Practical accuracy difference between a G34 and a G17


PDA






Hunter2011
August 2, 2013, 12:30 AM
Hi guys.
I know the G34 should be more accurate due to the longer sight radius. Lets say I am a little better than average to a good shooter, not nearly an expert shooter.
How much difference in group sizes will I get between the two when shooting off a rest at 50 yards?

And if I take the 9mm G17 and put it up against the same sized .45 Glock? Which if the two will give me better group sizes under the same conditions as above?

If you enjoyed reading about "Practical accuracy difference between a G34 and a G17" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
mgmorden
August 2, 2013, 01:05 AM
Off of a rest there should be virtually no difference. The longer sight radius helps you quickly align the sights, but that mostly helps at speed. Fired slowly the advantage is neglible.

That said, not a lot of people regularly shoot off of a rest. Shot free-hand you should be able to break a shot quicker with the G34 or hold slightly tighter groups, but how much quicker and tighter will vary greatly from person to person.

As 9mm vs .45 accuracy-wise, there will be no definitive difference (at least no more than two Glocks would exhibit from each other even if they were chambered for the same round). What makes people perceive lighter recoiling rounds to shoot more accurately is 99% mental. If you're anticipating the greater recoil you trigger control won't be as good and so your shots may be less accurate with the .45, but thats you - not the gun.

Aside from accuracy though the lighter recoil of the 9mm will offer a quicker follow-up shot (with the "split time" between the two lessening with experience).

9mmepiphany
August 2, 2013, 03:00 AM
I have a friend who is a much better distance shooter than I and he ran some comparisons a couple of years ago in preparation of going to the Bianchi Cup. He told me that the G34 exhibited acceptable accuracy at 50 yards and the G17 wouldn't. His testing off a bench showed that the G34 would hold about 2" and the G17 was about 50% less accurate. The interesting thing was that he also happened to have a G19 that he was shooting and it was almost as accurate as the G34. Sight radius really doesn't make a gun more accurate, what it does is exaggerate your aiming errors, so that you can correct for them.

My experience in shooting many examples of all three models has reflected the same thing. The G19 is almost as accurate as the G34 and both are more accurate than the G17.

In .45ACP, my only experience has been with three G30s. Each has been very accurate, a bit more than a G19

johnmcl
August 2, 2013, 07:51 AM
My findings line up with 9mm's.

Earlier this year I ran a small study. I had five shooters ranging from a competent defensive shooter to a nationally ranked competitor. I had them each shoot 20 rounds from a G21, G30, G34, and G17 at a stationary target at 25m, off the clock.

The individual scores didn't matter to me, but the order of accuracy for the guns fired did. The scores went pretty much as ordered. The G21 and the G30 were statistically tied. Slightly behind those pair was the G34. A measurable distance behind the G34, but not huge, was the G17.

As a finale, a shooter in the middle of the experience curve produced a Cylinder and Slide tuned Browning Hi Power and crushed the plastics.

Short story? The G34 and the G17 are pretty darn close, but in that order.

jerkface11
August 2, 2013, 09:11 AM
Off of a rest there should be virtually no difference. The longer sight radius helps you quickly align the sights, but that mostly helps at speed. Fired slowly the advantage is neglible.


Nonsense. The longer sight radius is more accurate rest or no rest.

Bovice
August 2, 2013, 09:25 AM
Nonsense. The longer sight radius is more accurate rest or no rest.
For the effective range of those pistols, being longer barreled does not increase your accuracy. It makes it easier for you to shoot it, but that's it.

mgmorden
August 2, 2013, 10:22 AM
Nonsense. The longer sight radius is more accurate rest or no rest.

Not really. The difference between the two may be there, but it won't be worth noting. From a rest the gun will be nearly still, making the small jitters/tremors that the longer sight radius helps you correct not nearly as much of an issue.

There is no MECHANICAL improvement in the longer sight radius - as Bovice said it makes it easier for you to shoot it, but when shooting from a rest the advantage granted by the rest is going to largely overshadow the advantage of the longer sight radius.

jerkface11
August 2, 2013, 10:46 AM
I'm not sure where you keep getting that's it's faster to line up a longer sight radius. It's more precise because a smaller movement moves the front sight out of it's position on target.

Hunter2011
August 2, 2013, 11:23 AM
I find it strange that a G19 shoots more accurately than a G17. It does not make sense, but if that is the true world results I will believe it. So then a G34 is not really worth it?
Can I ask what is the best most accurate Glock to get, no matter the caliber, for silhouette shooting? I thought the G34 was the one, but it seems not to be the case.

mgmorden
August 2, 2013, 11:29 AM
Its faster because shots done at speed are the ones with the most movement involved. If you're trying to break a shot while you're still recovering from the recoil of the previous one then the longer sight radius is faster to notice that your sights aren't aligned and get them back on target.

