Glock Gen 3 vs Gen 5 25 yard precision testing - AmmoSquared Youtube

[SecondHandSmoke]

I've recently found a youtube channel that has been conducting ransom rest accuracy testing with a Gen 3 vs a Gen 5 Glock and many types of ammunition.

I've found it to be very interesting and recommend checking it out. Specifically I found a post by the manufacturer of the Ransom Rest regarding the fact that many semi auto's throw a flyer on the first manually loaded round. I remember Mas Ayoob talking about this in an article once, but I was hoping PF.com may have some ideas of why this occurs? Mas had a name for it if my memory serves me right, but I can't remember what it was... something like 4+1 syndrome or 9+1 syndrome meaning you get a flyer the first shot.

Found this video and read comments wow this is good stuff.. and Jimhans1 is correct but if We can elaborate. We have learned also for basically all semi auto rifle and pistol when you hand rack or even drop the slide release the forces applied to seat the round is not the same as when round fires and when firearm auto cycles. You only see this repeatable in a proper test in a Ransom Rest. Cold bore shot yes but even after 16 rounds it will still do it to a degree. Therefore it is the manually loaded round. Each firearm and ammo combination is bit different but we have seen consistency in this, sometime the firearm and round will throw that first round repeatedly to the 9 clock position some combinations throw it to the 6 or 3. quite interesting some at one inch some 2". We don't see this in revolvers or bolt action. some operators lift machine off battery position in recoil direction to throw first round above target in the berm when testing semi autos. That's only if you can if your berm is high enough. You can in some situations with care, leave last round in chamber from the settling rounds and carefully change mags and continue your test. If you have to change target make sure rest is pointing up and not down range. Care and safety is always needed around firearms of course. This method can also be recommended because we have also had a few semi autos on the last round prints slightly different as well, possibly due to slide locks back and vibration, forces or barrel pressure, or gas cycle. it is interesting. Please comment as well. And I love what AmmoSquared is doing here.I myself like to know what those flyer rounds do and in most cases when you find the right ammo to firearm combo, the flyer, hand rack round can sometimes become minor or miniscule. It still may be a flyer but may not be 1" off it may only repeat at half inch off. And knowing which way that firearm with that ammo may fly to is very valuable info. Thank you great video AmmoSquared

It explains it pretty well, but does this occur even when firing offhand? I can't imagine Bullseye shooters could tolerate the first round from their string being that far off. Any thoughts/info is appreciated.

[SecondHandSmoke]

Their Gen 3 sample held better groups with the 147 American Eagle FMJ and the 147 HST in comparison to the Gen 5.

With 115 gr. Speer Blazer, the Gen 5 held better group than the Gen 3. That ammo has never shot well for me in my Gen 3 19's

Speer Lawman 115 shot an 8 inch group with the Gen 3, and a sub 3 inch group with the Gen 5. This ammo has also never seemed to work well in my Gen 3 19.

[okie john]

I've recently found a youtube channel that has been conducting ransom rest accuracy testing with a Gen 3 vs a Gen 5 Glock and many types of ammunition.

I've found it to be very interesting and recommend checking it out. Specifically I found a post by the manufacturer of the Ransom Rest regarding the fact that many semi auto's throw a flyer on the first manually loaded round. I remember Mas Ayoob talking about this in an article once, but I was hoping PF.com may have some ideas of why this occurs? Mas had a name for it if my memory serves me right, but I can't remember what it was... something like 4+1 syndrome or 9+1 syndrome meaning you get a flyer the first shot.

Found this video and read comments wow this is good stuff.. and Jimhans1 is correct but if We can elaborate. We have learned also for basically all semi auto rifle and pistol when you hand rack or even drop the slide release the forces applied to seat the round is not the same as when round fires and when firearm auto cycles. You only see this repeatable in a proper test in a Ransom Rest. Cold bore shot yes but even after 16 rounds it will still do it to a degree. Therefore it is the manually loaded round. Each firearm and ammo combination is bit different but we have seen consistency in this, sometime the firearm and round will throw that first round repeatedly to the 9 clock position some combinations throw it to the 6 or 3. quite interesting some at one inch some 2". We don't see this in revolvers or bolt action. some operators lift machine off battery position in recoil direction to throw first round above target in the berm when testing semi autos. That's only if you can if your berm is high enough. You can in some situations with care, leave last round in chamber from the settling rounds and carefully change mags and continue your test. If you have to change target make sure rest is pointing up and not down range. Care and safety is always needed around firearms of course. This method can also be recommended because we have also had a few semi autos on the last round prints slightly different as well, possibly due to slide locks back and vibration, forces or barrel pressure, or gas cycle. it is interesting. Please comment as well. And I love what AmmoSquared is doing here.I myself like to know what those flyer rounds do and in most cases when you find the right ammo to firearm combo, the flyer, hand rack round can sometimes become minor or miniscule. It still may be a flyer but may not be 1" off it may only repeat at half inch off. And knowing which way that firearm with that ammo may fly to is very valuable info. Thank you great video AmmoSquared

It explains it pretty well, but does this occur even when firing offhand? I can't imagine Bullseye shooters could tolerate the first round from their string being that far off. Any thoughts/info is appreciated.

