Can Glocks Compete With The 1911?

[Arch]

If this has been done before, feel free to redirect me.

But does anyone know, if something like a Glock G34 can be made to shoot as accurately as a tuned 1911?

I mean you never see the glocks in any sort of precision match, so I was wondering if it is just the long trigger that holds it back.

 

[Onmilo]

Simple answer, Yes.
The Glock 34 comes with a factory 3.5 pound trigger pull weight.

It's all in the choice of ammunition and sights.

 

[Arch]

But if you bolted it down into a ransom rest, would it group like a match gun?

 

[Krag]

We have a Glocksmith in my area who does custom trigger jobs on Glocks. His triggers have almost no take up, no over travel, break at 2-2.25 lbs. and all the safeties work. In fact they feel just like a tuned 1911 trigger. And it costs a LOT less then similar work on a 1911.

When fitted with a barrel of equal quality, his Glocks will shot alongside a tuned 1911.

He has customized three Glocks for me (G21, 34 & 35) and I have used them for USPSA matches for years now with no complaints whatsoever.

 

[yayarx7]

Are we talking can a Glock be made as competative as the 1911 in action pistol. YES.

Are we talking can Glock be competative in a Bullseye type setting? I do not know of anyone who has pulled this off yet.

 

[Old Fuff]

The Colt/Browning 1911 design has the advantage of having a bushing at the muzzle that can be fitted to both the barrel and slide. I also don't believe there is any way to tighten the fit between the Glock's slide and frame. In terms of pure accuracy I belive the Colt would win hands' down.

 

[BigG]

I have no way of knowing the exact answer to this question, but will just say that the Colt Browning M1911A1 and its attendant 45 ACP cartridge has the benefit of untold millions of taxpayer dollars spent on countless manhours of "free" armory time developing both the weapon and cartridge for our national matches. This "free" research has bled over into the private sector.

If the truth were known, I might guess that the 1911A1 and 45 ACP became as accurate as they are DESPITE any inherent limitations. JMTC YMMV Etc.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

My limited experience with competitive pistol shooting would lead me to believe that the answer is NO.

The problem is the Glock's trigger pull. Even if the hypothetical "match-grade Glock" were just as accurate as the tuned 1911, the Glock would be a bit harder to shoot precisely with that longer, rougher, mushier trigger pull. A good 1911 trigger pull will always be better (from a target shooter's perspective) than a good Glock trigger pull.

The skill of the shooter counts for a lot. Probably even more than the pistol. But given equally skilled shooters, and equally tuned/accutate pistols, I think the 1911 shooter has the advantage.

Glocks are fine pistols, but they're simply the wrong tool for this particular job.

 

[Krag]

I have to agree with BigG. The 1911's dominant position is due to the fact that it was the ONLY American-made semiauto pistol (discounting .25, .32 and .380s) for almost a half century. Shooters and 'smiths had nothing else to play with and as a result JMB's basic (and excellent) design was perfected to a greater degree than any other handgun in history.

If the amount of time, effort and money (both taxpayer and aftermarket) had been devoted to, say, the C96 "Broomhandle" Mauser perhaps it would probably be the dominant pistol in today's competitive market.

Nothing remains stagnant so I expect to see other makers (SIG is trying hard) offer pistols that will challenge the 1911's dominance. And one of these days it will happen and EVERYONE will flock to the new pistol. One thing I have learned after two and a half decades of competitive shooting is that competitors have NO brand loyalty.

 

[Rockstar]

I own, shoot, and like both 1911s and Glocks. I don't believe that Glocks will ever lead the field in bullseye shooting. I do believe that Glock can and does compete with 1911s in more real-world shooting games. Don't think so? Ask Rod Leatham?

 

[Bobby Lee]

Glocks beat 1911's all the time in IDPA type competition.

 

[HSMITH]

"Glocks beat 1911's all the time in IDPA type competition."

I disagree. The indian has more to do with winning in action shooting than the arrow IMO.

 

[Krag]

Bobby - in IDPA they shoot in different divisions. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Bobby Lee]

The indian has more to do with winning in action shooting than the arrow IMO.

That is true but many times the Indians with Glocks outshoot the cowboys with 1911's.

A good shooter can with with either gun.

Some don't tend to believe that but it happens.

 

[valor1]

If you get a good shooter and let him practice with any gun, he can win. Heck, Jerry Miculek competes with revolvers even if the other shooters are using pistols.

 

[Onmilo]

The original poster asked if a Glock can be made to shoot as accurate as a "tuned" 1911.
I don't see where the word "Match" came into play but even so I still stand by my original opinion that with enough time, money, and creativity the Glock could shoot competetive with a Match Grade 1911.
The Match Grade 1911 is not the do all to end all Match pistol either, they are just real popular in the USA.

 

[Berg01]

My firearms instructor with his G21 can damn sure outshoot me with my SW1911....and it has nothing to do with the guns!

