Finish on New Glocks

I am not sure what they are doing. I carry in leather almost always. i have a Gen4 Glock 19 that is about 9 months old now. I have quite a few rounds though it and carry it probably an average of 4-5 days out of the week or more. I just stripped it about 2 weeks ago to have it cerekoted. There was no abnormal wear or rust or anything. The finish still looked brand new.

I am one to run my guns hard at the range, but then come home and pamper them. I by no means am rough on my guns unless I am training doing crazy stuff, but even then I come home and pamper and inspect them meticulously.

I do know that carrying in kydex will wear down the finish on pretty much anything. The only think I could think of is that they are abusing theirs or running kydex that is removing the finish.

Yes newer glocks have a different metal treatment than in years past. Its still ferritic nitrocarburizing, just a different "brand name".

Is it pathetically fragile?? No not at all... My MOS has the newer greyish finish and it seems to be wearing the same as my older gen 3's did in a plastic/kydex Comptac competition holster.

If it really bugs you just spray epoxy black over the stock finish. The newest finish is fuzzy and holds paint very well.

It's a Glock. But mine have been fine.

My 2003 made 26 Gen 3 still looks great despite being in a Blackhawk holster or IWB leather holster. It doesn't show much wear.

My U.S. made "Talo" 43 isn't holding up very well at all. Had it four months and it's all scratched up from being in a DeSantis Pro Stealth holster. I wish they'd go back to whatever they used to use as it looks and holds up much better.

Oh well, it certainly isn't collectible.

Any gun that sees serious carry and use will show it. It doesn't bother me a bit if they develop a little character from use as long as they don't rust. There is definitely a difference in the original slide treatment in the older Glocks and the newer finishes. It's more than obvious on my Glocks.
str1

I can't speak to the newer Glock's finish but my very early G17 (serial no. AL***), has held up very nicely over the last 30 years or so. Now I will say that it hasn't had a lot of holster time but quite a bit of range time and still it doesn't show it's age, at least not from how well the finish looks.

People seem to be confusing the metal surface treatment (used to protect the gun from rust) and cosmetic finish (used for, well, cosmetic purposes).

The metal treatment had changed from Tenifer (liquid bath nitrocarburizing) to gaseous nitrocarburizing (I think one of the process trademarks is Nitrotec) about 6 years ago but it should produce the same exact hard surface finish. AFAIK Tenifer was less environmentally friendly, and I would imagine it's easier / cheaper to deal with gas than a salt bath liquid.

Now the cosmetic finish keeps changing all the time, only God and Gaston know why. My 2010 G17 has a "thick" black finish with slight texture, that almost looks like the bottom of a teflon frying pan. It's nice looking.. for a Glock. My 2014 G26 has very smooth gray finish that looks duller. I haven't carried G17 much, but the finish on 26 seems to be fairly wear resistant.

I was referring to finish, not the case hardening process. Which with my Glocks, the newer finish appears to be less durable. I've never seen either one rust.
The old cyanide salts bath process gives superior results to the gas carbonizing process currently used IMO. Not that the old process is even an option, as it has not been used in this country for decades. It's a dangerous and extremely environmentally unfriendly process.
str1

shooter1

I noticed that the first Glock 17s I looked at appeared to have a green/gray color to them, resembling something like parkerizing. When I bought mine a short time later at a gun show every one I saw there had the black Tenifer.

I don't know how old my Glock 27 is because I bought it used. It's got that "teflon frying pan" finish and it's holding up very well. No blemishes or wear that I can see and I carry it around all the time.

Frankly, I don't care how my Glock looks. It's a tool. Any wear or marks give it character. Same thing for any other gun that's not collectible or sentimental for some reason.

The finish on the slides keeps alternating between the frying pan finish and the flat gray finish. I think they are done by different contractors. How the slide looks on your pistol depends on which company it was farmed out to.

The finish on my ten year old Glock 19 3rd Gen is dark and virtually indestructible after all these years of use.

The two year old Glock 20SF 3rd Gen's finish is a lighter grey and I cannot see any discernible wear or problems with the finish.

The both shoot great and still look very good.

The reason the Black Hawk is not scratching the firearm is that it does not use tension on the slide and trigger guard to retain the firearm in the holster. It uses a trigger locking mechanism.

