It's not me, it's the gun (so now what?) - Gen4 G17 issues

[LittleLebowski]

The formula for determining sight adjustment/height/etc. is:

Impact Error X Sight Radius/Range = Adjustment Needed

So using your value of .02 as the adjustment already in place, we get:

X (impact error) times 6.5" (your G17's sight radius)/900 (25 yards in inches) = 0.02

When you run the algebra, you should have an impact error of 2.76 inches at 25 yards from an .02 change in sight position.

I use this formula all the time to determine sight heights and amount of adjustment needed to zero irons on a gun, but, there's lots more in play. The first thing is us and our minor inconsistencies that affect shooting performance. Next is the gun, which is not a real decent performer in the precision group department at 25 yards (although the Gen 5s are much better, in my experience). Ammo varies from gun to gun and lot to lot. Light conditions, grip variances and shooting glasses lens grind error (which can be dramatic in some cheaper brands) should also be factored into this. Put all of this together and you can see lots of error.

I would look at adjusting the sights and/or getting a set of Dawsons and work really hard on getting your POA/POI squared away.

Seriously great post.

[ASH556]

I finally made it to the range (last week was a whirlwind with work travel and other stuff) today and put 225 rounds through a few different pistols. I'll post some pics up below, but here are the highlights:

1. My best group size of the day came with my Gen 4 17.
2. Best average of groups shot came with my buddy's M&P 2.0.
3. Beretta shot well, but ergonomics and controls were challenging.
4. Glock 19X (Gen 5) was interesting, but not groundbreaking.


As much as it was fun to play with the STI Edge 2011, it was never a real contender. I mostly wanted to see if it would be a super-gun and secondarily wanted to use it as a barometer for my interest in going to a 1911. Bottom line, it's not a super-gun. I actually rather disliked it. Beretta was good, not great, and things like mag release, slide stop, and de-cocker levers were not automatic.

It really comes down to Glock vs M&P 2.0. I shot some almost smokin' groups with the M&P, but then there would be some odd flyers. This is scarily-reminiscent of my previous experience with the M&P gen 1. Another thing that made the M&P appealing was the trigger. My buddy has some kind of super-tuned APEX kit in the gun that makes it feel like a 1911 trigger. That was great to shoot, but I had to alter my grip quite a bit to make it work. Using my normal grip, I would be too high on the trigger face and not deactivate the trigger safety. I do really like the 2.0 frame texture, though. The sights on the M&P were the WOTG Y-notches and the thinner, less-reflective front was easier to pick up against the target vs my TCAP.

The Glock shot pretty well overall, but I'm still fighting the sights for POA vs POI. I drifted the sights back left after my last range session where they were too far right and it appears I overshot it again (even after trying to use the formula above). We're right back at that high left trend again and it's so consistent at this point that I'm ready to change sights. Even if I get the windage dialed-in, I'm still 2.5in high with both Glocks.

HST and Atlanta Arms 115 JHP match have roughly the same POI and group size (4"):





M&P almost good group:





So the bottom line still seems to be that Glock is the way to go. Between having all the support gear and also near-automatic manipulations from so many reps, it's hard to beat; especially when you look beyond 25yd bullseye shooting to other drills involving speed, reloads, draws, etc. It would definitely set me back on the learning curve to switch platforms. The biggest issue I have right now is the sights and a secondary issue is the trigger. One of the range staff let me shoot his 19X, and the Gen 5 trigger was a smoother and more rolling break. Tough to get a good read on accuracy because of the sights the guy had on the gun. I think they were factory 3-dot night sights and I was getting such a glare off the huge Tritium vials that I could barely make out the sights against the target to get a consistent hold. At 7yds, though, x-ring hits were 100%.

So I'm left with the choice of changing sights (and maybe a KKM barrel) for my existing Gen 4 G17's, or jumping ship into the Gen 5's. Part of me says, "If I'm going to change, then just change everything." and the other part of me says, "You have 2 known-reliable and accurate guns, just get them dialed-in."

For sights, I'm thinking Dawson thin (.110) FO fronts with adjustable rears. If I go to Gen 5, I'd probably make at least one of the guns an MOS in anticipation of the Aimpoint ACRO release. RDS pistol seems to be the wave of the future and I don't want to hold out on that as long as I did with carbines (still trying to run iron sights on a carbine in 2010 )

If I go Gen 5, I definitely prefer the 17 length frame, so do I go 17 MOS or wait to do the change until the 45 MOS comes out, or maybe a regular 45 for carry and 17 MOS for other stuff?

[Dragon breath]

If you continue to have huge differences between the two Glocks, try swapping the slides, barrels etc. between the guns. Very quickly you can narrow the problem part.
I figured out a similar problem with a police trade-in Glock 22 I owned a few years ago by doing that.