Seriously Glock?

[dogtown tom]

FireInCairo ......They no longer use the tennifer process, which wore exceptionally well. Springfield employs that method still, though.

I don't think you know as much about Glock manufacturing as you think.
Tenifer is only one brand name of a ferritic nitrocarburizing process. Glock stopped using Tenifer due to environmental reasons, yet still does a nitrocarburizing of slide and barrel. There is absolutely no difference in the hardness or rust resistance due to the change from the Tenifer brand.
Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferritic_nitrocarburizing

This is why newer Glocks get all scuffy so quickly.

Horsehockey. Absolute horsehockey.
What you are scuffing is paint.

 

[shootr]

Well... Long time pistolero here. Owned and shot BHPs, 1911s, Rugers, numerous S&W revolvers and semi autos over decades. Shot competition regularly.

Never liked the feel of Glock, but wanted an EDC gun I wouldn't be concerned about - so bought my first plastic gun, a Gen4 G19, last summer.

Hated the trigger and shot the gun poorly because of it. LGS glocksters said to practice more and get used to it, but IMO just not worth the time or ammo. I like a nice trigger, so I replaced it with a Ghost Elite and I practice with that as my only mod.

I now shoot that Glock darn near as well as a 1911 and as an EDC tool, I feel very confident. It has never failed. MIM vs non-MIM, finish, grip angle - no matter to me. The gun works, holds up well to EDC, requires minimal upkeep and is plenty accurate. Good is good.

 

[Wanderling]

I don't think you know as much about Glock manufacturing as you think.
Tenifer is only one brand name of a ferritic nitrocarburizing process. Glock stopped using Tenifer due to environmental reasons, yet still does a nitrocarburizing of slide and barrel. There is absolutely no difference in the hardness or rust resistance due to the change from the Tenifer brand.
Read more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferritic_nitrocarburizing






Horsehockey. Absolute horsehockey.
What you are scuffing is paint.

Just to add the finish we see is not tennifer the treatment is what's under finish you could strip the black / grey finish and you'd still have the tennifer or its newer analogue left on your gun

The different kinds of Glock finish are pure cosmetics. Don't know why Glock keeps changing them. My gen 3 17 has Teflon like black that is rather pretty and wears very well. My gen 3 26 has flat grey finish that looks dull but also wears well so far. Under this finish they have the same surface treatment

 

[Warp]

I really like my Gen4 Glock 19, especially the grip.

It has been every bit as reliable and durable as my decade old Gen3.

 

[rubicon923]

Two observations about Glock:

1. During the last decade, most new guns have increased in price, but Glock seems to sell for about the same as 10 years ago. One way of holding the price constant is by using cheaper parts.

2. The extractor/ejector problems on Gen 4 and late Gen 3 guns appeared about the time Glock went to MIM parts. Coincidence?

 

[ritepath]

Hopefully I'll never buy another one...

What do they have to lose, they know their users won't deviate from the brand.

 

[dwight.hopkins.96]

Well... Long time pistolero here. Owned and shot BHPs, 1911s, Rugers, numerous S&W revolvers and semi autos over decades. Shot competition regularly.

Never liked the feel of Glock, but wanted an EDC gun I wouldn't be concerned about - so bought my first plastic gun, a Gen4 G19, last summer.

Hated the trigger and shot the gun poorly because of it. LGS glocksters said to practice more and get used to it, but IMO just not worth the time or ammo. I like a nice trigger, so I replaced it with a Ghost Elite and I practice with that as my only mod.

I now shoot that Glock darn near as well as a 1911 and as an EDC tool, I feel very confident. It has never failed. MIM vs non-MIM, finish, grip angle - no matter to me. The gun works, holds up well to EDC, requires minimal upkeep and is plenty accurate. Good is good.

I'm in the same situation. I have drawers full of pistols and wanted a tough, inexpensive everyday truck gun. So I bought a Gen 4 model 19 and started shooting. Didn't like the trigger, made a couple of reasonably lawyer proof mods and now I shoot it great and I've had no problems. I dry fire 100 times each night and go to the range 2 or 3 times a week. I'm supremely confident in the gun and getting more so each day. With no basis of comparison with previous generations I guess I'm better off.