I remember this from when I shot bullseye. Experienced shooters would hold off for the first shot. I know that sounds extreme, but back when they shot revolvers, they knew which chamber in the cylinder was the most accurate and would use it to shoot their entire slow-fire string.


Okie John

[JHC]

I've heard it and suspected it from time to time but can't hold to Ransom consistency to prove or disprove. When the whole group is good, did I errr and throw the flyer into the group?

If it happens it may be gun dependent too. I suspect I've seen it more in my 9mm Operator, heavily customized to a hard fit by Dave Sams but not every time. I should ask him btw. But I don't recall seeing it obvious in the .45's, an LB Operator and a full Sams' hard fit gun.

With those or with Glocks, my warm ups often start with a cold 5 shot freestyle to a B8 at 25. I often see a "10" right off the bat. But sometimes a flyer when I thought the press was good. Just not enough repeatable consistency to know and that bugs me.

I superstitiously tend to try and chamber the first round of a slow fire group with a vigorous slingshot vs slide release.

Maddening mystery.

[okie john]

You also have to bear in mind that setting up and running a Ransom Rest are skill sets on their own. You don't just drop a pistol into one and start shooting tiny groups.


Okie John

[CCT125US]

You also have to bear in mind that setting up and running a Ransom Rest are skill sets on their own. You don't just drop a pistol into one and start shooting tiny groups.


Okie John

^^This^^

Also, with a RR the slide may not exactly return to the same spot as the frame does. Introducing another variable.

[GJM]

I saw the first round flyer enough in shooting a Glock at 100 yards, that I started shooting the first manually cycled round at something closer. Reported it here on PF at the time, and we have discussed it subsequently.

[PensFan]

Ransom rests suck. Plain and simple. Even under the best conditions the inconsistency is often mind boggling. I wouldn’t consider any results using one definitive no matter what.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[GJM]

We have a large sample of Gen 3, 4 and 5 Glock 34 pistols, and the Gen 5 34 pistols are measurably and significantly more accurate than Gen 3/4. All our Gen 5 pistols are quite accurate.

[CCT125US]

I saw the first round flyer enough in shooting a Glock at 100 yards, that I started shooting the first manually cycled round at something closer. Reported it here on PF at the time, and we have discussed it subsequently.

As a side note, I have not experienced this with HK pistols.

[Doc_Glock]

We have a large sample of Gen 3, 4 and 5 Glock 34 pistols, and the Gen 5 34 pistols are measurably and significantly more accurate than Gen 3/4. All our Gen 5 pistols are quite accurate.

I shot a Gen 5 back to back with a Gen 2 and the shooting experience was much different and much better with the Gen 5. Less harsh recoil impulse, less fatigue. I think Glock really did an amazing job with the latest releases.

[GJM]

My wife and I will need to do some 100 yard shooting — her with a G5 34 and me with a VP9 and see if we observe this first shot issue.

[EJO]

We have a large sample of Gen 3, 4 and 5 Glock 34 pistols, and the Gen 5 34 pistols are measurably and significantly more accurate than Gen 3/4. All our Gen 5 pistols are quite accurate.

GJM, would you say this is due to the pistol itself or the sight radius of the pistol? I know you appreciate a red dot sight on a pistol, as do I. In your opinion is a 19x or G45 with a red dot optic as accurate as a G34 with red dot optic? Thanks for your opinion.

[GJM]

GJM, would you say this is due to the pistol itself or the sight radius of the pistol? I know you appreciate a red dot sight on a pistol, as do I. In your opinion is a 19x or G45 with a red dot optic as accurate as a G34 with red dot optic? Thanks for your opinion.

The difference in accuracy between Gen 3/4 and Gen 5 Glock 34 pistols has been observed with iron sights and a red dot. Before the Gen 5 34, the Gen 3/4 34 pistols were less accurate for us than 17/19/26 pistols, but with Gen 5 all the pistols seem very accurate, as in two inches at 25 yards.

[Balisong]

I shot a Gen 5 back to back with a Gen 2 and the shooting experience was much different and much better with the Gen 5. Less harsh recoil impulse, less fatigue. I think Glock really did an amazing job with the latest releases.

Is the recoil impulse the same with the 19x vs other Gen 5s?

[EJO]

The difference in accuracy between Gen 3/4 and Gen 5 Glock 34 pistols has been observed with iron sights and a red dot. Before the Gen 5 34, the Gen 3/4 34 pistols were less accurate for us than 17/19/26 pistols, but with Gen 5 all the pistols seem very accurate, as in two inches at 25 yards.

Understood and thank you.

[SecondHandSmoke]

Ransom rests suck. Plain and simple. Even under the best conditions the inconsistency is often mind boggling. I wouldn’t consider any results using one definitive no matter what.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Do you own one? How many handguns have you tested with a ransom rest? How many Bullseye or PPC matches have you won or competed in?

