How accurate would you say a Glock is compared to...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Under lets simply agree to disagree and maintain a semblance of civility.

Who cares about accuracy if one can’t apply that attribute on demand? Groups of 3” a fifty yards from bench rest matter not when you’re shooting at 10yds standing with out artificial support. When most people stand up and shoot their ability seldom meets the accuracy standard of the weapon employed.
 
It depends on who is shooting them. I prefer the grip of a 1911. I shoot my 1911's very well. All the Glocks I have shot I couldn't hit anything with them. I have a friend who is a very good shot with a Glock. I can out shoot him with my 1911, but I spend more time at the range shooting my pistol than he does his.

Glocks are great pistols in the right hands. However, in my small hands, they just don't work. I wish I had the mitts of Albert King-that would make me a better shot with a Glock AND a better guitar player.
 
My P226 is extremely accurate, at least by my standards (my standards being I generally hit what I'm aiming at while plinking or shooting steel targets during competition). My glocks are about as good, but the OEM sights are larger and thicker, so precision offhand is a bit more difficult for me. With a narrower front sight I believe my glocks could probably be quite close in accuracy to my SIG.

The trigger on the SIG is much easier to be accurate with for tyros. But if you train with it, the Glock trigger, even in OEM state, can be quite accurate.

I haven't shot either from a rest, slow-fire, to evalulate inherent accuracy, because I find it boring and it doesn't really matter to me as long as I can hit the targets I'm aiming at. :)
 
I would stick with the 1911 Springfield full size, If you are looking at a Glock, you had just as well buy yourself a Hi-Point and save the other $400.00 for practice ammo.
 
Bullard Guns said:
I would stick with the 1911 Springfield full size, If you are looking at a Glock, you had just as well buy yourself a Hi-Point and save the other $400.00 for practice ammo.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of valid reasons for utilizing a G21 over the 1911 platform in 45 ACP. I'm curious as to how your statement adds anything to the discussion?
 
Under lets simply agree to disagree and maintain a semblance of civility.

Who cares about accuracy if one can’t apply that attribute on demand? Groups of 3” a fifty yards from bench rest matter not when you’re shooting at 10yds standing with out artificial support. When most people stand up and shoot their ability seldom meets the accuracy standard of the weapon employed.
Click to expand...

With all due respect, but a more inherently accurate weapon will maximize the shooter's accuracy at any given range or in any stance he finds himself in.

Put another way, if your accuracy is already going to suffer from shooting freehand, or on the move, whatever, why on earth would you want a pistol that is adding to the accuracy problem instead of minimizing it?

"Practical accuracy" or "combat accurate" are smoke screens for "inadequate" or "inaccurate."
 
With all due respect, but a more inherently accurate weapon will maximize the shooter's accuracy at any given range or in any stance he finds himself in.
Click to expand...

Technically yes in practice probably not. My point is that most shooters can’t shoot to the accuracy potential of the weapon. Let’s say the cone of fire is 3” at fifty yards for one pistol and another pistol 6”. Fire both pistols at 10yds the cone of fire for one is .6” and the other 1.2” or 25yds 1.5” and the other 3” How many shooters on demand can delivery in a compressed time period the accuracy potential of either pistol.;)
 
99% of pistols on the market are mechincally more accurate than the person shooting it.

If you take a Glock put it on a mechanical rest and fire the gun it will be in line with most production autos give or take .25 of an inch at 25 yards.

Pure absolute accuracy has much less to do with how well you shoot a gun than other factors.

The factors that really matter are subjective they are not objective points of comparison like mechanically accuracy. The thing that make a pistol more accurate in your hand is more dependent on the individual than the gun. It is the interaction between the shooter and the gun that ultimately defines accuracy when the chips are on the table. I could care less about the overall mechanical accuracy of any given pistol. What I do care about are the following:

Does the gun fit my hand.
Does the length of pull match up with the length of my fingers.
How does it point when using my preferred stance.
Does the pistol fit my high riding grip style.

These subjective factors in relation to the gun in question is more important to me than pure mechanical accuracy. If the gun it too big for my hand like the CZ 97 it does not matter how mechanically accurate the CZ is. It will never be accurate or comfortable for me. For me everything else is secondary.
 
Hangingrock said:
Under lets simply agree to disagree and maintain a semblance of civility.

Who cares about accuracy if one can’t apply that attribute on demand? Groups of 3” a fifty yards from bench rest matter not when you’re shooting at 10yds standing with out artificial support. When most people stand up and shoot their ability seldom meets the accuracy standard of the weapon employed.
Click to expand...
Why are you bringing civility into this discussion? No insults have been presented as of yet.