 

[JDR]

Sorry to hear about these anecdotal issues with Gen4 Glock pistols. My own Gen4 Glock 21 has been an excellent firearm since Day 1 with all types of factory ammo, it is absolutely one of the best semiautomatics that I own! When I do buy another Glock it will be a Gen4, I like the large BT backstrap.

 

[Shaq]

I have six older Gen 3 Glocks in every caliber. I stopped keeping track after 17,000 rounds in them without a malfunction. I was considering a Gen 4 until I started hearing about ejection failures. I figured it was the tip of the iceberg. Then the finish coming off & cracking polymer. Even after the fixes, every Gen 4 Glock I see in videos sprays brass everywhere. One case will eject to the left, one will hit the shooter's face (frequent complaint) & another will barely make it out of the ejection port. When friends shoot my Glocks, I'm able to stand a few feet behind & to the right of them & catch almost every case right out of the gun; the ejection is that consistent. I've read the MIM parts are behind the malfunctions with the Gen 4's.

I've seen suggestions about changing the extractor to this brand or that brand, the recoil spring assembly etc. but I don't buy a new gun so I can fix it.

 

[VoodooMountain]

They're good guns but not as good as they were. Especially unhelpful when glock refuses to admit they have made a mistake...or the fanboys for that matter.

Weak ejection...must be you're grip
Brass to face... Must be your grip
Doesn't shoot poa...must be your grip
Finish rubs off like a crayon...you're imagining things...and adjust your grip

In all seriousness though, for the average shooter they are still a great option. The vast majority of the gen 4 glocks run quite well. Next one I buy will be an older gen 3 though even though my older gen 3 19 would dent the case mouth on ejection until I replaced the ejector with the gen 4 version.
But nobody I have shot with ever complained about this common issue.
The internet has exacerbated some of the smaller things on the gen 4. Between the die hard all steel guys dipping their toes into the polymer framed waters and all the newer gun buyers from the gun panics of late, there is a lot of misunderstanding and conjecture that has blown many things out of proportion

 

[stonecutter2]

I own a GLOCK or two and have them in generations 2, 3, and 4...

Although I like them all, the Gen4 models are definitely my favorite. The biggest "like" is the grip. I prefer the "without any backstrap" option which fits my hand better than any other generation I've owned or shot.

To the OP, I'm sure you can find a suitable trade out there to swap your Gen4 for an earlier model.

Edmo

I also find the gen4 without a backstrap extremely comfortable. It's what convinced me to finally get a Glock. The other previous model felt too "chunky" in my hand, but gen4 and no backstrap felt custom molded for me.

 

[FireInCairo]

nevermind

 

[Spats McGee]

I didn't like Glocks for many years, probably because I didn't want to like them. When I finally decided that I'd try one out, I got the Gen 4 G19. She's not "Perfection," but she's very good for me.

It came with the backstraps, but no beavertails. The beavertails were released shortly after I got mine. Glock declined to send me a set of beavertails for free, and I was too cheap to buy them separately. That wound up being a non-issue, because she fits my hand best without any backstraps. After ~400 rounds, my slide lock spring broke. (That drew "How in the world did you break a Glock?!?" from my Glock-owning friends and even a "Get away from my car. You're jinxed." from one of them. . .)

I bought it right at 3 years ago. The finish has worn off of the extractor, but I guess that's to be expected in my EDC. I'm at a total of ~1800 rounds, with ~1400 rounds past the slide lock spring issue. I've had a couple of stovepipes and a couple of failures to feed. Otherwise, she eats what I feed her and puts holes where I point her. Brass goes over my right shoulder and I haven't been hit by BTF yet. (Knocks on wood) I can't tell you if it all falls in a nice neat pile because most of my shooting is done standing on concrete.

Glocks are not for everyone. Some folks think they feel like 2x4s. I disagree, but it's not an unfair complaint. Whether a gun feels good in the hand is simply very subjective. Some folks don't like the trigger. That's OK, too. Is it a glass-breaking 1911 trigger? Nope. I do like a nice trigger, but my Glock's trigger to be acceptable to me for carry.

