Mike can give ya all the info on the bore axis - he loves to talk about that

Basically, the gun design allows it to come back onto target faster after a shot. Glocks are very popular in competitions.

Also, the Glock 34/35 has a long barrel, long sight radious, a little bit lighter trigger, and extended slide release and extended mag release.

I have 1. It is a very nice gun. It is the only Glock I like (and I have owned other ones in the past)

Glocks are a high percentage of the guns used in IDPA. As is the 1911 for CDP. Probably the best thing would be to go to a match and talk to folks there, as well as shoot with what you have. The experience and experienced views you'll get should give you a good solution.

ciao!

leam

Leam has it right XD, go to the matches and talk to the competitors and see what they are using. Every shooting sport I have ever been around, there is always guys willing to help someone get started. There's jerks everywhere, but keep at it and you will fine the right bunch.

Regardless of the bore axis , any pistol with a consistent trigger is going to be easier to use in a competitive format than a crunchenticker like a Ruger. The better IDPA shooters seem to gravitate toward custom 1911s and Glocks, depending on the category they are shooting in. The Glock 34 is a fine choice for IDPA, and would be my choice if (a) I still shot in competition, and (b) I cared about winning versus just having fun.

Is a trigger job worth consideration with this Ruger?

Originally Posted by XD-45

Is a trigger job worth consideration with this Ruger?

I'm not sure how much the trigger can be improved. Regardless, it's still a TDA with the loooooooong first DA pull, then the instant transition to SA. It also has a very long trigger reset, which inhibits shot-to-shot speed. Yeah, Ernie Langdon can make it work on a custom SIG, but I'm not Ernie Langdon and neither, in all probability, are you.

I guess it depends on how serious you are about IDPA. If you're just out for casual fun or to get some trigger time under mild stress, and not trying to win, the Ruger will work fine as-is. There's nothing wrong with that at all. If you're serious about competing, you will need a new gun and lots of practice.

I've seen many posts before that people want to improve the triggers on the Ruger P series, and there isn't much that can be done.

Now, I know there are many Ruger semi-auto fans. And, the new Ruger 45 has caught my interest on and off for the past year. But, many 1st time buyers buy Ruger semi-autos, and then trade them in later once they start to get more experience with guns. That's why there are so many used ones floating around.

I have just started into competition shooting. From what I've seen, many Glocks are present. Along with Beretta, XD's, and some custom auto's. I haven't seen any Ruger's, but that doesn't mean they are not being used. Probably 90% are Glock models. What does that mean? I guess they are lighter on the wallet regarding costs and the aftermarket parts. Upgrades can be found all over the net. Many will tell you to shoot "your" gun. What is comfortable for "you". That's a valid point. It also depends on what you want from the sport? Have fun or be in the top three results? Personally, I'm in it for fun. I shoot my Sig P229. For what it's worth, at one steel challenge event I participated in, my Sig was flawless. Two Glock shooter's and a Beretta were jamming. Go figure.

Originally Posted by SigZagger

I have just started into competition shooting. From what I've seen, many Glocks are present... Probably 90% are Glock models. What does that mean? I guess they are lighter on the wallet regarding costs and the aftermarket parts.

Glocks are popular in practical shooting because they have a low bore axis and short/firm trigger reset, making them easier to shoot well at speed.

Glocks are sometimes unreliable primarily because shooters are tinkerers and love to load their guns with useless aftermarket crap that often doesn't work. That's the good/bad thing about popular guns: there are oodles of accessories for them, but most are stupid and counterproductive.

Thanks for the input I'm learning quite a bit.

I agree with Mike's comments about the Ruger. The basic problem is that you have a very long double action trigger pull for the first shot, then transition to a very short, lighter single action trigger pull for second and subsequent shots. Most competitive shooters do not like this difference. Consequently, they will opt for pistols like Glocks which are shorter trigger pull double action on all shots or for pistols which can be placed on safety with the hammer cocked (so called "cocked and locked" mode.) so that all shots are single action. Consistency is what most competitive shooters prefer. Rugers do not have this option so the hammer must be down when the gun is holstered.

Rugers are stone cold reliable, but they aren't as refined as some of the other makes. I have a P95 that has a pretty good trigger on it, but it does have too much take up in SA mode. The DA is okay, but I'm going to put a Wolff spring in it.

As for the G34, as others have said, it has a longer sight radius as well as the 3.5lb trigger and the extended slide stop. It also has the extended mag release, but they tend to cut my support hand. I shot the .40 version the other day, and now I am debating getting a 34 or 17.

The 34 will make a longer barrel, which will be slightly slower out of the holster.

Glocks seem to be #1 in competitions now-a-days. The XDs are up and coming too.

I'm a newby and would like to purchase a handgun with the idea of possibly shooting IDPA. I dislike (although I have nothing against) all of the polymer pistols I have shot so far. My favorite gun to date is the Beretta 92FS, although I hear it is not the best choice for IDPA. Do you guys have any input on the idea? I'm mostly shooting for the fun of shooting, but will the double action take me too far out of the game to enjoy it?

Many folks start out using their current blaster, and I think this is a good thing. The more they shoot it under semi-serious conditions, the more they see the shortcomings of certain weapons highlighted. Once identified, you can either work to minimize these problems, or change your hardware to avoid them altogether.