 

[Arch]

Onmilo,
I assume that you are refering to my reply, with the "match" reference. I am conincidentally also the original poster. Furthermore I can see how my two posts may be contradictory to one another, but given their context it shouldn't be that hard to decipher the intent of my words.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if most of us think that with a little effort the glock can be made quite accurate, why does no one use them for bullseye type events? Is it just the trigger holding them back from these sports?

Actually if anyone is winning bullseye events with a glock, I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Sean Smith]

So, if most of us think that with a little effort the glock can be made quite accurate, why does no one use them for bullseye type events? Is it just the trigger holding them back from these sports?

Actually if anyone is winning bullseye events with a glock, I'd love to hear about it.

Here is the truth. Most people here don't even know what accuracy means in the context of bullseye shooting at 25-50 yards. So asking this question on this forum, you are likely to get alot of garbage responses.

The accuracy standard for purpose-built bullseye pistols is 10 shots into 1.5" @ 50 yards. The only non-1911 autoloaders that are in that league are the SIG P210 and the Sigarms P226 X-Five, both >$2,000 new (when you can find one at all). Even with a match barrel, a Glock is LUCKY to be half as accurate.

Did I pull that out of my butt? Consider this: Bar-Sto, who has made more barrels that have won more matches of all kinds than anybody, says that 1.25" @ 25 yards is "attainable" with one of their barrels in a Glock. They won't guarantee it, but they say it can be done. Well, bullseye 'smiths routinely use the same company's barrels in 1911s for guaranteed 1.5" @ 50 yard guns. Bearing in mind that accuracy isn't linear between 25 and 50 yards, a 1.25" @ 25 yard gun is more like a 3"+ @ 50 yard gun.

Sounds like small differences, but becomes non-trivial if you are trying to keep all your shots in a 50 yard target's 10-ring that is only a little over 3" across. Every shooter has a margin of error, and a 1.5" gun is more forgiving (and thus more likely to facilitate winning matches) than a 3" gun.

Why is this? Well, all the aftermarket accurizing expertise (and support in aftermarket parts) is in 1911s. You can't get a slide-to-frame fit on a Glock like you can on a 1911, which is a small but non-trivial factor in accuracy. The SIG P210 and its variants have basically been handmade "factory" bullseye guns for the last 50 years or so, so it is easy to see why they are accurate.

Also, the Glock trigger system sucks, and relative to a 1911 pistol with comparable amounts of trigger work, will continue to suck... again in the context of competition guns, which is the subject of this topic.

 

[Island Beretta]

..no need to say anything else.. Sean has said it all!!!

 

[Rockstar]

I like Glocks, but I agree with Sean!

 

[Arch]

Sean,

Thanks for your reply. It sounds like you are spot on the money there. That pretty much answeres my question.

Though I would say that the Tanfoglios can attain bullseye accuracy with ease as well

Cheers.

 

[Sean Smith]

Most people don't understand how handgun accuracy works in general, anyway. They talk about things like "outshooting the gun," which is impossible... you can never shoot better than your gun's capability, only worse. Accurate shooting is mostly the shooter, but claims that it is "the shooter and not the gun" are objectively false... it is a matter of "the shooter AND the gun" together.

Variation is additive. The shooter has a certain amount of "wobble" based on their skill. This is USUALLY, but not always, bigger than the dispersion of the gun (i.e. its theoretical group size). But they add together... a 3" shooter and a 3" gun gives you 6" groups, on average. Give a 3" shooter a 1.5" gun, and you have 4.5" groups. When your 10-ring is maybe 3-1/3" across, you can see how differences in the gun equal differences in your score with the same shooter.

 

[Arch]

Thankyou for your reply Sean. I am well aware of the shooters contribution to accuracy too.

I am just purely interested in the mechanical shortcommings of the Glock. For example, I see that now, there are a few gun smiths that are turning their attention to the Berettas, and attacking problem areas such as the Beretta not having a positive lock up at the muzzel. So I was just wondering what innovations are comming out to lean the Glock into the sporting arena, or if people are just leaving it as a defensive tool, despite its amazing popularity.

 

[Correia]

Mechanical shortcomings? I'm going to defend the Glock and I don't even own one.

There is a pile of conjecture in this thread.

Okay, looking at apples to apples comparison, there are plenty people in the upper levels of USPSA who shoot Glocks (and in the same class as wide body 1911s) and win. The two most common types of guns in action pistol are 1911s and Glocks for a reason.

Any minor mechanical variations and engineering details don't mean jack squat. Just results. I believe high overall at the USPSA nationals was with a Glock last year. Overall pure mechanical bench rest accuracy will go to the 1911. Absolute best trigger pull in the world will go to the 1911. Now put this into human terms in the hands of the best competitors in the world, and the Glock hangs in there just fine.

And I'm a 1911 shooter. Glocks are just as competitive.