Testing a Compensated Glock 19 "Roland Special" vs a Glock 34

An unscientific comparison of the Glock 34 and compensated Glock 19.

The Glock 34 has enjoyed a bit of a resurgence recently.  I attribute this to the popularity of the Roland Special.  The RS concept came about soon after the RMR started popping up on handguns.  The optic negates the advantage of the G34s longer sight radius.  With a high output weapon light (#allthelumens) protruding past the muzzle, a compensator can be added without extending past the light.  The result is a G34 length gun, with the advantage of a compensator, G17 muzzle velocity (4.5” threaded barrel), and the concealability of a G19s frame.  With the rise of AIWB carry, people could now conceal what was once considered a “duty length” configuration.

When I started competing in USPSA, I wanted to carry and compete with the same gun, but compensators and weapon lights would move me into the Open division.  I decided to build a G34 to stand in for my carry/training guns while still being Carry Optics legal.

G34

Like my other Glocks, the G34 started with a Gen3 frame and slide ordered from BigTexOutdoors.  Framework was done by MAC Defense and the slide was milled and nitrided by JagerWerks.  All feature Agency triggers, Vickers slide releases, Ghost Edge connectors, and 4.5# striker springs.  The G19s have oem 18# recoil springs, while the G34 has a tungsten guide rod and 13# recoil spring.  All are topped off with Trijicon RM07 RMRs and Ameriglo sights.  The only departure is the barrel.  While Blacklist is my go to for barrels, I couldn’t pass up an Agency blemished G34 barrel for nearly the same price as OEM.

During my test and zero session with the G34, I noticed more muzzle flip and recoil than my G19.  I was shooting 147 Speer Lawman at the time, since it replicates my carry ammo, 147 GoldDot.   I wondered how it would fare with lighter grain ammo and recoil spring.  I also wondered if there was a combination of ammo that would give identical muzzle flip and felt recoil between the two pistols.  The general consensus is that heavier 147 gives more of a “shove” compared to “snappier” 124.  Which would I prefer?  Most importantly, which got me back on target faster?  Some people might simply look up muzzle energy and assume that the lower energy of 147 would have less recoil/flip than the lighter grain bullets.  But after doing some math, the heavier rounds also have more momentum, often referred to as Power Factor.  A slow rolling bowling ball may have less energy than a 9mm, but it’s more likely to knock over a pin.  Some experimentation would be necessary, if nothing else, to satisfy my curiosity.

	Weight grains	Velocity ft/s	Energy ft/lbs	PF(Momentum) P=MV/1000
Remington UMC	115	1135	329	131
PMC Bronze	124	1090	327	135
Speer Lawman	147	985	317	145

After a little planning, and a few online orders, I was ready to start my informal test.  I chose the ammo in the table because they offered similar kinetic energy and represented an average for their weights.

For the target, I chose a 6”x11” sheet of paper at 7 yards.  This mimics the A-zone of a USPSA target and looks roughly the same width as the RMR window.  I wanted to make sure that muzzle flip was the determining factor on splits, not long range precision or simply hammering the trigger up close.  The same 21-round Pmags were used throughout the test.

My goal was to shoot 5 round strings as fast as possible while keeping all hits on paper and measuring the splits.  Again, this test is purely anecdotal.  It’s simply a measurement of my performance between two pistols across a small range of ammo.  

Results:

Run 1	comped 115	G34  115	comped 124	g34  124	comped 147	g34  147
Split 1	24	26	24	29	24	25
Split 2	22	23	24	23	25	25
Split 3	20	26	24	31	22	24
Split 4	20	27	23	25	22	24
Average	21.5	25.5	23.75	27	23.25	24.5
Run 2	comped 115	g34  115	comped 124	g34  124	comped 147	g34  147
Split 1	20	31	25	25	23	37
Split 2	20	27	22	24	22	24
Split 3	20	25	24	23	21	23
Split 4	20	24	24	23	21	24
Average	20	26.75	23.75	23.75	21.75	27
Run 3	comped 115	g34  115	comped 124	g34  124	comped 147	g34  147
Split 1	25	25	24	31	27	30
Split 2	23	23	22	23	23	24
Split 3	18	24	22	24	23	25
Split 4	21	23	22	23	21	26
Average	21.75	23.75	22.5	25.25	23.5	26.25
Run 4	comped 115	g34  115	comped 124	g34  124	comped 147	g34  147
Split 1	21	25	23	31	24	30
Split 2	22	22	22	28	25	25
Split 3	20	23	22	26	23	22
Split 4	20	22	22	26	20	22
Average	20.75	23	22.25	27.75	23	24.75
Run 5	comped 115	g34  115	comped 124	g34  124	comped 147	g34  147
Split 1	23	26	24	24	24	32
Split 2	25	24	22	25	22	28
Split 3	23	25	21	24	21	26
Split 4	23	22	22	25	23	24
Average	23.5	24.25	22.25	24.5	22.5	27.5
	comped 115	g34  115	comped 124	g34  124	comped 147	g34  147
Average All	21.5	24.65	22.9	25.65	22.8	26

Obviously, I'm not a master class shooter, but I was consistent enough to see measurable results at my skill level.

I felt that 147 had less recoil than the 124 through the comp, but the shot timer shows no appreciable difference.  I had hoped that 115 from a G34 would perform similarly to 147 from the comped G19.  One personal observation is that the shorter grip of the G19 may have also helped with muzzle flip.  The flared lip at the bottom, puts pressure on my pinky, giving me more leverage to counteract recoil.  It just felt more secure from a mechanical standpoint than the longer 17 sized grip.  A more even test, would be to compare a comped G45/19X against a G34.