michiganfan
Member
Anybody have experience with these three guns or two of the three? Everything else equal which is more acccurate?
Accuracy G17 v G17L v G34
- Thread starter michiganfan
- Start date
- Status
Really?
All thing being equal, they are all equally accurate. The only difference would be in the weight of the slide.
The same energy (in a perfect world) of the round being fired would act differently against the differently weighted slides.
All thing being equal, they are all equally accurate. The only difference would be in the weight of the slide.
The same energy (in a perfect world) of the round being fired would act differently against the differently weighted slides.
Last edited:
jackpinesavages
member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2009
- Messages
- 809
I have experience with 2 of the 3 and they are excellent pistols, which exhibit more of the shooters' weaknesses than their production problems.
If being used for competition go for the 34.
If being used as a regular fun gun, you can build on later, go with the 17s.
Have fun!!
If being used for competition go for the 34.
If being used as a regular fun gun, you can build on later, go with the 17s.
Have fun!!
punkndisorderly
Member
Inherent accuracy, they would be equal. In terms of which is easier to shoot accurately, assuming factory stock specimens, longer slide equals longer sight radius. That would give the edge to the 34 or 17l. The 17l has the longest sight radius, but the 34 has a lighter trigger which also makes it easier to shoot accurately. Probably a toss up between the 34in and 17l.
Sapper771
Member
I own a G17 and a G34. Just based on my experience with two of the three listed, my G34 is more accurate than my G17. From the bench, My G17 has print 2" - 2.5" groups at 25 yards with the right load. The best group that my G34 has printed has been a 1.5" group from 25 yards. Based on this, I would say the G17L is more accurate than the G34, but that is a WAG. I would expect the G17L to do at least 1" at 25 yards.
Slide weight is one of the differences, but not the only difference. The sight radius and barrel length are also differences that can aid in accuracy.
Take note that a big part of accuracy can come from using the right ammunition. Running Remington UMC through my G17 gave me a 6" group at 25 yards, but a finely tuned hand load would print in the 2's .
If you are just looking for a target pistol, maybe a Glock isnt the best choice. While they are accurate enough for combat, they were designed as combat handguns where reliability takes priority over accuracy.
Slide weight is one of the differences, but not the only difference. The sight radius and barrel length are also differences that can aid in accuracy.
Take note that a big part of accuracy can come from using the right ammunition. Running Remington UMC through my G17 gave me a 6" group at 25 yards, but a finely tuned hand load would print in the 2's .
If you are just looking for a target pistol, maybe a Glock isnt the best choice. While they are accurate enough for combat, they were designed as combat handguns where reliability takes priority over accuracy.
Accuracy depends on repeatability and load voodoo. Glocks are not tight guns so repeatability cannot be counted on to produce accuracy. We have to make it up with load voodoo. There may be something about the 34's unique barrel length that brings out the accuracy through barrel harmonics. I dunno. Having owned several high end 9's including P210s, I can tell you no stock Glock will deliver 1" at 25 yards on a regular basis. One with a fitted Bar-Sto or KKM barrel may.
hardluk1
member
read up on the 17L but seems it is not legal in some shooting class's if that matters. Thats reason ether the 17 or 34 is used mainly.
Walt Sherrill
Member
I'm not a big-time Glock fan but I like them. I've had a couple 17s, a 34, and now have a 35. That said...
I don't understand how a gun that is inaccurate due to a lack of precise or consistent lockup (which seems to be your complaint about "loose" Glocks) is suddenly going to become more accurate with different/"better" loads. A better load isn't going to overcome that "looseness."
The main charge of "looseness" in Glocks typically has to do with slightly oversize chambers -- which allow, in theory, more reliable feeding. That should have little or no effect on accuracy.
The only place you should see a REAL difference in performance between any Glock or other polymer-framed gun compared to a steel-framed gun, is in Ransom Rest tests. The differences there will be due to the flexing frame of a polymer gun, which won't always return to exactly the same place, while a steel-framed gun will... If the shooter uses the sights, they should be just as accurate as other guns.
Last edited:
postalnut25
Member
I agree that the longer sight radius should increase accuracy. However, I don't think the 34 has a lighter trigger than the 17L. IIRC, the 17L comes from the factory with the same lighter connector that the 34 comes with.
