Glock 17 for Production?

[xdf3]

So this became the "all others are stupid spending more for better guns" thread, nice

 

No trigger and recoil issues? It should be the most preferred production gun then

 

If you're supporting your reasons with "it only takes practice" then it's still saying I'm right. That's exactly what I said. I can bet it won't take 5000 shots only to be as good as with any competitive gun out there

 

For the splits : I don't think the issue is at lower distances, since it will be similar, but at longer ones. 0.02 won't make a difference but 0.2 per shot will (again, how much practice will it take to have the same splits to any other competition-ready gun?)

Edited August 27, 2019 by xdf3

[B_RAD]

6 hours ago, xdf3 said:

So this became the "all others are stupid spending more for better guns" thread, nice

 

No trigger and recoil issues? It should be the most preferred production gun then

 

If you're supporting your reasons with "it only takes practice" then it's still saying I'm right. That's exactly what I said. I can bet it won't take 5000 shots only to be as good as with any competitive gun out there

 

For the splits : I don't think the issue is at lower distances, since it will be similar, but at longer ones. 0.02 won't make a difference but 0.2 per shot will (again, how much practice will it take to have the same splits to any other competition-ready gun?)

People want to buy that performance. Glocks require better fundamentals, IMO. Or maybe it's less forgiving when you have bad fundamentals?  

 

Heavy= less disturbance with bad trigger pull and yes, should be flatter for longer shots.  

 

Just my $0.02. 

[xdf3]

6 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

People want to buy that performance. Glocks require better fundamentals, IMO. Or maybe it's less forgiving when you have bad fundamentals?  

 

Heavy= less disturbance with bad trigger pull and yes, should be flatter for longer shots.  

 

Just my $0.02. 

You can learn fundamentals while using competitive guns. That's what I learnt after I wasted more time than needed using a Glock 17. And to have the exact same performance as I would using a CZ Shadow2, my effort should have to be much bigger.

 

Of course to be comparable the glock should have some upgrades

[B_RAD]

15 minutes ago, xdf3 said:

You can learn fundamentals while using competitive guns. That's what I learnt after I wasted more time than needed using a Glock 17. And to have the exact same performance as I would using a CZ Shadow2, my effort should have to be much bigger.

 

Of course to be comparable the glock should have some upgrades

I don't think you're wrong.  Though, not sure I think you're right either.  I go back and forth on the gun. I shoot a Glock by the way. 

[MikeBurgess]

7 hours ago, xdf3 said:

So this became the "all others are stupid spending more for better guns" thread, nice

 

No trigger and recoil issues? It should be the most preferred production gun then

 

If you're supporting your reasons with "it only takes practice" then it's still saying I'm right. That's exactly what I said. I can bet it won't take 5000 shots only to be as good as with any competitive gun out there

 

For the splits : I don't think the issue is at lower distances, since it will be similar, but at longer ones. 0.02 won't make a difference but 0.2 per shot will (again, how much practice will it take to have the same splits to any other competition-ready gun?)

I would say there are no recoil issues. but yes in stock form there are trigger issues but it is cheep and easy to make that acceptable. 

recoil isn't what affects long or tight shots, light weight and a harder trigger can, unfortunately in the US  there are relatively few hard shots in most matches making any advantage there (I concede its real but not as large as I think you believe) a even small percentage of the score. 

Light guns on the other hand draw and transition faster so there are some advantages to mitigate the advantages of heavy guns.

 

I think the biggest thing that gets overlooked in the whole what gun to use is people like having finer more refined things regardless if they work better or not, I don't understand why we feel we justify the desire to have nice stuff by saying its the only way to be competitive when there is so much evidence that its is not. Owning and using nice stuff makes us happy, why do we need more justification than that.

 

A S2 (either kind) is a very nice gun and compared to a GLOCK it gives more satisfaction of ownership, will it make me a better or worse shooter probably not, will it make me happy to own and use it yes. 

