Boy was I wrong!

[igotta40]

I've been shooting what I thought was my most accurate pistol, Glock 23.

It's a great shooting pistol.

At the indoor range, I shoot at what I think is close range pistol defensive distance, seven yards. Anything much further away is to where I feel I should be seeking avoidance, cover, escape, etc.

That being said, aimed slow fire, I'm in the 8, 9, 10 ring consistently, with fairly close grouping, 2.5 - 3.5 inches, and that's good.

My Springfield Mil-Spec will punch the bullseye consistently at that distance, 1 - 1.5 inch groups and match the Glock's 7 yard accuracy at 25 yards.

I had no idea the entry level Springfield 1911 could do that.

And it's much more comfortable to shoot

I don't reload, I shoot the cheapest Walmart ammo I can get...

Just saying....

Comments?

 

[freq18hz]

My comment: it's not the glock, it's you. You may find the 1911 easier to shoot due to ergonomics or trigger feel. Practice more, the glock is just as accurate.

-Freq

 

[FireInCairo]

I've owned a number of Glocks the past few years, and really liked their simplicity and their design. It lends itself to reliability and easy modification/repair.

That being said, when I picked up a couple of Springfield XD polymer pistols I was astonished at how accurate they were right out of the box, better than my Glocks.

I can't really tell you why they're more accurate. It could be the ergonomics. I'm a convert now, though.

 

[area51]

My comment: it's not the glock, it's you. You may find the 1911 easier to shoot due to ergonomics or trigger feel. Practice more, the glock is just as accurate.

-Freq

Indeed

 

[1911 guy]

Just as mechanically accurate, probably. But whether a user is able to wring that accuracy out depends on how that particular handgun fits the hands of the user. The fact that he is hitting more accurately with something other than Glock tells me that the grip angle, trigger reach, frame width, trigger break or something else doesn't fit him.

 

[mnrivrat]

A glock might be a very good pistol but it is not as accurate as most 1911 single action guns. You will not get a Glock with a 1911 SA trigger pull, and that makes a significant difference.

Besides the plastic guns warp in the sun !

 

[1858remington]

I think the OP is trolling. This just has to be one of those "Glock Hate, 1911 Great" posts

 

[Tactical Lever]

A glock might be a very good pistol but it is not as accurate as most 1911 single action guns. You will not get a Glock with a 1911 SA trigger pull, and that makes a significant difference.

Besides the plastic guns warp in the sun !

For sure the "lawyer trigger" won't do you any favours. Some guys can do well with them, but it takes considerably more effort and skill. Perhaps the 1911 fits a little better as well.

I had a similar experience where I got a revolver with a barrel that's a couple, few inches longer than what I usually shoot, and should have a pretty good deal of mechanical accuracy, and a good trigger. I figured that I should be shooting pretty well with it right from the start, but I actually found that I was shooting better with guns that had 4" inches less sight radius.

In my case, I just have to spend more time with it, and I believe that some bad habits and a tendency to pull the shot is magnified with the bigger pistol.

 

[Tactical Lever]

I think the OP is trolling. This just has to be one of those "Glock Hate, 1911 Great" posts

It isn't trolling if its true is it? Funny thing is that I noticed it was a 1911 that I was shooting better as well.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I like my G19 but the trigger pull is not the best and the stock Glock sights are ripe for the changing for some Heine straight 8 night sights!

 

[JohnKSa]

...I shoot at ... seven yards...grouping, 2.5 - 3.5 inches, and that's good.

My Springfield Mil-Spec will punch the bullseye consistently at that distance, 1 - 1.5 inch groups and match the Glock's 7 yard accuracy at 25 yards.

So far I haven't shot a Glock that won't do at least 3.5" at 25 yards and have several that will do better.

With the possible exception of some very small carry pistols with virtually non-existent sights, every handgun I've ever tested for accuracy will make 1 hole groups at seven yards and will group around 2" (usually better than that) at 15 yards.

I don't know if your Glock is as accurate as your Springfield is, but if it really won't shoot any better than 2.5" groups at 7 yards, something's wrong with it.

I shoot the cheapest Walmart ammo I can get...

Did some shooting last weekend with a 9mm carbine and "the cheapest Wal-Mart ammo I" could get. At 25 yards, it made a 5 shot group that measured well under an inch. In my experience, even cheap handgun ammo generally shoots very accurately.

