Glock 34 or Glock 17 for IDPA?

[mscott327]

I carry a G30 and I shoot the same gun for IDPA. I'm looking to upgrade my equipment to play the "game" I also heard that the G34 was out of production due to low sales.

Which one would you get and why? The G17 or G34?

[fuse]

I carry a G30 and I shoot the same gun for IDPA. I'm looking to upgrade my equipment to play the "game" I also heard that the G34 was out of production due to low sales.

Which one would you get and why? The G17 or G34?

Probably only the top 5% of shooters can tell a difference.

Also, I doubt the G34 is going anywhere.

[Nephrology]

I shoot with a G17RTF because it's what I have. I don't think a G34 would make my scores go up. Maybe in IPSC with their farther targets.

[jlw]

I shoot an SSP legal 17 in both SSP and ESP. I may get a little better accuracy out of the 34, but I am faster on target with the 17 and run the 17 better at speed.

[mscott327]

I'm leaning toward the more readily available G17, but keep the feedback coming.

[mizer67]

The G34 is a little more forgiving shooting at speed / distance.

You can also use an even softer bunny fart load than in the G17 and make PF, since the G34 will typically chrono a few PF higher due to the longer barrel.

You'll be a little slower on transitions with the G34.

The performance gap is small, if any, shooter to shooter.

[jar]

If I were a Glock guy, I'd go 34. I shoot M&Ps and find the 5" noticeably easier to shoot fast than the 4.25. The 34 shouldn't be that hard to find. Anyone who told you it was going to be discontinued due to low sales was probably trying to sell you the 17 they had in their case.

[DonovanM]

There's a whole 1oz difference between the two, I'd really love to see some hard data regarding people shooting differently between them outside of the benefits of the longer sight radius. I think it's just a matter of expectation.

Anyway, I'd buy the one you're more likely to carry as an alternative to the G30. That's probably the G17 if you're not sure. The only reason I'd recommend someone buy the G34 is if they were really wanting that longer barrel... in which case they'd already be set on the G34. If you're not sure, just get the 17.

[Mr_White]

I've used the Gen3 G17 for a number of years, then recently switched to the Gen3 G34 last year when the opportunity presented itself.

I shoot the G34 better now than I shot the G17 before, but I cannot assign that to the gun because I have been practicing diligently during that whole time, which I would think makes vastly more difference than the gun itself, especially when the guns under discussion are almost identical.

I also haven't run the kind of performance comparisons that might tell me my splits are faster with the 34 and transitions and handling are faster with the 17, which seems to be a recurring theme in other people's opinions, though I don't disagree with them.

The G34 is currently my favorite. It's nothing more than enjoyment and sentimental attachment. I have slightly more faith in the reliability of the G17, but my G34s have been good too (but none of any of them truly perfect.)

Bottom line is that I think it makes little difference.

You might consider which, if either, of the G17 and G34 you might actually carry in daily life. It seems advantageous to use the same gun for training/practice, competition, and carry. If you would do that with the G17 but not the G34, that might be a good reason for the G17. Or, figure out how to carry the G34 all the time. :cool:

[Sparks2112]

I'm leaning toward the more readily available G17, but keep the feedback coming.

I dont have a hard time getting either. Gen 4 19s otoh are unobtanium right now.

[JV_]

Gen 4 19s otoh are unobtanium right now.That's news to me. They're plentiful in my area.

[secondstoryguy]

I owned a G34 for years and recently traded into a Gen 3 G17 a few months ago. After I got the G17 I put a "-" connector in it and did a side by side Pepsi challenge with the G17 and G34 consisting of multiple range trips with a timer. I've found them to be very close in performance at my level of shooting. The 34 seems to be a little more precise in the 20+ yard shots but the difference is very slight(if any at all). The biggest difference to me is that the G34 seems to point ever-so slightly better and doesn't black out the lens of my WML as fast as the G17. Your splitting hairs if you ask me.

[jetfire]

If you already have a G30, why not just stay with the .45 and upgrade to the Gen4 Glock 21?

[jar]

If you already have a G30, why not just stay with the .45 and upgrade to the Gen4 Glock 21?