 

 

[xdf3]

9 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

I would say there are no recoil issues. but yes in stock form there are trigger issues but it is cheep and easy to make that acceptable. 

recoil isn't what affects long or tight shots, light weight and a harder trigger can, unfortunately in the US  there are relatively few hard shots in most matches making any advantage there (I concede its real but not as large as I think you believe) a even small percentage of the score. 

Light guns on the other hand draw and transition faster so there are some advantages to mitigate the advantages of heavy guns.

 

I think the biggest thing that gets overlooked in the whole what gun to use is people like having finer more refined things regardless if they work better or not, I don't understand why we feel we justify the desire to have nice stuff by saying its the only way to be competitive when there is so much evidence that its is not. Owning and using nice stuff makes us happy, why do we need more justification than that.

 

A S2 (either kind) is a very nice gun and compared to a GLOCK it gives more satisfaction of ownership, will it make me a better or worse shooter probably not, will it make me happy to own and use it yes. 

 

 

 

Actually this is the first time I hear/read about a glock being as good as a Cz or Tanfoglio except from novices, which likes to say "it's the shooter, not the gun", when in reality top shooters clearly say that the gun they're using affects their score, especially if that's a bad gun. Don't count Vogel or Grauffel, they shoot so much and have an advantage over most shooters, and some differences are bigger for some, and more little for others. 

 

I've always seen a difference in score whenever a worse gun was used. Of course the difference will be much less in USPSA where targets are easier to shoot and at shorter distances than IPSC but there will be a difference anyway

 

BTW a shooter which had more than 90% in the last world shoot (IPSC) lost a lot by using a gun like Glock 17 in last championship. Maybe it depends on the kind of matches and difficulty.

Edited August 27, 2019 by xdf3

[Mcfoto]

This debate kind of reminds me of when Skunk Baxter (guitarist for Steely Dan and Doobie brothers) admitted that he used a cheap Sears Silvertone guitar for many of his recordings. He started using it on tour. All of a sudden, it was cool to play a cheap department store ax. Then folks were disappointed when they couldn't cop his sound. Because a) you don't have world-class guitar techs setting it up and b) you're not Skunk Baxter.

[xdf3]

4 minutes ago, Mcfoto said:

This debate kind of reminds me of when Skunk Baxter (guitarist for Steely Dan and Doobie brothers) admitted that he used a cheap Sears Silvertone guitar for many of his recordings. He started using it on tour. All of a sudden, it was cool to play a cheap department store ax. Then folks were disappointed when they couldn't cop his sound. Because a) you don't have world-class guitar techs setting it up and b) you're not Skunk Baxter.

So don't expect to buy a Glock17 and use it like Bob Vogel  

[HCH]

10 hours ago, xdf3 said:

So don't expect to buy a Glock17 and use it like Bob Vogel  

 Or a tanfo and expect to use it like Stoeger. 

[blueorison]

On 8/25/2019 at 3:46 PM, Stafford said:

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?

 

Ok... haha.. many of the posts of the first page that seem "negative" - they are joking and being sarcastic! Just wanted to FYI you... they aren't being serious, if you were wondering.

 

Yes, the G17 is great for production; it handles faster and more balanced than the G34 (front heavy), for me. I'm always faster at manipulations, etc. with the G17; many feel this way.

 

If you have big(ger) hands, the G17 G3/G4 works great. Recoil with 130PF minor loads aren't bad enough to warrant you going to more expensive guns, IMO. 

Heavy guns sometimes have less felt recoil, but that pales in comparison with handling characteristics, ease-of-use, etc. 

 

"Felt recoil" isn't everything, nor should it be even at the top of the list, especially for minor loads.

