Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronw
Can you go into this in more detail? I understand the individual issues mentioned, but having trouble grasping why it is more of an issue on the 34. Despite the longer barrel, isnt the weight center/balance of the pistol the same as the 17? Hence the decision to lighten the front of the slide???
Dont own one, dont have any experience with one, but probably will buy one soon... Hence my curiosity on the subject..
|
Sir,
They have different weights, but check out the difference between the 19/17 and the 17/34, and barrel lengths:
G19 Weight: 20.99 BBL: 4.02
G17 Weight: 22.04 BBL: 4.49
G34 Weight: 22.92 BBL: 5.32"
Source:
http://www.glock.com/english/index_pistols.htm
The 19/17 BBL difference is WT: 1.05oz BBL: .47".
The 17/34 BBL difference is WT: 0.88oz BBL: .83".
You can see right off the bat that the weight to length ratio isn't commensurate between the 3 models. This disparity means that for a longer overall barrel in the G34, you're actually getting about 4/5 of the weight increase - Basically, Glock reached a barrel length/weight ratio that made the gun "Nose heavy", and compromised a bit of its reliability. The result was the G17L - which became the G34, with the lightening cuts.
This is about where my understanding/information of the physics ends - I can't tell you what effect recoil spring weight or specific loads (and their corresponding Force) have on balancing this out, or where the line of diminished returns is with regards to ammo.
What I'm getting at is that there is an empirical link between the deviation of the ratios and the reliability; IE, the G19/17 do not suffer from suppression or ammunition variation while the G34 does.
Just did a quick search, and with some more data, this might be useful:
http://www.bsharp.org/physics/recoil
Cheers,
Aaron