When shooting off-hand even slowly the advantage will still be there (though to a lesser extent) because there's movement involved. The little sway from your arms, the tremble in your hands - all moving the sight slightly requiring you to keep correcting your sight picture where the longer radius will help.

However, when slowly shooting from a rest you can take all the time in the world to get your sights aligned (and the stability offered from the rest means that it takes much less effort to keep them aligned). There will be little practical difference between the two when shot that way.

Essentially, the more chaotic the conditions, the more the longer sight radius helps. The more controlled it gets, the less it matters.

jerkface11
August 2, 2013, 12:07 PM
And yet still wrong. With a shorter sight radius it takes a bigger difference in point of aim before you notice it. So a longer radius will always be more accurate.

mgmorden
August 2, 2013, 01:58 PM
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

jerkface11
August 2, 2013, 02:25 PM
You disagree that you have finer control of your sighting with a longer sight radius?

9mmepiphany
August 2, 2013, 02:28 PM
We're going to have to agree to disagree on this.
That is a good position to let the thread continue. I actually see both points of view and understand both sides of the disagreement...without choosing a side, they are equally reasonable

If either of you would like to discuss it in more depth, I'd suggest starting a separate thread

9mmepiphany
August 2, 2013, 02:33 PM
I find it strange that a G19 shoots more accurately than a G17. It does not make sense, but if that is the true world results I will believe it. So then a G34 is not really worth it?
I think it is. Don't confuse the greater accuracy of the G19 compared to the G17 to extend to the G34. Sight radius isn't everything

Can I ask what is the best most accurate Glock to get, no matter the caliber, for silhouette shooting? I thought the G34 was the one, but it seems not to be the case.
If you mean Metallic Silhouette shooting, why would you choose a Glock to begin with?

Hunter2011
August 2, 2013, 02:42 PM
I think it is. Don't confuse the greater accuracy of the G19 compared to the G17 to extend to the G34. Sight radius isn't everything


If you mean Metallic Silhouette shooting, why would you choose a Glock to begin with?
The item I want to shoot in limits the barrel length to 6 inches or less.
I just love the ultimate reliability of Glocks.
If not a Glock, what else?

9mmepiphany
August 2, 2013, 03:02 PM
We may be talking apples vs. oranges.

The MS (IHMSA) that I am referring to usually limits barrel length (in Field Pistol) to 11" and is shot on half-scale animals (chicken, pig, turkey, ram) out to 100 yards; are we talking about the same sport?

Cycletroll
August 2, 2013, 06:24 PM
I own Glock 26,19,17, and 34. Given time and a good day I can can shoot near 1" groups off a rest at 25 yds with all of them with ammo they like (not the same accuracy load is shared by all guns). I have shot IDPA with the 19, the 17, and the 34. The biggest difference is that high speed tracking and recoil impulse is easier with the 34.
AFAIAC trigger work and better sights contribute more to accuracy with Glocks than the size of the gun.
It really is hard to beat a 17 or a 19 as an all around gun. Would probably choose the 17 for a duty gun and the 19 for CCW.
The 34 is just my dedicated gun game rig. The 26 is not really that much smaller than the 19 and is harder to shoot well fast and has less capacity.

Hunter2011
August 3, 2013, 12:19 AM
We may be talking apples vs. oranges.

The MS (IHMSA) that I am referring to usually limits barrel length (in Field Pistol) to 11" and is shot on half-scale animals (chicken, pig, turkey, ram) out to 100 yards; are we talking about the same sport?
There are various items in metallic silhouette shooting. I just know this item I want to start shooting in requires a barrel length of 6'' or less. Other items, in the same sport are even unlimited, you can choose the barrel length of your pistol if I'm correct. So a single shot target pistol with a 10'' match barrel is out for my needs, unfortunately.

9mmepiphany
August 3, 2013, 02:54 AM
If you are shooting out to 100 yards, I'd recommend something like a SIG X-5 or a S&W 952

ku4hx
August 3, 2013, 03:08 AM
The item I want to shoot in limits the barrel length to 6 inches or less.
I just love the ultimate reliability of Glocks.
If not a Glock, what else?
What event are you shooting? I've used .22LR semi autos for local "fun shoots" but when I was competing in major center fire matches revolvers and single shot handguns were most prevalent.

When 100 yards was my max range, I used a Blackhawk .357 Magnum 6" barrel at first and later a .357 Maximum with 10.5" barrel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_silhouette_shooting

tarosean
August 3, 2013, 06:06 AM
If you mean Metallic Silhouette shooting, why would you choose a Glock to begin with?