[tdp88]

On 8/27/2019 at 2:10 AM, xdf3 said:

So this became the "all others are stupid spending more for better guns" thread, nice

 

No trigger and recoil issues? It should be the most preferred production gun then

 

If you're supporting your reasons with "it only takes practice" then it's still saying I'm right. That's exactly what I said. I can bet it won't take 5000 shots only to be as good as with any competitive gun out there

 

For the splits : I don't think the issue is at lower distances, since it will be similar, but at longer ones. 0.02 won't make a difference but 0.2 per shot will (again, how much practice will it take to have the same splits to any other competition-ready gun?)

I'll agree that it is easier in the beginning to shoot faster and more accurately with a CZ or Tanfo, but a Glock is easier and faster to reload and draw. I would say that in USPSA around A class the gun doesn't really matter anymore in production but I think most lower level shooters will see an advantage with heavier guns and better triggers. As far as having .2 slower splits, if someone has that big of a difference from platform to platform then they have some serious fundamental issues. Even on a 25 yard partial there shouldn't be that big of a difference. 

[blueorison]

24 minutes ago, tdp88 said:

I'll agree that it is easier in the beginning to shoot faster and more accurately with a CZ or Tanfo, but a Glock is easier and faster to reload and draw. I would say that in USPSA around A class the gun doesn't really matter anymore in production but I think most lower level shooters will see an advantage with heavier guns and better triggers. As far as having .2 slower splits, if someone has that big of a difference from platform to platform then they have some serious fundamental issues. Even on a 25 yard partial there shouldn't be that big of a difference. 

 

Well said.

 

I shoot anything from S2s to Steyrs; very few handles and manipulates as effortlessly as the G17. Lots of slide to grip when you need to; balanced; lightweight.

 

That said, just as with proficiency in flowing with recoil etc., the level of manipulation between diff pistols may be equilibriated by the shooter. But you have to decide if you would like to place what might be unnecessary focus and effort into that bucket of manipulation focus.

 

Everything has pros and cons.

[Chuck Anderson]

On 8/27/2019 at 8:21 AM, xdf3 said:

 

Actually this is the first time I hear/read about a glock being as good as a Cz or Tanfoglio except from novices, which likes to say "it's the shooter, not the gun", when in reality top shooters clearly say that the gun they're using affects their score, especially if that's a bad gun. Don't count Vogel or Grauffel, they shoot so much and have an advantage over most shooters, and some differences are bigger for some, and more little for others. 

 

I've always seen a difference in score whenever a worse gun was used. Of course the difference will be much less in USPSA where targets are easier to shoot and at shorter distances than IPSC but there will be a difference anyway

 

BTW a shooter which had more than 90% in the last world shoot (IPSC) lost a lot by using a gun like Glock 17 in last championship. Maybe it depends on the kind of matches and difficulty.

I guess I'm a novice.  Had my best Nationals finish using a Glock 17 and Remington UMC ammo.  Still shoot a Glock 34.  I've shot 2011's, CZ's, Tanfo's, Sigs, Beretta, 1911's, Revos, Walthers, even that STI GP6.  Haven't found anything else I shoot better than the Glock regardless of price.  Might be because I carry one for work and dedicate the majority of my training time to it.  

Bottom line, if a guy is asking if a Glock 17 is an acceptable gun to shoot Production with, it is.  Is it necessarily the best gun for that person, dunno.  But I guarantee random folks on the internet don't know either.  Go shoot it if you have it.  Ask the other guys you are with to shoot their guns as well.  Most will be more than happy to let you.  If you find something better, go buy that.  Or better, just buy ammo and practice until you have enough time to decide if Production is where you want to stay and if so, which gun is best for you.  

[Chuck Anderson]

It's always interesting when I see people talk about how hard Gun "X" is to shoot on small targets, or partials, or fast.  I've had splits under .10 with the Glock, you can shoot it fast (not even using the 18).  I use my Glock for 3 Gun where it's not uncommon to have 4" plates at 25 yards, no problem.  Or shots with the handgun out past 100 yards, still works just fine.  It's almost like if you line the bumpy things up on the slide and don't jerk the trigger the shots go where they are supposed to...weird.  