I originally had a snide response, but I'll be more helpful and provide a list of reasons I'd prefer a 17/34 for IDPA:

1. Ammo cost is significantly less.
2. 9mm is easier to shoot
3. G21 is gigantic (I haven't shot a 21SF or a Gen4, but the gen2 I tried a while back felt like a brick)
4. There's far more competition in SSP than CDP, at least where I am. At the match I shot on Saturday there were 40 shooters in SSP and 6 in CDP.

[mscott327]

I originally had a snide response, but I'll be more helpful and provide a list of reasons I'd prefer a 17/34 for IDPA:

1. Ammo cost is significantly less.
2. 9mm is easier to shoot
3. G21 is gigantic (I haven't shot a 21SF or a Gen4, but the gen2 I tried a while back felt like a brick)
4. There's far more competition in SSP than CDP, at least where I am. At the match I shot on Saturday there were 40 shooters in SSP and 6 in CDP.

Where did you shoot Saturday? I shot Saturday and we had 40 people shooting. It took all day with only 2 squads.

[mscott327]

I originally had a snide response, but I'll be more helpful and provide a list of reasons I'd prefer a 17/34 for IDPA:

1. Ammo cost is significantly less.
2. 9mm is easier to shoot
3. G21 is gigantic (I haven't shot a 21SF or a Gen4, but the gen2 I tried a while back felt like a brick)
4. There's far more competition in SSP than CDP, at least where I am. At the match I shot on Saturday there were 40 shooters in SSP and 6 in CDP.

IDPA is a 9mm game. The G30 has a very short sight radius. I see myself at a disadvantage since I do shoot the G30 in SSP. I also agree that the ammo cost is less, I reload and it will be approximately $.14 a round to relaod 9mm versus my $.18-.19 now.

[Nephrology]

IDPA is a 9mm game. The G30 has a very short sight radius. I see myself at a disadvantage since I do shoot the G30 in SSP. I also agree that the ammo cost is less, I reload and it will be approximately $.14 a round to relaod 9mm versus my $.18-.19 now.

Do you care more about winning or about familiarity with your carry pistol?

I think if you move to 9mm you should also be considering a trade on the g30, if ammo costs are really that persuasive.

[JonInWA]

I have both a G17 and G34, both Gen 3s (along with two G19s and a G21, all also Gen 3s). Between the G17 and G34, both are great guns; I really think that it depends upon which gun you feel most comfortable with (i.e., balance and sight radius-wise, and how you shoot with each). Additionally, it also depends upon which sights, connector and spring combination you prefer/do the best with.

To answer your question directly based on MY empirical experience, while I'd probably genarically say "It doesn't make a difference between the two," I do have to admit that I recently shot my most accurate IDPA match ever, with the G34 (using Warren Tactical sights, a OEM Glock "minus" connector, and a NY1 spring)-but in the same 6 month period, I also shot my best Classifier ever (not that that's necessarily much to write home about) with my G17-which uses Glock steel sights (more specifically, a Glock steel rear and a Trijicon supplied-through-Glock steel (non tritium, and exactly the same profile as the OEM Glock polymer front sight, just made in steel and in a screw-on mounting), the standard connector, and the standard coil trigger spring...

I think that the G17 balances out slightly better than the G34, but that's probably only of any concern in strong and/or weak hand only firing-and then, my G19 balances out better than either of them, and I've consistently done extremely well with it; so you might want to consider a G19 as well. For distance shooting, undoubtedly the G34 does the best, but then again it has the best sights for distance shooting; if I had the Warren Tactical sights on all 3 guns, I might think otherwise. (And I've had my fastest GSSF times with the G17, even when shot concurrently with the G34...)

So-I'd go with the one that you feel/shoot the best with, and has the best triggerpull (which'll vary slightly from gun to gun). Frankly, you might want to consider getting a G17, and using the dollar savings over the G34 to invest in a set of Warren (or comparable) sights, familiarize with the gun as it comes (standard connector, coil trigger spring), and then after 500-1000 rounds downrange, experiment with various spring/connector alternatives. I'm having some very interesting results with a "dot" connector, coil spring, and Gen 3.5 triggerbar (with smooth trigger) in one of my Gen 3 G19s...