I did some testing awhile back to see how various kinds of ammo affected the point of impact on the target. I shot a 10 shot group containing 6 different kinds of 9mm practice ammo at 15 yards. The resulting group measured 2". By the way, the group was shot with a Glock I bought used--it was a range rental I purchased when the range closed.

 

[mnrivrat]

I think the OP is trolling. This just has to be one of those "Glock Hate, 1911 Great" posts

Go to the bullseye shooting events for center fire handguns and see how many Glocks there are - now count the 1911's .

One doesn't have to hate a Glock to appreciate the accuracy of the 1911 design. They both have their best place.

 

[Tactical Lever]

So far I haven't shot a Glock that won't do at least 3.5" at 25 yards and have several that will do better.

With the possible exception of some very small carry pistols with virtually non-existent sights, every handgun I've ever tested for accuracy will make 1 hole groups at seven yards and will group around 2" (usually better than that) at 15 yards.

I don't know if your Glock is as accurate as your Springfield is, but if it really won't shoot any better than 2.5" groups at 7 yards, something's wrong with it.Did some shooting last weekend with a 9mm carbine and "the cheapest Wal-Mart ammo I" could get. At 25 yards, it made a 5 shot group that measured well under an inch. In my experience, even cheap handgun ammo generally shoots very accurately.

I did some testing awhile back to see how various kinds of ammo affected the point of impact on the target. I shot a 10 shot group containing 6 different kinds of 9mm practice ammo at 15 yards. The resulting group measured 2". By the way, the group was shot with a Glock I bought used--it was a range rental I purchased when the range closed.

Final accuracy is dependent on what the pistol "likes". Every gun is a law unto itself. It might like the cheap stuff (which is not necessarily inferior), and throw bad groups with a top shelf priced load. Or vice versa.

And some are pickier than others.

 

[rule303]

Different tool for a different job. A Glock is plenty accurate, but will never match a properly put together 1911 if both are fired from a mechanical rest. As pointed out above,you will not see any Glocks at a bullseye match. You also aren't going to see a target 1911 in a deputies holster.

 

[oldironsights]

" Every gun is a law unto itself."
That seems to be a wise & accurate statement, TL.
I have two Glocks (Model 20 & 22) that were more accurate than my 1911's.(Springfield Armory & Metro Arms)
I replaced the stock barrels & bushings of the 1911's with Ed Brown products.
Now my 1911's will shoot with or shoot better than the Glocks I own.
I always have had difficulty with the standard 1911 grips. I prefer the fat ones with the palm swell.
The Glocks are wide enough for good purchase by my hands.
That may be why I can shoot Glocks better than 1911's
If not for the grip safety, I could wrap the 1911 grip with baseball bat grip tape for better purchase.

 

[JDR]

I have a Gen4 G-21 that is perfect for what it was designed for, as an excellent duty pistol. I can shoot it accurately, but not quite as accurately as I can shoot my Dan Wesson Valor. I shoot trashcan ammo with the G-21 that I wouldn't run through the DW on a dare. I enjoy shooting them both for different reasons.

 

[herrwalther]

I think the OP is trolling. This just has to be one of those "Glock Hate, 1911 Great" posts

Then I declare that any person on THR who thinks Glocks are the best or even good, to be a troll as well.

OP the trigger can make a huge difference in how well you shoot. No matter how light or short a striker fired trigger is, they can never be be as short (close to light) as a 1911 trigger.

 

[Sunray]

Glocks will never be target pistols and neither will a .40 S&W be a target cartridge.
Mind you, if you're getting that kind of accuracy with a Springfield Mil-Spec's crappy sights and trigger, it's a miracle.

 

[JDGray]

My entry level SA1911 Mil spec, it the tightest fitted 1911 I have or have owned. Very accurate, and reliable.

 

[jmr40]

An out of the box Glock will shoot right with most out of the box, unmodified mid level 1911's, such as the SA MIL-SPEC. Once you get into the high end target grade 1911's or those heavily modified the 1911 will have a slight advantage, but it takes a pretty good shot to tell the difference.

This was at 50', about 16 yards.