+100

KYamateur
August 3, 2013, 12:45 PM
I have a G19 and a G34. When shooting 15 yards and shorter I can actually shoot the G19 better. If I take the distance out to say 25 yards are more I shoot the G34 ten times better. I do not use a rest. I only shoot standing. My results may not be typical but that is how they compare in my personal experience. I can actually hit some targets at 50 yards with the G34 while standing. If I do that with the G19 it is just luck. Again, no scientific data, just my real world shooting experience.

dwhite
August 3, 2013, 12:57 PM
I have a Taurus 2/7 PRO Compact (3.5 inch barrel) in .40 that shoots circles around my G22. I've heard of 27's and 26's out-shooting their larger relatives. Sight radius isn't everything.

All the Best,
D. White

Geno
August 3, 2013, 08:40 PM
I have owned both a G34 and G17. I wasn't overly impressed with the 34. I didn't like the balance.

Geno

Hunter2011
August 4, 2013, 12:13 AM
I have a G19 and a G34. When shooting 15 yards and shorter I can actually shoot the G19 better. If I take the distance out to say 25 yards are more I shoot the G34 ten times better. I do not use a rest. I only shoot standing. My results may not be typical but that is how they compare in my personal experience. I can actually hit some targets at 50 yards with the G34 while standing. If I do that with the G19 it is just luck. Again, no scientific data, just my real world shooting experience.

That is what I want to hear, real world results, no scientific tests needed:D
But then there are those that say the G34 ain't no accurate. Seems it is 50/50 that you will do better with a G34 than a smaller Glock.

amd6547
August 4, 2013, 08:47 AM
50yds should be all hits with a G34 or G17, depending on what you are using for a target..."hits" is pretty nebulous.
I don't have a G34, but I do have both a G17 and a G26. I have no problem hitting 10" steel plates my club has at 40yds with either of them.

Hangingrock
August 4, 2013, 06:25 PM
As a comparison between a Glock G17 and S&W MP9 I shot both pistols at 25yds, 50yds, 100yds and 200yds. The ammunition used was RWS-Sport Line 124gr FMJ. At 25yds & 50yds standard bullseye targets were utilized with conventional standing position for slow fire and rapid fire. The 100yd and 200yd targets were IPSC with aiming points compensating for distance from each yard line. Shooting was done from the roll over prone position.

Yes I took pictures. Those pictures are on my old computer that has given up the ghost. The hard drive I pulled out so Iíll have to take it to a computer service to recover pictures that I didnít save to discs.

None the less with only one sample of each a conclusive conclusion in regards to which one of the two was superior wasnít apparent.

I should have included a Glock G19. Iím contemplating the purchase of a Glock G34. If I do purchase one then the previously mentioned testing outline Iíll do with a Glock G17, G19 and G34. The dilemma which is apparent is still the limited test sample.

Stringfellow
August 6, 2013, 12:34 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9053012&postcount=10

I actually posted in that thread by accident, but my point is still the same; I am enjoying reading everyone's thoughts, but am still torn about whether that extra .8" sight radius is worth the extra hassle of finding a 34 and paying the extra ~$150.

GLOOB
August 6, 2013, 12:47 AM
I've heard it said that the G30/21 are exceptionally accurate for Glocks. More than a few people have shared that opinion. But it's still anecdotal, for the most part.

Here's my take. I find I shoot my G21 WAY more accurately than my G19. I'm talking from a semi-rested position, shooting beer bottles at 75 yards. With a G19, it's luck. I might hit one bottle out of a mag, or I might miss them all. I'm mainly wasting ammo. With the G21, I can bust 'em regularly, even breaking 3 in a row. And I wouldn't miss more than 3-4 shots in a row, let alone an entire mag.

I suspect three reasons for this. One reason is the grip. The G21 suits me.

The other reason might be an actual contributor to emprical accuracy. I reload, and I've noticed my G21 has a pretty tight chamber. The leade isn't nearly as long as my 9mm Glock chambers, and the mouth of the chamber is tight. Reloads won't drop in, freely, unless they have a pretty good bit of taper crimp on the case mouth. My 9mm Glock chambers swallows just about anything without a crimp. Cartridges can swim around in there.

The last reason? Well, the 45ACP throws just a little bigger chunk of lead, afterall. :)

I should add that I shoot the G19 way more. It comes along for every range session, and it gets shot. A lot. My G21 comes out to play once a blue moon, yet it always performs, no matter what the ammo. Factory ammo, jacketed reloads, even cast lead reloads. It likes them all.