 

[davidb72]

On 9/5/2019 at 4:15 PM, Chuck Anderson said:

It's always interesting when I see people talk about how hard Gun "X" is to shoot on small targets, or partials, or fast.  I've had splits under .10 with the Glock, you can shoot it fast (not even using the 18).  I use my Glock for 3 Gun where it's not uncommon to have 4" plates at 25 yards, no problem.  Or shots with the handgun out past 100 yards, still works just fine.  It's almost like if you line the bumpy things up on the slide and don't jerk the trigger the shots go where they are supposed to...weird.  

 

That's very true.

I shot limited last year with an Atlas Titan. Shooting a Gen 5 Glock 17 in production this year and am having just as much fun. At some point I will probably put a dot on the G17 and shoot carry optics with it.

I'm barely an A class in limited and B in production but I don't think it's the Glock holding me back. Heck -  a local guy (just a regular Joe) recently made M with his Glock 34 so they can't be too bad.

[davidb72]

Another thing I really like about shooting the Glock is how low maintenance it is.

Mags just work, gun just runs. No drama, no issues.

 

[Tirppa]

Here's a newbies 2 cents. Get a gun that YOU want. A gun that excites you and makes you want to shoot and get better. But also try out different guns and pick one that fits your hand the best. The one that you shoot the best. It also depends on your goals. Everybody wants to win but be realistic. Are your goals to be top 10 in the nationals in the next 3 years. Or do you just wanna have a fun hobby where you get slowly better. If you want to have fun an "easy" gun might be a good choice. By easy I mean one with easy trigger pull and low recoil impulse. 

 

But then again the Glock has its pros too. It's light. If you're a weakling like I am the draw and transitions feel easier. The trigger can be worked on to be good enough. Don't over do it. Realiability > lightest possible trigger. 

 

If I would recommend a gun for production for beginner I'd give few options. CZ Shadow 1/Shadow 2 or Glock 17. Great aftermarket support and reliable on both. Glocks are super easy to maintain. CZ torn to pieces is well.. a lot of pieces. Then again internet is full of instructions. Why those 2 (3)? Well where I live it's the availability and aftermarket support. In US you probably have more options with Walthers and Sigs but you still can't go wrong with those. 

 

All that said.. I shoot Tanfo's because they're cool as f* 

 

Edited September 15, 2019 by Tirppa

[rowdyb]

I recently took my x5 legion and my shadow 2 and shot identical 130 round courses of fire with emphasis on all aspects of using the gun. I scored it all on practiscore and one gun was 100% and one gun was 99.2%.

 

Use good equipment. Learn how do do things properly. Change what you're doing if you're not improving. 

 

First you must have good, reliable stuff. Then it's all on you to improve. 

[chauncey]

I am not a competition god

Actually I am not that good at all

 

From watching and participating in a lot of IDPA and 3gun competitions it is My Opinion that beginner and intermediate shooters benefit more from spending time and money on training and practice.

 

Advanced and expert shooters benefit more from gear upgrades and improved techniques.

 

The trick is knowing when it is time to make the transition.

Edited October 2, 2019 by chauncey

[xdf3]

When one gun for production is more accurate, double taps faster and easier, has a better "magwell" and a light/good trigger, swapping from that one to another will make a clear difference. It's easily noticeable in a lot of matches where you see good shooters performing better or worse depending on the gun. For example, a new gun was released and some top shooters were performing a lot worse, no matter the effort they put in, since the differences were too clear. 

[MikeBurgess]

25 minutes ago, xdf3 said:

When one gun for production is more accurate, double taps faster and easier, has a better "magwell" and a light/good trigger, swapping from that one to another will make a clear difference. It's easily noticeable in a lot of matches where you see good shooters performing better or worse depending on the gun. For example, a new gun was released and some top shooters were performing a lot worse, no matter the effort they put in, since the differences were too clear. 

what new gun came out that you saw many top shooters swap to and have performance dips that they could not train out?  

