Yes I agree the shooter often blames the gun, but I think in some case that is justified. I respectfully disagree that a Glock is as accurate as any other gun. Because Glocks are designed to be reliable, for one thing the slide to frame fit is sloppy and will not deliver the same down range accuracy as a 1911 or wheelgun, which are manufactured to much higher tolerances. Furthermore, add a bad trigger to the mix coupled with novice shooters and you're not going to get the best results. Extrapolate those 5-7 inch groups they were getting at 7 yards with your Glock out to 25 yards and they become 18-24 inch groups. I still think your two new shooters would have learnt a lot more about the fundamentals if you had given them a 22 Ruger or 22 revolver to start with.
OK give a very good shooter a Glock to shoot (someone who has lots of stock Glock trigger time) and then give the same shooter a 1911 or a wheelgun to shoot. Run some unsupported offhand and benched grouping tests at 25 yards. That's the real test.
You're still missing the point. My new shooters have very few rounds down range and experience measured in hours not days/weeks/years. I have no doubt the groups would open up at distance, but given the experience of both, they were trumping regular members with great regularity. The endless posts on the forum about guys running hundreds of rounds to "get the feel" for the trigger astound me. The fact that 6" slow fire groups at a stationary target from a stationary shooter at distances beyond 10 yards are viewed with great amazement is disturbing.
I've taught a lot of people how to shoot and none of them were ever taught with anything other than Glocks. Revolvers are a horrible way to learn, being double action, heavy, and spewing sh*t from the cylinder gap is no way to learn. Besides the fact that revolvers are inferior temperamental drama queens that don't stand a chance against an auto in either competition or defensive roles.
As for performance with a 1911 and an experienced competent shooter. You're wrong. I shoot them all the same as far as performance as does every other skilled shooter I know. Some I can shoot faster due to recoil or lack thereof but accuracy performance is the same. Steel plates at 100 are no problem with any of my Glocks including my G26 or any other pistol for that matter. A buddy runs SIGs and I can shoot it just the same and vise versa. He also has a P22 which performs as expected.
The slide to frame fit is also complete crap. For starters, as you mentioned, reliable guns are not virgin tight. Service pistols are designed for service not competing. That being said, they're still more than capable of winning a match. You don't need that custom tuned frame to slide fit to have an inherently accurate gun. Can such tight tolerances make a difference? Sure. But the minimal gain will go unnoticed by nearly every shooter and it comes at the expense of reliability. A marginally less accurate shot, is still better than no shot at all due to failure. I've shot and watched the same SIG being shot accurately with a completely broken lock block. Came out in three pieces. I've also witnessed several shooters run a Glock 22 effectively without stoppage and accurately with a slide rail sheared off.
The point is this. Small mechanical changes such as tighter fitting parts or smoother triggers can pay off. However, the increase in performance is negligible on a shooter who has no idea what sight alignment, sight picture, trigger finger placement, grip, follow through and reset are. The greater majority of shooters I've met and/or competed with struggle to understand atleast half of the topics listed above. But they're eager to tell you how this add on or this brand of firearm is more accurate.
A couple years ago I shot a S&W model 10 with factory fixed sights. I had exactly 100 rounds through the gun before the match. I won revolver division with it. Four speed loaders, a cheap fobus holster and some solid fundamentals. I never ran it SA and I fed it the cheapest ammo I could find. If you've followed any of my posts on CGN, I have near zero time for revolvers, I just don't care. I also won stock division and grand Aggregate. All with a stock Glock with those hideous big dots. A few years before that I completely mopped the course against a guy running an STI Grand master. So does gear really make the biggest difference or is it the shooter??
Here's my biggest point I want to get across. People need to stop worrying about gear and seek PROFESSIONAL TRAINING. I admit, I was no different when I started out. I was ok at shooting, not great. I put my pride away, opened my brain and took in all that I could from those who had been shooting longer, faster, and more accurately than myself. Oddly enough, my performance improved in all respects. Do I believe preach or practice everything I was taught? No. Do I have a greater understanding of what I was doing wrong and how to correct it? YES! You don't know, what you don't know. Professional training is a must if you expect to succeed in anything. Some have natural talent or are fast learners. No one is a master of anything by birth.
TDC
