Shorter pistols more accurate? 43 vs 48 and 19 vs 17?

[Sanch]

I own a 19, 17, 43, and 48. I got them at different times in life and I don’t want to sell them but if I were starting over now with what’s available I may just standardize on g48.

But what I’ve noticed is I shoot the shorter one better of the pairs. My groups with the 43 are a lot tighter than the 48. And my 19 groups are much tighter than my 17. I owned a 34 a long time back and sold it because that also was less accurate for me.

So I’m wondering which of the following are to blame:

My specific 48 and 17 got the glock factory crapshoot and they aren’t great guns. And my 43 and 19 I got lucky with.

I haven’t shot the 48 and 17 enough to break them in. I shoot them poorly so that makes me not want to shoot them and I tend to ccw a 43 or a 19 anyway. The 48 I bought as a proof of concept gun to test and replace my 19 in the carry rotation but I shoot my 48 terribly. My performance is 19 > 43 > 17 > 48. Maybe forcing myself to push 1k rounds through them will polish out any kinks?

I haven’t shot the 48 and 17 enough to get used to them and it’s all user error. The recoil impulse feels very different and it feels like I’m jerking the shot. It feels like there’s a dwell time for lack of a better word almost like a black powder rifle where you are waiting patiently for the gun to go off. Of course it’s not really that slow but it subjectively feels slow and objectively makes sense the bullet has a longer barrel to pass through but really at like 1200 feet per second the time difference is in the ten thousandth of a second which must be imperceptible.

I’m screwing myself psychologically because I think I’d shoot them worse and it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

Might be some harmonic resonance issues? I’ve heard shorter rifle barrels can be more accurate due to less vibration of the barrel as the gun shoots.

When I first got my 43 I shot it like crap compared to the 19 and today with some new fiber optic sights in them, I was shooting it as good or better than I shoot my 19 which is crazy. But I’ve done a ton of dry fire on the 43, and have been shooting it live fire a bit so maybe I’ll get better with the 48 and 17 if I dry fire and live fire them more.

Is there any technical reason the 43 would our perform a 48 and a 19 would a 17?

[john c]

I have a G34, and find that the heavier muzzle on the gun (the same slide weight, but the muzzle is farther out from the hand, so the slide mass has more leverage) means that under recoil I get more muzzle flip. I haven't noticed this between the 17 and 19, but for separate reasons have moved to a G45 from my G17 for duty use. I shot the G17 for so many years, it feels normal, but I guess I prefer the shorter slide and full size grip of the G45.

I find the same to be true of the G48 vs G43x.

[camsdaddy]

I own a 19, 17, 43, and 48. I got them at different times in life and I don’t want to sell them but if I were starting over now with what’s available I may just standardize on g48.

But what I’ve noticed is I shoot the shorter one better of the pairs. My groups with the 43 are a lot tighter than the 48. And my 19 groups are much tighter than my 17. I owned a 34 a long time back and sold it because that also was less accurate for me.

So I’m wondering which of the following are to blame:

My specific 48 and 17 got the glock factory crapshoot and they aren’t great guns. And my 43 and 19 I got lucky with.

I haven’t shot the 48 and 17 enough to break them in. I shoot them poorly so that makes me not want to shoot them and I tend to ccw a 43 or a 19 anyway. The 48 I bought as a proof of concept gun to test and replace my 19 in the carry rotation but I shoot my 48 terribly. My performance is 19 > 43 > 17 > 48. Maybe forcing myself to push 1k rounds through them will polish out any kinks?

I haven’t shot the 48 and 17 enough to get used to them and it’s all user error. The recoil impulse feels very different and it feels like I’m jerking the shot. It feels like there’s a dwell time for lack of a better word almost like a black powder rifle where you are waiting patiently for the gun to go off. Of course it’s not really that slow but it subjectively feels slow and objectively makes sense the bullet has a longer barrel to pass through but really at like 1200 feet per second the time difference is in the ten thousandth of a second which must be imperceptible.

I’m screwing myself psychologically because I think I’d shoot them worse and it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

Might be some harmonic resonance issues? I’ve heard shorter rifle barrels can be more accurate due to less vibration of the barrel as the gun shoots.

When I first got my 43 I shot it like crap compared to the 19 and today with some new fiber optic sights in them, I was shooting it as good or better than I shoot my 19 which is crazy. But I’ve done a ton of dry fire on the 43, and have been shooting it live fire a bit so maybe I’ll get better with the 48 and 17 if I dry fire and live fire them more.

