Do Glocks of yesteryear offer more longevity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
On a whimsy I bought a Gen 2 G22. Turns out that it was among the first made. Sent it back for sure. Came back good as gold. Finish was thin and receiver worn. Gun ran great. So far as I know current parts were used in their typical rebuild. Nobody has proved to me there is a nickel's difference between new and old Glock's. Once you figure out it's a platform for launching projectiles reliably the rest of the ergonomics etc. kinda drop by the wayside. Actually, the history of that handgun is remarkable considering the world wide circulation since introduction. How many millions?
 
I was going through my safe just now, oh there it is, I believe this is the prototype for the Glock Gen 10... 20190310_075533.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20190310_075533.jpg
    20190310_075533.jpg
    77.4 KB · Views: 1
I would like to welcome everyones opinions on this subject. My observations are only based on cursory research over the years. Although I've owned a few glocks and still own one to this day. I'm not questioning the design excellence and it's legendary reliability. I'm curious as to disparity between Chuck Taylor's data and others from the 1990's compared to today's shooting range maintenance reports. Glock testing of years past indicated pistols cycling well over a hundred thousand rounds without any catastrophic failure; I would dare say those results eclipsed any other all steel pistol in the history of combat handguns. Could mim parts be a factor? Perhaps Glocks are still as durable as yesteryear? Perhaps they're good enough for the average individual and organizations with a support system in place with respect to a competitive market sector? LOL, should we only be shopping for GEN 3 and older models?

Always buy second-hand Glock in excellent condition and replacement sights. I see plenty with new Trijicons for about $100 less than new ones with plastic sights. Apparently there are plenty of people that buy $500 gun put $120 sights use it very little and sell the gun to dealer for about $300.
 
Last edited:
Turns out I have a gen. 2 1/2, a Model 26 with smooth finger grooves and no rail. Carried it as a service gun until I retired, and shockingly enough, aside from our armorer installing a NY2 trigger (orange,12lb), I've added no aftermarket parts.
 
I don't think plastic improves with age. I would look for Gen 3 because I like tennifer slide and barrel finishes best. I had early Gen 3 (parkerized slide), Gen 3 and couple of Gen 4 guns. I didn't see any difference in performance or reliability.
 
I don’t know if the newer Glocks are as tough as the older models, but they seem tough enough for me.

Every generation has things that people like or dislike about them.
Personally, I like the grip texture and finger groves of the gen four models. Others hate the finger groves.
Some people like the gen five stuff. Me I don’t care for them.

I say, get the model you like and try to shoot it enough to wear it out.
 
Truth told the only thing missing on originals was means of weapon light/lazer mounting. I suppose one with sweating palms or equatorial jungle bound would find grip texture little lacking. If I recall original mags lacking metal liner were not as good.
 
I only have a Gen 3 26 and a Gen 4 17. I like them both equally but I do prefer the Gen 4 grip texture.

My 26 was bought used and my 17 new. Neither have had any issues but they are both stock other than sights and grip plugs.

Personally I would probably stay away from 1st or 2nd gens just due to age. These aren't all metal guns we're talking about. JMO, YMMV...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top