Shorter pistols more accurate? 43 vs 48 and 19 vs 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 where he said it or in this one (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.