Glock 34 or 17 for competition

[Jayohee]

I had the same issue as OP and went with the G34. Long story short I am VERY happy I did and if I had bought the G17 I would always have that lingering 'if only I had waited and saved a bit more I could have gotten the 34'

It's worth it IMO

[Tom C]

If your plan is to use the Glock 17 or 34 for competition only the 34 is probably the better choice. What makes the decision in the end would be, using the ammunition you plan to use in competition, which one gives you the "better grouping" at 25 yards shooting a 1 second or quicker cadence. Tango Charlie out.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Tom C

[David.Hylton]

If there is a chance of getting into limited I would get it in .40 instead of 9. You can download it to minor but you can't get major with the 9. You can also put a new 9 barrel in it and have both calibers for cheap. I planned on shooting production got a 17 then wanted to get into limited and so that gun hasn't been shot in a while now

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you put a 9mm barrel in the G35 you'd no longer to be able to legally shoot production. If you go with the 34 you can put a different barrel in it to shoot limited. I was glad I went with the 9mm instead of a .40 because ammo is so much cheaper.

[drewbeck]

I believe .40 to 9 mm is a one way street in that I mean you can't buy a 9mm conversion to 40 the slide opening isn't large enough on a 19, 17, 34 to fit the outside diameter of a .40 barrel. Starting with the 35 would allow you to shoot 9 for practice and 40 in competition. You could also buy a second 34 top end and essentially have two guns, buy a second frame as time and money permits and then you have both.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JBP55]

I prefer complete pistols.

[drewbeck]

Fair enough, my only point is for someone just getting into comp .40 offer far more options For the different games. And I wish someone would have told me that before I bought a 17 which soon turned into an STI when I understood all the rules of Uspsa ( not that I'm sad I ended up with a 2011 at the end of the day)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CSStreett]

I prefer complete pistols.

I agree. I've never understood piecing together pistols.

[CSStreett]

34 for Production an 35 for Limited. Going with the 34 gives you an extended mag release and slide lock. You also get adjustable rear sights.

[ericridebike]

I went with a G34 and have been extremely pleased with it, no regrets. Used mine in IDPA, 3-Gun, and local ZSA Pistol matches. Served me well for all of them. All that being said, I just picked up a G17 as well, so we shall see how I like that vs the 34. As mentioned above, the G34 is designed for competition so if that is going to be your main use, that would be the one I suggest. If it will be more of an all around gun(range, competition, carry, etc...) I might choose the G17 instead.

[GARD72977]

There is nothing a 17 does better than a 34.

[Joe D]

I have been shooting Glocks in competition since 1997. I am a card carrying "Gamer". We own 17s, 34s, 35s and a 41. All complete with the world famous Joe D trigger job. So here's my take on the various models. The 17 has less muzzle flip than a 34, but shorter sight radius. We shoot 160 gr bullets in 9mm. The 35 shoots softer, with 180 gr bullets, than the 17/34 when loaded to a 130PF. The 41 is my fun gun. It weighs between the 34 and 35. Recoil is on par with the 35 when loaded to a 130PF. OTOH those big holes will gain you points. Years ago I shot a G21 in IDPA. During a typical 120 round, six stage local match I would watch when they scored my targets and would write down every time that 200 gr SWC .45 hole got me a 0 instead of a -1 or -1 instead of a -3. It averaged 4-6 second per match. That is a huge number when you are a Master.

I guess the USPSA/IDPA snobbery will never go away. Here's my take on that non sense. If you want to be a top shooter you will have to choose one or the other. They do not compliment each other BTDT. Guess all that does not matter too much now as I am old and crippled up since my motorcycle crash 4 years ago. After my crash IDPA let me start over as a Marksman. Currently a 3 gun Expert. Use to be a 3 gun Master. Oh well!. Life goes on.

Oh, my other fun gun is a .45 Kimber with 9 round mags at a 130 PF in ESP. It's like shooting a .22. 10 rounds to start and a 9 round reload.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Joe D

[Jayohee]

There is nothing a 17 does better than a 34.

