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

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