Best, Jon

[mscott327]

I have both a G17 and G34, both Gen 3s (along with two G19s and a G21, all also Gen 3s). Between the G17 and G34, both are great guns; I really think that it depends upon which gun you feel most comfortable with (i.e., balance and sight radius-wise, and how you shoot with each). Additionally, it also depends upon which sights, connector and spring combination you prefer/do the best with.

To answer your question directly based on MY empirical experience, while I'd probably genarically say "It doesn't make a difference between the two," I do have to admit that I recently shot my most accurate IDPA match ever, with the G34 (using Warren Tactical sights, a OEM Glock "minus" connector, and a NY1 spring)-but in the same 6 month period, I also shot my best Classifier ever (not that that's necessarily much to write home about) with my G17-which uses Glock steel sights (more specifically, a Glock steel rear and a Trijicon supplied-through-Glock steel (non tritium, and exactly the same profile as the OEM Glock polymer front sight, just made in steel and in a screw-on mounting), the standard connector, and the standard coil trigger spring...

I think that the G17 balances out slightly better than the G34, but that's probably only of any concern in strong and/or weak hand only firing-and then, my G19 balances out better than either of them, and I've consistently done extremely well with it; so you might want to consider a G19 as well. For distance shooting, undoubtedly the G34 does the best, but then again it has the best sights for distance shooting; if I had the Warren Tactical sights on all 3 guns, I might think otherwise. (And I've had my fastest GSSF times with the G17, even when shot concurrently with the G34...)

So-I'd go with the one that you feel/shoot the best with, and has the best triggerpull (which'll vary slightly from gun to gun). Frankly, you might want to consider getting a G17, and using the dollar savings over the G34 to invest in a set of Warren (or comparable) sights, familiarize with the gun as it comes (standard connector, coil trigger spring), and then after 500-1000 rounds downrange, experiment with various spring/connector alternatives. I'm having some very interesting results with a "dot" connector, coil spring, and Gen 3.5 triggerbar (with smooth trigger) in one of my Gen 3 G19s...

Best, Jon
Thanks, Great advice! I'm looking at getting the Warren Tactical Sevigny Competition Sight Set with Black non-serrated rear sight and a red fiber optic front sight.
I use a Ghost 3.5 connector kit with wolf springs in my G30 and I plan on getting them again.

[LeeC]

Somewhere I read that, counter to what one might expect, a G34 was more comfortable for some in AIWB carry than a G17. Makes sense though when you consider the variety in human anatomy. Might carry be a factor in the choice? At some point, sight radius and weight-inertia become a minus rather than a plus (haven't taken my CX4 Storm to the range since the RSO said I had to use TWO hands) but body-fit is also a factor. ;)

[jar]

Where did you shoot Saturday? I shot Saturday and we had 40 people shooting. It took all day with only 2 squads.

Worcester Pistol and Rifle Club in Massachusetts. 60 some shooters, match ran from 10AM to about 3PM. 6 squads of 10-12.

[Magsz]

Somewhere I read that, counter to what one might expect, a G34 was more comfortable for some in AIWB carry than a G17. Makes sense though when you consider the variety in human anatomy. Might carry be a factor in the choice? At some point, sight radius and weight-inertia become a minus rather than a plus (haven't taken my CX4 Storm to the range since the RSO said I had to use TWO hands) but body-fit is also a factor. ;)

Individual anatomy or build MUST be considered in regard to this comment exactly like you said.

I cannot even draw a G34 from the appendix position due to how high i need to raise my elbow in order for the muzzle to clear my belt line. I am very high waisted.

I am currently undergoing the same dilemma as the original poster.

I started life as a glock shooter in April of 2011 shooting a Gen 4 G19 and i absolutely loved the pistol. I needed a production gun in October of 2011 and decided to pick up a Gen 4 G17 since the 34's were hard to find at that time. I figured i would also be able to carry the G17 in the APP position if i got a wild hair up my ass to carry a larger gun whereas the 34 would be strictly a game gun.

