HEY!!!! If you have ever read about a gun in a well known mag, then it probably is a damn good one. I carry a Glock (G23,G27 depending on the weather) simply because I can shoot mine very well and I find them very concealable. Yes my kimber 45 is more accurate than my Glocks yet less accurate than my 8" Python, but my 5'8",180 lbs frame can't conceal those guns well except in -20 degree weather. Bottom line is if the gun is comfortable, you can shoot it well, and it is reliable, then it is the best gun ever made period!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I beg to differ... My Glock did 3" @ 25yds
- Thread starter john232
- Start date
Special Agent
Inactive
I carry a Glock for self-defense, concealed carry. I own that Glock as well as a S&W M66 .357 Magnum and a Ruger Mark II .22LR. They are listed from least to most accurate...
The .22LR will absolutely kick any .45's bum-bum in any distance competition. I am confident that that Ruger could out-shoot any stock .45 ACP on the market, short of a Thompson Contender in that caliber, perhaps.
Why would I make such claims?
Because I am a real marksman with that Ruger. I can hit tin cans so far away I can barely see them, every time.
Get that Glock or my snubbie .357 Magnum in my hand and I can't shoot past 50 feet with much accuracy.
WHY, might you ask? Because they are designed for different things, folks. The Glock has a big, thick, indestructible set of stock dot-sights.
The .357 has a stock set of iron sights with an orange front post.
The Ruger has (stock) adjustable sights that are impossible to use without a couple seconds of lining up. They don't point well for combat/fast operations. They are clearly and obviously for setting right on top of that tiny little red speck WAYYYYYYYYYYYY over yonder.
When the gun shoots, I watch the red splotch dance. With the Glock, I can usually read the ingredients list before I am able to shoot it, that being HOW MUCH CLOSER that Coke can has to be before the Glock is in its element.
But what would I want in any given life-and-death situation??? The Glock, by far. I don't aim my Glock at distances under 20 feet, I Point-Shoot it. I simply extend my arm and fire, using the natural point of aim I have developed with the thing after thousands of rounds of 9mm ammo.
I can put an entire 19+1-round magazine into the head of a silhouette out to 30 feet... That's combat accuracy. That's more than good enough.
Sure, most of you guys could kick MY bum-bum in a competition, your groups are super-tight and you have spent a lot more money on your guns, but we will all still likely survive the Life-and-Death Situation.
Except for that guy who read this post wrong and started carrying a Ruger Mark II for self-defense... He'll still be sighting the thing long after his wallet, car keys and wife are gone.
But he can likely outshoot any of us stock-gun CCW people at the range, without a doubt...
LOL.
Sorry this post is so long, just lighten up on Glocks a bit, folks. They have a well-established place, and it ain't in competition accuracy.
The .22LR will absolutely kick any .45's bum-bum in any distance competition. I am confident that that Ruger could out-shoot any stock .45 ACP on the market, short of a Thompson Contender in that caliber, perhaps.
Why would I make such claims?
Because I am a real marksman with that Ruger. I can hit tin cans so far away I can barely see them, every time.
Get that Glock or my snubbie .357 Magnum in my hand and I can't shoot past 50 feet with much accuracy.
WHY, might you ask? Because they are designed for different things, folks. The Glock has a big, thick, indestructible set of stock dot-sights.
The .357 has a stock set of iron sights with an orange front post.
The Ruger has (stock) adjustable sights that are impossible to use without a couple seconds of lining up. They don't point well for combat/fast operations. They are clearly and obviously for setting right on top of that tiny little red speck WAYYYYYYYYYYYY over yonder.
When the gun shoots, I watch the red splotch dance. With the Glock, I can usually read the ingredients list before I am able to shoot it, that being HOW MUCH CLOSER that Coke can has to be before the Glock is in its element.
But what would I want in any given life-and-death situation??? The Glock, by far. I don't aim my Glock at distances under 20 feet, I Point-Shoot it. I simply extend my arm and fire, using the natural point of aim I have developed with the thing after thousands of rounds of 9mm ammo.
I can put an entire 19+1-round magazine into the head of a silhouette out to 30 feet... That's combat accuracy. That's more than good enough.
Sure, most of you guys could kick MY bum-bum in a competition, your groups are super-tight and you have spent a lot more money on your guns, but we will all still likely survive the Life-and-Death Situation.
Except for that guy who read this post wrong and started carrying a Ruger Mark II for self-defense... He'll still be sighting the thing long after his wallet, car keys and wife are gone.
But he can likely outshoot any of us stock-gun CCW people at the range, without a doubt...
LOL.
Sorry this post is so long, just lighten up on Glocks a bit, folks. They have a well-established place, and it ain't in competition accuracy.
ihavaglock
Inactive
I shoot my Glocks just fine. I've never had a problem getting good groups with my Glocks. Besides, i have better things to worry about than shooting 1" groups at 25 yards...The glock is a combat gun, it isn't intended to be used as a Precision Target Pistol...
The National Matches at Camp Perry are probably the ultimate proving grounds for pistol accuracy. As far as I know, no Glock has ever been used to win a match there. Nor has any H&K, for that matter.
Outside of matches, I think that Glocks are close enough to other brands in practical accuracy that it's not worth arguing about.
Outside of matches, I think that Glocks are close enough to other brands in practical accuracy that it's not worth arguing about.