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.

It would be interesting to see a test using a machine rest. Samples from Ruger, Colt, SA, Kimber, Sig. No accurized models like Gold Cups and such. I don't think think the Glock would be slighted to bad. The Glock might not have FTF issues either, lol.

Found a video of a GLock in a machine rest. The bullet is out the barrel before any "visible" flexing occurs.

I'm a 1911 guy. I don't own, never have owned a Glock. But I've shot plenty, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with their accuracy.

I believe they are more accurate than I am!

Might want to think about what those "key words" mean.

Mechanical accuracy means just what the gun itself can do, eliminating any aspect of shooter skill or error. Trigger pull, shooters limitations, and sight radius have nothing to do with mechanical accuracy. "Easy to shoot well" also has nothing to do with mechanical accuracy.

Personally, I've had some really bad shooting 1911s, and some really bad shooting Glocks. I've also had really great shooting examples of both. Kind of a useless discussion if we're just talking in general terms without specific examples of one vs another.

I can say though that my best shooting stock Glocks have always been in 45 Auto. Most of the 9mm versions weren't too far behind, with the 40 S&W and 10mm a distant third (talking stock barrels here).

I've had a Ransom Rest for a long time. Inserts for 1911 frames and a few S&W , Ruger and Colt Revolver frames . Currently the inserts cost around $50.00 each. They are great for working up your best loads for a particular gun. Between my guns and friends guns that we have tested, I have found out that there is a marked difference between makes and models. Even guns of the same make and model will be different. But to a lesser extent.

I guess this would be the only way to answer the OP's question, by using the rest.

I usually test at 50 yards. Over the years, I have had different guns/loads shoot groups from 1/2"-3/4" to over 12". Or miss the target at 50 yards. Tested once a friend's Python that would not group any better than 6 or 7 inches. We took a look at his bore and found out that the previous owner must have used rebar as a cleaning rod. Boy, was he pissed.

You do find some interesting things about any particular gun when your able to eliminate the shooter from the equation.

Never have tested any Glocks. I do not own any. Never had any friends want to spend the $50.00 bucks for the insert to test their Glock in my machine. It would be interesting to find out. It would eliminate the striker/SA trigger difference. Who knows, a good bottle of bourbon may get me to test a Glock one of these days.

Good information, perhaps "ON AVERAGE" a selection of off the shelf 1911's fired with Federal Premium Gold Match ammunition from full size steel framed Ruger, Colt, springfield, Kimber, Taurus,Sig, Smith and wesson would be about as mechanically accurate as a mix of glock 21's, MP 45's, Walther PPS 45, Shield 45, HK USP 45. For instance its my perception that my shield 45 is more mechanically accurate than my Kimber 4 inch commander length 45, but this is just at 15 yards shooting off hand, I have not shot it from a rest yet.

I wonder if the shorter 40's might fare better as the used 27 I got is not terrible in the accuracy department, I had no luck with the model 20.

HK USP’s are very accurate.

Very fine weapon by my research and store inspection. A battle pistol it is. Never shot one yet.

I am temped to spring for one.

All this recent talk about the USP pistols makes me want to take my USP45 out of mothballs and bring it to the range.

The HK USP is also a very strong pistol require no recoil spring change to shoot 45 Supers, most likely make a good candidate for a 460 Rowland.

Might be worth a call to Clark Custom.

I think the place to look in the near future is Camp Perry. Now that the Glock is legal for Service Pistol events (!), the race will be on to accurize the pistol (slow fire is 50 yards) and do extensive trigger tuning. Exactly what happened to the 1911 after WW II.
Bob

This.

Probably will happen.

But bulleye competition using the 1911 happened well before WWII.

Having repeatedly shot 1" 50 yd goups with a rubber gripped magnum revolver I call BS.

+1 its amazing what gets posted these days.