I know of several PPC champion shooters who have used them for decades for load development with both revolvers and autos.

[SecondHandSmoke]

If folks who have Gen 3/4 and Gen 5 glocks wouldn't mind posting 25 yard groups with various ammo I would really appreciate the info. I'm not interested in "it's more accurate than I am" type statements. I would like to see some honest targets.


I have a theory that Gen 3 Glocks strongly prefer 147 grain ammo, and Gen 5 glocks have improved accuracy with lighter loads.

[Balisong]

If folks who have Gen 3/4 and Gen 5 glocks wouldn't mind posting 25 yard groups with various ammo I would really appreciate the info. I'm not interested in "it's more accurate than I am" type statements. I would like to see some honest targets.


I have a theory that Gen 3 Glocks strongly prefer 147 grain ammo, and Gen 5 glocks have improved accuracy with lighter loads.

I'd be curious about this. My preferred 9mm defense round is 147 HST

[SecondHandSmoke]

Here is a 25 yard group.

5 rounds, Standing, Gen 3 Glock 17, 147 Gr. AE ammo

1.35 inch group.

I've seen quite a few sub 2 inch 5 shot groups out of this gun with that ammo.

147 Grain HST shoots similar sized groups (2 inches when I do my part).

[SecondHandSmoke]

The difference in accuracy between Gen 3/4 and Gen 5 Glock 34 pistols has been observed with iron sights and a red dot. Before the Gen 5 34, the Gen 3/4 34 pistols were less accurate for us than 17/19/26 pistols, but with Gen 5 all the pistols seem very accurate, as in two inches at 25 yards.

My Gen4 34 shoots much larger groups than my Gen 3 G26, G19's, and G17. Interesting to hear someone else say what I've suspected for a while.

[JHC]

My Gen4 34 shoots much larger groups than my Gen 3 G26, G19's, and G17. Interesting to hear someone else say what I've suspected for a while.

I very briefly had a Gen 4 G21 and a GSSF award G35 that didn't group better than about 4" and were easily outshot by some Gen 3 guns I had then. Both slides had a little wobble on the frame with the trigger reset. I think it's more individual gun than models generally with a tip of the hat to the G26 reputation for goodness.

[PensFan]

Do you own one? How many handguns have you tested with a ransom rest? How many Bullseye or PPC matches have you won or competed in?

I know of several PPC champion shooters who have used them for decades for load development with both revolvers and autos.

I've done enough testing with them to make my comments. I will say that I haven't used one for custom hand loads. Only factory duty ammo.

Out of the box molds are crappy at very best.
Custom CNC molds produce much better results. Not everyone has that luxury.
Torque wrench required.
Naturally what and how you mount it has a huge affect in results.

Trust me there are much better systems out there but they are can afford them.

If it's all you have? drive on with your bad self.

When it comes down to true mechanical accuracy. They just aren't very good. Even under the best conditions.

I'm not bitter though.

[Doc_Glock]

Is the recoil impulse the same with the 19x vs other Gen 5s?

The 19x/45 are the only Gen 5 guns I have experience with right now. And I love them with a nearly, but not quite HK fanboy love. Super enjoyable to shoot.

[Will_H]

Trust me there are much better systems out there but they are can afford them.

If it's all you have? drive on with your bad self.

When it comes down to true mechanical accuracy. They just aren't very good. Even under the best conditions.

I'm not bitter though.

Out of a perverse curiosity, and my own ignorance, what is better? What's the bee's knees for measuring pistol accuracy?

[Gio]

I did a bunch of ransom rest testing borrowing a rest from a buddy and found that the first shot flier is a real thing. If I recall, the official instructions with the ransom rest recommend throwing out the first round as well.

Some general take aways:

1. Guns are very ammo sensitive when you're trying to get sub 2" out of a "combat" handgun. A load that is accurate in one gun may not be as accurate in another. The best groups I got were about 1.2", but the worst were easily 4-6" out of the same gun with different ammo.

2. Gen5 glocks seem to be on average slightly more accurate then gen3 and 4, but you still have to account for the first point. As stated, the best groups were in the 1.2 range with gen5's, and the best I got out of gen4 with a stock barrel was 1.6". A KKM in a gen4 gave me a 1.2" as well.

[okie john]

If folks who have Gen 3/4 and Gen 5 glocks wouldn't mind posting 25 yard groups with various ammo I would really appreciate the info. I'm not interested in "it's more accurate than I am" type statements. I would like to see some honest targets.

I‘ve been shooting a Gen5 G19 MOS with Ameriglo suppressor sights (tritium front, black rear) for a while. I haven’t been shooting much over the last several months, so that’s definitely a limiting factor, but my gut sense is that its accuracy is quite a bit better than Gen3 pistols, somewhat better than Gen4 pistols, and on par with the VP9.

The VP9 required a drive-the-dot hold. At 25 and 50 yards, different loads hit different POIs within the dot. Some were at six o’clock, others at nine, but the groups were tight enough to reveal trends. That did not happen with Gen3 pistols—they just made a cloud of bullet holes in the target—but it did with Gen4 pistols and I see it to a greater extent in this Gen5 example.