Riomouse911
August 7, 2013, 02:42 PM
My experience with owning Glocks (19, 17, 34) has me believing that the stock Glock by itself is a suprizingly accurate platform no matter what the barrel length; however the longer sight radius of the G34 allows me to shoot more accurately at speed and at distance than with the other two....especially when compared with the 19.

I carry a G34 on duty everyday, and use the 19 for more concealed duty use.

Holsters for the 34 are a bit tougher to find, as some of the G17-sized rigs have closed muzzles. I use a synthetic Safariland M-9 paddle (G-17 is what it was designed for) and the muzzle sticks out from the end about 3/4".

Is there really a huge diff between thr 34 and 17? IMHO not really. It is all about what you are comfortable and proficient with that really matters.

Walt Sherrill
August 7, 2013, 03:30 PM
I have owned both a G34 and G17. I wasn't overly impressed with the 34. I didn't like the balance.

I've had multiple copies of both guns and never really noticed much difference, with regard to balance.

Glock took special care when building the 34 to keep the balance (if not the weight) essentially the same as the 17. That's the reason for the lightening cuts/openings in the slide -- keeping the balance similar to the 17. While I've talked with and read replies from others who didn't prefer the 34 to the 17, you're one of the first I've encountered to talk about a noticeably different "balance."

As for some of the other statements above comparing 17s to 34s, and those talking about the improved accuracy of guns with longer sight radii... I suspect some of the differences have more to do with the individual guns than barre-length differences alone. (How else do you explain a 19 that shoots better than a 17, and nearly matches a 34? Two new guns with consecutive serial numbers and all other things being equal ot shoot equally well.)

A longer barrel doesn't add much to accuracy when shooting at most handgun distances. When you push out beyond 25 yards, the longer barrel will arguably help improve results due to improved ballistic performance (which keeps the round spinning faster), for better gyroscopic stability. When you get "out there" you're starting to push beyond most handguns' effective range.

.

GLOOB
August 7, 2013, 08:54 PM
I disagree. I think that up to a point, longer barreled HANDguns tend to shoot more accurately. Not from a ransom rest, maybe. But the rest of the time, yes.

I have shot the G17L, G34, G17, G19, G26. It might be perfect coincidence, but the longer the barrel, the smaller my groups, without exception. This difference shows up at 20 feet or 50 yards. It doesn't matter. The difference is night and day, to me. Add a little more barrel, slide, and sight radius, and I'll run circles around the shorter gun.

I know part of the difference is sight radius. We all know that. The other part is axial mass. Between where the trigger breaks and the bullet leaves the barrel, there is a finite amount of time. During this time, the gun can move. Whether it's from jerking the trigger, or that initial bit of recoil, it doesn't matter. The longer the barrel, the less the effect on accuracy - all else equal.

It's the same reason those fancy Olympic target bows have those long weights attached.

Everyone has a short barrel gun they shoot very well. But how often do they shoot the exact same gun with a longer barrel worse? Not often. Some shoot the G26 better than the G19. Or G19 better than G17. But those guns have significant differences in grip/ergos. I have never heard anyone complain they shoot a G17 better than a G34 or G17L.

I've heard so much hype about the G26 shooting as good as a G17, etc. Before I got my G26, I already believed it. It took several range sessions and a new barrel before I realized there was no way in heck I'd ever shoot a G26 nearly as good as a G19.

Walt Sherrill
August 7, 2013, 11:01 PM
I disagree. I think that up to a point, longer barreled HANDguns tend to shoot more accurately. Not from a ransom rest, maybe. But the rest of the time, yes.

If Ransom Rest tests showed better accuracy, you have your answer. Why do you discount that? That removes the human factor and addresses only the gun's innate accuracy.

But, alas, polymer-framed guns don't do well in Ransom Rests, so RR tests of Glocks would be less meaningful than tests of steel-framed guns. (That RR Tests are meant to measure PURE mechanical accuracy, without using the sights; there is some "give" in polymer frames, and the barrel/slide doesn't always line up exactly the same with each shot. With aimed fire, it's not an issue, but Ransom Rest tests typically aren't aimed with each shot -- as that interjects a HUMAN FACTOR.

I have shot the G17L, G34, G17, G19, G26. It might be perfect coincidence, but the longer the barrel, the smaller my groups, without exception. This difference shows up at 20 feet or 50 yards. It doesn't matter. The difference is night and day, to me. Add a little more barrel, slide, and sight radius, and I'll run circles around the shorter gun.

I've met a number of guys who swear that they get better results with 4" revolver barrels than 5", etc. On the S&W forum many people make that argument. The results you see may be true FOR YOU, but they aren't necessarily true for others.

