I've been doing a lot of reading lately. Mostly about Glocks. When the article is a gun review the Glocks will glow! Some of the articles I been reading have been "Off the Shelf" ammunition review/testing. It seems that the Glock is at its best when left in the safe. When a Glock is loaded and on the firing line, it goes downhill fast. It doesn't seem to differ, bullet type, bullet weight, by 20yds the groups will open up to 6"to7", and at 25yds the groups are 10" plus. I got an old 1911a1 that I borrowed from the Army in Viet Nam in '66 that still shoots better than that . . .
What's with Glock?
- Thread starter Bake
- Start date
- Status
Jim Watson
New member
Strange, there are some GSSF shooters here who do lots better.
PocketCamera
Moderator
glock is a major advertiser
advertising is the only thing that keeps magazines floating above "going out of business this week".
NO ONE is willing to do anything that may make an advertiser angry, like write a bad review of the product.
EVERYONE will alter the results of a shooting test to make a big advertisers gun look good.
case in point, last review i read was a "custom combat 1911" that cost 1200$. they did a range test at 15 yards with mil spec 45 acp 230 grain fmj. It was grouping about an 8" circle.
the writer called it "the ultimate in combat sights. the big spread of bullets meant that you would ensure maximum damage to an attacker by spreading the bullet impacts and damage over a large area of body tissue. instead of limiting the bullets capabilities by keeping the whole magazine in a small area like a 1" circle"
The same magazine had a review on the then new 4" target charter 357 magnum. they said at 25 yards, its abilitiy to keep 2-300 rounds of various weight and velocity 357 magnum and 38 special ammunition inside a 4" circle was substandard for ANY target gun.
advertising is the only thing that keeps magazines floating above "going out of business this week".
NO ONE is willing to do anything that may make an advertiser angry, like write a bad review of the product.
EVERYONE will alter the results of a shooting test to make a big advertisers gun look good.
case in point, last review i read was a "custom combat 1911" that cost 1200$. they did a range test at 15 yards with mil spec 45 acp 230 grain fmj. It was grouping about an 8" circle.
the writer called it "the ultimate in combat sights. the big spread of bullets meant that you would ensure maximum damage to an attacker by spreading the bullet impacts and damage over a large area of body tissue. instead of limiting the bullets capabilities by keeping the whole magazine in a small area like a 1" circle"
The same magazine had a review on the then new 4" target charter 357 magnum. they said at 25 yards, its abilitiy to keep 2-300 rounds of various weight and velocity 357 magnum and 38 special ammunition inside a 4" circle was substandard for ANY target gun.
sigarms228
New member
I have not read anything like that about Glocks nor has that been my experience. On a good day shooting my Gen 2 Glock 19 with Federal American Eagle 124/147 I can put 15 rounds within a 5 inch group at 25 yards without a rest. Yesterday I did 6 inch group with 13 of the 15 rounds shooting Winchester WWB 115 gr.
Glock would never have been selected as pistol of choice for Special Forces, Secret Service, Border Control, and FBI, where is was extensively tested, if it was as inaccurate as you claim.
Here is a Gen 5 Glock 19 tested by American Rifleman. Average extreme spread at 25 yards was 1.68 inches done from ransom rest.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/6/20/tested-glock-19-gen5-mos-fs-pistol/
Glock would never have been selected as pistol of choice for Special Forces, Secret Service, Border Control, and FBI, where is was extensively tested, if it was as inaccurate as you claim.
Here is a Gen 5 Glock 19 tested by American Rifleman. Average extreme spread at 25 yards was 1.68 inches done from ransom rest.
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2019/6/20/tested-glock-19-gen5-mos-fs-pistol/
Last edited:
TruthTellers
New member
This is what I was thinking as well. If in the same rag there was another article written about a similar priced polymer pistol that got rave reviews, you can pretty much tell it's a paid puff piece.
I saw a review for the .32 Charter Professional and the guy mentioned that it shot low and he adjusted his aim higher to hit the bullseye. IMO, he should have given the gun a bad review because a gun with fixed sights should hit to point of aim at standard self defense distances, basically anything within 25 yards with standard, off the shelf ammo.
I'm glad I wasn't an adult in the 80s and 90s because I would have been held hostage by gun rags and their reviews. That's what's nice about having youtube and forums today.
By all means, please tell us which articles show this? Also keep in mind that if these are reports by people shooting offhand or off a bench, it could very well be the shooter and not the gun that is at fault. In fact, that's probably exactly the problem.
Here is an article with a Glock 19 (and 2 other guns) fired at 25 yards from a Ransom Rest, and none of the 15 different loads exceeded 10" even when shooting a full 50 rounds into one group.
https://www.shootingillustrated.com...mo-accuracy-15-loads-in-three-different-guns/
What results were altered? Was the group really 10" and they altered it to 8"?
Please support your claim with evidence.
Seems to be a lot of hatred of gunwriters and claiming that some are dishonest. Why not ask Aguila Blanca on this website if that is true. He claims to have written some articles, so he should know something of the business.