I have not tested enough loads to narrow this difference just to bullet weight. S&B 124-grain FMJ shot better than most loads in my Gen3 and 4 pistols. In the Gen5 G19 MOS, 10-shot groups are about what Gen3 guns did with OEM barrels, or around 4” at 25 yards and 8-10” at 50 yards. It also threw a couple of unexpected flyers in less formal earlier tests.

In my experience, American Eagle 147 FMJ groups either very well or very poorly in a given pistol. In the Gen5 G19 MOS it shot into 3” at 25 yards and 6-8” at 50 yards. That’s a 20-25% improvement, which I’ll take any day of the week.

On the bright side, both loads have the same POI at 25 and 50 yards, which is nice.

Sorry, but I don’t have pictures of targets.


I have a theory that Gen 3 Glocks strongly prefer 147 grain ammo, and Gen 5 glocks have improved accuracy with lighter loads.

I've gone over my notes for the last 5-6 years looking for comments on bullet weight and accuracy in Glock pistols. Based on admittedly small samples, I believe that

Individual guns shoot better with specific loads but that generations either do not or that their preferences are much less pronounced.
Duty ammo outshoots FMJ.
Some FMJ is way better than others.
Testing loads definitely pays off.
The hotter the ammo, the more accurate it tends to be.
The kind of accuracy I'm talking about probably doesn't matter within 15 yards, but doesn't start to show itself until you get to 25 yards.

Take 115-grain S&B FMJ for example. My notes say that one Gen3 pistol shoots it as well as my best handloads (10 shots in 4" at 50 yards), and that it's the most accurate pistol/load combination I've tried since I began keeping notes. My notes also say that a different Gen3 pistol I tested around the same time groups S&B 115 FMJ so poorly that shooting it in that pistol is literally a waste of ammo.

Definitely looking forward to what other folks determine about their guns.


Okie John

[JBP55]

I know a P O S T Firearms Instructor that would fire a round into the berm prior shooting the P O S T course for qualification.

Being on the Pistol Shoot Team for a LEA he always shot a score of 120 which is 100% on the LA. P O S T Qualification.

[PensFan]

Out of a perverse curiosity, and my own ignorance, what is better? What's the bee's knees for measuring pistol accuracy?

Good question. Not many options commercially.

[JHC]

If folks who have Gen 3/4 and Gen 5 glocks wouldn't mind posting 25 yard groups with various ammo I would really appreciate the info. I'm not interested in "it's more accurate than I am" type statements. I would like to see some honest targets.


I have a theory that Gen 3 Glocks strongly prefer 147 grain ammo, and Gen 5 glocks have improved accuracy with lighter loads.

There are scads of them in this 100+ page thread. OTOH it's been going for years so Gen 5's are not in there as much yet.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?12244-Freestyle-shooting-at-25-yds-revisited

[okie john]

Out of a perverse curiosity, and my own ignorance, what is better? What's the bee's knees for measuring pistol accuracy?

I'm not sure that this is the right question.

I started shooting pistols seriously in the mid 70’s. Action shooting was starting to spread, but the bullseye mentality (steel-frame gun, 10 shots in 2" at 50 yards from a machine rest) was still the dominant mindset in building match guns. Tuning the 1911 was still more art than science so there was a need for the level of inquiry that a Ransom Rest made possible, but you didn’t just bolt a Ransom Rest to your pickup tailgate and start testing. Serious users would cast a concrete post 18” square several feet into the ground, build a three-sided shed over the post, then bolt the rest to the post. Then you’d shoot a bunch of rounds to settle the rest onto the post so you could eliminate the variables in the rest itself before you began testing guns and loads. As Pens said, torque wrenches were important.

When you have people addressing the problem on that basis, you get a knowledge base and you can reliably isolate variables in guns and loads, then advance the art based on actual data.

But now everything has changed. Bullseye is all but gone and almost no sport requires that much accuracy from a pistol. $700 production guns can run with the match guns of my youth. We’ve gathered enough data on combat shooting to know that spread-of-your-hand accuracy is adequate, and we’ve shifted focus from making tiny groups at unrealistic distances to getting meaningful hits at speed.

Eventually, we’ll figure out how to create and measure accuracy in plastic-framed pistols, but we're already where we need to be so the question becomes less and less relevant every day.

At the moment, I think that the best way to test accuracy in plastic pistols is to shoot them, improve our technique, keep good notes, and isolate variables. Most important, we need to share what we learn so we all get better.


Okie John

[JonInWA]

My Gen4 34 shoots much larger groups than my Gen 3 G26, G19's, and G17. Interesting to hear someone else say what I've suspected for a while.

While my Gen 3 G34 didn't seem to shoot larger groups than my Gen 3 G17 and G19, it also didn't seem to do anything better than the G17 and G19, which eventually led to it becoming trade bait. Some new G34 owner is likely appreciating it now, with it's excellent condition, Warren Tactical sights, and low roundcount, but 'm not particularly missing it or feeling any compulsion whatsoever to get another G34.

