As the title suggests, I went to my local FFL and picked up my new Glock 26. This is my only Glock right now, but I've owned two 19s and a 27 in the past. Loved the 27, but .40 was too much for such a little gun. I regret getting rid of the 19s though..wish I had at least kept one of them. My H&K P2000sk 9mm is up for sale right now and this new 26 is replacing it for concealed carry duty. H&K makes the finest pistols in the world, but the P2000sk was just a little too large for me to carry day in and day out. It's actually closer to the size of a 19 than a 26 even though it's considered a sub-compact. The Glock is significantly shorter in height, thinner in most places, and lighter. Also, while I got used to the LEM trigger (lighter 5.5 lbs) on the P2000sk, the Glock trigger is just better overall. Shorter take-up and faster reset. I also like the position/distance of the trigger in relation to my palm when it breaks. The H&K trigger breaks further back and my finger joint doesn't agree with it.
Anyways, all that being said, there are two things I'm not exactly fond of on the Glock. First, I know it's not really an issue, but compared to the H&K, the recoil guide rod assembly seems very cheap and flimsy. The little round disc that seems to be riveted on and butts up against the barrel lug flexes and moves around. I can literally see it flexing off of its perpendicular axis. I know the factory guide rod assembly is still reliable, but I'm going to have a hard time not replacing it every 1k rounds or so. It's the only part of the gun that seems like it's capable of failing in a bad situation.
The second thing I am not liking is the finish. Before I bought the gun I was reading a lot of things online about the newer matte black/gray finish that has been showing up on the newer gen 4 and gen 3 guns. Seems that some people like it, some don't, and others feel it doesn't matter. I like the extra grip it offers when racking the slide, but otherwise I'm not a big fan. It's aesthetically less pleasing and seems like it will be difficult to clean compared to the wetter looking ~2000-2010 finish. From what I understand, Glock started shipping pistols with the newer matte finish around the end of 2010/beginning of 2011.
What I am really curious about is the durability of the finish. The barrel has the new finish in addition to the slide. Reviews I've been reading online say that the new barrel finish is actually more durable than the older one and those rings that show up from wear don't show up nearly as quickly. The slide, however, is getting different reviews. People are saying it scratches easier (I already see some fine scratch lines on mine) and it develops holster wear faster. So which is it? More or less durable than the old finish? I realize the underlying Tennifer treatment on the steel is the same (supposedly), so I'm not worried about rust here. I'm just worried about how quickly it will start to show wear.
Here is a pic after wiping it down with an oily t-shirt. It has that "wet" finish when it's literally wet with oil, but once it dries out it looks dull and almost chalky. The 2000-2010 Glock finish looked wet even when it was bone dry. I liked that.
Anyways, all that being said, there are two things I'm not exactly fond of on the Glock. First, I know it's not really an issue, but compared to the H&K, the recoil guide rod assembly seems very cheap and flimsy. The little round disc that seems to be riveted on and butts up against the barrel lug flexes and moves around. I can literally see it flexing off of its perpendicular axis. I know the factory guide rod assembly is still reliable, but I'm going to have a hard time not replacing it every 1k rounds or so. It's the only part of the gun that seems like it's capable of failing in a bad situation.
The second thing I am not liking is the finish. Before I bought the gun I was reading a lot of things online about the newer matte black/gray finish that has been showing up on the newer gen 4 and gen 3 guns. Seems that some people like it, some don't, and others feel it doesn't matter. I like the extra grip it offers when racking the slide, but otherwise I'm not a big fan. It's aesthetically less pleasing and seems like it will be difficult to clean compared to the wetter looking ~2000-2010 finish. From what I understand, Glock started shipping pistols with the newer matte finish around the end of 2010/beginning of 2011.
What I am really curious about is the durability of the finish. The barrel has the new finish in addition to the slide. Reviews I've been reading online say that the new barrel finish is actually more durable than the older one and those rings that show up from wear don't show up nearly as quickly. The slide, however, is getting different reviews. People are saying it scratches easier (I already see some fine scratch lines on mine) and it develops holster wear faster. So which is it? More or less durable than the old finish? I realize the underlying Tennifer treatment on the steel is the same (supposedly), so I'm not worried about rust here. I'm just worried about how quickly it will start to show wear.
Here is a pic after wiping it down with an oily t-shirt. It has that "wet" finish when it's literally wet with oil, but once it dries out it looks dull and almost chalky. The 2000-2010 Glock finish looked wet even when it was bone dry. I liked that.