- Draw is faster

- Get on target quicker with smaller sight radius

[Joe D]

Jay, you are correct. I would on occasion shoot my G23 with 130PF loads at a local indoor match. Targets were usually pretty close. That 23 was very fast out of the holster and transitions. The short sight radius did not work outdoors with the longer shots. I have thought about getting a Gen 3 22 just for grins. BTW here is a little known Glock fact. The Austrian made 17s and 34s had a smaller grip that the Smyrna made guns. We have a few of each.

[theblacknight]

The only tangible benefit of the 34 is velocity, and if you are smart and are gonna keep the internals mostly stock, it already has the right connector in it.

Between the 2 guns, the preference for extra sight radius isn't based on actual results, but more that people know in theory more radius is better, so you must be getting something from the longer slide.

Why do you say the preference for the extra sight radius isn't based on actual results?

Because no one is able to produce such results yet. It's very easy to demonstrate why a longer barrel is a tangible benefit for velocity and PF. You can see it on the clock. I'm simply waiting for someone to show us that a pistol sight being 1" further from the eye and 1" further from the rear sight actually translates to concrete results. Until then, it's as cringe worthy as "knock down power".

[Mahlsan]

If you are only shooting idpa I would suggest the 17 you can reload and as long as the ammo makes pf with someone's gun in the class your baby soft reloads are okay. With uspsa your gun your ammo to make fp, making your reloads the key. The other benefit of a 17 is that it is easier to conceal if you ever want to carry it.

Edited September 3, 2014 by Mahlsan

[polymerfeelsweirdman]

Sight radius is an accuracy thing

You can have the same sight picture while having a larger front sight in a longer sight radius gun meaning more certainty in where you're aiming

I feel that the longer slide cycles smoother but that could just be me

[3djedi]

The only tangible benefit of the 34 is velocity, and if you are smart and are gonna keep the internals mostly stock, it already has the right connector in it.

Between the 2 guns, the preference for extra sight radius isn't based on actual results, but more that people know in theory more radius is better, so you must be getting something from the longer slide.

Why do you say the preference for the extra sight radius isn't based on actual results?

Because no one is able to produce such results yet. It's very easy to demonstrate why a longer barrel is a tangible benefit for velocity and PF. You can see it on the clock. I'm simply waiting for someone to show us that a pistol sight being 1" further from the eye and 1" further from the rear sight actually translates to concrete results. Until then, it's as cringe worthy as "knock down power".

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?/topic/161445-Why-greater-accuracy-with-longer-sight-radius?

[3djedi]

A longer sight radius provides greater accuracy due to less margin of visual error.

Extreme example: Say the front sight and the rear sight are only 2" apart. When you ared aiming that setup, the sights will look aligned (and perfectly still) even if they are off by a couple thousands of an inch. Now take a handgun with a 10" sight radius. Those sights will never look still. And even if it looked like the sights were misaligned by .001" when the shot broke, that will still be 5 times more accurate that the 2" sight radius, that looked perfectly aligned even though they were off by a few thousands.

be

Posted by Brian enos on the above thread....

Edited September 4, 2014 by 3djedi

[Hallz]

Personaly I shot a 17, then the 34,... I bought a 34.

My feance shot a 17 & my gen 3, 34,.... She stole my 34 and bought me. 4th gen 35!

Now I have both and a conversion barrel for the 35.

What I noticed most is "for me" the 35 is more POI = POA at all distances for some reason.

Both guns are set up the same; IDPA ZEV comp triger kits, SS guide rods w/13lbs. springs, extended firing pins with the #2 spring, Warren Comp sights with the .245 front sights. Soon they will both have KKM drop in barrels and TTI base pads.

They run GREAT!

I have to say,.... I am quickly becoming a fan of the 35 loaded to 130-135 PF.

however, the 35 with the additional barrel weight of the KKM conversion barrel on the front end, realy helps to mittigate any muzzle flip and felt recoil, especialy with 147's loaded to 130ish PF.

I dont think you can go wrong with either,..,, but as mentioned above,.. There are more limmitations with the 34. But if you have to have compleate gus,..., you too may end up with both eventualy.

Good luck and happy shooting!

[theblacknight]

A longer sight radius provides greater accuracy due to less margin of visual error.