Best, Jon

[Will_H]

I'm not sure that this is the right question.

I started shooting pistols seriously in the mid 70’s. Action shooting was starting to spread, but the bullseye mentality (steel-frame gun, 10 shots in 2" at 50 yards from a machine rest) was still the dominant mindset in building match guns. Tuning the 1911 was still more art than science so there was a need for the level of inquiry that a Ransom Rest made possible, but you didn’t just bolt a Ransom Rest to your pickup tailgate and start testing. Serious users would cast a concrete post 18” square several feet into the ground, build a three-sided shed over the post, then bolt the rest to the post. Then you’d shoot a bunch of rounds to settle the rest onto the post so you could eliminate the variables in the rest itself before you began testing guns and loads. As Pens said, torque wrenches were important.

When you have people addressing the problem on that basis, you get a knowledge base and you can reliably isolate variables in guns and loads, then advance the art based on actual data.

But now everything has changed. Bullseye is all but gone and almost no sport requires that much accuracy from a pistol. $700 production guns can run with the match guns of my youth. We’ve gathered enough data on combat shooting to know that spread-of-your-hand accuracy is adequate, and we’ve shifted focus from making tiny groups at unrealistic distances to getting meaningful hits at speed.

Eventually, we’ll figure out how to create and measure accuracy in plastic-framed pistols, but we're already where we need to be so the question becomes less and less relevant every day.

At the moment, I think that the best way to test accuracy in plastic pistols is to shoot them, improve our technique, keep good notes, and isolate variables. Most important, we need to share what we learn so we all get better.


Okie John


Okie John, I find this kind of history fascinating, as I only really know the "current" way of doing things. There's got to be a wealth of information from those Bullseye days that isn't considered "relevant" today, but it is nonetheless very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

[okie john]

Okie John, I find this kind of history fascinating, as I only really know the "current" way of doing things. There's got to be a wealth of information from those Bullseye days that isn't considered "relevant" today, but it is nonetheless very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

Thanks for the kind words.

The old knowledge (from World War One until roughly the Viet Nam War) isn't entirely lost. Much of what Elmer Keith, Skeeter Skelton, and others of that era wrote about in terms of bullet design and reloading technique came from the bullseye world. Before the NRA became almost entirely focused on politics in the mid 70's, they published solid technical data every month in The American Rifleman and in all kinds of books. You can still find old copies of those books and magazines at gun shows.

About all I can do is put little fragments of it into context here and there.


Okie John

[BehindBlueI's]

If folks who have Gen 3/4 and Gen 5 glocks wouldn't mind posting 25 yard groups with various ammo I would really appreciate the info. I'm not interested in "it's more accurate than I am" type statements. I would like to see some honest targets.


I have a theory that Gen 3 Glocks strongly prefer 147 grain ammo, and Gen 5 glocks have improved accuracy with lighter loads.

If you have an affiliation with a police department, you can get info from the FBI testing that resulted in the 17M/19M being selected. The testing protocol is significantly more controlled than anything you're likely to find on a youtube video or online posts.

You'll find quite a bit of info in the Gen 5 thread, which is admittedly rather lengthy at this point. I don't know diddly about the Gen 3/4 9mms, we were still using .40s then. My information was that the Gen 5s were designed with the 147gr bullet in mind. We are issued the 147gr HST.

[PensFan]

If you have an affiliation with a police department, you can get info from the FBI testing that resulted in the 17M/19M being selected. The testing protocol is significantly more controlled than anything you're likely to find on a youtube video or online posts.

You'll find quite a bit of info in the Gen 5 thread, which is admittedly rather lengthy at this point. I don't know diddly about the Gen 3/4 9mms, we were still using .40s then. My information was that the Gen 5s were designed with the 147gr bullet in mind. We are issued the 147gr HST.

I can attest to this. I’ve seen groups that I would not have believed if I hadn’t seen them with my own eyes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[willie]

That the first(manually loaded)round from a pistol might hit outside the cluster of the remaining rounds has been known for many decades. I won't quote a consensus since my knowledge on the subject is not current. My opinion is that with high grade target pistols the event is not significant(if it does occur). Custom 1911 builders whose customers were bullseye shooters most certainly were aware of the possibility. This type shooting was done offhand using only one hand. Furthermore, when shooters loaded the first round, to protect the hammer/sear engagement, they gingerly let the slide go forward. Some held the hammer back during this operation. Others even held the trigger back before letting the slide drop. These pistols shot extremely tight groups at 50 yards because they were built to extremely close tolerances.

The phenomenon in question may not occur at all with pistols having fixed or pinned barrels. Examples are blowback .22 l.r. and .380 and .32 ACP pistols. Many stock 1911's are loosely fitted with play at the front and back end of the barrel. In these, when charged, pushing down over the chamber will produce visible movement in that direction. I would expect these pistols would likely produce a widely dispersed first shot.

