Singlestack Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 I just bought a G17 Saturday. I bought 500rds of 115gr fmj and headed out to the range on Sunday. This is the first 9mm I have ever owned and I have not shot one in a long time (maby 5 or 6 yrs). I was expecting a soft shooting, accurate weapon. I was supprised. The 9 is much snappier than I expected. The stock front sight is so big that it completely covers a 10in paper plate at 35yds. I now know why I have seen people having trouble with long distance shots with them. I could not hit the 10" plate at 35yrds either! I have been shooting a G35 with 180gr fmj's over 4.3g VN320 and it is MUCH softer. the 180's are running about 850fps out of the G35 and they are much less snappy than the 115g 9's at 1150. I now need a MUCH smaller front sight and a softer load or I am going to sell the G17. I think the G35 is the gun to beat at this point and so far the G17 is not doing it. How do 147gr bullets shoot at about 875fps? I use VN320 for my .45's and my .40's so I would like to use it in the 9. Anybody been there? I bought the 17 thinking my wife would like to shoot it in Production but If I can't shoot it well I would not feel right giving it to her. I guess it is easy to tell I'm dissapointed at this point. I have heard a lot of good things about the 17 but I'm not impressed. Any help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Singlestack, 1 question: One can't shoot a G35 as a production gun? I thought you could... (To put things in perspective - I'm running a G19 right now...) As far as the sights go, the stock ones need to be chucked. The front sight is WAY too wide. The shorter slide of the 17 only exacerbates the situation. I put on fixed Trijicons and that dramatically improved my sight picture. Heinies are equally good, I'm sure. With the T's I can hit 10" easily out to 40-50 yards. To reduce the snap, try a tungsten recoil rod. It helps a little. You won't be able to reduce the load much in 9mm (w/115g, 147g may give you better luck) and get the gun to cycle. My buddy tried this with his 17 and went "bang...bang...damn! shuck...shuck... bang dammit!...bang...damn!..." Otherwise, the smaller Glocks are just flippy, flippy guns. Still, if your club is like mine, she can rule production class with the G17 until you find a 34/35. Good luck! Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 5, 2001 Author Share Posted November 5, 2001 EricW, Yes, I shoot the 35 in production. I bought the 17 thinking it would be softer than the 35. WRONG! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 SS, Trade the 17 for a 34. I've heard (haven't shot a 34 yet - mine's still on order) that the longer slide, better sights and better trigger make all the difference - we'll see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpty1 Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 My thoughts on some of the questions/issues above: You can shoot a 35 in production, you're just scored minor. Therefore, most people doing so download the 35 when shooting production. I think the "Front Sight" an issue or two ago mentioned a guy winning production class in a match out west with a "lightly sprung" 35. I feel the 147s shoot flatter (front sight perspective, not trajectory) than 115s in both my 34 and my 17. I shoot 147s exclusively with Accurate #5. #5 has proven to be much more accurate in my particular 34, especially at 40 and 50 yards as compared to the VV powders. Glock makes great guns, but their sights suck wind. I would not even consider shooting a Glock competitively until the sights were replaced. I like the Heinie Glock Specialty sights with the front trimmed to .100 width. Can't go more narrow than that because of the securing screw without going to a pyramid type front configuration and I don't care for that look. I plan on doing some experimenting because some people think a downloaded 40 is a better production weapon than a 9mm. It's strange, I shoot both Lim-10 and production with a 35 and 34 respectively, and I shoot the major 40 as quickly as I do the minor 9. I don't know if it's because the gun cycles much quicker or what, but I hope to find out why. Doesn't make much sense to me. Even if you change sights, add extended slide and mag release button and put a 3.5 connector in a 17, I feel the 34 would be easier to shoot for someone just getting started due to the longer sight radius. I think it's a matter of finding what the shooter likes and staying with it. I've always been partial to the longer slide 34 and 35. Scott Caylor beat me for third at the limited nationals using a 17. Sevigny won production with a 34. The singer and not the song...