Having said this, after 11k rounds through the G17 i have a love hate relationship with it. I consistently put down quicker splits and transition between targets faster with my G19 due to the shorter muzzle. The gun recoils harder and flips higher but tracks more consistently than my 17. I find the 17 to be "wobbly" in all conditions.

As of late, i have been having grass is greener on the other side syndrome. I have a hankering to pick up a 34, not because i think i am going to shoot it demonstrably better but simply because the distribution of weight, that 1 ounce being on the muzzle may help with the "wobbliness" of the larger guns. I also look at what the top competitors in this country are shooting and they're all running 34's. I respond to this with a big ol question mark and i wonder what it is that i dont know.

The only real points that stand out to me are as follows:

1. Ability to run even more reduced power ammunition and still make power factor due to the longer muzzle.
2. Better distribution of weight on the 34 with that 1 ounce being on the muzzle to reduce flip.
3. Longer sight radius doesnt mean much to me as i am accurate enough (always trying to get better) with my G19. The wider margin of error on the longer guns may pay off however.

So..what dont i know guys? :)

[JonInWA]

I'm thinking that if you're encountering wobbliness with the G17, you're likely to experience that or more of the same with a G34, a it's only .89 of an ounce heavier than a shorter-slide G17. The more that I get into pistol shooting, the more convinced I am that accuracy devolves roughly 75% around trigger control/pull, and 25% around sights (assuming, of course, that relatively speaking you're dealing with a decent pistol with decent sights to start with-which you are by definition with any of the Glocks discussed).

Look, you're pretty satisfied with your G19 already; my thoughts are that you'd be better off dedicating your time and resources around that gun, perhaps concurrently experimenting with various trigger spring/connector and sight options, and that dedicated/intensive practice and use will pretty much eridicate your recoil and muzzle flip issues. Not to be sarcastic, but c'mon-it's a 9mm, not a .416 Rigby that we're dealing with here...

Another hardware alternative could be the G19C, but I'd suggest trying my suggestions above first.

Best, Jon

[jar]

3. Longer sight radius doesnt mean much to me as i am accurate enough (always trying to get better) with my G19. The wider margin of error on the longer guns may pay off however.

It's not just about accurately. I can shoot a 2" j-frame with a horrible trigger almost as accurately as my 5" M&P gamer gun, but it takes boat loads more time. The action sports aren't about accuracy, they're about as much speed as possible with acceptable accuracy. If you shoot the G19 better, there's nothing wrong with sticking with it. It's just that most people don't find that to be the case.

19C is a no-go for a game gun, since it'd put him in Open division against optics, better comps, and 29 round mags.

[Magsz]

Guys, lets get something straight here.

I never said recoil or muzzle flip was a problem with the G19. I was actually saying i LIKED it due to the slide velocity and the way the gun recovers after lift off.

I like the SNAP of my G19 whereas the "kerclunk" of my G17 is somewhat annoying.

Recoil and muzzle climb is only ever a problem when the gun physically hurts to shoot or tires me out prematurely, ie a .40 caliber handgun.

I will not compete with a G19 (at least seriously which is where i am trying to go with this) as it has its own limiting factors, ie the smaller magwell which does matter to me in production. We also come to the issue of the 4 inch barrel versus the 5+ incher. Velocity matters in this game.

I am looking at this from a purely gamer perspective so keep that in mind as well.

[UGAGrad10]

If you're coming at it from a purely gamer prospective, which is what I did/do in the shooting games, then the G34 hands down. There is a reason that the top shooters shoot those guns, they were specifically designed to give the greatest advantage and still be allowable by the rules. I shoot a 34 with sevignys and it's both fast in close and accurate at distance. The real reason is that you don't have to have a perfect sight picture since the radius is so long, as long as the target is relatively close (i.e. <15) and the fiber is in the notch you can drill 0's/A's all day.

[JonInWA]

Guys, lets get something straight here.

I never said recoil or muzzle flip was a problem with the G19. I was actually saying i LIKED it due to the slide velocity and the way the gun recovers after lift off.

I like the SNAP of my G19 whereas the "kerclunk" of my G17 is somewhat annoying.

Recoil and muzzle climb is only ever a problem when the gun physically hurts to shoot or tires me out prematurely, ie a .40 caliber handgun.