If you're intent on making a good showing, then it makes sense to use the same basic gun action/style that the winners are using in a certain type of competition. After you have some experience, you'll be better able to judge what does and doesn't work well in different scenarios, and what is needed to improve your performance in ALL areas. Starting with a gun that you KNOW other folks are shooting well is a plus; it takes the "Is it me or the gun?" worry right out of the equation (or it should, at least).

I know one local guy who can make a Beretta 92 sing, trigger changes and high bore axis nonwithstanding. But given the amount of time and effort he's had to expend to reach this level with a DA/SA auto, I think he'd be absolutely unbeatable if he'd put the same practice into an easier to shoot quickly/accurately weapon, like a Glock. Glad he's a M92 fan, though; it gives me the slimmest chance of beating him on the rare occasion that he's having a bad day and I'm having a good one.

Darn young pups...

Originally Posted by Bden

I'm a newby and would like to purchase a handgun with the idea of possibly shooting IDPA. I dislike (although I have nothing against) all of the polymer pistols I have shot so far. My favorite gun to date is the Beretta 92FS, although I hear it is not the best choice for IDPA. Do you guys have any input on the idea? I'm mostly shooting for the fun of shooting, but will the double action take me too far out of the game to enjoy it?

Nope. If you like the 92 go with it. There aren't many people out there in competition to the point that the extra thousandth of a second it takes to make the first DA pull will make any difference.

I agree with VK to some degree - if you like and can shoot well with the Ruger or Beretta, go with it. However, it isn't just the extra time it takes to pull the double action trigger (which I would measure in tenths, not thousandths). It is getting completely adjusted to the difference between the first and subsequent trigger pulls so that accuracy is not compromised. Most competitive shooters in my experience do not want to deal with that difference. They want consistent trigger pull with every round. Hence, the low number of da/sa pistols I see in IDPA or IPSC competitions.

Originally Posted by martial_field

I agree with VK to some degree - if you like and can shoot well with the Ruger or Beretta, go with it. However, it isn't just the extra time it takes to pull the double action trigger (which I would measure in tenths, not thousandths). It is getting completely adjusted to the difference between the first and subsequent trigger pulls so that accuracy is not compromised. Most competitive shooters in my experience do not want to deal with that difference. They want consistent trigger pull with every round. Hence, the low number of da/sa pistols I see in IDPA or IPSC competitions.

I've carried a S&W 4006 for almost eight years on the job, and the TDA just really isn't much of an adjustment. The S&W does have a much quicker reset than the others and less take up, but I also own a Ruger P95, and it's no big deal with it either.

VK, you seem to be one of those people for whom it makes little or no difference whether the trigger pull is consistent or da/sa. I would like to know if you shoot in IPSC/IDPA competitions or perhaps some other form where you are timed and scored on accuracy. If so, have you compared your scores using da/sa guns with consistent trigger pull handguns?

I have done some of this comparison by timing myself using a Beretta 92 and a Glock 34 with the same target set up (3 IDPA targets set up from 12 to 20 yards away- 2 rds per target). I have used a standard competition timer that starts with the audible sound and ends with the last shot. I drew from a holster. I found that I was a smidgen slower with the Beretta and, more importantly, my first two rounds were less accurate than my 3rd through 6th rounds as compared with the Glock. As a result, my Beretta scores were consistently lower than my scores with the Glock. If I had done a lot of practicing with the Beretta, maybe I could have become as proficient with it as the Glock. I don't know. I didn't try. The timed comparisons convinced me to stick with the Glock and so I sold my Beretta.

Originally Posted by martial_field

VK, you seem to be one of those people for whom it makes little or no difference whether the trigger pull is consistent or da/sa. I would like to know if you shoot in IPSC/IDPA competitions or perhaps some other form where you are timed and scored on accuracy. If so, have you compared your scores using da/sa guns with consistent trigger pull handguns?

I have done some of this comparison by timing myself using a Beretta 92 and a Glock 34 with the same target set up (3 IDPA targets set up from 12 to 20 yards away- 2 rds per target). I have used a standard competition timer that starts with the audible sound and ends with the last shot. I drew from a holster. I found that I was a smidgen slower with the Beretta and, more importantly, my first two rounds were less accurate than my 3rd through 6th rounds as compared with the Glock. As a result, my Beretta scores were consistently lower than my scores with the Glock. If I had done a lot of practicing with the Beretta, maybe I could have become as proficient with it as the Glock. I don't know. I didn't try. The timed comparisons convinced me to stick with the Glock and so I sold my Beretta.

I've never done any timed side by side comparisons, but I have shot the 4006 in too many tactical courses to know that I have no problem with it.

I do shoot a Glock "better" than the S&W; however, I shoot the 4006 better than I do a 1911 (at least my 1911).

XD-45 and Bden, the last two posts have some very valuable experience-based info in them that directly address your questions/concerns. You CAN do good (great? awesome?) work with a DA/SA auto; but given the same amount of effort and practice, you'll probably do BETTER with a Glock (or other consistent-trigger-pull weapon). The Glock also has the advantage of a very low bore axis (for less muzzle flip) and a short/quick trigger reset for subsequent shots.

There's a reason Glocks are doing well, both in competition and real life problem-solving. Reliability and accuracy build confidence, and simplicity frees-up brain cells for use in other areas. Give those Glocks an honest try.

Yes, I'm biased -- but it's based on my experience teaching basic pistol marksmanship to many folks over the last couple of decades, AND learning/shooting/competing myself, not some blind allegiance to a brand.