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 5, 2001 Author Share Posted November 5, 2001 Chris, If your at CGC Saturday, I'll let you shoot my 35 with a 14lb recoil spring and my "production" .40 load. I bet you like it....... What division are you planning on shooting Saturday? I need to know so I can plan on what I'm NOT going to shoot.. Will a 34 slide fit on a 17? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 John, Whew!! Now I can still go buy that 34 I've got my eye on... E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 5, 2001 Author Share Posted November 5, 2001 SG, Trade the 34 for a 35...... It shoots MUCH softer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Whaddaya expect from a 35,000 psi cartridge in a light, plastic frame? I found 147 gr bullets softer in the various 9mm Glocks I've shot. I generally run them around 900 fps. People think the trigger is the worst part of a Glock. Not so, it's the sights! Heine makes a nice set of target sights, and you can get Bo-Mars. I do OK with Trijicons with the white ring blacked out with a permanent marker. And the front tritium tube blacked out if I want to be a real gamer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Quote: from Erik Warren - I found 147 gr bullets softer in the various 9mm Glocks I've shot. I generally run them around 900 fps. Softer than other 9mm's or softer than the Glock 40's? SS swears I oughta get a .40 for production... I'm thinking 9mm loaded to minor is going to be easier for me to handle with less felt recoil... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpty1 Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 SS, I'd love to shoot your 35 Saturday. I hoping to make the match and will shoot Lim-10 if I do. A 34 top end should fit a 17 frame. Put a 3.5 connector, long slide and mag release in it and you've got a 34. Have you tried a 13# spring in your gun? Did you like the 14 better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 5, 2001 Author Share Posted November 5, 2001 SG, The .40 downloaded to minor is much softer than 9mm. At least the 9mm I just shot. I'm going to try to get the 9 softer. If I don't, the wife will be wanting my 35....... Chris, No, I have not tried a #13 spring. I could probably load even softer with a #13. The load I'm shooting now is as about as low as I can go and still get reliability. It is throwing brass about 4ft. I have shot about 1000rds so far and no miss feeds or jams. Now if I could just get some of those special "A zone" seeking bullets you have....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpty1 Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 SS, Saturday I'll bring my 34 with 127 PF 9mm ammo and we can play around and see what is softer; the 34 or the 35, both shooting minor PF. I'd like to shoot some of your minor 40 ammo in my 35 also. I'll bring a new 13# spring so you can try it in your gun if you want. I use 13s in my 34 and 35 regardless of PF. Sound like a plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 5, 2001 Author Share Posted November 5, 2001 Its a deal! I'd like to shoot on the same squad with you. Make sure you bring me some of those "special" bullets! (Edited by Singlestack at 6:23 pm on Nov. 5, 2001) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 In my limited experience shooting other people's Glock .40s I've noticed that the 9mm gun are softer if you're comparing factory ammo to factory ammo, or soft loads to soft loads. But that's my perception.... ShooterGrrl, If you're still on the fence you know by now that I can't speak highly enough of the 9 mm. However, which caliber will be easier to reload for you? Do you guys already reload .40 or .38 super? If so, you might save money going with components that you're buying in quantity anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted November 6, 2001 Share Posted November 6, 2001 SG, I meant 9mm 147 is softer than 9mm 124 or whatever, not compared to .40. I haven't shot a whole lot of softened .40, probably none through a Glock. You might run into trouble with the softened .40s feeling too sluggish, especially if you just use the same 180gr bullets as your hubby's Limited gun. A softened .40 is going to feel like a dog compared to your Super, whereas a 9 will always have some snappiness in its cycling. I'm not saying that's good or bad, you can decide that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 6, 2001 Author Share Posted November 6, 2001 (Edited by Singlestack at 11:05 pm on Nov. 5, 2001) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 6, 2001 Author Share Posted November 6, 2001 It is not going to rattle your fillings like your Super either.