Glock 17 vs Glock 34 is one better than the other?

C

czscotia

Regular
Rating - 100%
42   0   0
Location
Grand Prairie
Hey all,
I'm wanting a glock 9mil and wondering about pros cons of these two.
I know 17 is traditional style and the 34 is kinda uglier but is it somewhat more accurate, or a lot more accurate/easy to place shots with.
I'm used to a cz.
Thank you
 
czscotia said:
Hey all,
I know 17 is traditional style and the 34 is kinda uglier but is it somewhat more accurate
Thank you
Click to expand...

You summed it up.

Glock 17 is "handy". Glock 34 comes stock with 3.5# connector and extended mag release. It has a longer slide and barrel that allow a longer sight radius and a little more velocity.

I have fired both at great length, I prefer the 17. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.;)
 
czscotia said:
Glock 17 vs Glock 34 is one better than the other?
Hey all, I'm wanting a glock 9mil and wondering about pros cons of these two.
I know 17 is traditional style and the 34 is kinda uglier but is it somewhat more accurate, or a lot more accurate/easy to place shots with.
I'm used to a cz. Thank you
Click to expand...

If you can, first decide your primary intended purpose. If your primary intended purpose is participation in a particular shooting sport, such as IPSC, USPSA, or IDPA, read the rules* of the sport to see which pistol best fits the sport, and - of the two - which pistol might be the most competitive within the sport.

For IPSC, the choice might be the G17 in IPSC Production Division.

For USPSA, the choice might be the G34 in USPSA Production Division.

For IDPA, the choice might be the G34 in IDPA Stock Service Pistol Division.


<http://www.ipsc.org/pdf/RulesHandgun.pdf>
<http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-rules.php>
<http://www.idpa.com/Documents/IDPARuleBook2005.pdf>
 
The 34 is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy better. It is not even close. For one thing it feels nice in the hand, not like a plastic brick, for another it is .45 which is a superior caliber, not to mention the fact that it is aesthetically beautiful and reliable enough to be used by the army while they defeated world super powers and on top of that it is steel instead of plastic. Oh sorry, I am not great at math, I thought 34 meant 1911. Between the 34 and the 17, they are both blocks, I mean glocks, so doesn't matter :)
 
Cpt.Flan said:
Here we go... He started it again...

ovrec

:stirthepot2:
Click to expand...

Let me explain it to you. The sights are ALWAYS ALIGNED(front and rear that is). It is how you align them with your eye and the target that changes. It is these changes that cause a shift in POI, not the distance between the sights. If that were the case, then reddots and magnified scopes would be horribly inaccurate.

TDC
 
TDC said:
Let me explain it to you. The sights are ALWAYS ALIGNED(front and rear that is). It is how you align them with your eye and the target that changes. It is these changes that cause a shift in POI, not the distance between the sights. If that were the case, then reddots and magnified scopes would be horribly inaccurate.

TDC
Click to expand...

You would agree, though, that all else being equal, it's easier to aim more precisely with a gun with a longer sight radius?

I will admit I have never done any actual testing to see if I can shoot more accurately with guns with a longer sight radius; I don't think I would find the difference between a 17 and a 34 enough to affect my shooting to a degree that I could perceive anyway.

The advantage of a longer sight radius is definitely part of the "conventional wisdom" but conventional wisdom is often wrong, so I'm unsure to what degree this is myth or fact.

As far as the OP goes...I'd go with the 17.

edit: that is because I know what I like to do with guns...Wendell's post is very good advice.
 
misanthropist said:
You would agree, though, that all else being equal, it's easier to aim more precisely with a gun with a longer sight radius?

I will admit I have never done any actual testing to see if I can shoot more accurately with guns with a longer sight radius; I don't think I would find the difference between a 17 and a 34 enough to affect my shooting to a degree that I could perceive anyway.

The advantage of a longer sight radius is definitely part of the "conventional wisdom" but conventional wisdom is often wrong, so I'm unsure to what degree this is myth or fact.

As far as the OP goes...I'd go with the 17.

edit: that is because I know what I like to do with guns...Wendell's post is very good advice.
Click to expand...

I agree that the difference in radius between a 17 an 34 is pathetic at best and will likely go unnoticed down range. I'm not sure I agree that a longer radius would make it "easier" to align. A longer radius simply translates into less error down range when comparing equal amounts of misalignment. The factor that needs to be addressed is the shooter, not the gear. However, buying gear is easier and faster than practicing or seeking training which means the common answer is to replace the gear.

TDC
 
mebiuspower said:
34 is for people that can't shoot. LOL.
Click to expand...

Them are fighting words d:h:d:h: lol.

To the OP: If it's a Glock, you can't go wrong. For me the 34 had benefits.
If the 17 suits your needs, get it.

Is one better than the other? In the right hands....no. I can work a 17 just as fast and accurate as a 34. I'm just happy you're getting a Glock ;)

34 is for people that can't shoot. LOL.
Click to expand...

Stand up to Dave Sevigny first ;)
 
Last edited:
Dsiwy said:
WOW really "glock made the G34 out of majic, so anyone can shoot a 1" group at 25m :eek: "

Meh I like my G34 and it shoots the same as the G21 I shot "very good"
Click to expand...

So if your G34 shoots as well as the G21 you shot, why waste the extra money on the G34? In addition, why have a gun that's longer and thusly heavier than it needs to be?

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