Besides error associated with machine rests, shooter error and variation in ammunition can affect data produced when testing this question. I live and breath cast bullets and can crank out extremely high quality bullets. However, I would never use them in trying to determine the question posed in this thread. If I did, I would not publish the data. If I referred to the findings, I would say that ammo used may have skewed the results.

[BigD]

You also have to bear in mind that setting up and running a Ransom Rest are skill sets on their own. You don't just drop a pistol into one and start shooting tiny groups.


Okie John


I did a bunch of ransom rest testing borrowing a rest from a buddy and found that the first shot flier is a real thing. If I recall, the official instructions with the ransom rest recommend throwing out the first round as well.


I have never used a Ransom Rest. My first instinct was to question whether the Ransom Rest needs a round or two to settle?

Sort of like setting the base plate of a mortar system. Don't expect a round to land exactly where the previous one did until the recoil has set the base plate.

But since that is such an easy and obvious possible explanation, I assume others have thought of that and ruled it out.

[okie john]

I have never used a Ransom Rest. My first instinct was to question whether the Ransom Rest needs a round or two to settle?

Sort of like setting the base plate of a mortar system. Don't expect a round to land exactly where the previous one did until the recoil has set the base plate.

But since that is such an easy and obvious possible explanation, I assume others have thought of that and ruled it out.

It happens whether you use a rest or shoot offhand.


Okie John

[PensFan]

I have never used a Ransom Rest. My first instinct was to question whether the Ransom Rest needs a round or two to settle?

Sort of like setting the base plate of a mortar system. Don't expect a round to land exactly where the previous one did until the recoil has set the base plate.

But since that is such an easy and obvious possible explanation, I assume others have thought of that and ruled it out.

Absolutely.

[Nephrology]

Their Gen 3 sample held better groups with the 147 American Eagle FMJ and the 147 HST in comparison to the Gen 5.

With 115 gr. Speer Blazer, the Gen 5 held better group than the Gen 3. That ammo has never shot well for me in my Gen 3 19's

Speer Lawman 115 shot an 8 inch group with the Gen 3, and a sub 3 inch group with the Gen 5. This ammo has also never seemed to work well in my Gen 3 19.

Both Speer Blazer & Lawman have always shot like garbage through my Gen 3 and Gen 4 pistols. At first I thought it was me, but I spent a day shooting it back to back with Wolf and American Eagle; both of these were substantially more accurate through my Glocks than the Speer product.

[spinmove_]

Both Speer Blazer & Lawman have always shot like garbage through my Gen 3 and Gen 4 pistols. At first I thought it was me, but I spent a day shooting it back to back with Wolf and American Eagle; both of these were substantially more accurate through my Glocks than the Speer product.

Which I find strange. Isn’t the only difference between Speer Lawman and Federal American Eagle the powder? Or am I WAY off base there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Nephrology]

Which I find strange. Isn’t the only difference between Speer Lawman and Federal American Eagle the powder? Or am I WAY off base there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no idea to be honest with you. These were just my vaguely quantitative (mostly qualitative) impressions from some shooting I did a few years ago now. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

[Doc_Glock]

Both Speer Blazer & Lawman have always shot like garbage through my Gen 3 and Gen 4 pistols. At first I thought it was me, but I spent a day shooting it back to back with Wolf and American Eagle; both of these were substantially more accurate through my Glocks than the Speer product.

I am honestly less than impressed with Speer products given their price and reputation.

[45dotACP]

Both Speer Blazer & Lawman have always shot like garbage through my Gen 3 and Gen 4 pistols. At first I thought it was me, but I spent a day shooting it back to back with Wolf and American Eagle; both of these were substantially more accurate through my Glocks than the Speer product.Interesting. My dedicated practice ammo is Lawman and it prints incredibly good groups with my M&Ps and my Commander 9mm. Never considered the reason I can't shoot a Glock for shit is my ammo choice...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Nephrology]

Interesting. My dedicated practice ammo is Lawman and it prints incredibly good groups with my M&Ps and my Commander 9mm. Never considered the reason I can't shoot a Glock for shit is my ammo choice...

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

For whatever reason, I find that 115gr Wolf WPA is some of of the most accurate ammo out of my glocks (not necessarily the most consistent). Absolutely no idea why. 147gr HST is the best, but I haven't tested a lot of other JHPs. 147gr AE works well too.

[GJM]

Circa 2014, finding excellent accuracy with 115 Lawman in Gen 3 17 pistols out to 100 yards:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13358-Group-shooting-25-50-75-and-100-yards/page4

[GNiner]

Lawman 147's perform incredibly well out of my Gen 3 Glock 19s.

[Nephrology]

Circa 2014, finding excellent accuracy with 115 Lawman in Gen 3 17 pistols out to 100 yards:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?13358-Group-shooting-25-50-75-and-100-yards/page4

I had terrible luck with 115gr Lawman, but I would be more than willing to concede that you are better positioned to observe these differences (or not) than I am. 95% of the time, ammunition is not the limiting factor in achieving my accuracy goals.

