Glock 17 C ?

[BOOM]

Has anyone tried a 17-C as Open gun; Was curious about the compensated ports on a 17-C if they really make much of a difference in muzzle flip, or in recoil control ? It seems that most here believe a muzzle compensator for 9mm is really more of weight out on the end of the muzzle unless hotter loads are used

[Braxton1]

Please bear with me for a second:

A true "expansion chamber compensator" is a very efficient device, when run to its full potential. Looking at it from a fluid dynamics POV, the front wall in the comp is actually what does MOST of the work (Ported barrels don't have this, of course). The gases follow the bullet out of the barrel and into the comp. When the bullet plugs the exit hole of the comp, those gases collide with the front wall and attempt to pull the comp forward with them. This does three things. That forward pull reduces felt recoil, because the whole gun doesn't want to move to the rear. It slows slide velocity, because the barrel is not wanting to move freely to the rear, reducing the amount of "bump" that the shooter feels at the end of the slide's stroke. It also keeps those gases from following the bullet out of the front of the gun, reducing secondary recoil from the rocket effect of those gases hitting the atmosphere. Only after accomplishing those three things, do the gases, having nowhere else to go, vent out of the top of the comp to reduce muzzle flip and darken the front lens of your C-More.

"Ported" barrels are not very efficient, because they only vent a small amount of gas in an upward direction. They don't reduce felt recoil, although they do seem to help a little with muzzle flip.

With normal 135-145 Power Factor 9mm, they feel pretty good, but I would NEVER shoot Major out of them.

My agency uses 22C's as the primary duty gun, so I am bit familiar. Outside of the fact that they're significantly louder to the shooter, we've had no issues with them.

Edited December 3, 2014 by Braxton1

[KustomHolsters]

I agree that running major through factory glock barrel is not a good idea. If you got the 17c amd put new barrel and comp on it the slide lightening would be cool.

[enutees]

My 17c I can see the difference in muzzle rise with minor loads. Not amazing but it helps a little. Wouldn't even think of major in it.

Edited December 4, 2014 by enutees

[tarosean]

Ive got a 19c and a 19 no disernable difference between them with exception of cleaning.

[BOOM]

Thank You; for sharing what you have, and have learned about the Glock C series handgun for competition. When you see allot of open gun pic's with ports just about every where Had to wonder why not start in the right direction then add new barrel with a comp, C-More sight, and mount , trigger job, magwell, and LG mag button . But After reading comments posted maybe NA

[Braxton1]

Adding the comp and C-More would work, but there are two things working against you there.

1. The C-More lens would likely get smoked up pretty badly pretty quickly from the "C" ports.

2. Venting the barrel would bleed off some gases and require more powder to make Major. Depending on which powder you choose, you may not have room for enough of that particular powder in a stubby 9mm case.

[bikerburgess]

I keep thinking about getting one for multigun open, with a slide mounted dot, shooting bunny farts the ports won't do much but with that little recoil who cares :-)

the one issue I have with how GLOCK made the C models is they put the barrel ports way too far back on the barrel, if they were at the front of the slot in the slide they would be better but with them all the way to the back you don't get as much leverage on the muzzle from the gas and the effective barrel is extremely short.

[Braxton1]

Newton's Third Law is "For Every Action, there's an equal and opposite reaction". The Third Law of Message Boards is "For every theory, there's an equal and opposite theory".

You are quite correct that putting the ports farther out on the gun would make the leverage applied more efficient (In physics, it's the "Arm of Moment" and longer is almost always better.).

In this case though, it would be counterproductive because of "dwell time". If the ports were further out, they'd be exposed to pressurized gas for a shorter period. They're only getting gas from the instant the back of the bullet passes them until the back of the bullet exits the barrel. Less "barrel after the ports" equals less dwell time.

Edited December 9, 2014 by Braxton1