What's your Carry Optics preference, a Glock 34 or 17?

[Cuz]

I'm wondering what the rest of you prefer as a Carry Optics gun.  Since it's going to have a red dot, sight radius isn't an issue.  Whenever I try to compare, I find myself leaning towards preferring the 34 over the 17, but I think that's because my 34s are Gen3 and Gen5 and the 17 is a Gen4, which I don't really like.

 

So I don't know if I prefer the 34 simply because I like the Gen3 and Gen5 more than the Gen4.  I know I'll probably end up with a Gen5 17 eventually.  So, do you prefer the "feel" of the longer slide on the 34 or the shorter, and possibly faster pointing 17?

 

 

[Degnan]

I switched from a 34 Gen 4 in production to a 17 Gen 5 for CO. 
 

Since sight radius was not a factor I went with the 17 mostly due to it costing less than 34. 
 

I find the 17 points better and is better balanced, but only by a very small margin. 

[Jeremyc_1999]

I prefer the 45 myself. Less mass on the slide reciprocating. Of course, you do also have less overall weight which some people don’t like 

[Cuz]

20 minutes ago, Jeremyc_1999 said:

I prefer the 45 myself. Less mass on the slide reciprocating. Of course, you do also have less overall weight which some people don’t like 

 

Not sure if the PF will drop off below or too close to 125 with the 4" barrel and my load.  My current load already spans 126-133 depending on the firearm used.  Besides, I've been shooting a 34 for so many years, the 17 slide already looks like it's oddly too short.  I don't want to go any shorter than that.  I also thought the 45 had a slightly different lower than the standard Gen5 17/34 but don't know for sure.

 

[Mike L.]

1 hour ago, Cuz said:

I also thought the 45 had a slightly different lower than the standard Gen5 17/34 but don't know for sure.

 

The 45 is basically a 17/34 frame with a 19 top end. To my knowledge the frame is no different between the 45 and 17/34 and is interchangeable. HTH.

[TheChewycookie]

I have a 17 gen 5 for CO, it stays fairly balanced with no weight added other than your mag extension of choice. I also plan to use it for IPSC matches in Production Optics. g34.5 might be your way to go if you plan to add a brass plug for a little extra weight. I feel an observable balance difference between my gen 4 and 5 with the weight slightly more forward on the gen 5. I don't notice a pointing difference between the two different guns.

 

17 minutes ago, Mike L. said:

The 45 is basically a 17/34 frame with a 19 top end. To my knowledge the frame is no different between the 45 and 17/34 and is interchangeable. HTH.

The frames are not interchangeable between 17/34 and 45. The 45 dust cover is shorter, creating an air gap if you used a standard or long slide. If you're in an LE role, you might be able to pickup a G47, which is a 45 frame with an extended 19 slide to 17 length.

[S&W686]

I first placed a red dot on my Glock 34 Gen 5, but changed to my Glock 45.  I seemed to shoot better with the Glock 45.

Edited November 25, 2021 by S&W686

[vluc]

I've run both a 17 and 34 in CO as well as production.  I prefer the 34 as I shot it for so many years in production.  Sometimes shooting the 17 seems to be better, other times it does not.  Weight-wise they are the same as the cutout on the 34 was - supposedly- made to be the same as the 17 slide in weight.

 

I've run them back to back when shooting 2x at local clubs and varied which one was first gun and second gun.  I can't give a better answer as I've tried for years to settle.  There is a difference in power factor for sure, so if you are skirting the low end and make pf with the 34, be aware or you could go sub minor in the 17.

[Cuz]

3 hours ago, vluc said:

I've run both a 17 and 34 in CO as well as production.  I prefer the 34 as I shot it for so many years in production.  Sometimes shooting the 17 seems to be better, other times it does not.  Weight-wise they are the same as the cutout on the 34 was - supposedly- made to be the same as the 17 slide in weight.

 

I've run them back to back when shooting 2x at local clubs and varied which one was first gun and second gun.  I can't give a better answer as I've tried for years to settle.  There is a difference in power factor for sure, so if you are skirting the low end and make pf with the 34, be aware or you could go sub minor in the 17.

 

vluc,

Sounds like you're in the same boat as me.  I shot a gen3-34 in Production for the past 15 years and am just now switching to optics.  I put a Brownells milled G34 slide on my frame and that worked ok.  Then got a Gen4-17 which I didn't care for, then got a Gen5-34 which I "think" I like a little better than the Gen3, but I've sheared the MOS screws and am not a fan of MOS design.  So, now I'm hoping to acquire a Gen 5-17 that is not MOS which I will have milled for RMR and will try that.  Since it's strictly for range/competition, I'll probably have it milled all the way back to keep the SRO optic a little further away from the ejection port to keep it a bit cleaner.  I may just look for a Gen5 slide and put it on my G34 frame.

 

[vluc]

Not sure if the 4 and 5 are compatible.  One of the reasons I've stayed away from Gen 5.  I have years worth of Gen 3 parts that will fit Gen 4.  None of them will work on the Gen 5.

[Cuz]

Not sure why I don’t like the Gen4. It’s like the bastard child of my Glocks. At first I wasn’t too crazy about the Gen5 either, but then that ambi-slide stop sucked me in. I’m a lefty.  I don’t normally go to slide lock unless something went wrong because if the extra time it took. Now it barely slows me down at all. 
 

Im also really digging the front slide serrations. With an optic mounted I don’t use the rear serrations anymore. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by Cuz

[SGT_Schultz]

On 11/23/2021 at 11:03 AM, Mike L. said:

to my knowledge the frame is no different between the 45 and 17/34 and is interchangeable. HTH.

 

It isn't.  The dust cover is shorter on the 45 frame when compared to the 17 and the 34.  Otherwise the it would stick out past the end of the slide.

 

Put a 19 slide on a 17 frame and it will be obvious.

[Tman1010]

I’ve always liked the 34s due to the fact that you get the extra velocity which means you don’t have to load as hot. Side by side setup for CO I can shoot my 34, a 17 and a G45 almost the exact same though. Only difference is my 135ish PF ammo out of my 34 would be 130isn out of a 17 and even less out of the G45 and I prefer to load decently hot personally. 

[andyivan]

45

[Cuz]

14 hours ago, Tman1010 said:

I’ve always liked the 34s due to the fact that you get the extra velocity which means you don’t have to load as hot. Side by side setup for CO I can shoot my 34, a 17 and a G45 almost the exact same though. Only difference is my 135ish PF ammo out of my 34 would be 130isn out of a 17 and even less out of the G45 and I prefer to load decently hot personally. 

Interesting, I’m sort of going the other way. My Gen3 34 gives me a 135 PF, when I switch to a Gen5 34 the same ammo drops to around 129 PF. I’m hoping the Gen5 17 will put me at about 126 PF or so. I shoot mostly knockdown steel and a 120 PF would probably be fine, but I don’t want to drop below 125 PF just because. 

[Tman1010]

The gen 5s are slower because they have standard rifling versus all the previous generations having polygonal. The new barrels are supposed to be more accurate but the loss in PF sucks. I chronoed a gen 5 17 next to my gen 4 34 and the 17 was 100 FPS less consistently with the same ammo.