A Tale of two G-17s, a 100 rounds, and a Competition Electronics timer
This is a discussion on A Tale of two G-17s, a 100 rounds, and a Competition Electronics timer within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So what do you have when you shoot 50 rounds through a modified G-17 and have absolutely no problems? You have 50 out of a ...
February 21st, 2006 02:54 PM
A Tale of two G-17s, a 100 rounds, and a Competition Electronics timer
So what do you have when you shoot 50 rounds through a modified G-17 and have absolutely no problems? You have 50 out of a 1000 rounds fired.
I just got back from the range. I went to compare a G-17 to a G-17. That is, a G-17-3 (3rd generation) with polished trigger works and a 3.5# Glock connector and a G-17-2 (2nd generation) with a modified and polished Glock trigger bar and a Glock 3.5# connector.
Of course the mods are the ones I did over the weekend to see if I could reduce the trigger over-travel, the trigger reset, and even pull weight using only stock Glock parts.
For those that took the enormous amount of time to read my “exposition”, I say that as a bad thing – it was very long, in my Ghost Rocket thread, know that I did a lot of experimenting over the weekend with both the Ghost Rocket connector and implementing the same thing by simply modifying stock Glock parts.
The Ghost Rocket thing didn’t work out so I decided to modify the stock Glock parts and see. Today was “see” day.
My premise is that within reasonable limits for a Self Defense gun, the shorter the trigger pull, and the lighter the trigger pull, the shorter the reset and the smoother the trigger, the faster AND more accurately it can be shot. Let me qualify the short trigger part. The way I modified the trigger actually increases the total trigger pull a bit. But once the shot breaks, there is minimal overtravel and the reset is shorter.
The two guns I compared today are both G-17s, one a 3rd gen and the other a 2nd gen. I’d rather have had two of the same gen. but I didn’t have them so I used what I had.
I shot 100 rounds, 50 through each gun. I fired the first 50 shots at about one shot per second at 18 feet. I actually shot the G-17-3 better than the G-17-2 but the G-17-2 sights were not quite “zeroed” for some reason. But even if they had been, I still shot better and more confidently with the G17-3 and I know exactly why. Even under indoor range's less than ideal or outside lighting conditions, I could see that big ole white dot clearly and quickly – that just instills all kinds of confidence. I struggled to get on the Trijicon front sight. But the bottom line is that I couldn’t really see that the trigger mods helped with accuracy, but trigger effects were more than washed out by the sight differences – the next time they’ll be the same.
I pulled the B-27s in to 9 feet for the rapid fire drills. My goal here was to see how fast I could pull the trigger. I was willing to relax accuracy to focus entirely on speed. However, all the hits from both guns were within the 8 ring and most within the 9 ring.
When I’m doing a test like this, I am always conscious of mental fatigue creeping in and biasing the test. I could either shoot one gun completely and then shoot the other or I could shoot five shot strings and switch guns. The advantage of shooting one gun first is you acclimate a bit to the characteristics of the gun. The disadvantage is you are not as fresh when you shoot the second gun. The advantage of 5 shot strings is that fatigue affects both guns fairly equally. The disadvantage is that you can’t quite acclimate to take advantage of the characteristics of each gun. But, figuring fatigue was the greater effect, I shot 5-shot strings and alternated guns.
After shooting and timing the guns I averaged the split times; added up the total times; and averaged the four fastest shots from each gun. Here’s the results:
Avg split time:__0.1877 _______ 0.1815….difference 0.0062 secs or 3.46%
Total shot time:__ 3.2 _________ 3.38…….difference 0.18 secs or 5.625%
Fastest 4 shots __0.145_______ 0.1575…..difference 0.0125 sec or 8.62%
Fastest four shot splits (secs):
G17-2 --- .14, .14, .14, .15
G17-3 --- .15, .16, .16, .16
Inconclusive, but there is a trend; the modified trigger is a bit faster. But, we should remember that because I kept switching guns every 5 shots, I could not adapt to each gun so the results may be closer than they would be if I could acclimate to each gun.
There is a pretty clear indicator, the fastest four shot splits, that the modified trigger is faster.
One thing I do know, stock Glock sights are fast and sure for me. Not the most accurate, but they are fast and they’ll do for accuracy.
I’m gonna just shoot just the G-17-2 to see if I can acclimate to the trigger and see if the split times decrease. I’ve got another idea I want to try to increase smoothness on the trigger as well as maybe lighten it a bit as a side effect, but I’ve got to order some trigger bars first.
