Glock 17 for Production?

[Stafford]

Is the Glock 17 a decent option for trying the Production class? Or is it so far behind the longer and steel frame pistols that it really isn’t a competitive option?

[Rnlinebacker]

Is the Glock 17 a decent option for trying the Production class? Or is it so far behind the longer and steel frame pistols that it really isn’t a competitive option?

If you train with it and can master your grip(with any gun for that matter) it's absolutely a viable option. Compete with it for now and eventually you'll settle on it or something different.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[anonymouscuban]

Shoot whatcha got! Don't worry about the pistol and go shoot a match. Get some under your belt and then figure out what you need, gear wise, from experience.

Sent from my SM-G930U using Tapatalk

[TrackCage]

Glocks hold their own in Production division just fine.

[xdf3]

Shoot it until you notice you're losing a lot by using it (you will notice at a certain point)

 

Don't take too much time to switch to something better. 

 

Practice costs much more than a better gun and with that practice you won't have nothing more. I started with a glock and I'm not the only one. What I know for sure is that it will take a lot more practice to have a similar (not equal) performance as other guns like CZ, Tanfoglio, etc... 

[rowdyb]

Totally fine choice. And plenty of aftermarket support and probably the simplest gun for DIY efforts.

 

Possible negatives- Mags can be sticky/slow to fall out for various reasons. Stock sights can be difficult.

 

You have to do the same sum total of "work" to compete the stage, but you just do it in a different manner. Not better or worse, just different.

[xdf3]

4 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

Totally fine choice. And plenty of aftermarket support and probably the simplest gun for DIY efforts.

 

Possible negatives- Mags can be sticky/slow to fall out for various reasons. Stock sights can be difficult.

 

You have to do the same sum total of "work" to compete the stage, but you just do it in a different manner. Not better or worse, just different.

Maybe after january 2019 (at least for IPSC) it could reach a competitive level, but what is lost in recoil can't be gained in anything else. The trigger pull is not as good as other competitive guns (which cost slightly more)

 

With warren sights + trigger job + some aftermarket components (for the trigger pull), it could be somewhat competitive

[rowdyb]

I disagree with you completely. 

[ChuckS]

FWIW: Bob Vogel placed first in the 2011 IPSC World Shoot Production division using a G-17. (Under the old s#!tty trigger rules)

 

[xdf3]

12 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

FWIW: Bob Vogel placed first in the 2011 IPSC World Shoot Production division using a G-17. (Under the old s#!tty trigger rules)

 

That doesn't prove anything, except for the fact that Vogel won. 

In fact, using a glock to compete among Tanfoglio / CZ would have been a really bad idea.

 

It doesn't matter if you have to train 2-3 times as much to be at the same level

[xdf3]

If there was no difference, everybody would pick the cheapest gun working, not the ones that cost more. It can't be that 95% of shooters are so stupid to pick more expensive guns.

[MikeBurgess]

10 minutes ago, xdf3 said:

If there was no difference, everybody would pick the cheapest gun working, not the ones that cost more. It can't be that 95% of shooters are so stupid to pick more expensive guns.

I disagree, unfortunately many/most people are looking to buy performance and see the more expensive guns as a possible short cut to better performance. I have seen too many shooters change from cheep guns l (like GLOCKS) to fancy S2's etc and shoot the same or worse, the only improvements I have seen can be directly attributed to putting in more work. 

 

Disclaimer: under the old IPSC rules A stock G17 with stock trigger vs a S2 (either kind) with a worked over trigger was at a disadvantage especially on IPSC style low hit factor stages. 

[xdf3]

6 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

I disagree, unfortunately many/most people are looking to buy performance and see the more expensive guns as a possible short cut to better performance. I have seen too many shooters change from cheep guns l (like GLOCKS) to fancy S2's etc and shoot the same or worse, the only improvements I have seen can be directly attributed to putting in more work. 

 

Disclaimer: under the old IPSC rules A stock G17 with stock trigger vs a S2 (either kind) with a worked over trigger was at a disadvantage especially on IPSC style low hit factor stages. 

I am one of the guys buying performance with parts and that has worked extremely well for now. I think I even wasted too much time using a Glock 17 (it was under the old IPSC rules). I can tell for sure there was a huge difference. Now, there's a difference, but not as big, but in some matches it will be big enough to be noticed.

 

Here in Italy it's much more evident. When some sponsored shooters went from a competitive gun to a new gun (not competitive), you could see them drop in ranks much more than expected (you would expect a little drop for the swap if the gun was similar).

 

You can't just hope that with a lot of practice you will overcome the gun limitations. They're limitations for a reason. That time/resources would be literally wasted unless you are paid to do so. 