I would like to get a 17L one day, just because they are neat. The closest Glock LE dealer has one on the shelf, but the asking price for that gun was what I just paid for three kmodel 10s for my kids. Just couldn't justify buying it for me when the kiddos needed toys, too.
Walt Sherrill
Member
I don't think a longer sight radius increases accuracy. It MIGHT make the gun easier to shoot accurately, but that's not the same thing. (Better sights may make it easier to shoot a gun well, but that doesn't make the gun more accurate...)
I think I'd like to have a 17L too, one of these days.
I think I'd like to have a 17L too, one of these days.
It will.
I sense you're taking exception to my statement about Glock tightness. When I say tight, I mean tight, like a P210 or a 952 or a Baer or a Custom Shop Springer. Those guns lock up tight. Glocks are not nearly as tight, not even close. But that is only half the equation.
For example, Colt Gold Cups aren't exactly tight like Les Baers, but when handloaded they can deliver Les Baer accuracy with a load or two. Load voodoo is such that it can jiggle a gun just right to give excellent accuracy. A tight gun will make it easier to find an accurate load, but that does not mean it is accurate with all loads. Conversely a loose gun cannot be said to be inaccurate with all loads. It just takes more fiddling.
My experience with Glock accuracy comes from a G24 with fitted KKM and Jarvis barrels as well as the factory vented tube which could not shoot worth a crap. The KKM barrel shot 1" at 25 yards. It was fitted tight. It did not jiggle when the slide was a hair out of battery. You know the bullet does not leave the barrel at light speed. It has to accelerate. While it is doing that, the slide and barrel are already recoiling. If the barrel starts to jiggle in the slide before the bullet leaves the muzzle, well there goes your tack driving accuracy.
I'm holding a brand spanking new 17L as I'm typing this. It is nice and snug. But the barrel jiggles withe the slide bulled back as little as .020" to the rear. There is movement at the muzzle. There is movement at the breech. I don't expect it to drive tacs with WWB or any other ammo for that matter. But I'll put it up against my P210 just to see.
Walt Sherrill
Member
I think that a gun with a tight lockup may or may not be more accurate than one that is less tight. Too many other things also are involved in the equation.
(Further, I don't think the amount of movement you experience when manually moving the slide is quite the same as the amount of movement that might be measured when the slide is being moved by a round in the barrel and explosive gases -- the forces aren't the same and aren't coming in the same way and from the same direction.)
The original comment to which I responded was:
you seem to be saying that ammo selection is more important with Glocks than with other guns. I'm not so sure.
You also seem to be saying that you can overcome the failures of a design with better ammo. You can't and won't.
If you've got a gun that, at its best, will shoot a 3" group at 10 yards, you're not going to make it shoot 1" groups with better ammo. Similarly, that 1" group you got with your P-210 at 25 yards isn't going to change to 1/4" with better ammo... It might change to 3" with bad ammo, but the gun hasn't really changed when you swapped out the ammo.
I think you conflate ammo performance with gun performance and gun accuracy -- they aren't the same.
Said differently: better loads will NOT make a gun more accurate. They simply won't detract as much from the innate accuracy that is already there.
My Glocks shoot on a par with many of the "less loose" steel-framed guns I've owned, including SIGs, Berettas, and S&Ws. I have a Sphinx and a custom AT-84s that will outshoot them all, but in competition, I sometimes have better results with Glocks -- but I can't really explain it.
You are not seeing what I'm saying.
I'm saying that a Glock can be made to shoot accurately with judicious handloading, while a P210 can be made to shoot accurately with a whole lot less effort.
How do I know this? Through benchrest testing of tens of thousands of carefully handloaded rounds over the last 15 years through dozens of handguns.
No, you cannot take a P210 from 1" to a quarter inch through judicious handloading. 1" is about as good as it's gonna get. But you can get it to shoot 1" with a wide array of loads.
With a stock Glock, getting it to shoot under 2" is going to be a challenge, but it can be done with a load or two.
So I disagree with your view.
I'm saying that a Glock can be made to shoot accurately with judicious handloading, while a P210 can be made to shoot accurately with a whole lot less effort.
