Can a Glock be a Precision tool?

Most pistol shooters have very poor concepts of the fundamentals (myself included).

It is easy to read about the fundamentals but it is hard to employ them. Most average shooters can master a few of the fundamentals on their own, the real challenge is bringing them all together to produce a good grouping (consistency). The opening of the magpul handgun video has a rundown of the fundamentals and they do a good job of highlighting the mistakes and the results of using some fundamentals while going weak on others. I found that a really good visualization and clarification of the problems most handgunners are seeing.

As has been stated, 1911 will hide your faults easily do to the short light trigger. You just adopt bad habits and when you move to firearm with a heavier trigger, longer pull and different grip, your groups open up.

I used to think the same way about my glock... then an experienced shooter used my pistol to push the black out of a pistol target at 25 yards... I was embarrassed to say the least. He gave me a run down of all the things he saw me doing wrong, the glock was just transcribing my mistakes on paper. He coached me live fire over the hour and my groups shrunk instantly.

My advice, get an experienced shooter to coach you. Hell most shooters sit around silently judging you anyway, you may as well give them the benefit of speaking whats on their minds :D

TDC made some exceptional points early in this thread, so re-read his posts, I find he is the most consistent contributor of good advice in the pistol forum and offers thorough explanations.
 
Sorry if I offended, those who old timers like myself, refer to as the "spray and pray" crowd, but the OP was masking about inherent accuracy. This is what the pistol is capable of without the interference of a human, hence out of a machine rest such as a Ransom. Factory design specifications vary, but the Beretta M9 was spec'd to 8 inches at 50 yards, while the old tolerance for the 1911 was "between 5 an 6 inches" at 50. I have never heard about a Glock that would go under 6" on this test. Now the fact is that the summation of errors in standing, even two handed shooting can "occasionally " result in smaller groups than factory standard. That's serendipity. For those lacking history, in competitive pistol shooting, whether at Nationals or the Olympics the test of accuracy is - yes, by the rules - standing one handed at 25 yards/metres and 50 yards/meters. Nobody shot competitions with two hands until the FBI invented the PPC game, and later when Col. Cooper was a force in the SW Pistol League. So, for the OP the answer is that 1911 pistols are inherently more accurate, and much easier to make truly accurate than a Glock.

Dr Jim
 
T&G said:
Sorry if I offended, those who old timers like myself, refer to as the "spray and pray" crowd, but the OP was masking about inherent accuracy. This is what the pistol is capable of without the interference of a human, hence out of a machine rest such as a Ransom. Factory design specifications vary, but the Beretta M9 was spec'd to 8 inches at 50 yards, while the old tolerance for the 1911 was "between 5 an 6 inches" at 50. I have never heard about a Glock that would go under 6" on this test. Now the fact is that the summation of errors in standing, even two handed shooting can "occasionally " result in smaller groups than factory standard. That's serendipity. For those lacking history, in competitive pistol shooting, whether at Nationals or the Olympics the test of accuracy is - yes, by the rules - standing one handed at 25 yards/metres and 50 yards/meters. Nobody shot competitions with two hands until the FBI invented the PPC game, and later when Col. Cooper was a force in the SW Pistol League. So, for the OP the answer is that 1911 pistols are inherently more accurate, and much easier to make truly accurate than a Glock.

Dr Jim
Click to expand...

The mission drives the gear train. If you want to compete then run a gun designed for it. We are talking about a service pistol and its more than. Capable of service level and better performance out of the box.

Tdc
 
c0ntract said:
My advice, get an experienced shooter to coach you. Hell most shooters sit around silently judging you anyway, you may as well give them the benefit of speaking whats on their minds :D
Click to expand...


Laugh2

Absofrickinlutely

Except, I'm going to say that it should be "you may as well give yourself the benefit of them speaking what's on their minds".
 
T&G said:
Factory design specifications vary, but the Beretta M9 was spec'd to 8 inches at 50 yards, while the old tolerance for the 1911 was "between 5 an 6 inches" at 50. I have never heard about a Glock that would go under 6" on this test.




So, for the OP the answer is that 1911 pistols are inherently more accurate, and much easier to make truly accurate than a Glock.

Dr Jim
Click to expand...

If the OP had asked about a milspec Colt 1911, I would have answered that yes, on average they will be marginally more accurate.

Part of what makes the question so meaningless is that he asked about "1911s".

That includes everything from SAMs to Wilsons.

A 1911 as spec'd by the US military will shoot to a certain group size.

A 1911 as spec'd by Bill Wilson will shoot to another group size.

A 1911 as spec'd by Wang Dong of Norinco will shoot to another group size entirely.

So to say that "the 1911" is more accurate than "the Glock" is incorrect. There is no more inherent, mechanical accuracy in "the 1911" than there is in the Glock. There is more inherent accuracy in a 1911 spec'd for more accuracy than a Glock.

But there is less mechanical accuracy in a randomly assembled 1911 built from junk parts than there is from a Glock.

If we restrict the discussion purely to Colts, say...then you are probably correct.

But that was not the original question.
 
misanthropist said:
If the OP had asked about a milspec Colt 1911, I would have answered that yes, on average they will be marginally more accurate.

Part of what makes the question so meaningless is that he asked about "1911s".

