Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I keep hearing how the Glock 45 and Glock 19X have such low percieved recoil due to the full grip and less reciprocating mass of the short slide. That seems to fly in the face of previous testimony on how the Glock 34 recoils less due to more weight out front.

So, to those who have both, which shoots lighter, a 34 or 45, 19X?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,450 Posts
The best answer to your question is to shoot a G45 and you will feel the difference.I am unable to put in print the difference that will make any sense,but you will be able to tell how much better the G45 shoots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,353 Posts
I keep hearing how the Glock 45 and Glock 19X have such low percieved recoil due to the full grip and less reciprocating mass of the short slide. That seems to fly in the face of previous testimony on how the Glock 34 recoils less due to more weight out front.

So, to those who have both, which shoots lighter, a 34 or 45, 19X?
I have the following :
Glock 17 Gen 4
G19 Generation 3
G19 Generation 4 MOS X 2
Glock 19 Generation 2
Glock 19X x 2
Glock 19, Gen 5
Glock 22
Glock 23
Glock 27
Glock 30
Glock 34 Gen 4

I tested my 34, 30, 19 Generation 4 with red dot, Glock 19 Gen 4 without red dot, Glock 19X, Glock 30.

I had targets at several distances and shot against a timer. I used 147 gr Lawman Brass case. 230 gr Federal 45 ACP.

I seriously thought my Glock Gen 4 G34 would beat them all. It did not.

I used 3 IDPA cardboard targets. Doubles to the head (4” A zone), to the body (8” A zone), at 7, 10 and 15 yards.

I shot my Glock 19X the best. Zero misses, fastest time.

It was followed by my Glock 17 Gen 4. 2 misses into the B zone.

Then my Glock Gen 4 G34 3 misses into the B zone. I was surprised, since I felt very confident with the 34.

My only guess is that the Glock 19X has a better factory trigger than the others. I never tested again, but I’d guess my Glock 19, Gen 5 would be on par with the Glock 19X in my hands.

The other difference amongst them is that the Glock 19X has combat hold versus 6:00 hold. I felt more comfortable with combat hold for some reason, that day.

Perceived recoil varies from one person to another. I grip my gun in a way that Ben Stoeger describes. I go more for how shot to shot recovery works, and how I can transition from target to target when stationary or shooting on the move. That’s where people should concentrate.

In my little experiment, in all honesty, the difference was minuscule.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Instagram
Muzzleblast_MD
 

·
Previously Will Beararms
Joined
·
6,661 Posts
How could a mid size or full size frame 9mm pistol have recoil?
 

·
I'm not retired
Joined
·
7,273 Posts
I own 3 Gen 4 34's. I've shot the 19X but not a G45. I think with the same ammo (WWB was choice that day), the difference is minimal.

When we had to sell some guns due to a financial burden, we chose to keep the 34's over the 17's we sold simply 'cause the 34's felt a little better rapid firing. The diff, again, was minimal, but it was there. The 19X does nothing, recoil wise, to make me want to sell or trade a 34 to get one. YperceivedrecoilMMV Ydoesa9mmevenhaverecoil?MMV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,707 Posts
I have 17's and a 45, and theres no difference in recoil between them, or shooting them for that matter.

The only difference between the 17 and 45 is about 1/2" of slide length. Whole thing is kind of silly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,176 Posts
Recoil and flip are 2 different things.
It's not unusual for less experienced shooters not to recognize the difference between muzzle lift and the direct recoil impulse delivered to the palm of the hand.

Describing the difference in felt recoil among what are essentially full-size variations of 9mm pistols strikes me as being somewhat similar to how some AR aficionados think they need a basket on the end of an AR barrel to mitigate "recoil". ;)

Eye (and hand) of the beholder, though. More emphasis on where the holes intentionally appear, and how well someone can control that happening. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanyonMan

·
On the Border
Joined
·
15,282 Posts
It's not unusual for less experienced shooters not to recognize the difference between muzzle lift and the direct recoil impulse delivered to the palm of the hand.

Describing the difference in felt recoil among what are essentially full-size variations of 9mm pistols strikes me as being somewhat similar to how some AR aficionados think they need a basket on the end of an AR barrel to mitigate "recoil". ;)

Eye (and hand) of the beholder, though. More emphasis on where the holes intentionally appear, and how well someone can control that happening. :)
It's extremely unusual for less experienced shooters to notice much of anything. That's why they tend not to be able to shoot very well. If you don't understand what's going on, you can't make a very focused forward effort. You're left with more of a gross effort to do better, but what does that really mean...? Better how?