How do I know this? Through benchrest testing of tens of thousands of carefully handloaded rounds over the last 15 years through dozens of handguns.
No, you cannot take a P210 from 1" to a quarter inch through judicious handloading. 1" is about as good as it's gonna get. But you can get it to shoot 1" with a wide array of loads.
With a stock Glock, getting it to shoot under 2" is going to be a challenge, but it can be done with a load or two.
So I disagree with your view.
Walt Sherrill
Member
I think I am seeing what you're saying, and I disagree, too.
You really don't improve on design failures by shooting better loads, which seemed to be your argument.
If you're saying, optimized ammo will allow a gun to shoot better, then we agree. But, optimizing performance through judiciously seeking out better loads isn't making the gun more accurate. The better ammo is just allowing the gun to perform closer to it's innate potential.
In the case of the P-210, the gun doesn't make the ammo more accurate; likewise, the ammo doesn't make the gun more accurate. Properly paired, the two will perform better than sets that aren't well matched.
I don't think there's any question that a SIG P-210 will shoot more accurately than a Glock 34, but if the ammo itself is crappy, it will shoot less well in a P-210, too. Indeed, if a particular load shoots 10% less well in a Glock than other ammo, it'll probably shoot 10% less well in a SIG P210 than other ammo, too. (I agree that the group sizes will be larger in the Glock.)
As for being able to shoot 1" groups at 25 yards with wider range of ammo in a P-210; maybe, but I'm skeptical. I don't think the P-210 is magical. It's just a very well-designed and well-made gun.
In the real world, in a dangerous or potential lethal situation, good performance is arguably less dependent on the gun's innate accuracy than things like the shooter's ability to deal with stress, his or her experience in such situations, and his or her shooting skills.
In some respects this discussion is a bit like the clerics of old arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. In a real life/death or combat situation, at 25 yards or less, I'd take the Glock 34 and it's 15+1 rounds over the P-210 it's 8+1 rounds. At under 25 yards, the differences in group size will be interesting but meaningless.
I've not found the Glocks to be poor performers or innately less accurate than the Berettas, SIGs, CZs, or S&Ws I've owned -- and none of those other guns were what I'd call "loose" guns.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. And not rely on magic.
You really don't improve on design failures by shooting better loads, which seemed to be your argument.
If you're saying, optimized ammo will allow a gun to shoot better, then we agree. But, optimizing performance through judiciously seeking out better loads isn't making the gun more accurate. The better ammo is just allowing the gun to perform closer to it's innate potential.
In the case of the P-210, the gun doesn't make the ammo more accurate; likewise, the ammo doesn't make the gun more accurate. Properly paired, the two will perform better than sets that aren't well matched.
I don't think there's any question that a SIG P-210 will shoot more accurately than a Glock 34, but if the ammo itself is crappy, it will shoot less well in a P-210, too. Indeed, if a particular load shoots 10% less well in a Glock than other ammo, it'll probably shoot 10% less well in a SIG P210 than other ammo, too. (I agree that the group sizes will be larger in the Glock.)
As for being able to shoot 1" groups at 25 yards with wider range of ammo in a P-210; maybe, but I'm skeptical. I don't think the P-210 is magical. It's just a very well-designed and well-made gun.
In the real world, in a dangerous or potential lethal situation, good performance is arguably less dependent on the gun's innate accuracy than things like the shooter's ability to deal with stress, his or her experience in such situations, and his or her shooting skills.
In some respects this discussion is a bit like the clerics of old arguing about how many angels can dance on the point of a pin. In a real life/death or combat situation, at 25 yards or less, I'd take the Glock 34 and it's 15+1 rounds over the P-210 it's 8+1 rounds. At under 25 yards, the differences in group size will be interesting but meaningless.
I've not found the Glocks to be poor performers or innately less accurate than the Berettas, SIGs, CZs, or S&Ws I've owned -- and none of those other guns were what I'd call "loose" guns.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. And not rely on magic.
Last edited:
If we go by that, then ammunition such as WWB and the like detracts from the gun's accuracy potential. I'd say that ammunition developed in test barrels/fixtures detracts from the accuracy potential as well.
I agree with you that P210s aren't magical. I'm having a hell of a time finding an accurate plinker load. It seems to like everything at full throttle. I like everything nice and tame.
