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

[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.