Leather, and kydex holsters that do not rub and use tension on the slide and trigger guard to retain the firearm usually do not damage the finish. It is mainly the shaped kydex that uses tension to retain the firearm. Every time you holster and un-holster you are basically rubbing sand paper over your firearm where ever that tension and rubbing is.

This is why I do not use kydex on some of my firearms. The ones I don't care about the finish on as much I don't mind using them.

shooter1 said:

I was referring to finish, not the case hardening process. Which with my Glocks, the newer finish appears to be less durable. I've never seen either one rust.

The old cyanide salts bath process gives superior results to the gas carbonizing process currently used IMO. Not that the old process is even an option, as it has not been used in this country for decades. It's a dangerous and extremely environmentally unfriendly process.

Click to expand...

As was mentioned in Wanderling's post earlier and the post cited above, the only thing that has dramatically changed is Glock's surface hardening treatment -- moving away from their version of Tenifer used in Europe (that is environmentally ugly) to one less harmful here in the U.S. As noted, they are both a form of carburization.

Carburiation is a surface hardening treatment, which causes a change in the metal surface; it is NOT the finish that is applied on top of the metal -- which some now feel can be more easily scrapped or scratched than once was the case. That finish itself is apparently something like parkerization.

If a Glock owner is having problems with the FINISH, it's not due to Glock's move away from Tenifer to something similar, but probably due to a change in the the Parkerized-like finish itself. I've been unable to find out if that has changed...

I wonder if some folks, nowadays, are just using holsters that fit less well, or which are made of materials that are harder on their handguns?

.

My Gen 4 G-19 has a lot of holster time. I carry it in a Safariland kydex paddle holster. It showed wear almost immediately but as with most kydex holsters, that was the extent of the wear. I am not worried about the finish because it is a working gun. My pretty guns stay in protective cases in the safe.

When i get a chance. I will take pics. The glock 22 i bought a few years ago. Has been holster many many times. Not one bit of holster wear. The glock 19 i bought 3 months ago. Has been holstered a fraction of the time as the g22, has horrible holster wear. I will post them side bu side. And the glock 19 hasent seen 5-10% use the glock 22 has

Robbins290 said:

When i get a chance. I will take pics. The glock 22 i bought a few years ago. Has been holster many many times. Not one bit of holster wear. The glock 19 i bought 3 months ago. Has been holstered a fraction of the time as the g22, has horrible holster wear. I will post them side bu side. And the glock 19 hasent seen 5-10% use the glock 22 has

Click to expand...

Same holster design and material? Did you actively carry the G22 often? I would expect, for example, a G19 to be a more likely concealed carry (or just CARRY) weapon than a Glock 22. THOSE factors can make a big difference... Especially if only one of the holsters is a really good fit for the gun it's used with and the other isn't.

That's not to say that Glock hasn't changed the FINISH on their more recent guns...

.

Walt. I do not use a holster. I keep it in my waistband. And i carry the g22 during the winter and when hiking. (Very often). And the 19 has more finish wear then the g22

Robbins290 said:

Walt. I do not use a holster. I keep it in my waistband. And i carry the g22 during the winter and when hiking. (Very often). And the 19 has more finish wear then the g22

Click to expand...

So much for THAT theory.

In the waistband without a holster.... (I wouldn't do that -- but it seems to work for you.)

Ok. The pics dont show much of a difference. But considering one has almost 3 years of hard use. And the 3 month old with the same use is already starting to wear. What is it going to look like in a year from now

Its even worse on the barrel hood. When the g22 has seen thousands of rounds. And the glock 19 seen around 500

Maybe the main difference is the underwear (or don't wear) at different times of year.

Comparing wear on barrel hood when the guns are two different calibers and sizes (one compact and one full-size may) not be apples to apples, so to speak.

I don't care what anybody says, the tenifer treatment Glock used to do was maybe the toughest and most durable ever and definitely better than what they do now. My 3rd gen g23 that's over 10 years old and has been carried, dropped, put away wet, sweated on, and shot thousands of rounds through finish still looks really good, almost new. I have friends who have gen4 Glocks that are about a year old that have scratches, scrapes, and finish wearing off in some spots down to the bare metal.