That includes everything from SAMs to Wilsons.

A 1911 as spec'd by the US military will shoot to a certain group size.

A 1911 as spec'd by Bill Wilson will shoot to another group size.

A 1911 as spec'd by Wang Dong of Norinco will shoot to another group size entirely.

So to say that "the 1911" is more accurate than "the Glock" is incorrect. There is no more inherent, mechanical accuracy in "the 1911" than there is in the Glock. There is more inherent accuracy in a 1911 spec'd for more accuracy than a Glock.

But there is less mechanical accuracy in a randomly assembled 1911 built from junk parts than there is from a Glock.

If we restrict the discussion purely to Colts, say...then you are probably correct.

But that was not the original question.
Click to expand...
Ah, the famous Wang Dong, one of the all time great 1911 tuners, right up there with Bill Wilson :D
 
misanthropist said:
If the OP had asked about a milspec Colt 1911, I would have answered that yes, on average they will be marginally more accurate.

Part of what makes the question so meaningless is that he asked about "1911s".

That includes everything from SAMs to Wilsons.

A 1911 as spec'd by the US military will shoot to a certain group size.

A 1911 as spec'd by Bill Wilson will shoot to another group size.

A 1911 as spec'd by Wang Dong of Norinco will shoot to another group size entirely.

So to say that "the 1911" is more accurate than "the Glock" is incorrect. There is no more inherent, mechanical accuracy in "the 1911" than there is in the Glock. There is more inherent accuracy in a 1911 spec'd for more accuracy than a Glock.

But there is less mechanical accuracy in a randomly assembled 1911 built from junk parts than there is from a Glock.

If we restrict the discussion purely to Colts, say...then you are probably correct.

But that was not the original question.
Click to expand...

I used a 1911 as an example as alot of competition shooters swear by them.

I have had numerous people say that glocks are not a precicion firearm but are good for what they intended.

After reading all these posts one thing that is becomming apparent is that those that have been saying that to me are probably using it as an excuse for their poor shooting with a glock but their much better shooting with the 1911.

The glock is probably just as precise as any 1911 out of the box, other then those specificly set up to be precision.
 
TinkerBell said:
I would hazard a guess in canada more competion shooters are shooting CZ'eds then 1911
Click to expand...

But of course it needs to be specified WHAT form of competition. For my career that has been NRA and ISSF "bullseye" but until it went belly up in Alberta, I also shot PPC, and in the former two disciplines the CZ platform is not present, perhaps this is different in other games. Sorry about the run on sentence, iPads are a pain at times!

Dr Jim
 
Originally Posted by Onagoth
Just to put that in perspective, thats about 12 MOA.... Not really what I consider precision. Show me a pistol that does 2" at 50y and I'm impressed.

Are you kidding me? 2', at 150 feet with a handheld pistol? Are you able to do that??? wtf.
 
Last edited:
Kryogen said:
Originally Posted by Onagoth
Just to put that in perspective, thats about 12 MOA.... Not really what I consider precision. Show me a pistol that does 2" at 50y and I'm impressed.

Are you kidding me? 2', at 150 feet with a handheld pistol? Are you able to do that??? wtf.
Click to expand...

I lol'd at 12 MOA when referring to a 20 yd grouping with a pistol, someone here doesn't know what they are talking about hahaha
 
My old Open gun used to shoot 3 MOA, yeah I actually zero's and shot it at 100m off a rest. It currently still holds 1"@ 25m
image-2.jpg
 
c0ntract said:
I lol'd at 12 MOA when referring to a 20 yd grouping with a pistol, someone here doesn't know what they are talking about hahaha
Click to expand...

I guess we know who.

PH Racing - very nice shooting. With iron sights my Model 27 S&W would hit clay pidgeons at 100 yards 7x10 from a rest albeit the gun is a revolver.

Take Care

Bob
 
My old Bianchi Cup revolver would hold 2" @ 50m, Mrclean has it now....I should really buy that back....
 
Shelldrake said:
???
At 15m a 2" group is 12MOA (actually it like more like 11.64MOA).
Click to expand...



I am not arguing that you can't convert a handgun grouping to MOA... I can also convert my daily commute to light years... but the number is absolutely irrelevant to any discussion on precision relative to the instrument.

We don't measure a car speed in knots or feet per second...because those numbers are useless to you as a driver. I don't want to get into a big debate here on the chronic misuse of the term/concept "MOA" by shooters, so I will leave it at this.
 
GunGuy34 said:
I am able to put 10 shots on target, ( a 6 inch target) at 20 feet, in under a minute. However, they are all over the target, im looking for palm size. Am i asking to much of the gun, or do i just suck.
Click to expand...

A glock should be placing 10 shots in less then 2 inches at 20 feet. My best would be around 1.25.
 
The glock is probably just as precise as any 1911 out of the box, other then those specificly set up to be precision.[/QUOTE]

yep, bout right, and darn better then some of the cheaper ones.
 
GunGuy34 said:
I suck, i really need to practice alot more. I know with any gun i shoot, that its not the gun, its me.
Click to expand...

There's half the battle, knowing its your skill set that needs work. The sooner more admit this, the more money they will save in buying gimmicks and bolt ons to "solve" the problem which they believe is the gun.

TDC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom