The G34 has a listed trigger pull of 4.5 lbs.
So if the shoe doesn't fit go bare foot? lol. I don't like to modify my firearms to any great extent either but to say those that do are looking for a mechanical crutch is asinine.
First Glock!
- Thread starter Sharpi
- Start date
The G34 has a listed trigger pull of 4.5 lbs.
So if the shoe doesn't fit go bare foot? lol. I don't like to modify my firearms to any great extent either but to say those that do are looking for a mechanical crutch is asinine.
I stand corrected on the trigger pull, I had it in my mind at less.. As for modding your gun, yes it is a crutch. The stock sights are neither low light capable nor robust so they need to go. Aside from sights there's nothing to change.
If you're referring to the backstrap options on gen 4 Glocks then they too are a crutch, nothing but a marketing gimmick to keep up with the competition. The difference between grip sizes is a whopping 2mm in length of pull from no backstrap to the M size, and another 2mm from M to L. If you prefer inches that's a change of 0.08" per change for a total increase in LOP of 0.16".
I'm referring to their whole lineup. They offer different trigger weights, different sizes, different sights, different calibers, and different controls between models. So how do you determine what's a "crutch" (because the shooter is terrible) and what isn't?
Some of the trigger weights were requested by LE agencies.
Different sized guns offer more or less conceal ability.
Calibre choice another quasi gimmick although some LE agencies may specify calibre for their duty guns. Not a wise business move to limit your calibre offerings in such circumstances.
You have the option of factory night sights over the junk plastic ones. The adjustables are a gimmick.
The controls are not different, they are simply extended. If you use the slide stop then you will need the extended version. If you use the slide as the pistol was designed for then it isn't an issue. The mag release was also designed to be difficult to release without altering your grip or simply using your support hand thumb to activate. The concern of over gripping the gun and inadvertently ejecting the magazine is the theory behind the design.
Depends on the context. If you want to talk about nothing but numbers regarding external ballistics then yes, the 10mm reigns supreme amongst the auto loaders. If you want to discuss the merits of a service/personal defense firearm then no it does not. All handguns suck, some just suck less in key areas like size, weight, recoil, and capacity. A 10mm sucks in all of those areas compared to a 9mm/.40/.45. The .40 and .45 suck in recoil and capacity as well as size(mostly the .45). A 9mm is the best overall calibre as it offers the most benefits with the least amount of negatives.
Ask yourself why you're changing triggers or other parts on the gun. If it is to improve reliability then great, although you probably should have selected a more reliable design to begin with. If you're changing things to improve your scores then it's you that needs work not the gun. Your ability to apply the fundamentals will not improve if you constantly seek out mechanical crutches that cover up your poor form.
You didn't read my post nor do you comprehend. A 9mm pistol carries more ammo than any other calibre counterparts. 9mm pistols are also easier to shoot which means you can place your shots with less effort especially the 2nd, 3rd, 4th rounds etc etc. A 9mm pistol is smaller and lighter than most other calibre counterparts making it easier to carry/conceal. A 9mm pistol has approximately twice the service life of a .40cal gun.
You sound like you're new to ballistics and especially terminal ballistics. Here's a crash course for you, handgun calibres suck for stopping threats. All calibres require an average of three rounds to neutralize a threat. If they all require three rounds what do you think is more advantageous to you, more rounds or larger rounds?? Do you think more recoil with fewer rounds is better than more rounds with less recoil? Remember, it takes an average of three rounds from any calibre to stop a threat. Don't forget that shot placement is absolutely paramount and trumps all other factors. Do you think it's easier to make hits with a heavy recoiling calibre or a light recoiling calibre? Are you willing to stand in front of a 9mm pistol and take hits anywhere to the body because you believe it to be ineffective? I didn't think so...
The crutches I'm talking about are mechanical items/accessories that provide no gain in reliability or performance. Calibre would be a crutch although they're all equal performers terminally as in they all suck. A different trigger offers nothing to a shooter who simply cannot exercise proper trigger control thus it's a gimmick. Extended controls are a gimmick if a shooter struggles to find them consistently or operate them efficiently. The vast vast majority of shooters need to focus on the fundamentals and making hits over what cool gizmo to bolt to their gun or what trigger to get or which funnel to put on the mag well. Reloading is an administrative task that supports your ability(or inability for many) to place rounds on target on demand. Having the fastest reload because you have the latest mag well funnel doesn't mean your shots will hit the target any more or less than they did before you added the junk. Same goes for triggers and even sights. If you can't apply the fundamentals then everything else is simply window dressing.