This is also why there are so many with relatively large amounts of experience over long periods of time that still can't shoot well. All they've really ever done is practice very simple techniques with little or no analysis, and parrot dogma from mediocre instructors.

Notice how frequently people cite military and LE experience in support of their authority to comment on shooting topics. Rarely is there any mention of what they can actually do with a gun, though. Meanwhile there are schoolgirls shooting circles around them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,176 Posts
...
Notice how frequently people cite military and LE experience in support of their authority to comment on shooting topics. ...
Having acquired exposure to firearms training in the course of LE/Mil training may merely mean you've been shown where the doorway to better training experience and accomplishment stands ... not necessarily that you've chosen to have opened it and walked through it. ;)

In my younger years as an apprenticed firearms instructor, many of the better instructors were those guys who had formerly been interested in competing on agency shooting teams.

I've seen my fair share of LE shooters who had military experience, but basically had to undergo remedial firearms training in order to get up to speed regarding handgun, shotgun and rifle skills.

I remember one fellow who claimed to have been a "Marine Sniper" (and really was a Marine), and who actually had his own side business as a firearms instructor, but he didn't demonstrate any particular above average shooting skills when it came to qualifying on standard courses-of-fire.

I was helping as an instructor for private citizens one night, when I was told that one of the students was the "president" and supposedly a head instructor for a commercial shooting school. I'd not have known it just watching his demonstrated skills during the qual course-of-fire.

Just before I retired I attended a LE firearms update class for current LE firearms instructors (who had already passed a basic instructor class and had been working as instructors). There were a dismaying number of times during many of the drills and scored courses-of-fire that week when it seemed as though some of the instructor/students needed more of a remedial shooting class, than an instructor update. At least one of the "working" instructors failed to pass one (or more) of the standard scored courses-of-fire, and failed to get a certificate and pass the class. I think there were still a couple guys still working on trying to pass a course-of-fire at the end of the last day when I gathered up my gear and left.

I gave up being surprised at encountering questionable instructors many years ago, when I eventually became an instructor for a Karate & "Self Defense" school in the 70's. There were "belt mills" in those days, where someone could buy basically buy their way to a ranking. Not surprising that instructor skillset and actual experience might similarly vary in the firearms training field ... including among those folks with LE/Mil experience. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,791 Posts
Recoil can be debated all day long. For me the biggest factor is how well a gun fits my hand. Of all my Glock's I shoot the Glock 26 best. I was shooting a GSSF match once with a G19. The guy next to me was shooting a G26. I thought he was crazy. He did very well. After I shot his I bought one. My favorite is my HK VP9sk than the Springfield XD Mod2sc. Those two gun's just melt into my hand.
 

·
On the Border
Joined
·
15,282 Posts
Having acquired exposure to firearms training in the course of LE/Mil training may merely mean you've been shown where the doorway to better training experience and accomplishment stands ... not necessarily that you've chosen to have opened it and walked through it. ;)

In my younger years as an apprenticed firearms instructor, many of the better instructors were those guys who had formerly been interested in competing on agency shooting teams.

I've seen my fair share of LE shooters who had military experience, but basically had to undergo remedial firearms training in order to get up to speed regarding handgun, shotgun and rifle skills.

I remember one fellow who claimed to have been a "Marine Sniper" (and really was a Marine), and who actually had his own side business as a firearms instructor, but he didn't demonstrate any particular above average shooting skills when it came to qualifying on standard courses-of-fire.

I was helping as an instructor for private citizens one night, when I was told that one of the students was the "president" and supposedly a head instructor for a commercial shooting school. I'd not have known it just watching his demonstrated skills during the qual course-of-fire.

Just before I retired I attended a LE firearms update class for current LE firearms instructors (who had already passed a basic instructor class and had been working as instructors). There were a dismaying number of times during many of the drills and scored courses-of-fire that week when it seemed as though some of the instructor/students needed more of a remedial shooting class, than an instructor update. At least one of the "working" instructors failed to pass one (or more) of the standard scored courses-of-fire, and failed to get a certificate and pass the class. I think there were still a couple guys still working on trying to pass a course-of-fire at the end of the last day when I gathered up my gear and left.