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpty1 Posted November 6, 2001 Share Posted November 6, 2001 What comes around, goes around. It's funny how you get used to certain things. In the old days, I shot a comped 38 super open gun and had to wear both plugs and muffs at first until I got used to the muzzle blast and report. After a while, it was no big deal. Now years later, when I RO on occasion for some of our local club matches, especially the indoor ones, the blast and noise from those things is worse than ever. Time for plugs and muffs again. SS - you heard anything about Cherokee being a two gun affair this weekend? Heard something about it at GPSL Thursday night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted November 7, 2001 Share Posted November 7, 2001 Thanks for all the observations guys. I'm getting the G34 for sure! Deciding point was the snappiness comparison Erik made to my Super - that's what I like - dogginess is not for me :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bountyhunter Posted November 7, 2001 Share Posted November 7, 2001 Mr Singlestack: snappy recoil from 115-grain 9mm? I shoot them through my 1911 and they feel like 22's. The "snap" you feel is caused by gun imbalance. With a Polymer gun all the weight's on top and very little below to act as a counter-balance. This magnifies the felt recoil snap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 11, 2001 Author Share Posted November 11, 2001 Range Report: After the match Saturday, Chris and I compared the 34 to the 35 using 147gr fmj's at ~127pf in the 34 and 180gr fmj's at ~145 pf in the 35. I won't speak for Chris but I hope he will post for himself. The 34 flipped more and had less felt recoil. It also seemed to cycle slower. The 35 had more felt recoil and flipped a lot less and cycled faster. The sights on the 35 only lifted a very small amount and recovered faster. After this test I am more convinced than ever that the 35 is the Glock to beat as far as Production is concerned. I dissagree with Eric and having shot the downloaded .40 in the 35, "dogginess" does not apply. It simply flips less and recovers faster than 165pf .40. Hope this helps for anybody that has not had a chanch to compare the two pistols and loads side by side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted November 11, 2001 Share Posted November 11, 2001 John, Do you think you might have felt differently if the 9 mm load had been 115s at 1100 fps? That would give you a roughly 127 pf load. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpty1 Posted November 12, 2001 Share Posted November 12, 2001 After Saturday's test session with SS, I am convinced of the following as it relates to my style(s) of shooting, when shooting Glock models 34 and 35. Disclaimer: I may be of a different opinion when performing the same comparisons shooting weapons other than Glocks..: I much prefer the 145 PF 40 loads over a 127 PF 9mm load. Sight lift for both is negligible (sp?) and cycle time on the 40 is much quicker. I am going to restrain from a final opinion until I compare a 145 9mm load with a 145 40 cal load. I will use both sensory perceptions and a timer to form this final opinion. I plan on adjusting my production, lim-10, and IDPA strategy based on the outcome. I could detect a difference in the cycle time of the 145 PF 40 cal load and a major PF load in 40, with the major load being quicker from a cycling perspective. Of course, felt recoil and sight movement was different also. I also plan to do some timer comparisons with 145 PF and 168 PF 40 cal loads. Methinks maybe it's all what you get used to...? Maybe a shooter is better off shooting the same major loads in production and LIM-10 to maintain consistency instead of adjusting back and forth to different loads and the associated effects on the shooter and the weapon itself..? I know my times on the same classifier are usually better with the 35 than the 34. Kinda shoots down the lighter is better theory. Basically, Saturday was a good test, but was the starting point for me with more to come. Like someone here says...."it's all good". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted November 12, 2001 Author Share Posted November 12, 2001 Nik, No. The first post on this thread was about 115s @ 1150. They flip a lot more then the 147s @ 127. I had never tried the 147s until Saturday when I shot with Chris. He uses the 147s in his 34 for Production. P.S. Chris is awesome with a Glock! It was a treat to watch a M class shooter who is very comfortable with a Glock in his hands. (Edited by Singlestack at 7:15 pm on Nov. 11, 2001) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now