 

[orionengnr]

A 1911 trigger makes it fairly easy to shoot well ("fairly", "easy" and "well" being relative terms).
To put it simply--a lot more people find it easier to shoot a 1911 accurately, at least, in my experience.

Go to the bullseye shooting events for center fire handguns and see how many Glocks there are - now count the 1911's .

Yep. For Steel Plate or other "action shooting" purposes, the Glock is "combat accurate", and that is good enough.
But...I've never seen a Glock with a 1 1/2" guarantee, and I sure as Hell cannot shoot a Glock as well as a 1911. Nor can anyone I know.

On the other hand, the Glock can hold approx 2x the number of rounds.
The two pistols appeal to different types of shooters....some own both, I'm sure (as have I), but nearly everyone I know has tried both and prefers one or the other.
Only you can choose what is most important to you.

 

[gazpacho]

A great shooter might be necessary to tell which firearm is more accurate, but a poor shot will show you which firearm is easier to shoot accurately. All other things being equal, a trigger that only does one thing, should function better that a trigger that does MORE than on thing.

Or, look at it this way . . .

For any DA/SA firearm, it is inherently more accurate firing in SA mode than DA mode. So, in general, I would expect a single action firearm to be easier to shoot accurately than a double action firearm.

When you get to talking about machine rest accuracy, personally, I could care less.

 

[JohnKSa]

Final accuracy is dependent on what the pistol "likes". Every gun is a law unto itself. It might like the cheap stuff (which is not necessarily inferior), and throw bad groups with a top shelf priced load. Or vice versa.

That is certainly true--at least to some extent. Guns do have ammo preferences.

However, the OP made the comment that his Glock was doing well when it shot 2.5" groups at 7 yards. That's beyond "bad groups". Something's wrong with the gun and/or the ammo if groups are no better than 2.5" at that distance.

Go to the bullseye shooting events for center fire handguns and see how many Glocks there are - now count the 1911's .

It's definitely true that you'll find single-action, hammer-fired, semi-auto handguns dominate bullseye, but your statement is somewhat misleading in that it strongly implies that the reason 1911's are much more commonly used in bullseye competitions than Glocks are is purely that 1911s are more accurate.

1. In many bullseye competitions, 1911 have been virtually mandated by the rules in at least one of the 3 legs of the match.
2. Bullseye competition is very specialized and there's more to performing well than just having a very accurate handgun. Since the gun is shot one-handed--generally with a fairly loose grip, a light, crisp trigger is critical to good performance.

That said, I'm not going to argue that Glocks are more accurate, or even just as accurate as a good 1911 can be. The main reason I put in my 2cents worth was the comment by the OP that his Glock was doing well to make 2.5" groups at 7 yards. If that's really as good as the gun will do, there's a problem with that specific gun--that's not at all typical of Glock performance.

 

[gazpacho]

I find 2.5" groups at 7 yards to be a perfectly acceptable, if given 2 hands and otherwise unsupported. If it was from a rest, then yes, I would expect to see smaller groups.

2.5"@7yd is probably better than 98% of all US LEOs.

 

[JohnKSa]

2.5"@7yd is probably better than 98% of all US LEOs.

That's probably true.

However, it's irrelevant in terms of what accuracy we should expect from a handgun of decent quality.

This thread is about comparing the accuracy of two handguns. The OP stated that his Springfield would shoot as well at 25 yards as his Glock would at 7 yards.

If that's really true, then he has a truly exceptional Springfield or a Glock with some sort of serious problem with accuracy.

What's almost certainly going on is that the OP THINKS he's comparing the accuracy of two different handguns but is REALLY comparing his ability to shoot the two different handguns.

2.5" at 7 yards may satisfy most people in terms of what THEY can do shooting a handgun, but that is most certainly NOT what they should expect out of their handguns.

As I said earlier, a Glock that truly won't shoot any better than 2.5" at 7 yards has some kind of a problem. Most handguns (Glocks included) will shoot smaller groups than 2.5" at more than twice the stated 7 yard distance.

...given 2 hands and otherwise unsupported. If it was from a rest, then yes, I would expect to see smaller groups.

A person who can't shoot offhand groups of 2" at 15 yards can't make useful comparisons of handgun accuracy without shooting from a rest. That's because they're not shooting well enough for the deciding factor in the group size to be the handgun in question.