I gave up being surprised at encountering questionable instructors many years ago, when I eventually became an instructor for a Karate & "Self Defense" school in the 70's. There were "belt mills" in those days, where someone could buy basically buy their way to a ranking. Not surprising that instructor skillset and actual experience might similarly vary in the firearms training field ... including among those folks with LE/Mil experience. ;)
My experience has been that people who shoot well are the ones who study shooting, learn what it means to shoot well, and then develop that ability. Some of them have more talent for actual shooting and some are stronger on the developmental side. Most of them are pretty astute.

Training and practice are two completely different things, as are instruction and performance. The ability to do something well does not imply the ability to articulate how to do it well. And the highest performing people are often not the clearest communicators.

I've seen plenty of combat vets, cops and SWAT guys melt unbelievably on stages. Yes, the LE/Military vets are less likely to be grossly incompetent than a random person off the street, but that's about it. A good shooter is someone who's studied the problem and applied himself - same as anything else in life.

I think it's possible to train shooters to a basic level of safe competency. And it's certainly possible to teach them a lot about how to improve themselves. But thinking through all the highly skilled people I've shot with, including some of the best on the planet, I can't think of anyone who was trained into being a good, extraordinary or great shooter. That all comes from practice, not training.

Whether it be from raw talent, hard work or likely a combination of the two, the quality of people's shooting seems to be pretty commensurate with the quality of their insight. IOW, the better shooters have a better understanding of what they are doing, and where they are trying to go with shooting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,176 Posts
... A good shooter is someone who's studied the problem and applied himself - same as anything else in life.
...
IOW, the better shooters have a better understanding of what they are doing, and where they are trying to go with shooting.
Competency can vary according to user needs and the yardstick used to "measure" it, as can the nature and the quality of mindset. Mindset can be divided and broken down further relative to the goals of the person learning and practicing the shooting skills, too.

People who can "thrive" when subjected to the demands and rigors of sport stress may not be able to access their "connection" to their skillset quite so well if thrust within circumstances of life threatening stress ... and vice versa.

Everyone likes to throw around the terms "training" and "practice", and many people often consider them interchangeable, or they apply their own favorite meaning to them.

Well, if we look to sports, then in the simplest comparison "Training" is learning (and/or being taught) how to do something, while "Practice" is subsequently and continually applying the knowledge and skills that have been learned (like during training) to the purpose.

Training is learning the skill, and practicing it let's you improve your performance of it (presuming proper understanding was gleaned from training, and then proper practice of it employed).

One of the other distinctions is thinking about whatever "time" may be involved. It may not take long to "learn" something (be trained), but the "practice" may be a significantly lengthy process.

When I schedule time to visit the range where I used to work, I'll either arrange to spend time with one of more of the other instructors, or go off to myself. It depends on my purpose, the amount of time available, which part of the facility is available, whether one (or more) of the other instructors are available, etc.

If I'm shooting with one of the other instructors, I count on them to offer me any required corrections, training insights or pointers as they observe me work.

This may be either informal or formal, also, depending on the conditions. Informal could be a friendly group learning environment among instructors as peers, which may or may not be further overseen by a more senior instructor. Formal could mean a regimented instructor/shooter relationship, like various types of quals and shooter assessments, training scenario/drills creation, individual shooter development, etc.

Naturally, the term "practice" could easily be applied, especially if the members of the group are simply working together on practicing their separate skills, instead of practicing serving as an instructor. ;)

I've even seen days and nights where the less experienced instructors might group together to simply practice and discuss things amongst themselves, while the senior instructors might go off to another part of the range to work on some further refinements, helping each other better understand some further aspects of techniques, etc.

Martial arts? Well, there's a reason many dojos are considered training halls, where students of various rankings are taught and are expected to learn what they need to know ... and then their "practice" time is done outside of those hours, on their own.

It still comes down to learning what needs to be learned ... and being able to understand where, how and why to improve ... and then practicing what's been learned in order to achieve that improvement.

Now, is the learning and practice actually relevant to the desired goals and needed results? Are the desired goals and hoped for results even the correct ones? Worlds upon which to ponder ...

Sometimes burning powder is just burning powder, and a punch is just a punch. Time, place and context. ;) The wrong yardstick is ... the wrong yardstick.
 

·
...
Joined
·
18,990 Posts
How could a mid size or full size frame 9mm pistol have recoil?
A 9mm doesn't have much recoil to speak of especially in a Glock with a polymer frame and a double-stack grip. The polymer frame flexes to absorb recoil and the wide grip disperses recoil forces over a larger area of the hand.

