Aren't they supposed to have a match grade barrel now?
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Aren't they supposed to have a match grade barrel now?
The match grade barrel is a gimmick. What they really did was put a marking barrel in so that forensics can tell which gun fired a bullet (unlike original polygonal barrels). Every Gen 5 I’ve felt had as much or more hood play than new production Gen 3/4. The good news is any Gen 3/4 will shoot sub 3” groups at 25 yards with the right load in the right hands. Gen 5 will do the same.
The reason folks are magically shooting Gen 5’s better is the new trigger mechanism. The earlier gens have a very crisp, defined wall., which everyone says feels great in the hand when dry clicking in the gunstore. In reality a 5.5 # wall is a good recipe for jerked shots. The Gen 5 has a more rolling, surprise break. Even if it doesn’t subjectively feel better than the crisp Gen 3/4, it puts hits on targets better.
That makes a lot of sense. I'd always understood that polygonal rifling was slightly more accurate than the traditional kind they went to in the G5, even though they may call it a 'marksman' barrel. So it seemed counter-intuitive that the G5s seemed to be more accurate. But they do have a noticeably better trigger out of the box, so that would definitely help a lot.
So it’s not a marksmen (more accurate) barrel?
Gen 5 has some serious improvements in terms of the internals. More durable, points of failure eliminated, etc. I personally remain VERY skeptical that the new GMB has any appreciable accuracy improvements. My Gen 3 will do 2” at 25 yards (with 4.1 N320 under a 124gr PD JHP); I’ve yet to beat that with the two Gen 5’s I’ve played with. The M in GMB should stand for marking, or Marketing. I’ll quote somebody more credible than myself from Glocktalk (this guy seems to have more technical, almost insider knowledge than anyone I know of).
“The so-called GMBs still employ polygonal rifling, but with a step transition from one poly-curved surface to the next. It is definitely not groove-and-land. More than anything it resembles the rifling that Glock was developing to make it easier to associate a fired bullet with a specific Glock barrel....i.e. Glock Marking Barrels. I suspect that the post-Gen4 barrels are intentionally designed as much or more as Glock Marking Barrels as they are Glock Marksman Barrels.
See:
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?136580-GLOCK-MARKING-BARRELS
“The so-called GMBs still employ polygonal rifling, but with a step transition from one poly-curved surface to the next. It is definitely not groove-and-land. More than anything it resembles the rifling that Glock was developing to make it easier to associate a fired bullet with a specific Glock barrel....i.e. Glock Marking Barrels. I suspect that the post-Gen4 barrels are intentionally designed as much or more as Glock Marking Barrels as they are Glock Marksman Barrels.
See:
http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.php?136580-GLOCK-MARKING-BARRELS
I’m a CZ fan boy but didn’t like my P10 at all. I couldn’t work the mag release without turning the gun significantly in my hand.
I did that, then sent it back to CZ and let them do it. It was much better but I still didn’t like it. Girly hands I guess.
Thanks for input guys
I like the holster capability