I will not compete with a G19 (at least seriously which is where i am trying to go with this) as it has its own limiting factors, ie the smaller magwell which does matter to me in production. We also come to the issue of the 4 inch barrel versus the 5+ incher. Velocity matters in this game.

I am looking at this from a purely gamer perspective so keep that in mind as well.

Then you might want to check out the Brian Enos forum(s), which is far more (i.e., almost exclusively) oriented to gun games than this forum (and I don't mean that as a criticism of either, or of you).

Here's the link: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?act=idx

Best, Jon

[mscott327]

If you're coming at it from a purely gamer prospective, which is what I did/do in the shooting games, then the G34 hands down. There is a reason that the top shooters shoot those guns, they were specifically designed to give the greatest advantage and still be allowable by the rules. I shoot a 34 with sevignys and it's both fast in close and accurate at distance. The real reason is that you don't have to have a perfect sight picture since the radius is so long, as long as the target is relatively close (i.e. <15) and the fiber is in the notch you can drill 0's/A's all day.
I looking at putting the Warren Tactical Sevigny competition sights on my G34. Plain black back and fiber optic front. How do you like them?

[jthhapkido]

I looking at putting the Warren Tactical Sevigny competition sights on my G34. Plain black back and fiber optic front. How do you like them?

They are great. (For me at least.) That being said, I actually like the Warren Tactical (non-Sevigny) plain rear over the Sevigny rear sight. Might not make a difference to you, but according to the timer I'm a bit faster on acquisition with the Warrens compared to the Sevignys.

My 2 older G34s both had Warren/Sevigny sights on them (with FO). My current G17 has Warren Tac FO front and plain rear. All good. Haven't ever broken a fiber rod, either---I've had the same rod on my older G34 for at least 31,000 rounds. :)

[JV_]

I actually like the Warren Tactical (non-Sevigny) plain rear over the Sevigny rear sight. Might not make a difference to you, but according to the timer I'm a bit faster on acquisition with the Warrens compared to the Sevignys.I'm just the opposite, I have a strong preference for the Sevigny - specifically carry version.

[jthhapkido]

I'm just the opposite, I have a strong preference for the Sevigny - specifically carry version.

I tried his carry version, and the rear sight bit the heck out of me. Matter of fact, that is the reason I first tried the regular Warren Tactical rear sight---I liked the sights overall, but the Sevigny rear contour was killing me. The standard WT rear sight angles inward, so I put one of those on the gun, and it didn't bite me at all---and then I found out that I got on target even quicker with them, so I switched over for my competition sights, too.

Both good rear sights, in my opinion. One just bites me. :)

[Mr_White]

My perception that the Warrens and/or Sevigny sights might bite me or eat my shirt during AIWB carry (a rear sight that extends to the true back end of the slide rubs against my abdomen when holster AIWB), coupled with the cost of them, is what got me to try the Ameriglo Defoors in the first place. I have been very happy with them, but I also have not tried the Warrens or Sevigny sights for more than a very few rounds, so I have not really given them a fair shake.

[jetfire]

I prefer the standard Warren rear sight to the Sevigny version; and I definitely prefer a black front sight to a fiber optic for playing gun games. While the Warren fiber is really good, I tend to experience vertical stringing when I use fiber optic sights if I'm shooting for groups, whereas the black-on-black sight picture I get with a black front and warren rear lends itself to better accuracy without giving up speed.

I see a huge difference between fibers and black fronts on long distance shots, anything beyond 20 yards I tend to get better hits faster with a black blade instead of a fiber.

[JonInWA]

I chose a "middle ground" solution; I prefer the Warren Tacticals, but then apply (first) a base coat of white Liquid Paper to the back face of the front sight (to act as a primer coat), and then apply a coat of Testor's Neon Green gloss hobby paint. It really pops out the front sight, and significantly speeds up my sight acquisition and alignment. The end result is something midway between a black sight and a fiber optic sight; dimmer than a fiber optic, but much brighter than a plain black sight, with none of the durability issues inherent to fiber optics (and additionally with crisp, discernable edges).

Best, Jon