The sharpest recoiling 9mm I ever shot was a keltec PF9 which is small, lightweight, and has a very narrow grip and that was nothing compared to an Airweight Smith and Wesson J-frame chambered in 357 Magnum even with a bulky rubber grip. And even the PF9 barely approached the pain threshold but the J-frame airweight exceeded it.
 

·
On the Border
Joined
·
15,282 Posts
Competency can vary according to user needs and the yardstick used to "measure" it, as can the nature and the quality of mindset. Mindset can be divided and broken down further relative to the goals of the person learning and practicing the shooting skills, too.

People who can "thrive" when subjected to the demands and rigors of sport stress may not be able to access their "connection" to their skillset quite so well if thrust within circumstances of life threatening stress ... and vice versa.

Everyone likes to throw around the terms "training" and "practice", and many people often consider them interchangeable, or they apply their own favorite meaning to them.

Well, if we look to sports, then in the simplest comparison "Training" is learning (and/or being taught) how to do something, while "Practice" is subsequently and continually applying the knowledge and skills that have been learned (like during training) to the purpose.

Training is learning the skill, and practicing it let's you improve your performance of it (presuming proper understanding was gleaned from training, and then proper practice of it employed).

One of the other distinctions is thinking about whatever "time" may be involved. It may not take long to "learn" something (be trained), but the "practice" may be a significantly lengthy process.

When I schedule time to visit the range where I used to work, I'll either arrange to spend time with one of more of the other instructors, or go off to myself. It depends on my purpose, the amount of time available, which part of the facility is available, whether one (or more) of the other instructors are available, etc.

If I'm shooting with one of the other instructors, I count on them to offer me any required corrections, training insights or pointers as they observe me work.

This may be either informal or formal, also, depending on the conditions. Informal could be a friendly group learning environment among instructors as peers, which may or may not be further overseen by a more senior instructor. Formal could mean a regimented instructor/shooter relationship, like various types of quals and shooter assessments, training scenario/drills creation, individual shooter development, etc.

Naturally, the term "practice" could easily be applied, especially if the members of the group are simply working together on practicing their separate skills, instead of practicing serving as an instructor. ;)

I've even seen days and nights where the less experienced instructors might group together to simply practice and discuss things amongst themselves, while the senior instructors might go off to another part of the range to work on some further refinements, helping each other better understand some further aspects of techniques, etc.

Martial arts? Well, there's a reason many dojos are considered training halls, where students of various rankings are taught and are expected to learn what they need to know ... and then their "practice" time is done outside of those hours, on their own.

It still comes down to learning what needs to be learned ... and being able to understand where, how and why to improve ... and then practicing what's been learned in order to achieve that improvement.

Now, is the learning and practice actually relevant to the desired goals and needed results? Are the desired goals and hoped for results even the correct ones? Worlds upon which to ponder ...

Sometimes burning powder is just burning powder, and a punch is just a punch. Time, place and context. ;) The wrong yardstick is ... the wrong yardstick.
It's always good to be able to get down with the boys. :)
 

·
Florida's Left Coast
Joined
·
9,514 Posts
I was required to shoot 5 rounds of .22 downrange in Navy bootcamp. Didn't have to hit the target... just instructed to NOT shoot the Instructor.

I would never have shot another round in the Navy except for groveling to go to the range after bootcamp. And so I did, one more time.

...and Florida allowed me to get my CCW with my DD-214 - presumably because of all that Mil experience and training with firearms.

I had shot competition rifle for two years before the Navy, however.

This thread is driftin'
 

·
I feel pretty.
Joined
·
3,952 Posts
The 34 still rapid fires the best.

I don't really notice the full beauty of Glocks ability to handle recoil, until I try the G35 or 41. That's when you really notice a difference. The 41 has the same recoil as a 1911 that weighs at least half a pound more.

For me it's flip that slows me down between targets, not felt recoil. 34/35 flip is about the same. That's why I'm always disappointed by 9mm. I expected it to be easier to shoot than it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
494 Posts
Biggest factor for me (and probably almost everyone else) is the grip. If I can get 3 fingers on it I’m fine. I had a XDs .45 in 3.3 and barely got 2 fingers on it with a flush mag and it was so snappy I hated it. I don’t notice the recoil of my 43x at all really. I found my P365 harder to control during rapid fires.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top