistols have outstanding ergonomics, and I shoot them very consistently, as do most people that carry them. This shows their "formula" has applicability to a wide variety of shooters. Only by trying one can you know if you are one of them. |
+10 The only gun I own that I am more accurate than is my Remington 870 Until they have benchrest competitions with pistols I would not worry about keeping a pistol under 2-4" @ 25 yards. and any modern quality pistol will hold around 2" with good ammo. |
|
The Glock pistols are not intended for bullseye. Bullseye has been my background but to make full use of the Glocks accuracy I have to change a few things, I need an overtravel stop, GhostRocket or other, or at least a 3.5 lb connector for consistency and I need steel sights. WWB ammo has not worked so well for me. I do better with my reloads but with some practice and slight modifications the Glock can be both reliable and accurate. The final test, however, will be how you can adjust to the gun. |