I have a Glock in 45

[spektr]

I'm new to all this and having a ball with a 22. I was looking at shooting centerfire and for the most part, all I see are mountains of tuned 1911's.

The question is this.... Is it reasonable to build up the Glock? or is it just not good enough to be worth the trouble. I'm asking because I already have one...

I've just started shooting serious pistol this past December and I finally got a 500 smallbore score last week, so I think it's time to branch out a bit.....

Thanks

[BenEnglishTX]

Is it reasonable to build up the Glock?

I'm no expert, but I'd say that if you just want to have fun, why not? I've done it, though I've never shot the thing in competition because the red dot I have on it won't zero; POI is always too high. Still, it's possible to put a few rounds somewhere in the same vicinity at 25 yards shooting a Glock with one hand. To wit:



OTOH, if you actually want to shoot decent scores and not learn bad habits, thus leaving the door open to actually doing well some day, I'd say the answer is no.

I'd also say you should wait for another response from someone with enough experience to say something insightful; that ain't me.

[Misny]

There is a reason one sees "mountains" of 1911's on the line at bullseye matches and no Glocks. If you are getting "serious", you own words, get a pistol that is capable of shooting 3" ten shot groups at 50 yards and has a decent trigger. The Springfield Armory Range Officer is a good inexpensive starter from what I have been told.

[Orpanaut]

I've done some experimentation with Glock pistols for bullseye and I think they have potential. There are some obstacles, though:

1) The trigger. It's no great trick to get a Glock trigger down to 3.5 pounds, but getting rid of the "sproing" at the end of the pull is a challenge. That little twitch as the shot breaks makes precise trigger control quite difficult. There are lots of gunsmiths and companies who sell parts or services for Glock triggers but without actually sampling their wares I can't say which, if any, will satisfy the needs of a bullseye shooter.

2) The frame. The flexible polymer frame does not work well in a Ransom rest and it does not fit snugly with the slide. This and the trigger issue make accuracy testing problematic. I suspect that a well-fitted Glock with match ammo is capable of 3" 10-shot groups at 50 yards but you can't just clamp one in a rest to find out. Also, the light frame means that adding much mass to slide (such as UltraDot with rings and a Weaver base) can compromise functioning.

3) The barrel. The polygonal rifling in the Glock barrel tends to lead with plain lead (cast or swaged) bullets. This means that you either have to replace the barrel or use more expensive bullets.

So, in summary, I don't think the Glock is a good option for a new bullseye shooter.

[schatzperson]

Glocks have good ergonomics with their low boreline and grip high rake angle that does two things : Lower the boreline even more and give a more subtle advantage; This detail less known outside the European target pistol designer circuit does the following : Holding your hand upright for a square grip will put stresses on your first second and third finger that make it hard to allow the second ( trigger) finger move as independently as possible. Holding your hand at a steeper rake angle ( as in a glock, luger or modern target gun), will allow you to further separate the actions of your fingers. All this has been known for decades by designers of international pistols who left no stone unturned to get to know the physiology of pistol shooting.
Sorry to go into such detail, but you ask a question that has no simple answer.
I am sure you will meet up with others who will disagree and at the end of the day this is just talk. However I dont think hand physiology will change that much on this planet at least.
That said, if you choose glock for accuracy competition, unless you are or have a first class pistol smith able to play with the trigger, you are doomed in competition.
Pistol shooting is more trigger than hold.
Glocks dont have a trigger.

[Sixftunda]

Using a Glock for bullseye is on my bucket list after I get Master.

[kle]

I've been playing with an older Glock 21 (2nd gen) in Bullseye. Unfortunately, without an accessory rail, I use an Aimtech bridge-mount to put an UltraDot on the gun...which causes jamming problems. I might replace this with a SightMount rear sight rail (which is meant for the micro red-dot sights like the Burris FastFire and the Trijicon RMR, but I think it's large enough to mount an Ultradot or Aimpoint Micro or similar without too much hassle), which should both allow me to get a better grip on the gun (the Aimtech mount uses the pin-holes in the frame, which makes the grip bigger and reduces the amount of control I have on the trigger) and clear up some of the issues I'm having with spent casings getting jammed between the slide and the mount.

I did replace the stock barrel with a Bar-Sto barrel, which has traditional cut rifling. Then I replaced the smooth trigger with a serrated trigger (for an extra degree of control). I replaced the connector with a 3.5-lb connector (I also replaced the striker spring to lighten the trigger pull, but I ended up switching back to the stock spring to maintain reliability). To deal with trigger slap/overtravel, I put in a Lone Wolf "ultimate trigger stop" (has an internal overtravel screw).

With the right recoil spring from Wolff, I can get 200gr and 185gr semi-wadcutter loads to cycle, and they seem to hit about where I call them at 50 yards.