 

[AZ Desertrat]

If they started using MIM parts, Im glad I don't have the need or desire to buy one again.
I have a Gen 3 G19 and a Gen 3 G20....I wont be buying ANY more polymer guns. Im done with them.

 

[Warp]

If they started using MIM parts, Im glad I don't have the need or desire to buy one again.

You're missing out

 

[Zerodefect]

I like my gen4's better than my gen3's.

I use the large beavertail. The grip is improved. Paint sticks to the fuzzy melonite finish just fine. If you want "frying pan" just spray the slide with VHT Epoxy gloss black.

 

[DaisyCutter]

People were skeptical of the polymer when Glocks first hit the streets. Now we're skeptical of MIM, LOL.

I spent a decade as a metallurgist for Honeywell, doing failure analysis on gas turbine engine components. The Abrams Tank AGT-1500 powerplant has MIM parts.

Just because a new/different manufacturing process is used, doesn't mean it's inherently inferior.

In some applications, coarse cast grains are more fatigue resistant than smaller forged grains. Cracks typically originate at, and propagate along, grain boundaries... AKA intergranular fatigue cracks.

Turbine blades spinning at 30,000 RPM inside the 1800°F hot section of a gas turbine engine are generally cast, not forged. They have to be cast in order to incorporate all the little cooling offices. Specific applications call for specific mechanical properties, which dictate specific manufacturing materials and processes.

I think the engineers at Glock probably know what they are doing, and have a good appreciation for the material properties necessary to ensure durability.

 

[Zerodefect]

Companies that could barely produce a single working 1911 out of a batch of 50,000, kinda ruined the MIM name.

The Glock extractor is fairly oversized, if you notice any wear on it or weird extraction, it's a $15 fix, and aftermarket forged machined extractors are available.

We have seen a few striker tips fail, the Zevtek billet striker would be a fine up grade for those concerned about that.

The FP safety has been a complete non issue. I'll smooth out it's dings, if it gets hammered by the striker, but other than that, it see's almost no force. SS and Ti safeties are available.

 

[helitack32f1]

I EDC a 1993 Glock 23 and also own a semi-early Gen4 G17. The only problem I have had with the Gen 4 was an excessively sucky trigger, that was fixed by an update done by a Glock armorer, free of charge. They also changed out the recoil spring assembly on the gun as well as the original one in the G23.

The finish on the old gun is the flat, parkerized looking version and the Gen 4 has the "frying pan" type finish. The finish on the old G23 is worn like crazy, just from the 12+ hours a day of IWB cary.

I love the changeable back straps of the Gen 4 as well as the enlarged mag release. And, I like the RTF on the gen 4 for shooting but not sure how well it would work up against my body in an IWB holster. I am an odd person in that I actually prefer the largest grip on the Gen 4.

Every Glock I purchase from this point on will be a Gen 4, except, I really want an RTF2 with the fish gills, so I will eventually get one of those too hopefully.

 

[Thompsoncustom]

Ya unfortunately I think glocks quality has went down over the years I can't say if it's from the use of MIM parts or what just that it seems like there getting worse not better.

I got a NIB gen 3 right when the gen 4's came out and the first thing I noticed when I got home was the thing squeaked like a dog toy really bad when I racked the slide but I figured whatever it will probably shoot it's way out of it so I hit the range and tho the gun ran it throw brass everywhere, dropped the mag and shot a round, it wouldn't even eject them without the mag supporting the round.

Both were easy fixes the recoil spring just needed polished on the outside because it was so rough and the MIM extractor is just trash and needed replaced with a better aftermarket one. Tho easy and cheap to fix not something anyone really wants to do to a new gun.

 

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Their quality hasn't changed. They ran into the same problems as anyone else.

At the end of the day there is nothing proprietary about a Glock and other than being at the right place at the right time with the right product they would not be the number one gun used by police. And that lead to more sales too outside of the police departments too.

This is not the first time they have had common problems either and actually they had more serious problems in the past than today.

For instance the combination of a barrel that wasn't fully supported and the fact that the gun would fire out of battery was bad. This made them not the best choice for reloading if your reloading ocd was not on point. Even worse if you used lead and did not do it right then they were capable of being a grenade.



