Opinions and reviews??
OK, so I got a line on a Glock 17C. From what I can find, the C is for "compensator" slots, supposed to help accuracy in rapid fire. But I cannot find any reviews that say if its still as good as a regular glock. I dont plan on rapid fire, so its not a requirement. I just dont want it to be lesser than a "regular" Glock.
As usual, thanks guys.
the compensated/not compensated argument is years in the running now.
some claim that a comped weapon will blind you at night, while others maintain that it will not.
some people 'feel' the difference between C and non-C models, and some don't.
some claim that the gases will burn you if you fire it too close to your body, others say they have held their arm over the top and not even felt much heat.
I read a thread a while back that was pretty un-biased, but gave decent info on ported vs. non-ported.
I wouldn't hesitate to buy one myself, but some people swear they wouldn't even shoot one for free at the range...I also wouldn't particularly LOOK to buy one.
Thanks ender. I didnt really set out to buy a C model, but the price isnt too bad. Its almost new, and since I wouldnt be using it in a tactical sense, ie on the job, I am not too concerned with muzzle flash.
Thanks again for the info
I got a Glock 32 C as part of a trade. The porting was not necessary for the purpose of recoil reduction, even for the 357 SiG round. The porting flashed much more than the usual flash of 357 SiG. Worse it smoked up the high contrast front sight, making it a low contrast gray, difficult to see, and difficult to clean off in the field. I replaced the ported Glock barrel with a non ported Olympic Arms drop in 357 SiG barrel. No change in point of aim or accuracy.
I had a 4-5/8 inch Ruger 44 Super Blackhawk with Magnaports. Shooting the Remington 240 JSP load, the ports kept the recoil & muzzle flip lower with faster recovery for followup shots. Porting was a plus, but it also smoked the high contrast red ramp front sight to gray.