Is there any technical reason the 43 would our perform a 48 and a 19 would a 17?

There are many who find the 26 more accurate then its bigger siblings. There have been articles written about it over the years. Maybe its the weight of the gun or the way it fits your hand.

[critter]

A longer barrel (which is usually combined with a longer grip) can exacerbate flaws in either your grip/trigger control or the gun itself (almost always it's the former), or, conversely, it can mitigate flaws a bit. Grip size/shape and trigger reach/pull differences can translate into a difference in how you operate the pistol.

As for Glocks, I shoot a 27/26 (and even the 42) like a boss. That hump feels exactly right to me. I shoot a 23/19 well, but the grip is just different enough in the 'hump' position that it doesn't feel quite as good in hand and it changes how I handle it. I shot a 17 several times, and it felt different still. In extremely slow methodical, concentrated fire I shot the 17 the best, but in anything more rapid, I just couldn't handle it as well. If I shot only the 17, I'd adapt to the feel but there's no point since I wouldn't carry it anyway.

It's easier to take one "baby bear" pistol that feels just right and master it than to master a bag of 'em.

[Kirk]

In a ransom rest, mechanical accuracy will likely be slightly better with a longer barrel; however, practical accuracy will obviously vary depending on the individual. Example: a lot of MRA bullseye shooters like a 6" barrel while others perform better with a 5" barrel.

My honest guess is you are shooting the lighter/shorter guns better because the longer/heavier guns are exasperating grip/alignment issues and your "wobble zone" is larger.

[Rex G]

Mechanical accuracy, with shorter-barreled weapons, can be real. It can depend upon the weapon system. There is nothing new about this. Plenty has been written, since before the internet was a common thing. I seem to remember that “baby” Glocks, in more than one model series, have been credited with better mechanical accuracy. I never saw any reference that indicated the larger Glocks provided “poor” accuracy, in comparison. Notably, these examples were with prior-generation Glocks.

P-F member Mas Ayoob may have written on this subject.

Let’s keep in mind that Glocks are not famous for being the most accurate pistols, compared to some other platforms.

A short grip can mask some faults, such as a milking motion with the pinkie finger, as the pinkie finger is removed from the equation.

If you want best answers, however, provide more figures, such as distances, group sizes, abd descriptions or images of point of impact versus point of aim.

Personally, my eyes can aim a longer-barreled weapon better, and, for orthopedic reasons, I have stopped shooting Glocks with grips shorter than G17-length.

[Kanye Wyoming]

Mechanical accuracy, with shorter-barreled weapons, can be real. It can depend upon the weapon system. There is nothing new about this. Plenty has been written, since before the internet was a common thing. I seem to remember that “baby” Glocks, in more than one model series, have been credited with better mechanical accuracy. I never saw any reference that indicated the larger Glocks provided “poor” accuracy, in comparison. Notably, these examples were with prior-generation Glocks.

P-F member Mas Ayoob may have written on this subject.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2012/11/baby-glock-26/

[tlong17]

Glock 26 still has a place in this world of slimline pistols of similar capacity. Great pistol.

[Bucky]

Perhaps this thread should be titled shorter GLOCK pistols more accurate. Perhaps even, shorter 9mm Glocks. There is a thread floating around here where I discuss how inaccurate my 34 was. My suspicion is it’s not the barrel length per say, but the way the bigger guns lockup. My 34 felt like there was barely any lockup at all. Perhaps the bullet doesn’t even leave the barrel before it “tilts”. Hmm, now that I type that, in affect the length could play a part. The shorter guns, particularly the 26 and 43 have much tighter lockups, and probably require it from an engineering standpoint.

With the proper lockup, the longer barrels can be amazingly accurate. My 34 now has a match fit BarSto barrel, and it will tear a ragged hole at 25 yards off a sand bag if you do your part.

In other platforms I have with long versus short barrels, like 1911s, Berettas, CZs, the longer barreled gun’s are typically more accurate.

[Jason M]

My specific 48 and 17 got the glock factory crapshoot and they aren’t great guns. And my 43 and 19 I got lucky with.




Can you elaborate on this? What generation are the 19 and 17?

[gato naranja]

Mechanical accuracy, with shorter-barreled weapons, can be real. It can depend upon the weapon system. There is nothing new about this. Plenty has been written, since before the internet was a common thing.

