Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

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

  1. #1

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

    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?

  2. #2
    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.

  3. #3
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanch View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    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.
    Last edited by critter; 05-15-2020 at 06:54 AM.
    You will more often be attacked for what others think you believe than what you actually believe. Expect misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and projection as the modern normal default setting. ~ Quintus Curtius

  5. #5
    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.

  6. #6
    Site Supporter Rex G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    SE Texas
    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.
    Retar’d LE. Kinesthetic dufus.

    Don’t tread on volcanos!

  7. #7
    Site Supporter Kanye Wyoming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    A little too close to New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by Rex G View Post
    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...baby-glock-26/

  8. #8
    Glock 26 still has a place in this world of slimline pistols of similar capacity. Great pistol.

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanch View Post
    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?

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •