Do Glocks of yesteryear offer more longevity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
For the average owner who burns through $10,000.00-25,000.00 worth of ammo to wear the gun out. Is it that big of a deal to go buy another 500 dollar gun if Glock doesnt replace it under warranty?
Ammo is always going to be the expense, and it is what it is.

When I was looking through the manual I pulled out of the box looking for a phone number to call so I could send mine back, I came across the warranty section and was surprised to see that Glock only has a one year warranty. Never knew that. Maybe I should have read the thing, eh? :)

When I called and talked to them, and explained what went on and asked about the warranty thing and the gun being 10 years old and all, the boy on the phone said it "might" still be covered, they would have to look at it. Works for me. :p

We'll see what they say. Apparently, a new frame is only $100. If they think its fixable, I asked them to check everything else out too, since the only thing thats been replaced in the gun, were those couple of trigger springs and the RSA's a couple of times a year. If It costs me $100, it is what it is. It doesnt owe me anything.

When you can find near new guns for $300-350, its really not worth dumping a bunch of money into it. I already had another 17 that went right into its holster and has been carrying on anyway. Another great thing about Glocks, they are cheap enough that you can have a bunch, like having a backup fleet of used Enterprise Toyotas out in the back field, just waiting for something to breakdown so they can get their chance. :D

Most of the Glocks I have I got used, and almost all of them were under $400. And most of them looked to be near new. All were dry and dirty. And a number of them still had the anti-seize in the rail cuts, and look like they were barely ever shot.

The last used 17 I got, was NIB only a month before. The boy who bought it complained he was getting constant BTF, so the dealer sent it back to Glock. The repair ticket showed they replaced all the parts in the slide. He got it back and brought in right back in and said it was still doing it, and traded it on something else. I bought it, and have around 700 rounds through it now, and not one piece of brass came anywhere near my face.:)

Something tells me its wasnt the gun that was the problem. :p
 
It's now official. The gospel record teaches us that if we simply must purchase a Glock, we shall only purchase Gen 1&2.

Those of us that have Gen 3-5 must cleanse our safe and remove said firearms from our collection immediately.

This is not btw, in any way, shape or form to be considered Glock "bashing" rather it is a desperate plea from good men that have our best interests at heart. You gen 3+ owners that have high mileage and have not encountered slide cracks are to offer bullet sacrifices to atone for your uncommon good luck.

Now go in peace and serve the sig.
 
But the OPs question was are the new ones less durable. Not less durable when fired the average amount of times (which I fully agree and have said many times, very few people need to worry about wearing out a quality centerfire).

Ive read it before.
You also have to remember that the Range does maintenance on calendar basis instead of Round Counts. So is it really the best litmus test? Esp. when "Henderson/Ron" didn't realize that G4 RSA's should be changed out more often than he thought. Which clearly could lead to the demise of the Gen4 guns.

I've always thought G4 was overly sprung. In the only two Gen4's I own (G34/G35) both run gen3 RSA conversions.

Same place.
 
Last edited:
I dont have a gen 4 or 5. All mine are 3 or earlier but I wouldn't hesitate to buy one when I find a good deal though. I'm not hating at all. Simply offering relevant information to the ops question so he can decide

And Ron says that the armorers change the RSA per specs. I'm sure with all the sending back things they are in contact with all the manufacturers.
 
I can only speak about what I personally own and shoot. I have a late S/N Gen3 17 and a late S/N Gen3 19, a 19X, and a Gen4 21. The 17 has Wilson Combat Vickers Elite F.O. front & battlesight rear sights and an APEX Action Enhancement trigger package. I have enough range time in with the 17 as modified to state that I’m really happy with these upgrades and I’d recommend these to anybody looking for better sights and a better trigger on a Glock. The 19X might be the best out of the box pistol I’ve ever owned. The 21 is a great shooting pistol.

I read the internet tribal knowledge about the pros & cons about these & those generation Glocks. I’ll take that stuff with a grain of salt, as long as my own personal guns are working as good as they are working.
 
I have three that are generation 2 or 3. I bought them used with unknown round counts and have shot them plenty. So far I have had zero malfunctions. I don't have any experience with the later generations, just reporting my personal knowledge.
 
Been shooting Glock since the end of the 80's and have not replaced any OEM parts. Have a Glock 30 and 19 that have many thousands of rounds with no parts changed.

I'm not into aftermarket parts for my Glocks, except for night sights.

Edit: Forgot I've replaced quite a few RSA's in the Glocks mentioned above.

How can "Perfection" be improved upon??
Most Glocks last forever because the owners replace every known part on them. The first is the trigger, than the barrels, plug the hole on the bottom, add a extend slide lock and take down levers, the list goes on and on.

:rofl:
 
Last edited:
My son has a Gen 1 17 (MPDC marked slide). I gave it to him on his 21st birthday. (Today happens to be his 28th). I have a Gen 2 17 that I've had about 3 years. Unknown round counts on each. Both were serviced at the mother ship just prior to purchase. Absolutely no issues with either pistol.
 
I can’t believe people are really debating this when the vast majority of Glocks will never see 10,000 rounds let alone 100,000

But the original question was are the newer ones less durable. Do they break sooner? Did longevity take a step backward. There was no round count involved, maybe the op is going to open a rental range? Or shoot competition. Maybe they were just curious. It shouldn't really be a "debate". The simple fact that Glock is saying change the RSA sooner could be seen as an answer. For my use I could care less which generation i have. The old ones fit me fine. The new ones fit more people. I'd trust any of them myself.
The answers I'm seeing are akin to "which is deeper, the Pacific or Atlantic ocean? " and getting an answer of "it doesn't matter the pressure will crush you before you get that deep". Yes you won't get to the bottom of either with SCUBA gear nor will most wear out any Glock (not even a Lorcin for that matter). I agree completely. I know majority of guns rarely leave a safe. But that wasn't the question the op asked.
 
But the original question was are the newer ones less durable. Do they break sooner? Did longevity take a step backward. There was no round count involved, maybe the op is going to open a rental range? Or shoot competition. Maybe they were just curious. It shouldn't really be a "debate". The simple fact that Glock is saying change the RSA sooner could be seen as an answer. For my use I could care less which generation i have. The old ones fit me fine. The new ones fit more people. I'd trust any of them myself.
The answers I'm seeing are akin to "which is deeper, the Pacific or Atlantic ocean? " and getting an answer of "it doesn't matter the pressure will crush you before you get that deep". Yes you won't get to the bottom of either with SCUBA gear nor will most wear out any Glock (not even a Lorcin for that matter). I agree completely. I know majority of guns rarely leave a safe. But that wasn't the question the op asked.

Which is why I stated I can’t believe people are debating this. It is in all practical terms meaningless. The reality is like most things Glocks are designed and manufactured to meet a price point and deliver enough value so people keep buying them. It’s a Glock world these days.

As others have pointed out if you can afford to shoot enough rounds to shoot a Glock to failure you can afford another Glock. If you are a range rental fees will have more than paid for the gun 1000X over before you hit enough rounds to make it fail. If you are hardcore competition shooter the cost of your pistol is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what it costs you to be good.

To answer the OPs question maybe but in practical terms who cares. I guess I am saying the questions is moot.
 
The answers I'm seeing are akin to "which is deeper, the Pacific or Atlantic ocean? " and getting an answer of "it doesn't matter the pressure will crush you before you get that deep". Yes you won't get to the bottom of either with SCUBA gear nor will most wear out any Glock (not even a Lorcin for that matter). I agree completely. I know majority of guns rarely leave a safe. But that wasn't the question the op asked.

The OP asked a number of questions. Including
Perhaps they're good enough for the average individual and organizations with a support system in place with respect to a competitive market sector?

Yes, they are good enough for the average individual.
 
As others have pointed out if you can afford to shoot enough rounds to shoot a Glock to failure you can afford another Glock.
Very true. But you really dont even have to buy a new one, as they will likely fix the old one for free.

I got a call from Glock a couple of hours ago. The frame of that 148,000 round Gen 3 17 I sent in with a broken rail last week, is going to be replaced under warranty, and they are going to rebuild the rest of the gun to boot, and thats 9 years out of warranty yet. And all its costing me, is the $25 it cost to ship it down there.

So yea, who cares! :D
 
Very true. But you really dont even have to buy a new one, as they will likely fix the old one for free.

I got a call from Glock a couple of hours ago. The frame of that 148,000 round Gen 3 17 I sent in with a broken rail last week, is going to be replaced under warranty, and they are going to rebuild the rest of the gun to boot, and thats 9 years out of warranty yet. And all its costing me, is the $25 it cost to ship it down there.