There are a few on here who experienced it first hand. But the fact that they are not perfect should not detract from what they have accomplished or what they really are.....a good gun and the first successful polymer pistol that made polymer the new way to build a gun. Now everyone is doing it.

What they have now at a level that not everyone does is aftermarket support. That comes along with selling more pistols than anyone. To some degree it boosts the sales of Glock.

 

[mgmorden]

Meh - I sold a Gen 2 G17 and upgraded to a Gen 4. I don't like the finger grooves on the grip (though I can deal with them) but otherwise I think the Gen 4 is fine, and introduces some good new features (replaceable backstraps and reversible mag catch being the majors).

Personally I have no issues with MIM parts myself. Tons of manufacturer's use them, and most have absolutely no issues. If you're going to feel let down every time you buy a new gun and discover that it has MIM parts then I'd wager you'll be quite disappointed from now on unless you plan to only buy used guns or spend over $1000 on every handgun you buy.

 

[nerfsrule2]

i agree with a lot of what is in this thread.. I decided to tweak a great product to fit my needs...

 

[MachIVshooter]

Pay attention to what DaisyCutter says. Methods for manufacturing, testing and QC have improved leaps and bounds since the days of Sam Colt, JMB, even Gene Stoner.

MIM is basically a form of precision casting. The difference is that MIM uses a cold liquid mix and then sinters is in the die, rather than injecting molten metal that cools in the die. Other methods, such as DMLS STL, can also produce quality parts at a fraction of the cost per unit that machined parts run. The reason billet material is typically used by lower production, "high end" makers has a lot less to do with material integrity than equipment cost. A high speed VMC or even mill-turn costs a lot less than the machines required to produce acceptable MIM or investment cast parts, especially larger pieces like frames, slide and receivers. CNC machining equipment is also a lot more flexible if you have limited space for manufacturing processes; though slow compared to MIM, cast, etc., one VMC can make every part of a gun. To use other methods, you need multiple dedicated (and expensive) molds/dies. If your production numbers are too low to reasonably amortize the equipment investment, machined parts are the only way to go. But if you're a larger company with enough capital and moving enough volume, newer processes like MIM can speed up production immensely. Nothing at all wrong with MIM, cast or DMLS parts in the right applications. We don't make barrels or cylinders this way (been done, but not on any production guns AFAIK), but perfectly acceptable for many other parts.

 

[JDR]

If the aerospace industry is using 3D printers to produce production parts for jet engines, why are people all bent out of shape over a few MIM parts in a handgun?

The Pratt & Whitney Corp. is using what is called additive technology to produce compressor stators and synch ring brackets for the PW1500G production jet engines used in the Bombardier C Series aircraft family. Additive manufacturing, also called three-dimensional (3D) printing, builds parts and products one layer at a time using a printer-like device. In 3D printing, additive processes are used where successive layers of material are laid down under computer control. These objects can be of almost any shape or geometry, and are produced from a 3D model or other electronic data source. These engines will be the first ever to feature this additive manufacturing.

While Pratt & Whitney has produced over 100,000 prototype parts using additive manufacturing in the past 25 years – and hundreds more to support the PurePower Geared Turbofan engine family's development – the company will be the first to use additive technology in production manufacturing.

Pratt & Whitney has been working with additive manufacturing since the 1980s, and they are a vertically integrated additive manufacturing producer with their own metal powder source and the printers necessary to create parts using this technology. Additive manufacturing offers significant benefits to the production of jet engines.

In production tests, Pratt & Whitney has realized up to 15 months lead-time savings compared to conventional manufacturing processes and up to 50 percent weight reduction for single parts. The PurePower engine family parts will be the first product produced using 3D printing powder bed additive manufacturing.

Related manufacturing technologies that will be used in the PurePower engine production include Metal Injection Molding, Electron Beam Melt and Laser Powder Bed Fusion (including Direct Metal Laser Sintering).

Pratt & Whitney and the University of Connecticut are also collaborating to advance additive manufacturing research and development. The Pratt & Whitney Additive Manufacturing Innovation Center is the first of its kind in the Northeast region to work with metal powder bed technologies. With more than $4.5 million invested, the center will further advance Pratt & Whitney's additive manufacturing capabilities, while providing educational opportunities for the next generation of manufacturing engineers.