So I put a FO front sight on my .45. Better visibility is a crutch? I don't know what kind of guns you are buying that you change parts out for improved reliability but I change parts out for improved functionality. Better, lighter trigger pull isn't a crutch. It's a better trigger. Of course practice is critical, I bought a progressive press so I could shoot more, even though I already had a Rock Chucker. Is that a crutch?
I don't know what to say, some people just struggle with comprehension and/or deductive reasoning.
AS I posted earlier, changing the sights is a personal thing and I am in full agreement that a high vis front sight(or rear or both) is a good idea as everyone sees the sights differently. The fundamentals of aligning the sights and depressing the trigger do not change from one gun to the next or one shooter to the next and are not dependent on the type of sight or trigger being used. The only reason you change the trigger is because you can't make the gun dance with the stock trigger.
As for your ridiculous parallel with reloading equipment. There is no correlation between the fundamentals of marksmanship and reloading equipment. Nowhere is reloading equipment mentioned in the fundamentals of marksmanship in case you didn't know. Nevertheless, a progressive press is a performance advantage over a single stage for sure, much like an auto is a performance advantage over a revolver.
Ah, got it - all those IPSC guys with the race guns are really just hacks with poor fundamentals covering up their inadequacies with gimmicks...
Look at all the crutches this guy uses...he must be really bad.
http://www.miculek.com/index.php?main_page=page&id=1
IPSC shooters suppose to be safer shooters not necessarily mean they are better shooters. <-- this is told by my IPSC instructor
day 1 during the course and I tend to agree
I both read your post and comprehend. You're just failing to reconcile your statements. You don't get to say "triggers mask an inability to shoot" and then say that 9mm is the best because it's recoil is more manageable. You're (not surprisingly) making a board blanket statement and now trying to tailor reality to fit your statement. The cold, unvarnished truth is that if you take someone and give that person 2 different guns they will shoot one better than the other.
Tell me how many top level competitive shooters haven't mastered the fundamentals??? For the slow ones in the crowd the answer is zero. If you struggle with the fundamentals because you rely on mechanical crutches like triggers then how do you expect to improve? If you have a 10 MOA flinch then it makes no difference what you bolt to your gun, you simply can't shoot. The top competitors are TRYING to get an advantage in any way possible. The gimmicks are still there, comps, mag well funnels, weighted magazines, triggers, etc are simply mechanical crutches used in hopes of somehow improving ones performance. Yes you will likely shoot better groups with a short and light single action trigger on a 1911 style gun, but your fundamentals still suck if you can't carry that performance over to any other pistol.
Try and keep up here..
A 9mm pistol is best for its intended role as a service or defensive firearm. If you need to shoot multiple shots and do so in a limited amount of time then yes the 9mm is a superior choice due to low recoil and high capacity(in a free country). If you're talking about slow fire shooting for groups then it makes no difference what calibre you use as the fundamentals of sight alignment trigger press and follow through are all the same.
Again, I have no doubt a novice shooter with a tricked out gun will produce better groups than with a stock gun, but that is only because the tricked out gun covers/compensates for their poor form(gimmicks). The shooter's performance will quickly plateau as the gun can only do so much to cover/compensate for poor form. I haven't met a 1911 shooter yet that can work a DA/SA or DAO gun worth a hill of beans. The excuse of many about shooting X gun better than Y gun is nothing more than an admission that they simply can't apply the fundamentals.... They can't shoot.
Run all the gimmicks you want but understand that the "great" performance you're seeing is short lived and will never improve. The shooter makes the shot not the gun.. Stop chasing stupid gimmicks to bolt to your gun and seek training and range time.
Just had the opportunity to fire 30 rounds through a 17 MOS. I always prematurely judged them in astetics, after firing it,I have to say they are like a 90's Volvo, boxy but safe and reliable. It points really nice and operates smoothly. As for kids x 's point. I agree we should have them produce a .50 magnum with 9 mm recoil and a 12" long magazine with a full 10 round capacity. Lol.
