Practical accuracy difference between a G34 and a G17

[Hunter2011]

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
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]

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]

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 I’ll have to take it to a computer service to recover pictures that I didn’t 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 wasn’t apparent.

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

 

[Stringfellow]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...