Roger that on using the 1911 in competition before the War. But the accuracy work that resulted in the 1911 shooting 10-shot machine rest groups at 50 yards under 3" (now 2.0", or less) didn't happen until well after the War (1950's) due to the service teams getting into bullseye and putting lots of money and support in the form of armorers, parts and non-stop experimentation year-round. Before the War the big shooters and teams were either police (LAPD, Detroit, Border Patrol and Customs) or civilian. Accurizing a 1911 was still not completely understood (ammo wasn't that great then, either) and it wasn't done by many. There were a few, like J D Buchanan of Los Angeles, but 1911 tuning by gunsmiths then was mostly "hand-fitting" of parts and adjusting trigger pull weight. The 1911 wasn't considered a really accurate pistol. Look at the scores fired (especially slow fire at 50 yds) in the 1930's. The same thing happened with the M9. It took years before the USAMU and the Marine WTB figured out how to accurize an aluminum-framed, DA combat pistol. Again, look at the scores over the last 20 years. The M9 now has all the service pistol records and is the pistol to beat at Perry. Not saying the Glock will be a world-class target pistol in the coming years, but its maximum accuracy will eventually be realized by pushing the pistol to its limits in testing and shooting, then analyzing and rebuilding to win. That takes time.
Bob

That is what I thought about gun rag magazines years ago.

Before any of this internet stuff.


....and the authors got paid for it.


Who knew.

An now ennybude can be a famus gunne riter or muuvy star

Well, got another one.

51st

https://www.sigsauer.com/store/medi...39433887a97daa66f/1/9/1911-wtp-right.jpg


This one is going to be a gift for Christmas to someone.

Nice one...I have a SIG 1911, built in the SIG custom shop for the USAR Service Pistol Team. It is an awesome pistola. Not a bullseye pistol, but fun to shoot. It groups into one hole at 25 yards with lot# 007 match ball...good enough, I guess.
Bob

Nice Sig. I got the Tacops.

It is a nice gun. The grip panels have 25 stars each. Total of fifty. Very cool. Looks great in the box.

I will not shoot it since it is destined to be a gift. The recipient may not either, but that is his choice.

Sig makes a good 1911.

This may be a tangent from the original post, but does anyone have a used ransom rest that you'd like to sell?

Look for the Master series by Ransom.

Most people who buy them are serious shooters/collectors. They tend to keep them.

If you have a good friend that you can trust, maybe run it by him/her to go in together on one.

Glock - Sort of like a 1911, but for girls.

Girly hands eh.

You can like one without hating the other.

This is very true. Unfortunately, though, merely stating a preference, and the reasons why, for one over the other in a defensive carry role, is enough to get you labeled as a hater of the other.

In my case, far from it. I carried a full sized, all steel, 1911 IWB for years, off and on, from the 1980s through well into the 21st Century. I have several now, and one of them is in my home defense rotation, although not generally any longer carried. I'm a fan of the 1911, but am often thought of as a hater merely because I believe more modern designs are superior for the role of CCW ... in my case the Glock 17 and 43. So it's almost impossible to be a 1911 fan (who believes another choice is superior for CCW) without being labeled by 1911 fan boys as a 1911 hater.

I have good friends that like Glocks.

I even let them come over to shoot the damn things.

See, I am not a hater.

That thing is really cool. And if I were to buy a 1911 right now it'd be a Sig.




Dave

Now you see why you were annoying for all those years.





Dave

Hah! Yes, I was a 1911 snob for a while there. Big Jeff Cooper follower.

1911 guys and Glock guys can be a little touchy, more so than any others I can think of...

I hate dodge trucks


Not the motors and drivetrains.

Guns and women have one thing in common.

I like 'em all.





Travis

Welcome aboard.




The Captain

Being your such a sport Flave, if I was rich I would buy you the Texas Gold version of Sig 1911.

Damn! I wouldn't mind one of those.

Could you post a pic of the other side. They have a cool inscription

I hear the manual explains why this model is so much better than all the other models.




Dave

I understand that the Texas Concealed Handgun Association, the Texas State Rifle Association and the Sons of the Republic of Texas got together and persuaded Sig to over bore that model to .46 caliber since everything is bigger in Texas. Of course that seriously degrades the gun's accuracy but since it is being sold exclusively in Texas, no one will notice. :-)

Choke down the barrel.

Woold think a properly fit 1911 would be more accurate than a Glock.

But they are so different, that any comparison is apples to ornamental plastic fruits.

Sorry had to do it.

Seriously, fitting a 1911's parts is properly hand done. So they should be tighter. A Glock is designed to be put together from boxes of parts.

All theory, of course

The sig 1911s are supposed to be very accurate, but who knows.