 

The only experience I have seeing something like this was a local Master level guy that switched from a GLOCK to a CZ and was never able to shoot to the same level with the CZ. 

everyone else I have observed that swapped guns one way or the other has quickly been at the same level, one local master shooting a CZ S2 and dooing well pulled out his old G34 in practice and was equaling his drill scores in just a few minutes practice, he still shot the S2 because he liked it more, but had to admit liked more and scores better are not the same thing. 

 

 

 

 

[xdf3]

21 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

what new gun came out that you saw many top shooters swap to and have performance dips that they could not train out?  

 

The only experience I have seeing something like this was a local Master level guy that switched from a GLOCK to a CZ and was never able to shoot to the same level with the CZ. 

everyone else I have observed that swapped guns one way or the other has quickly been at the same level, one local master shooting a CZ S2 and dooing well pulled out his old G34 in practice and was equaling his drill scores in just a few minutes practice, he still shot the S2 because he liked it more, but had to admit liked more and scores better are not the same thing. 

 

 

 

 

I won't name it but as a matter of fact, some shooters using a new better gun are doing better, some shooters using a new gun (worse) are doing worse. 
Maybe a bigfoot won't have any issue swapping from a CZ to a Glock (due to recoil management) but most shooters will find differences. There may be a lot of details which matter. 
Few drills are not enough to judge. I can see there's a big difference between a SP01 and a Shadow2. It's not a matter of practice.

[MikeBurgess]

1 hour ago, xdf3 said:

I won't name it but as a matter of fact, some shooters using a new better gun are doing better, some shooters using a new gun (worse) are doing worse. 
Maybe a bigfoot won't have any issue swapping from a CZ to a Glock (due to recoil management) but most shooters will find differences. There may be a lot of details which matter. 
Few drills are not enough to judge. I can see there's a big difference between a SP01 and a Shadow2. It's not a matter of practice.

OK we can agree to dissagree

 

Oddly looking at the Limited nationals results where one would assume the guns would matter more (major power factor, no restrictions) the finish was 2011, Tanfoglio, GLOCK, GLOCK, 2011. with 2nd through 4th only separated by 15 Match points, this leads me to believe that skill is WAY more important than platform, and any differences you can feel between your SP01 and S2 are insignificant.  

[B_RAD]

13 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

OK we can agree to dissagree

 

Oddly looking at the Limited nationals results where one would assume the guns would matter more (major power factor, no restrictions) the finish was 2011, Tanfoglio, GLOCK, GLOCK, 2011. with 2nd through 4th only separated by 15 Match points, this leads me to believe that skill is WAY more important than platform, and any differences you can feel between your SP01 and S2 are insignificant.  

Well,.... Yes and no. This nats was mostly close hoser stuff.  If one gun is more accurate than another that would/could make a difference in a match that had longer more difficult shots.  Not saying the outcome would have been different but using one match as a barometer to make an equipment decision might not be the best way.

 

Saying that, I shot a glock. I shoot it well too.  While I don't feel the glock is bad, there are times I wish I had a single action trigger and a more accurate gun.  Not that the glock is horribly inaccurate. Just my thoughts. 

[MikeBurgess]

9 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

Well,.... Yes and no. This nats was mostly close hoser stuff.  If one gun is more accurate than another that would/could make a difference in a match that had longer more difficult shots.  Not saying the outcome would have been different but using one match as a barometer to make an equipment decision might not be the best way.

 

Saying that, I shot a glock. I shoot it well too.  While I don't feel the glock is bad, there are times I wish I had a single action trigger and a more accurate gun.  Not that the glock is horribly inaccurate. Just my thoughts. 

I agree accuracy can be a issue, but also I have yet to see any gun seriously campaigned by anyone that is not accurate enough for our game, Nobody is running a DAO gun seriously in production, all the polymer guns can have pretty good triggers with just a little work, GLOCK is probably the worst and they can still be made quite livable.