Yep. It goes back a LONG way. Even back when black powder was the only game in town and barrel length was often taken to ridiculous lengths, some people were concluding that a shorter barrel was often the more accurate, despite not completely burning the charge or not maximizing the sight radius. "There is nothing new under the sun."

Back in the days when John T. Amber was still editing Gun Digest, one of the contributors had done a study of .22LR pistol barrels that concluded - all other factors being equal - the more rigid the barrel, the more potential accuracy. It was explained that the shorter a barrel of any given diameter was, the more potentially accurate it would be; similarly, the thicker the barrel of any given length would be likewise. That (now dimly-remembered) article was the origin of my preference for thicker barrel walls (relatively speaking). Somewhere around that time, another writer had opined that if sight radius was rendered moot by optics, something like a bull-barreled T/C Contender could shade carbines and rifles due to the shorter, stiffer barrel.

(The most successful crow eradicator of my acquintence in those days did, in fact, use a bull-barreled Contender with a pistol scope... a setup quite unorthodox at that time and place. He took a lot of ribbing from people for using a handgun rather than a proper varmint rifle, but he just chuckled about it and went on about his business. How much success was due to his marksmanship and fieldcraft versus the firearm is open to speculation.)

I personally don't shoot well enough to conclude that, for instance, a Glock 26 in my hands will mechanically outshoot a G19 or G17. Once I got past about 45, my eyes let me shoot a 19 better than a 17, and nowadays I find the 26 sight picture less troublesome. In my case, closer-coupled iron sights make short handguns work better for me regardless of possibly a more inherent mechanical accuracy of one versus the others.

[P30]

I’m screwing myself psychologically because I think I’d shoot them worse and it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.
That's exactly what I was thinking.

PS:
Jerry Miculek says*: "Trigger pull is more important than sight aligment". Perhaps you notice the wobble more with longer sight radius, you want to do it too well and then you screw up the trigger pull? Accept a little wobble and just continuously increase the pressure on the trigger.

___
* I suppose, it was somewhere in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pic_C6Adt3Q) where he said it or in this one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChSazF41q-s) (both are great).

[Nephrology]

In my 100% subjective experience, I have always been more accurate with my G26 at distance (>10yd) than other 9mm glocks. YMMV.

[M2CattleCo]

I can shoot a G26 and G43 better for slow fire accuracy than I can with any other Glock.

All around performance? G17 by a good margin vs all others.

[CCT125US]

For instance.... take a G34 and a G26, with identical sights. The FS on the G26 will visually fill more of the notch and give less wiggle room.

[JBP55]

At 25 yards slow fire with Gen 2/3/4 before I had vision issues I always shot best in this order:

1. G34
2. G17
3. G19

With the new Glocks and my poor vision and trembling hands I still shoot the G34 slightly better than the G17 or G45.
The shorter G19 frame does not work real well for me so I recently changed to a G48 for carry.

[DocGKR]

Greater sight radius may help alignment; longer barrels may help with complete powder burn, but all other factors being equal, short stiff barrels are generally more mechanically accurate.

[GJM]

Greater sight radius may help alignment; longer barrels may help with complete powder burn, but all other factors being equal, short stiff barrels are generally more mechanically accurate.

I was told by a reliable source some years ago, that when the FBI tested a bunch of pistols at 50 yards, that the Glock 26 was the most accurate (precise) of any of the non-1911 pistols they tested.

As pointed out, there are competing factors — with more iron sight radius a help on one end of the spectrum, and mechanical accuracy on the other end. When I was having fits with some M&P 9 pistols shooting big groups at 25, I always used a Glock 26 as part of the evaluation sessions, to rule out there wasn’t something wrong with me.

[Gio]

I was told by a reliable source some years ago, that when the FBI tested a bunch of pistols at 50 yards, that the Glock 26 was the most accurate (precise) of any of the non-1911 pistols they tested.


While this was true at some point, and certainly was the case for a gen3 26 I had, the gen5 17’s are more mechanically accurate out of a ransom rest than the 19’s. I do not know about gen5 34’s and 26’s.

Regardless though, most shooters will hardly be able to discern the difference. We’re talking 0.4-.5” at 25 yds, less than an inch at 50.

There are some other non-mechanical factors likely at play, but this really only applies to slow bullseye style shooting and not any kind of action shooting:
1. A shorter sight radius gun will have less perceived sight movement. This may help shooters commit to pressing through the sight wobble easier without inducing poor technique.
2. A shorter sight radius with the same width front sight is going to appear fatter, which makes the light bars/gap between the front sight and rear sight smaller, which is easier to line up perfectly.