[GJM]

I had terrible luck with 115gr Lawman, but I would be more than willing to concede that you are better positioned to observe these differences (or not) than I am. 95% of the time, ammunition is not the limiting factor in achieving my accuracy goals.

Interestingly, I did not find the 115 Lawman to shoot well in my Gen 4 Glock 19 pistols, which surprised me after my Gen 3 17 experience.

[Nephrology]

Interestingly, I did not find the 115 Lawman to shoot well in my Gen 4 Glock 19 pistols, which surprised me after my Gen 3 17 experience.

I was doing my shooting with Gen 4 guns at the time, so that would be consistent.

[willie]

I too have had not so great luck with Lawman 115 great ammo but have no data to bolster my claim.

[LtDave]

For whatever reason, I find that 115gr Wolf WPA is some of of the most accurate ammo out of my glocks (not necessarily the most consistent). Absolutely no idea why. 147gr HST is the best, but I haven't tested a lot of other JHPs. 147gr AE works well too.

I’ve had similar results with the Wolf WPA in several guns. Shoots very well for the price. The older AE 147 has done real well in my experience. I just got some with the new bullets and so far it hasn’t shot as well for me as the original.

My experience with 9mm guns is that they will shoot best with either a hot 115 grain load or a moderate velocity 147 grain load, no way to tell until you test. Speer Lawman 115 TMJ shoots great out of my P320RX, but just ok out of most of my other guns. IMI 115 ball is probably the most accurate 9mm ball round for me across a variety of guns. Winchester 115 Value Pack has turned in a couple of surprising performances as well. My Walther PPS RMSc loves S&B 115 ball.

[SecondHandSmoke]

Glock 19 Gen 3 (3 pin).
25 yards free
5 rounds 124 Gr. XTP handloads.

Really cold day, around 10 degrees but no wind.

Sub 3 inches on a B8 bull. First round out of the gun was the high left shot.


34621

[farscott]

Bullseye is still around; it just is not as popular as it once was. The state-of-the-art has come quite a way in the last seventy years, and the results show it. Nowadays one can find off-the-shelf pistols that will shoot into less than 2.5 inches at fifty yards -- if the shooter and ammo can do it. Here is the original test targets from my old David Sams 9x19 1911. Note that the targets are for ten rounds and thirty rounds.

Jerry Keefer built a barrel testing fixture to test barrels he plans on using in his builds. My understanding is he rejects more barrels than he accepts. Joe Chambers builds guns that shoot into less than two inches at fifty yards. The late Travis Strahan built some amazing guns (the Accu-Lock) that focused on getting the barrel and slide into exactly the same relationship for each and every shot. I was fortunate enough to compete with one of his guns.

[SecondHandSmoke]

Glock 26 Gen 3
25 yards, Freestyle
115 Grain S&B

5 shots @ 3.1 inches

34628

[SecondHandSmoke]

Bullseye is still around; it just is not as popular as it once was. The state-of-the-art has come quite a way in the last seventy years, and the results show it. Nowadays one can find off-the-shelf pistols that will shoot into less than 2.5 inches at fifty yards -- if the shooter and ammo can do it. Here is the original test targets from my old David Sams 9x19 1911. Note that the targets are for ten rounds and thirty rounds.

Jerry Keefer built a barrel testing fixture to test barrels he plans on using in his builds. My understanding is he rejects more barrels than he accepts. Joe Chambers builds guns that shoot into less than two inches at fifty yards. The late Travis Strahan built some amazing guns (the Accu-Lock) that focused on getting the barrel and slide into exactly the same relationship for each and every shot. I was fortunate enough to compete with one of his guns.

Those targets are incredible. Thanks for sharing.

[farscott]

Those targets are incredible. Thanks for sharing.

Those targets humble me because I have not come anywhere close to the pistol's potential. Every miss is on me, not the pistol.

[pastaslinger]

I've recently found a youtube channel that has been conducting ransom rest accuracy testing with a Gen 3 vs a Gen 5 Glock and many types of ammunition.

I've found it to be very interesting and recommend checking it out. Specifically I found a post by the manufacturer of the Ransom Rest regarding the fact that many semi auto's throw a flyer on the first manually loaded round. I remember Mas Ayoob talking about this in an article once, but I was hoping PF.com may have some ideas of why this occurs? Mas had a name for it if my memory serves me right, but I can't remember what it was... something like 4+1 syndrome or 9+1 syndrome meaning you get a flyer the first shot.