February 21st, 2006 02:54 PM
February 21st, 2006 03:26 PM
February 21st, 2006 03:34 PM
I know, I know....
Originally Posted by Euclidean
February 21st, 2006 06:00 PM
Hehehe - tell ya what Ron - - - - What Euc said
Must say - experimentation is perhaps only way to really tell in the end, but ................. main thing will always be dead reliability, over minute changes in trigger etc. Only my 2c.
Chris - P95
NRA Certified Instructor & NRA Life Member.
"To own a gun and assume that you are armed
is like owning a piano and assuming that you are a musician!."
- a portal for 2A links, articles and some videos.
February 21st, 2006 06:47 PM
Yep need to leave that glock alone
February 21st, 2006 08:20 PM
February 21st, 2006 10:15 PM
I would say some one has too much time on their hands. But I have done close to the same thing in other areas of interest.
Nice to see some one goes the extra mile just for fun.
If you don't protect your self, who will?
February 22nd, 2006 08:57 AM
Thanks, QK, your remarks are welcomed encouragement. We certainly are thinking alike on this! My motivation couldn't have been more accurately described than the way you said it. Of course we are all aware that speed and accuracy shouldn't come at the expense of reliability. I'm really keeping an eye on the reliability issue.
Does anybody think Jerry Miculek's revolver(s) are stock? Ever see one fail? Anybody think Rob Leatham's 1911 is stock? Ever see it fail?
I've seen mulitple 0.13 second splits with my Sigs when I was tuned in to rapid fire. I expect to see the same speed from a Glock once I get acclimated to the modified Glock trigger.
Besides, even if the reliability isn't as good as stock, hey, I can always carry a BUG to save the day.
February 22nd, 2006 09:13 AM
February 22nd, 2006 11:54 AM
I'm impressed! You picked right up on my BUG remark and apparently took it in the humorous sense it was intended.
But, I disagree about the stock/non-stock guns of the champions. They must think it's important because they all do it. I have serious doubts that Rob could do the same thing with a stock 1911 that he does with his custom 1911. There would be no greater advertising for a sponsor than to say "And Rob did this with a stock 1911..."
I've personally discussed trigger issues with Gunsite and Ernst Langdon. I've learned that a major numbers of LEO have trigger jobs done on their guns. And, when I discussed my concerns about trigger mods and court issues, they said they will stand up in court and they would come to the trial and testify as expert witnesses in my defense since I was a Gunsite Alumni.
It doesn't take much conversation with Ernst Langdon to learn his position on trigger work. When he shot a Sig 220ST and beat Rob Leatham in the 2003 IDPA, he had done a trigger job on the Sig he used.
I think it's a common misperception that the person can't out shoot the gun. Yet how many praise the 1911 because of it's superior trigger in terms of weight, crispness, short break, and short reset. Now even "stock" 1911's come with trigger reset adjustment screws and a pull weight of about 4#.
Look at my numbers, I simply shot faster with the modified trigger. In one analysis, over 8% faster, and that's without any training on the trigger.
H&K offers their LEM trigger to get around that big long DA pull. The LEM feels a whole lot like a SA with a lot of take up. I talked to a guy who said the P2000 LEM was the only gun and trigger set up he could shoot accurately and fast.
February 22nd, 2006 12:22 PM
Euclidean, I agree with you to a point. Extensive firearm modifications aren't going to make a mediocre shooter into an expert. But simple modifications that fit the gun to the individual shooter can make a very big improvement in the individual shooter's performance with that gun. For instance, I switched out the stock trigger on my Colt Commander because it was too long and the edges were too sharp. I put a medium Greider trigger in as a replacement, now the take-up has been cut to a third of what it was before and I can grip the pistol more comfortably while still reaching the trigger. As a result I now get tighter groups and can shoot faster while still maintaining accuracy. Fit the gun to the shooter and you'll see dramatic results. Anything beyond that is usually just window dressing.
“Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.” ~Pericles of Athens
Primary Carry - Colt Commander .45 in a Brommeland Max-Con V
February 22nd, 2006 01:52 PM
But that's the diminishing returns I was talking about... I understand that I'm lucky I can find guns I'm happy with that don't need extensive modifications to make them function well for me.
There's a couple of pieces I really want to get custom grips and an action job for if I ever made them serious full time defensive handguns. One of them I'd want refinished. We're talking probably $350 of work to be sure. But it would be worth it because the gun actually would work better.
However, I'm not getting much return on my investment if I do that. I'm getting a slightly better action and slightly more ease of use. I'm better off taking that $350 and buying a day with some local NRA certified folks who can put me through Intermediate Combat Pistol I or whatever.