I also agree with you that Glocks are less accurate than Berettas and Sigs. But consider the Sig offers a very tight lockup, kinda like a Glock with a fitted aftermarket barrel. I honestly can't explain why Berettas are more accurate. My M9s were as loose as a typical Glock but shot my lead handloads into pretty good groups.
Somebody on brianenos.com posted they shot the Atlanta Arms Team Glock load into 1.25" at 25 yards from a G34. How do you explain that? Maybe that is THE load for the Glock platform. Maybe that was a fluke. Maybe the G34's 5.3" barrel offers the optimum length for that platform in terms of harmonics. Afterall, more than one person has notes the unusual accuracy of this gun. I mean, a typical Glock shoots 3-4" and the 34 shoots 1-2". How can that be? Maybe they're full of it.
I'm gonna shoot my 17L on Tuesday. It should get interesting.
Walt Sherrill
Member
I didn't say that Glocks were less accurate. I said something quite different:
Whenever I've seen guys who claim that Glocks are less accurate get involved in a competition (at the range) with someone who shoots Glocks, they generally come off less well in the competition.
With both of the 92s I had, and the 96, the guns seemed more sensitive to ammo than any other guns I've owned. It was hard finding loads/ammo that they liked. With one of the 92s, the only ammo that it would shoot well was Fiocchi, which I couldn't find in quantity. But it was a real tack-driver with that ammo.
I think any given gun has it's own sweet load, and if you find it, you'll love the results. But what shoots well in my gun may not shoot as well in yours, which may be the exact same model.
Re: SIG vs Glock accuracy.
I have a new (to me, but very low mileage) SIG P226 X Five Competition in .40. I simply can't shoot the damned thing. It may just be me, as I haven't had anyone else shoot it, yet. But I simply can't get small groups with that gun. Even from a rest. I can shoot my Glock 35 far more effectively at 30' and get very small groups. The best I can get with the X-Five is two or three shots in a small group and a bunch of flyers. (I'm not going to try greater distances until I can get small groups closer. I've never had a new gun give me so much trouble.)
I also have a SIG P220 Super Match that is a far better shooter in my hands than any .45 I've owned. I really like it. I wish the X-Five shot as well in my hands.
I'm probably going to send the X-Five off to Gray Guns one of these days -- I just have to accumulate some money, first. (I spent all my spare money BUYING the X-Five... <sigh>)
Last edited:
Sorry, I misread your reply.
Regarding the X5, have you tried shooting it with a regular P226 mag in place with the mag well and frame rested on a solid surface? Allowing the gun to wobble on that basepad can't be good for accuracy. The other issue is the cartridge itself. You may wanna try RA40T. That stuff shoots great. Finally, ergonomics will dictate whether you can hit anything. I shoot best with a S&W 4666, a gun I don't own cuz I don't like it. Go figure.
Regarding the X5, have you tried shooting it with a regular P226 mag in place with the mag well and frame rested on a solid surface? Allowing the gun to wobble on that basepad can't be good for accuracy. The other issue is the cartridge itself. You may wanna try RA40T. That stuff shoots great. Finally, ergonomics will dictate whether you can hit anything. I shoot best with a S&W 4666, a gun I don't own cuz I don't like it. Go figure.
Walt Sherrill
Member
I use a bag of rice inside another bag as my "rest" and rest my hands on that. I think it's just me -- and a trigger that's heavier than I like. (Even though it's adjustable, the adjustment mechanism either isn't working or not there.) I suspect the gun needs a trip back to SIG or to Gray Guns. Since it's not a NEW gun, I don't have the SIG warranty, so will probably just get Gray Guns to do their magic, later. (I have a P228 that they worked on, and it is amazing.)
I often have problems with new guns, until I learn what it wants and what I'm doing wrong. In this case, I've shot about 15 mags through it and still haven't gotten respectable results. I assume it's me, but I've never had this sort of problem with a high-end gun, before.
(It could be ammo related, but that ammo shoots very well in several other .40s, so while it could be the ammo, and I will try other brands, I don't think that's the problem.)
I just have to wait until my ship comes in... ($$$$)
Last edited:
- Status