Any other gunwriters on this site are also welcome to share their experience.
Any other gunwriters on this site are also welcome to share their experience.
jetinteriorguy
New member
About ten years ago a fellow in the booth next to mine was shooting fist size groups at 25 yds off hand at a fairly rapid rate. These weren’t slow deliberate aimed groups and were full mag groups. As I was leaving the range I complimented him on his ability and as we talked he told me it was just a box stock Glock 19 he was shooting. Upon further conversation I learned he was a Navy Seal as well. Pretty impressive young fellow.
You need to seriously consider who is writing what you are reading. Sounds like misinformation to me.
I've had a bunch of 1911's and a bunch of Glocks over the years. I've never seen a Glock, nor anyone one shooting a Glock shoot that poorly.
Yes, you can buy a target grade 1911, or have one modified from the factory with a trigger that no Glock can match. Most people will shoot that 1911 a little better than they will a Glock. But the out of the box triggers on 99% of the 1911's sold come with a 5-7 lb trigger pull. Exactly the same as 99% of the Glocks, and the Glocks will shoot every bit as accurately.
if you are ONLY READING about Glock, then you can't say you really KNOW ANYTHING.
i am NOT a Glock fanboy, i only have ONE, a gen 4 17, and it shoots great, works every time, it eats whatever ammo i feed it, and begs for more.
never a jam, never a failure to fire or failure to feed.
i can get small groups, whether i shoot 115 or 147 grains, brass, steel, or aluminum case ammo.
all i did to mine was install a trigger connector, out in a heavier weight recoil spring, replace the slide lock with an extended one, and i also replace the slide take down with an extended one.
very simple stuff, and very easy to replace.
some guys leave thier Glocks bone stock.
i have other guns, various makes, models, that i have upgraded as well, so it was NOT like my Glock HAD to have those updates done.
in fact, i'd venture to guess that a high percentage of gun owners do "some sort" of upgrades to thier guns, rifles, etc.
go and BUY a Glock, and experience it, rather than just read about it, and KNOW NOTHING...
i am NOT a Glock fanboy, i only have ONE, a gen 4 17, and it shoots great, works every time, it eats whatever ammo i feed it, and begs for more.
never a jam, never a failure to fire or failure to feed.
i can get small groups, whether i shoot 115 or 147 grains, brass, steel, or aluminum case ammo.
all i did to mine was install a trigger connector, out in a heavier weight recoil spring, replace the slide lock with an extended one, and i also replace the slide take down with an extended one.
very simple stuff, and very easy to replace.
some guys leave thier Glocks bone stock.
i have other guns, various makes, models, that i have upgraded as well, so it was NOT like my Glock HAD to have those updates done.
in fact, i'd venture to guess that a high percentage of gun owners do "some sort" of upgrades to thier guns, rifles, etc.
go and BUY a Glock, and experience it, rather than just read about it, and KNOW NOTHING...
Whirlwind06
New member
I must have a defective glocks all mine seem to group just fine.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
First time I shot a Glock, around 1992, both me and the owner could not keep it (G17 first gen) on a paper plate at 10 yards. Absolutely horrible grouping. Now I don't know if he assembled it wrong, replaced parts, whatever. I swore off Glock at that point. Then I had a guy with a G17 Glock challenge me with my Star Firestar, I shot rings around him.
Then I got the 10mm craze, and bought a G20 in 1996. That actually shot amazingly well, so much so that I bought a G23 and a G26. The G23 could not shoot worth a darn either, but the G26 was a little tack driver. The G23 went out the window quick, but I still have the other two. The G19 I had shot well, but not as well as my Sigma 9mm. Actually the Sigma will clean the clock off many a gun costing 4 times more, they got a bad rap but I always liked them.
But I doubt I will ever buy another Glock, especially new. They got way too expensive, and this constant changing Gens is driving me crazy.
Then I got the 10mm craze, and bought a G20 in 1996. That actually shot amazingly well, so much so that I bought a G23 and a G26. The G23 could not shoot worth a darn either, but the G26 was a little tack driver. The G23 went out the window quick, but I still have the other two. The G19 I had shot well, but not as well as my Sigma 9mm. Actually the Sigma will clean the clock off many a gun costing 4 times more, they got a bad rap but I always liked them.
But I doubt I will ever buy another Glock, especially new. They got way too expensive, and this constant changing Gens is driving me crazy.
Yep. All mine will do 2-4" at 25 and probably would do better if I was a better bullseye shooter.
Inside 15 yards I shoot every bit as tight slow fire groups with my Glocks as I do 1911s and Sig's and whatnot.
this is true. I can get my Glock to shoot 10" groups at 25 yards. Its not that hard, all you have to do is sneeze each time you pull the trigger. if there is another way to get 10" groups at 25 yards I don't know it. but, try the sneeze method, I think you will be pleasantly surprised with how that will help to open up your groups.
- Status