Why is Glock 35 supposedly more accurate?

B

Blue Duck357

New member
I've heard several posters make very positive comments about the G-35's accuracy (rare comments for a .40 Glock). Is this just due to the fact it has a bit more weight, sight radius and the 3.5# trigger or are there other differences between it and the 22-23-27?
 
Those are the only differences. Several IDPA people I know recently sold off 34 or 35's in favor of 17 or 22's. So they were apparently not awed by that version's accuracy.
 
I don't have a 35 but I have a 24. I find the gun very accurate.
They are fun to shoot and have a 3.5lb trigger vs. the standard 5lb trigger.
I also have a 34 which is a great 9mm. I like both guns but don't prefer them over others (sigs, CZ, H&K etc).
If it's a quality gun, I like it.
VF
 
I've had 9 Glocks in addition to the 35. The 35 is the best shooting (most accurate) of any of them. It is more comfortable and seems to have a better balance than the ones that I previously liked best including the 30, 21 and 17L.
Bubba
 
I said that you got all the features that help accuracy with the 35 because barrel length isn't one of them. Barrel length only improves velocity, not but stabilization.
 
I said that you got all the features that help accuracy with the 35 because barrel length isn't one of them. Barrel length only improves velocity, not but stabilization.
Click to expand...

I am dumbfounded by a comment like this. I guess we can all cut our barrels down to 1 inch since length does not improve accuracy.
 
Go ahead and be dumbfounded. In the eighties Guns and Ammo did just that with a Ruger Blackhawk and a Ransom rest. They went from 10 to 1 inch in inch increments. As long as there is just enough rifling to stabilize the bullet it will be as accurate as the longer barrel versions of the same gun.

It might not seem this way because sight radius and barrel length go hand in hand, but it's the truth. Consider the accuracy achieved by the following:

S&W snubbie
Glock 26
P7
P9S
Steyr Scout
PPK
M4

All display accuracy on par or far exceding longer barrel designs. A four inch 1911 will not be 20% less accurate than a 5 inch and a 6 inch won't be 20% more accurate.
 
So, with a sample size of one, you attribute that to all guns? How do you know the optimum barrel length for a G35 to stabilize a round?

We can remove longer sight radius too. Longer sight radius does not make the gun more accurate either. Nor does the 3.5# trigger.
 
Last edited:
RenegadeX,

Practical accuracy and the actual physical accuracy of the gun are two different things. With most pistol rounds, two to four inches of barrel are plenty to get the round stabilized. (Benchrest rifles frequently have barrels shorter than hunting rifles in the same caliber since velocity isn't as important) In a long-barreled handgun, most of the accuracy benefits in offhand shooting come from increased sight radius and more weight toward the muzzle to damp muzzle flip, not from any increase in barrel length. Out to 25 yards, my roomie's 2.5" 686 will group every bit as good as my 8 3/8" 586.
 
Thanks for the backup, Tamara.

No, not a sample of one. Many examples and one scientific test demonstrating that barrel length and mechanical accuracy have little to do with each other.

Trigger, sight radius, grip etc. help practical accuracy. Lock up, rifling, chamber, etc. affect mechanical accuracy. Both make up the handheld accuracy you experience.

Olympic match pistols do not have super long barrels. A scoped 10 inch Ruger MK II will show no greater accuracy than the same pistol with a 5 inch barrel. Marine Snipers don't use 28 inch barrels on their bolt guns. The Glock 26 has been found by many testers to be the most mechanically accurate Glock made, it has about 2 inches of rifling. The military is considering going from the M-16 with 20 inch barrel to the M4 with 14 inch barrel as standard issue since most shooters can shoot the same with both. For a given rifle weight, a short thich barrel will produce better accuracy than a long thin one.

The blackhawk test was interesting because it was done carefully and incrementally with the same pistol. Group to group showed only the minorest variations and no trends as the barrel shrank.

I'm sorry if this conflicts with anyone's "common knowledge", but it's demonstratable and repeatable. The accuracy only advantage of the 35 over an upgraded 22 or 23 is site radius.
 
Wierdly enough, my Glock 35 was the LEAST accurate handgun I've probably ever owned. The 23, 36 and 20C were all more accurate (the 20C VASTLY so). Go figure.
 
Posted by Tamara:

With most pistol rounds, two to four inches of barrel are plenty to get the round stabilized.
Click to expand...

That would be OK with me, My own experience suggests 4-6 inch barrels, but that is from testing done in the early 1980s. And you cannot generalize weapons or calibers; each has to be tested.

However, Handy seems to think 1 inch barrel and a 10 inch barrel are the same for all weapons and calibers, based upon a Guns and Ammo test on a Ruger BLackhawk, that is the sole thing to which I disagree.
 
That is not what I said. I said that the Blackhawk test helps confirm what many already knew; longer barrels themselves do little or nothing for mechanical accuracy. Myself and others have had this experience with several common guns with less than 2 inches of rifling.

More specifically, is anyone here still maintaining that a 35 is intrinsically more accurate than a 22? That half an inch does nothing and even one of the 6 inch hunting barrels would provide no tighter groups than the standard length.

Renegade, you seem to have an opinion about this, so what is the right answer? 3 inches of rifling, 4? The longer the barrel the better? It depends?!! You don't know, but I can't be right? Is a Glock 35 more accurate?

Did you know that they make rifled chokes for hunting with slugs with 2 or less inches of rifling?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top