You may all (in both camps) be demonstrating a "self-fulfilling prophecy" in which because you believe you'll shoot better, you have the confidence and unconsciously take extra care -- believing/knowing that longer or shorter barrels work better for you. A good test of this whole idea, at least for one gun, would be to put a SIG 226 X-Five with a 5" barrel through the Ransom Rest tests, and then do the same thing with a 226 X-Five with the 6" barrel. You could use the same grip inserts for both guns. That might tell us something about longer barrels in SIGs.

I know part of the difference is sight radius. We all know that. The other part is axial mass. Between where the trigger breaks and the bullet leaves the barrel, there is a finite amount of time. During this time, the gun can move. Whether it's from jerking the trigger, or that initial bit of recoil, it doesn't matter. The longer the barrel, the less the effect on accuracy - all else equal.

Axial mass? How does a longer barrel differ from a HEAVIER frame when you're talking about mass and how it's affected by rounds being fired?

There is always SOME flex in any barrel when the bullet is fired, and longer barrels can flex more than a shorter barrel, particularly if they're not made differently to compensate for the flex. This has become a science with rifle barrel makers, and they have attachments that let the shooter TUNE the barrel for specific loads, so that the sine wave of the shot's vibration from the bullet traveling down the barrel can be modified, allowing the round to come out of the barrel more consistently. I don't know whether this is much of a factor with handgun barrels.

Over the years, different barrel lengths seem to come and go like fads -- with shorter barrels doing better in handgun competitions some years, and longer-barrels doing better in other years. Self-fulfilling prophecies. again? Nowadays, the emphasis is on concealed carry, and that skews the debate a bit.

It would seem, based on what you say, that a longer barrel gives the shooter MORE TIME/OPPORTUNITY to move unintentionally before the bullet leaves the barrel. I don't understand why a longer barrel would be LESS affected by this extra time than a shorter one. Care to explain?

It's the same reason those fancy Olympic target bows have those long weights attached.

The weights on a bow affects the entire bow and the shooters arms and hands) and there are significant weights added; Because those weights are extended out in front a good distance, they have an almost gyroscopic effect; it's harder to move the bow axially. It's not just MORE MASS, it's strategically placed mass.

The effect of extra mass is also true with handgun guns with weights added. A longer barrel in a handgun arguably doesn't add enough EXTRA weight to have that much effect. You could just add weight to the frame, if MASS alone was the controlling factor. And, as noted above, if the round is in the barrel fractions of a second more, there are fractions of a second more for the shooter to screw things up.

Everyone has a short barrel gun they shoot very well. But how often do they shoot the exact same gun with a longer barrel worse? Not often.

If it's got a longer barrel, it's not the exact same gun. And getting everything else the same is hard to do... Some target shooters use weights. Some target guns also have front sights that extend out several inches beyond the end of the barrel (for a longer sight radius) without changing barrel length. It seems to improve accuracy (but not precision, which is addressed below.)

Some shoot the G26 better than the G19. Or G19 better than G17. But those guns have significant differences in grip/ergos. I have never heard anyone complain they shoot a G17 better than a G34 or G17L.

You seem to be saying that your experience in this matter is the only true experience and want us to discount those who offer different results. I don't question that it's true for you, but do wonder why contrary claims should be less credible, at least for THOSE shooters?

And I'd argue that a Glock 19 and 17 are trivially different ergonomically than a 34 or 17L. Ergonomics addresses how those guns fit your hand and how your hand accesses the controls, is passed recoil through the grip, etc. The ergonomics are very similar all of those guns, with grip length being only slightly different in the compact 19 model. (It's even more different with the 26.) I know the 34/35 trigger is better than the standard 17,19, 23, 26, etc.

We've been talking about ACCURACY, which is how well a PERSON SHOOTS a gun. Nobody has mentioned PRECISION -- which is the gun's innate ability to put multiple bullets in the same spot. Precision is what a Ransom Rest test tries to measure -- with all the human factors removed.

I've heard so much hype about the G26 shooting as good as a G17, etc. Before I got my G26, I already believed it. It took several range sessions and a new barrel before I realized there was no way in heck I'd ever shoot a G26 nearly as good as a G19.

Others have different results. What's true for YOU seems not to be true for everyone. (That said, I never had much success shooting a G26, either.)

.

tarosean
August 8, 2013, 02:42 AM
If Ransom Rest tests showed better accuracy, you have your answer. Why do you discount that? That removes the human factor and addresses only the gun's innate accuracy.


Pretty much sums it up...

If you enjoyed reading about "Practical accuracy difference between a G34 and a G17" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!