Found this video and read comments wow this is good stuff.. and Jimhans1 is correct but if We can elaborate. We have learned also for basically all semi auto rifle and pistol when you hand rack or even drop the slide release the forces applied to seat the round is not the same as when round fires and when firearm auto cycles. You only see this repeatable in a proper test in a Ransom Rest. Cold bore shot yes but even after 16 rounds it will still do it to a degree. Therefore it is the manually loaded round. Each firearm and ammo combination is bit different but we have seen consistency in this, sometime the firearm and round will throw that first round repeatedly to the 9 clock position some combinations throw it to the 6 or 3. quite interesting some at one inch some 2". We don't see this in revolvers or bolt action. some operators lift machine off battery position in recoil direction to throw first round above target in the berm when testing semi autos. That's only if you can if your berm is high enough. You can in some situations with care, leave last round in chamber from the settling rounds and carefully change mags and continue your test. If you have to change target make sure rest is pointing up and not down range. Care and safety is always needed around firearms of course. This method can also be recommended because we have also had a few semi autos on the last round prints slightly different as well, possibly due to slide locks back and vibration, forces or barrel pressure, or gas cycle. it is interesting. Please comment as well. And I love what AmmoSquared is doing here.I myself like to know what those flyer rounds do and in most cases when you find the right ammo to firearm combo, the flyer, hand rack round can sometimes become minor or miniscule. It still may be a flyer but may not be 1" off it may only repeat at half inch off. And knowing which way that firearm with that ammo may fly to is very valuable info. Thank you great video AmmoSquared

It explains it pretty well, but does this occur even when firing offhand? I can't imagine Bullseye shooters could tolerate the first round from their string being that far off. Any thoughts/info is appreciated.

I've read of that first shot flyer issue multiple times, pertaining to extreme accuracy competitions like bianchi and I think it might be mentioned in Brian Enos' book. I believe it has to do with how the round gets chambered (manually versus recoil).

[JBP55]

I've read of that first shot flyer issue multiple times, pertaining to extreme accuracy competitions like bianchi and I think it might be mentioned in Brian Enos' book. I believe it has to do with how the round gets chambered (manually versus recoil).

Could it possibly happen because the first round is fired from a cold barrel?

[GJM]

Could it possibly happen because the first round is fired from a cold barrel?

I don’t think so, because I observed the first shot flyer with Glocks, over extended sessions when I was working 50 and 100 yards. Haven’t tried exploring this with Gen 5 pistols yet.

[JRV]

I know a P O S T Firearms Instructor that would fire a round into the berm prior shooting the P O S T course for qualification.

Being on the Pistol Shoot Team for a LEA he always shot a score of 120 which is 100% on the LA. P O S T Qualification.

I’ve been through this thread twice now, and this still struck me as odd. The POST Course starts with 25-yard barricade slow-fire string (12 shots in a minute) at a full-value scoring ring that’s almost a foot wide and even taller. The first-round berm shot sounds more like superstition than a guarantee of mechanical consistency. A mechanical “first round flier” might open up a group by an inch or two. That’s negligible on a target the size of a POST 2-pt zone.

[JBP55]

I’ve been through this thread twice now, and this still struck me as odd. The POST Course starts with 25-yard barricade slow-fire string (12 shots in a minute) at a full-value scoring ring that’s almost a foot wide and even taller. The first-round berm shot sounds more like superstition than a guarantee of mechanical consistency. A mechanical “first round flier” might open up a group by an inch or two. That’s negligible on a target the size of a POST 2-pt zone.

That is the LEO P O S T course and it is nothing like the P O S T Firearms Instructor Course and his groups were normally sub 4" for the entire course which includes shooting Dominant Hand Only and Non Dominant Hand Only.

[JRV]

That is the LEO P O S T course and it is nothing like the P O S T Firearms Instructor Course and his groups were normally sub 4" for the entire course which includes shooting Dominant Hand Only and Non Dominant Hand Only.

That makes a lot more sense. What’s the instructor course? Double distance, half the par time, smaller target area?

Also, how is the “cold bore shot” administered? I have never done an LE qual that wasn’t run on a cold line to start, and I have never done an LE qual that allowed “dumping” a surplus round on the clock.

(I have done both the FL and SC qual courses)

[JBP55]

That makes a lot more sense. What’s the instructor course? Double distance, half the par time, smaller target area?

Also, how is the “cold bore shot” administered? I have never done an LE qual that wasn’t run on a cold line to start, and I have never done an LE qual that allowed “dumping” a surplus round on the clock.

(I have done both the FL and SC qual courses)

The Instructor Course starts in the Prone Position at 50 Yards, next is Bullseye at 25 yards and it goes on from there if you pass these. If not you go to the house. You can look it up online.
I have shot on quite a few LEA ranges starting in 1972 with a revolver and only saw the 1 shot before qualifying once from a former P O S T Firearms Instructor who said he had a new pistol and needed to see if the sights were right from Glock. This was approved by the Instructors. He was Retired but was formerly on a LEA Pistol Shooting Team for a major City.

[JRV]

The Instructor Course starts in the Prone Position at 50 Yards, next is Bullseye at 25 yards and it goes on from there if you pass these. If not you go to the house. You can look it up online.
I have shot on quite a few LEA ranges starting in 1972 with a revolver and only saw the 1 shot before qualifying once from a former P O S T Firearms Instructor who said he had a new pistol and needed to see if the sights were right from Glock. This was approved by the Instructors. He was Retired but was formerly on a LEA Pistol Shooting Team for a major City.

Thanks for all the detail. Interesting stuff.