If you were to put a front and rear sight on a g34 that gave you the same sight picture with very narrow light bars, you’d likely find you were just as accurate or more accurate.

Of course, this doesn’t apply to action shooting, where a longer sight radius provides a very real advantage in allowing you to accept a much wider range of sight misalignment to still hit your target.

[BobLoblaw]

G26 is the only Glock that I'll never sell. I can't run it quite as fast but it's much more accurate in my hands than the 19s I used to have or the 17s. I used to think it was just me. Chalking it up to anatomical interfacing issues, I didn't warm back up to them until the slim lines came out. Feels good to know I'm not totally crazy.

[Fordtough25]

In my experience I shoot my Gen5 G17 and G48 far better than I shoot my older Gen 3 models. Not sure I can explain why but they seem to be laser beams in my hands, and I love them. Lol

[Mjolnir]

Mechanical accuracy, with shorter-barreled weapons, can be real. It can depend upon the weapon system. There is nothing new about this. Plenty has been written, since before the internet was a common thing. I seem to remember that “baby” Glocks, in more than one model series, have been credited with better mechanical accuracy. I never saw any reference that indicated the larger Glocks provided “poor” accuracy, in comparison. Notably, these examples were with prior-generation Glocks.

P-F member Mas Ayoob may have written on this subject.

Let’s keep in mind that Glocks are not famous for being the most accurate pistols, compared to some other platforms.

A short grip can mask some faults, such as a milking motion with the pinkie finger, as the pinkie finger is removed from the equation.

If you want best answers, however, provide more figures, such as distances, group sizes, abd descriptions or images of point of impact versus point of aim.

Personally, my eyes can aim a longer-barreled weapon better, and, for orthopedic reasons, I have stopped shooting Glocks with grips shorter than G17-length.

I used to think that Glocks weren’t that accurate until I got my Gen 5s. They are plenty accurate.

Here is a G45 MOS w/ 3.25 MOA RMR sandbagged at 25 yards. One shot pulled because the clown next to me opened up with his Draco pistol.

[Navin Johnson]

I own a 19, 17, 43, and 48. I got them at different times in life and I don’t want to sell them but if I were starting over now with what’s available I may just standardize on g48.

But what I’ve noticed is I shoot the shorter one better of the pairs. My groups with the 43 are a lot tighter than the 48. And my 19 groups are much tighter than my 17. I owned a 34 a long time back and sold it because that also was less accurate for me.

So I’m wondering which of the following are to blame:

My specific 48 and 17 got the glock factory crapshoot and they aren’t great guns. And my 43 and 19 I got lucky with.

I haven’t shot the 48 and 17 enough to break them in. I shoot them poorly so that makes me not want to shoot them and I tend to ccw a 43 or a 19 anyway. The 48 I bought as a proof of concept gun to test and replace my 19 in the carry rotation but I shoot my 48 terribly. My performance is 19 > 43 > 17 > 48. Maybe forcing myself to push 1k rounds through them will polish out any kinks?

I haven’t shot the 48 and 17 enough to get used to them and it’s all user error. The recoil impulse feels very different and it feels like I’m jerking the shot. It feels like there’s a dwell time for lack of a better word almost like a black powder rifle where you are waiting patiently for the gun to go off. Of course it’s not really that slow but it subjectively feels slow and objectively makes sense the bullet has a longer barrel to pass through but really at like 1200 feet per second the time difference is in the ten thousandth of a second which must be imperceptible.

I’m screwing myself psychologically because I think I’d shoot them worse and it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

Might be some harmonic resonance issues? I’ve heard shorter rifle barrels can be more accurate due to less vibration of the barrel as the gun shoots.

When I first got my 43 I shot it like crap compared to the 19 and today with some new fiber optic sights in them, I was shooting it as good or better than I shoot my 19 which is crazy. But I’ve done a ton of dry fire on the 43, and have been shooting it live fire a bit so maybe I’ll get better with the 48 and 17 if I dry fire and live fire them more.

Is there any technical reason the 43 would our perform a 48 and a 19 would a 17?

Still waiting to hear about the Glock factory crapshoot?

Could you articulate the differences between the crapshoot guns that are good and the ones that are not good and how we might be able to tell that.

Thanks in advance.

PS. I believe this question came up a couple months ago.