Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Mechanical Pistol accuracy 1911 vs glock

anyone else notice that a Glock shot off the bench at 25 yards is as accurate as a stock 1911 shot off the same bench, I get 3-4 inches about the best I can do. Or is it just my general crappy shooting? Kimber vs G17 seems pretty close to me. I am sure the built guns are better, but thinking "out of the box" Ruger, Colt's, springfields, kimbers are just not going to be that much better. So if you can master the crappy trigger why not.

My Springfield out of the box is much more accurate than that at 25 yards more like 1 1/2.

If nothing else, the plastic will flex in the hand, causing a larger spread. It works the same with Pachmayr grips on a magnum revolver, they'll "give" a bit causing more dispersion than good wooden grips These things MAY be offset by the different recoil impulse to the shooter's hand, but I think there is some validity to this.

These things are pretty much imperceptible to the normal human's hands, but it happens, and it's measureable.

I'm betting, the bullet has exited the bore before any identifiably flexing has begun. All that flexing seems to occur after the slide unlocks.

I think we need to be talking about 50 yard groups at least since we are comparing "off the bench" shooting.

Add to this the snap of your tendons and muscle using a striker fire gun. Minute, but can make a difference with grips and hand hold.

Glocks are combat pistols. 1911's can be combat and target pistols. Aim small.

Force is applied as soon as the bullet is acted upon. But as you say, Momentum does have an effect.

Ask Isaac Newton. He knows the math. He wrote it down.

I've benched them both at 50 yards and exceptional examples aside, can't find enough difference in them to matter.

Off the bench, the 1911 is about twice as easy to shoot well.

I didn't see any reference to momentum in his post...........................

Please regale us with all of Newton's specific findings on the flexing of a plastic framed handgun vs a steel framed one & how it affects accuracy or not...................can't wait to hear that explanation from a physics expert.

MM

Yeah, the 1911 trigger is, by today's norms, more like those seen on a match pistol than like those typical on modern fighting pistols. That's why it needs the thumb safety and the others don't. Naturally, this is going to give the precision, off hand, shooting advantage to the 1911. Same, although to a lesser extent, for supported shooting.

"Mechanical Pistol accuracy 1911 vs glock"

I must have read the word Mechanical differently than you. I won't go all physics here. No need, like you say. I'm not that smart anyway.

Just responding to Dan's post.



Key words:
Mechanical .
off the bench .
Group size.
shooters limitations.
Striker fire triggers.

the 1911 trigger makes the gun easier to shoot for sure. I can accept that a springfield can do 1.5 inches out of the box I guess with no modifications, at 25 yards for 7 rounds? I am not that good of a shot with either gun and the 1911 I am shooting is an aluminum framed pistol. However in all my years of shooting and being at the range have never seen a pistol shot that well in person. Then I know some folks invested in G40's and some in Dan Wesson 10mm's, I wonder if the G40 buyers feel that they missed the boat with the glock trigger and should have gone 1911 style? Then again it may not make any difference to many as few can get 1.5 inches out of a 1911 anyway.

My most accurate semiauto pistol is a Glock. It will do 2" or so at 50 when I am up to it, which I am not always. My most accurate 1911 I have owned was an older Kimber Gold Match that would cut a ragged hole at 25 yards. Never measured but probably 1"-1.25". My worst Glock was 40 S&W police trade in that would not do better than basketball sized groups at 20.

There are a lot of tweaks for the Glock's trigger to bring it more in line with what we might expect from an informal target or hunting handgun. But it ruins them a a carry gun, IMO.

Regarding the Springfields, I'd say 'yes' if they're the company's higher-grade guns with a one piece match (probably contracted from Storm Lake etc.) barrel. Their entry level guns have a two piece barrel and in my experience, 2 1/2" to 3 1/2" for 5 shots from a rest is more realistic for those.

Since there are lots of manufacturers of 1911's, and all are not created exactly equal, I would expect a somewhat wider range of accuracy amongst them vs the single manufacturer of Glocks.

Further complicating the situation is the significant differences between guns in lines of any given manufacturer like Colt or SPR from low end, entry level to higher end "competition" level.............all of which could be considered "out of the box".

Draw your own conclusions as to what that might mean to a cursory comparison of any ole Glock to any ole 1911.

MM

True that. Glock is top gun in it's style. I think.

I never bought or shot the Cheap 1911's. I bought a Springfield A1a once. Put a fitted bushing in it. It shoots okay. It is stored in the farm truck.

Never bought a newer Type II Kimber either. Never will.

I've found sight radius to be a far bigger game changer than anything else.






Dave

It definitely makes a difference but also some pistols just shoot better than others. My 2" at 50 Glock is a longslide 10mm M40. I also have a short-barreled single stack Glock 9mm (M43???) that shoots well. I once took it and outshot my dad who had a longslide 9mm Glock. We switched guns and he then outshot me. He traded his longslide for a M43 later that afternoon.

The larger glocks have that going for them. Especially out past 25 yards.

Agreed.