 

Using a glock17 might be fine to start/train but I wouldn't spend too much time using it, unless you really have to / like it too much

[MikeBurgess]

1 hour ago, xdf3 said:

I am one of the guys buying performance with parts and that has worked extremely well for now. I think I even wasted too much time using a Glock 17 (it was under the old IPSC rules). I can tell for sure there was a huge difference. Now, there's a difference, but not as big, but in some matches it will be big enough to be noticed.

 

Here in Italy it's much more evident. When some sponsored shooters went from a competitive gun to a new gun (not competitive), you could see them drop in ranks much more than expected (you would expect a little drop for the swap if the gun was similar).

 

You can't just hope that with a lot of practice you will overcome the gun limitations. They're limitations for a reason. That time/resources would be literally wasted unless you are paid to do so. 

 

Using a glock17 might be fine to start/train but I wouldn't spend too much time using it, unless you really have to / like it too much

the old IPSC rules really did put non DA guns at a disadvantage, in USPSA not so much, with a little trigger work ( a good connector and a couple springs and some polishing) you can have a quite competitive gun, but it is hard to get past the impression that they are not. Many many people get a new gun and practice with it a bunch because its new and "awesome" and the extra practice likely makes more difference than any advantage the new gun may be perceived to have. 

 

 

[rowdyb]

3 hours ago, xdf3 said:

but what is lost in recoil can't be gained in anything else. T

If you think recoil is what's causing you to have bad stage times or performance you are either 1. New to shooting or 2. Not very good. 

[ChuckS]

Let me put my moderator hat on right here and say if this goes any closer to personal, it's closed. Be nice...

[B_RAD]

Glocks are horrible!

[MikeBurgess]

53 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

If you think recoil is what's causing you to have bad stage times or performance 

recoil causing excessive split times only affects split times and the total of all splits on a stage is very small, so if it were a real problem it would only be a problem for a small fraction of the total stage time. Oddly most Limited/standard/classic guys shooting 40s and 45s in 2011s with plastic grips that weigh less than many of the hot ticket 9mm production guns run the same split times with much more recoil to deal with, so that leads one to believe that recoil is not the actual issue. 

 

The issue with light weight striker fired guns is it is harder to press the trigger straight back without disturbing the sights, this makes good hits on long or very tight shots somewhat harder. The thing problem becomes less and less of a issue as shooters advance through the sport.  

[HoMiE]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

If you think recoil is what's causing you to have bad stage times or performance you are either 1. New to shooting or 2. Not very good. 

Facts

[HoMiE]

8 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

recoil causing excessive split times only affects split times and the total of all splits on a stage is very small, so if it were a real problem it would only be a problem for a small fraction of the total stage time. Oddly most Limited/standard/classic guys shooting 40s and 45s in 2011s with plastic grips that weigh less than many of the hot ticket 9mm production guns run the same split times with much more recoil to deal with, so that leads one to believe that recoil is not the actual issue. 

 

The issue with light weight striker fired guns is it is harder to press the trigger straight back without disturbing the sights, this makes good hits on long or very tight shots somewhat harder. The thing problem becomes less and less of a issue as shooters advance through the sport.  

Can you count is the only stage I can think of that splits matter. Other than that, .20 splits or more are the norm for most targets. 

[B_RAD]

16 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

 

 

The issue with light weight striker fired guns is it is harder to press the trigger straight back without disturbing the sights, this makes good hits on long or very tight shots somewhat harder. The thing problem becomes less and less of a issue as shooters advance through the sport.  

 

I agree with this a lot. Though, I feel some are easier than others. Glocks being the most difficult, IMO. 

 

 

Also, the proper grip will mitigate the negative effect. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by B_RAD

[MikeBurgess]

50 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

Can you count is the only stage I can think of that splits matter. Other than that, .20 splits or more are the norm for most targets. 

and even on can you count running .15 splits with a GLOCk vs .13 with (insert wonder gun here) is only .32 seconds. and im not so sure there is that mush speed difference.  

 

I know I can run .15s with a GLOCK and  I have hit .13s a couple times with a 9mm 1911, but I also know shooters that run faster splits with a GLOCk because the positive reset helps them.

[rowdyb]

2 hours ago, ChuckS said:

Let me put my moderator hat on right here and say if this goes any closer to personal, it's closed. Be nice...

you're right. i did make it personal-ish.

[HCH]

I think if most people bought a Glock , xdm, M&P, or whatever plastic fantastic the liked, did some upgrades, and spent the other $1000-2000 on classes and training, they’d be miles ahead. 

 

*this applies to all divisions except Open. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by HCH

[Southpaw]

Impossible to do well with a Glock 17. Might as well throw it in the trash, or send to me for proper disposal...