Now if I am so advanced the only thing that could improve my performance with that pistol is either a $1400 seminar at Gunsite or improving the gun itself, then I'll start paying for modifications.
Admittedly, I'm not Tangle or Roadrunner and I can't say what's right for Tangle or Roadrunner I'm looking at this from my perspective.
The way I look at it though, so long as my pistol actually functions well for me, I could work on shooting every day of my entire life and quite likely never get to the point I'm so good the gun is slowing me down. But once again, that's me. Rob Leatham and Jerry Miculek would be examples of people who may very well be better than a stock gun.
Customization to make something work for you is one thing. For example, if your hammer bites the webbing of your hand, you need some custom work or another gun. If your grips are slippery you need some better grips. If you can't see your sights you need new sights. Etc. Etc.
But at some point where we're polishing mainsprings and debating what aftermarket guiderod and fitting ourselves with match barrels... I think most of us are to the point where we're just making a nice gun.
I acknowledge however that there is nothing wrong with this simply because I believe it doesn't actually improve results... it's fun to modify guns because you can. I think that's what Tangle is doing here for the most part: how fast can that trigger reset? Let's find out...
Perhaps the trouble is it's so personal, it's impossible for one person to quantify what's a necessary evil, and what's excessive. Personal tools for self defense are after all subjective.
February 22nd, 2006 02:58 PM
With regard to:
"The way I look at it though, so long as my pistol actually functions well for me, I could work on shooting every day of my entire life and quite likely never get to the point I'm so good the gun is slowing me down. But once again, that's me. Rob Leatham and Jerry Miculek would be examples of people who may very well be better than a stock gun."
A Gunsite instructor told me adamantly, FTF, that students that shot Glocks progress faster than students with almost any other gun. This is evidence that people are partially limited by the gun they shoot. One of the main reasons he gave is the Glock simplicity and the other was the trigger action.
I have repeatedly seen groups tighten dramatically by simply changing the trigger pull weight on a gun. I have experienced that myself. I bought a S&W 686 to take to Gunsite. I shot it and thought the trigger could use some work, so I worked it. I shot better, there's no question about it. The gun was limiting me. I found the same thing from the measured results from my Glock comparison test.
February 22nd, 2006 03:20 PM
Well with an action job we're in that gray area.
IMHO, it depends somewhat on the gun. The 686 is a good example, an action job could make a lot of difference as could a trigger job. But on say the Glock or XD? I doubt it very much. Admittedly I'm not a gunsmith but there are certain guns that don't lend themselves to too much tweaking. Even our resident Mr. Camp remarks in his reflections on the Browning High Power that a trigger weight at the ranges some people prefer is just not in the cards.
But my central point is that if you are having trouble say hitting a pie plate at 5 yards, an action job isn't going to solve anything. That's an extreme case of course but it's my answer to your suggestions of Jerry and Rob. That sounds like an ice cream brand... tactical ice cream?
February 22nd, 2006 04:56 PM
Yuuummm! Tactical ice cream; would it have chocolate in it?
If I hadn't seen a buddy's Glock at Gunsite one year, I would agree about the questionable gain on a Glock trigger. If I hadn't seen the trigger pull weight on my XD go from a longer 6.5# to a shorter, buttery smooth pull of just over 4# with reduced reset, I'd agree about the questionable gain on an XD.
A buddy I had been in a class with a previous year, showed up to take the shotgun course the same week I was taking the Advanced Tactics Handgun course. He said, "You got to see this Glock." I said, "I seen 'em before." He said, "Try the trigger." I said, "I've pulled 'em before." He said, "Then it won't hurt to try this one." I pulled the trigger and was speechless. If I hadn't seen it for myself, I would have never believed a Glock could have such a trigger. But this was a competition setup not a carry setup.
And it's reliable! The reason you wouldn't want it for a carry gun is the trigger is too light - and I can't believe I'm saying that about a Glock trigger. But, it's true - it is too light for a carry gun. The thing couldn't have been more than 3# - and that's from the middle of the trigger.
I don't know who Mr. Camp is but I did a trigger job on my BHP and it now breaks cleanly and crisply at 4.5# and has never failed to fire or function ever! And, I shoot a lot. I bobbed the hammer too to get it out of the way.
By DaveH in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: October 26th, 2009, 10:28 AM
By packinnova in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: November 15th, 2007, 03:41 PM
By Black Knight in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 14th, 2007, 11:45 AM
By mikel01 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: November 25th, 2006, 12:53 AM