So yea, who cares! :D
That's pretty awesome. Can't complain about that!
 
B0A8A1D3-B551-4A2F-904D-CD4D7BDDB49F.jpeg The ad said “very good condition”, so I was fairly amazed at the condition of my near new Gen4 G22. It had only the smallest of scratches on right grip, barely noticeable. I really enjoy shooting it, just like my Gen3’s.
I don’t see a functional or quality difference between them. The trigger on the Gen4 is pretty crisp. The day I shot it, I forgot the stapler, so I was shooting at steel plates targets the club has at 25yds to 50yds. The 25yd target is a ram about the size of large squirrel, and I was punishing it with white box 165gn fmj’s. The rest of the plates were easy, too, and the .40 rings them nicely.

Not sure about the Gen4 recoil spring. Years ago, I owned a Gen3 G23, and the Gen4 recoil impulse does seem to be a little softer. Think I’ll keep it.
 
I started with a Gen1 G17 and have progressed through the Gen2 and Gen3 G17/19/22/30/34/35. I've also used a Gen4 G22 as a duty gun and have a couple of friends using a Gen5 G17.

My personal favorite was my Gen2 G19 and really didn't see or hear of a reason to "upgrade" until hearing reports of the Gen5 models...I didn't need a rail to mount a light and the stock backstraps on the Gen2 fit me fine.

With the minimal upgrades of an aftermarket beavertail and sights, the Gen5 would be my choice over the Gen3 or Gen4
 
With the minimal upgrades of an aftermarket beavertail and sights, the Gen5 would be my choice over the Gen3 or Gen4

Is that because it's more closely related to your g2? After all it uses the same locking block and barrel as the g2 19...
 
Is that because it's more closely related to your g2? After all it uses the same locking block and barrel as the g2 19...
My objection to the Gen3 was the BTF issue, to the Gen4 it was fixing the Gen3 .40 WML issue

I've long found that how a pistol looks or feels in the store...or how it's specs read...has little to do with how it performs in my hands. I usually make judgements based on how they work when shot against a timer
 
Mine do because they're all in a box while I shoot my Sigs (and I have a bunch of Glocks and have shot them a lot). Just can't stand the grip angle. Love Sig's innovation. My history is 1911's for about 15 years, then Glocks for about 15 yrs and then Sigs for about 15 as well.

edit that, probably Glocks for more like 20 years. There was about 5 years overlapping with Sigs. Once I found the grip angle thing, the Glocks went away to their box.
 
Last edited:
I love the idea that folks can refer to a 'Glock of yesteryear'. Back when they were forged by mighty Austrian mountain dwarves from Valerian steel. But now, well they are just cranked out by soulless Cerakote-covered robots.
I believe in the 3rd quarter of 1992 they switched over to Austrian Elves...it was union thing as I remember.

But ahh, back in the day . . . those were pistols from a mightier age!
 
Speak of Mother Ship-the one in Georgia. Of the three Glock's here on the hill two have been back. One was a recall on G20's. The other was on a used G21. Sending them back is to make sure the handgun is safe. Also, to get all the aftermarket products out of the gun. The guns run just fine the way they come. The last gun is my carry G23 Gen 4. Changed out the recoil spring assembly during the swap. I added Glock night sights. It's just great the way it is. I shoot all these guns and cannot remember a failure of any kind. I kinda think this new guns being less than the old guns is a net myth.
 
Last edited:
Which is why I stated I can’t believe people are debating this. It is in all practical terms meaningless. The reality is like most things Glocks are designed and manufactured to meet a price point and deliver enough value so people keep buying them. It’s a Glock world these days.

As others have pointed out if you can afford to shoot enough rounds to shoot a Glock to failure you can afford another Glock. If you are a range rental fees will have more than paid for the gun 1000X over before you hit enough rounds to make it fail. If you are hardcore competition shooter the cost of your pistol is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what it costs you to be good.

To answer the OPs question maybe but in practical terms who cares. I guess I am saying the questions is moot.


I believe WVsig and others here have touched upon a relevant line of discussion. Most shooters will never put a large round count though their Glock. Also, its been pointed out if a new Glock is as reliable as an older gen Glock up to a reasonable number of rounds then a newer glock might be quite suitable for average individual and professional. This was part my inquiry thus I was hoping for some view points from this perspective. The other aspect of my inquiry was more of an academic discussion about the possible workmanship merits of older Glocks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top