Extreme example: Say the front sight and the rear sight are only 2" apart. When you ared aiming that setup, the sights will look aligned (and perfectly still) even if they are off by a couple thousands of an inch. Now take a handgun with a 10" sight radius. Those sights will never look still. And even if it looked like the sights were misaligned by .001" when the shot broke, that will still be 5 times more accurate that the 2" sight radius, that looked perfectly aligned even though they were off by a few thousands.

be

Posted by Brian enos on the above thread....

Understanding the theory behind the thinking isn't the issue here,because we all already understand that. Using a extreme example dosent represent this actual issue. We are discussing a tangible performance difference between a G17 and G34. That means being able to readily see a performance increase of the firearm itself..

That certainly happens at the chrono, because we can prove that.

I'm saying the G34 is no more accurate then the 17 and I would love to see proof other wise.

Don't explain a academic concept, provide proof.

[3djedi]

Put a g17 in a ransom aim for a small dot at 25y then with a g34. Both equipped with identical sights.

That's the only way I can think of testing it.

[polymerfeelsweirdman]

A longer sight radius provides greater accuracy due to less margin of visual error.

Extreme example: Say the front sight and the rear sight are only 2" apart. When you ared aiming that setup, the sights will look aligned (and perfectly still) even if they are off by a couple thousands of an inch. Now take a handgun with a 10" sight radius. Those sights will never look still. And even if it looked like the sights were misaligned by .001" when the shot broke, that will still be 5 times more accurate that the 2" sight radius, that looked perfectly aligned even though they were off by a few thousands.

be

Posted by Brian enos on the above thread....

Understanding the theory behind the thinking isn't the issue here,because we all already understand that. Using a extreme example dosent represent this actual issue. We are discussing a tangible performance difference between a G17 and G34. That means being able to readily see a performance increase of the firearm itself..

That certainly happens at the chrono, because we can prove that.

I'm saying the G34 is no more accurate then the 17 and I would love to see proof other wise.

Don't explain a academic concept, provide proof.

there are probably too many confounding variables to make this kind of direct comparison which is why I think the concept is probably a better argument

is there a difference in accuracy from a rest? probably not (if anything the 17 might be more mechanically accurate since the barrel is shorter) but I personally like the feeling of how the longer slide cycles

[KOBGT]

I like the 34s longer sight radius, didn't think it would make a big deal until I shot one

[bigtimelarry]

The G17 cycles better in my eye.. indexes and handles faster to me as well..

[Moltke]

A Glock 17 has a sight radius of 6.49 inches

A Glock 34 has a sight radius of 7.55 inches

If you're shooting perfect sight pictures then sight radius doesn't matter, the mechanical accuracy potential of the gun will decide your group size

However unless you are shooting from a ransom rest, then you're not shooting perfect sight pictures, certainly none of us in the action sports are taking the time to get truly perfect sight pictures

If there is any error in your sight picture when the shot breaks then that error is repeated every time the bullet travels the length of your sight radius

When you're shooting IMPERFECT sight pictures, which we always are, the gun with the longer sight radius will reduce your error

Its not a benefit that you can actively use, but its passively there all the time quietly helping

WARNING MATH FOLLOWS

Let's say there is a 0.1 inch error in your sights when you break a shot

A Glock 17 vs Glock 34 both shot at 10 yards, with an error of 0.1 inches in the sight picture for both guns

Here's the math for a Glock 17:

10 yards x 3 feet per yard = 30 feet

30 feet x 12 inches per foot = 360 inches

G17 sight radius is 6.49 inches

360 inches / 6.49 inches = 55 sight radiuses to target

The error in the sights is 0.1 inches

0.1 x 55 = 5.5 inches off expected point of aim at 10 yards

Here's the match for a Glock 34:

10 yards x 3 feet per yard = 30 feet

30 feet x 12 inches per foot = 360 inches

G34 sight radius is 7.55 inches

360 inches / 7.55 inches = 47 sight radiuses to target

The error in the sights is 0.1 inches

0.1 x 47 = 4.7 inches off expected point of aim at 10 yards

Obviously both guns are off target, however one is measureably less off target. 5.5 - 4.7 = 0.8 inches difference at 10 yards can turn a D into a C, or a C into an A, or turn a no-shoot hit into a miss, or missing a steel plate to barely just edging it. Sometimes it matters and sometimes it doesn't. The farther away your target is, the more your imperfect sight picture will magnify the problem and a longer sight radius will PASSIVELY help you reduce your error.