I accept your premise that benchrest accuracy is not relevant when you're in a 7-yard firefight. But consider that accuracy inspires confidence and you may have to take a long distance shot from a supported position. I certainly would not wanna do that with a stock Glock or HK USP, or any other loosely fitted pistol.

In addition, some people appreciate having a pistol that is fitted like a Swiss watch. It's like owning a fine knife, or watch, or any other mechanical device. Yes, you can kill someone with a Glock or a $10 Harbor Freight folding knife, at high noon as determined by a Casio wrist watch. I understand that the end user is the determining factor in gauging effectiveness.

But some of us like precision and actually enjoy getting the best accuracy out of our weapons. Bench testing is the only way to eliminate shooter error.
 
After shooting a Sig 226 for years I fought hard to avoid Glock - I found that it was as accurate as the SIG after I added a Match barrel and upgraded the trigger. The Glock is a formidable tool and better suited to IDPA/USPSA than the SIG. I still like the SIG better for self defense.
 
Fire both pistols at 10yds the cone of fire for one is .6” and the other 1.2” or 25yds 1.5” and the other 3” How many shooters on demand can delivery in a compressed time period the accuracy potential of either pistol.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point. All things being equal, (the shooter, pistol reliability), he'd be better off with the pistol that was twice as mechanically accurate. Even his less than optimal inputs will not have an additional "practical accuracy penalty" piled atop them by the less accurate weapon.

The difference could be between a hit and a miss, a 9 or a 10 ring, a 5 point zone or a 4 point zone hit, or even a COM hit that does little as opposed to a COM hit that drops the bad guy.

Poor mechanical accuracy magnifies the shooter's aiming and triggering error. In good shooters, the difference is even more profound, hence certain pistols never appearing as bullseye platforms.
 
But some of us like precision and actually enjoy getting the best accuracy out of our weapons. Bench testing is the only way to eliminate shooter error.
Click to expand...

Which is perfectly fine because its your money but it does not mean it is a superior product in practical terms.

Just because the Super grade from Wilson guarantees 1: groups at 25 yards does not mean it is going to deliver anything like that you your hands or your wife's hands or your buddies hands. http://www.wilsoncombat.com/p_supergrade.asp

When was the last time you took your guns to the range and shot them off a purely mechanical rest? Most of us have never done it. I have and can tell you its not really any fun. I much rather shoot them from my hands even if that means opening up the group. :D
 
That wasn't the point. All things being equal, (the shooter, pistol reliability), he'd be better off with the pistol that was twice as mechanically accurate. Even his less than optimal inputs will not have an additional "practical accuracy penalty" piled atop them by the less accurate weapon.

The difference could be between a hit and a miss, a 9 or a 10 ring, a 5 point zone or a 4 point zone hit, or even a COM hit that does little as opposed to a COM hit that drops the bad guy.

Poor mechanical accuracy magnifies the shooter's aiming and triggering error. In good shooters, the difference is even more profound, hence certain pistols never appearing as bullseye platforms.
Click to expand...

Simply not the case in 99% of shooting applications. All things are never equal. All things are subjective. You are touting mechanical accuracy as if we shoot guns in a bubble using robotic arms.
 
To answer the original question the Glock is a very capable combat accurate gun which like any other platform can have its accuracy increased via customization if that is your desire.
 
Simply not the case in 99% of shooting applications.
Click to expand...

And how could you possibly know that? Great accuracy is always better to have on tap than is "meh" accuracy. The former doesn't limit the shooter's capabilities and the latter ALWAYS will whether the shooter is poor, average, or world class.
 
This is a very good point, but I have to agree with deckard that the trigger pull is a huge negative for me on the Glock. I've only shot a Glock once and the thing I really hated was the feel of the trigger. I much prefer the Sig for a DA/SA feel and a 1911 with a nice crisp trigger is the best feeling there is!
Click to expand...

Which has not bearing on the absolute mechanically accuracy of a Glock. It is your interaction with the trigger and your inability to stroke it consistently that is creating larger groups. I am not knocking you. I shoot 1911 better than I shoot Glocks too but it has nothing to do with the mechanical accuracy of the Glock. It has everything to do with my subjective interaction with the Glock.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mastrogiacomo
  • Locked
Best Smith and Wesson Auto
2 3
Replies
51
Views
5K
AndABeer
A
S
  • Locked
What do you know about the .380?
2
Replies
47
Views
2K
David4516
David4516
J
  • Locked
Which GLOCK to compare to?
Replies
12
Views
624
JDGray
J
Tag
  • Locked
Glock
Replies
5
Views
866
Ky Larry
K
Rule3
  • Locked
Sig 1911's How good How accurate??
Replies
12
Views
1K
ljnowell
L
Back
Top