Seriously Glock?

Status
Not open for further replies.
My Gen 2 G19 rarely bounces brass off of my forehead...it usually throws them directly into my eyes instead :(

I think they ruined them when they added the finger grooves, and a gun that has been taken to the belt sander loses a whole lot of resale value. And I would prefer a longer, more deliberate trigger pull for a carry gun. So that's why in the depths of my soul I keep hoping that Kahr will make a double stack gun some day.

Still, if I suddenly found myself in a gun battle and somebody handed me a Gen4 Glock it would make me very happy indeed.
 
Also not a fan of the gen4. Though my reasons are

Trigger - it can never be cleaned up as much as previous gens.
RSA - second thing to ditch after .02cent sights/dovetail protector.

I also dont care for the Mag release. Not a whole lot of options on the aftermarket side like there is with previous gens.

What's wrong with the rsa? They appear to be better in every way, then the cheap plastic guide rod, rsa.
 
Last edited:
Additive manufacturing, also called three-dimensional (3D) printing, builds parts and products one layer at a time using a printer-like device.

Just a small nitpick, but the correct technical term for additive manufacturing as it pertains to 3D printing, laser sintering (DMLS), etc. is stereolithography (SLA, sometimes STL). Useful to know if people want to research it further.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereolithography

The two other general types of manufacturing are subtractive (machining, carving, etc) or formative (cast/forged/die formed/stamped/molded).
 
They're good guns but not as good as they were.

I don't know when the "good" Glock heyday was, but my 2002 G19c and 2010 Gen 4 19 are of equal quality. I still prefer the grip and mag release of the Gen 4, and all new Glock purchases will be Gen 4's.

In fact I dumped all my Gen 3's except the above mentioned 19c and a 30S.
 
Walther is using MIM parts on the PPX's, don't know about the other models. They also have plastic guide rods.

I'm not worried about it, because Walther wouldn't put out a piece of crap.
 
What's wrong with the rsa? They appear to be better in every way, then the cheap plastic guide rod, rsa.

Tune-ability is #1 reason...
While the 17lb stock RSA (9mm) may be great for masking feed issues and forcing the bullet in. Its not that great for a flat shooting gun. I run 11-12lb Recoil springs with Heavyweight conversion guide rod on my g4 34, my 35 also runs about 5lbs under the stock RSA.
 
Tune-ability is #1 reason...
While the 17lb stock RSA (9mm) may be great for masking feed issues and forcing the bullet in. Its not that great for a flat shooting gun. I run 11-12lb Recoil springs with Heavyweight conversion guide rod on my g4 34, my 35 also runs about 5lbs under the stock RSA.

You do that For self defense?
 
No, I do not typically use my Glocks for self defense purposes.

Most people seem to buy and own and use Glocks with defensive purposes in mind, not tinkering with modifications to get the most edge out of it for competition or gaming.
 
Most people seem to buy and own and use Glocks with defensive purposes in mind, not tinkering with modifications to get the most edge out of it for competition or gaming.

Might want to go to a match or two and see how many people shoot glocks.

You may view it as the best defensive weapon in the world, whereas I view it as a cheap competition gun. That only shines when the majority of stock parts are replaced.
 
Is that the Walther P22 Jamster?

To be fair, itsnt it made by a BB gun company and only Walther by name? as of a number of other branded 22's..
 
Might want to go to a match or two and see how many people shoot glocks.

You may view it as the best defensive weapon in the world, whereas I view it as a cheap competition gun. That only shines when the majority of stock parts are replaced.

Most people who buy guns/handguns/Glocks don't compete in matches. Many who do, do so with the gun(s) in its most reliable ready-for-defense setup.

But yeah a modified Glock is a good choice for many competitions.

Doesn't in any way mean Glock should or would change their factory setup (for most models) to tailor the guns towards competition. If they do (and they somewhat do) that's what the tactical practical competition models are for like the 34...not the duty or compact or anything
 
Most people seem to buy and own and use Glocks with defensive purposes in mind, not tinkering with modifications to get the most edge out of it for competition or gaming.

Most people that buy pistols for self defense might shoot 100 rounds a year.

They also know even less about how a semi-auto works internally.

What is gaming?
 
Most people who buy guns/handguns/Glocks don't compete in matches.

Correct..... However, a vast majority of all guns sold will have less than a box or two of ammo through them too..

Doesn't in any way mean Glock should or would change their factory setup

I didnt say they should. (on second though, Sights... I mean seriously they are a pitiful excuse on a 500 dollar gun.)

I change Glocks to meet my needs only.
 
I still like Glocks for several reasons, mostly their simplicity and the availability of parts and holsters, but I have to agree with the OP that Glock is doing more wrong than they're getting right these days. They no longer use Tennifer, most of the crucial internal parts are now MIM (which I believe is to blame for their recent brass to face debacle), and yes the backstraps are a joke compared to their competition.

But, I still think they're worth owning. The only reliability issue with any factory Glocks was the BTF issue, which seems to have been solved and isn't really a genuine reliability issue as it were. It was also widely reported that the BTF only happened with standard pressure ammo, and the rumor was that Glock had streamlined the pistol to work best with NATO spec 9mm. I don't have any idea if that's true or not, but Glock was apparently going after military contracts in recent years, and the BTF issue seemed to be nonexistent with +P ammo, so it's not an unreasonable theory. Still, though, it's not confidence inspiring that the BTF issue was so hit or miss, as consistency and quality always go hand in hand. So at the very least quality control was lacking, which, again, I believe is a result of the MIM parts.

Also in Glock's favor, they still do very well in all kinds of torture testing, and they still run forever and a day with minimal servicing. They're also lightweight and definitely well within acceptable accuracy parameters. As mentioned, parts, magazines, and holsters are widely available and inexpensive, and the gun is so simple that anyone can work on one. The fact that they can easily be converted to other calibers also makes them pretty nifty for possible situations where ammo or parts become unavailable due to legislative or supply problems.

As for the grip, it's admittedly bad by more recent standards, and the backstraps don't help. But, it is possible to make a Glock as comfortable as any other handgun by doing a grip reduction with some other tweaks. I don't normally go in for modifying factory guns, but the grip reductions don't change any of the internal parts and do not effect the structural integrity of the frame if done correctly. I did a grip reduction, beaver tail, trigger guard undercut, finger groove removal, and bobtail; and my Glock is, for me at least, as comfortable as my 1911. I also filled the backstrap with acraglas with multiple mechanical locks, so the integrity of the frame was actually strengthened while maintaining full flexibility. As opposed to JB weld or marine tex, the acraglas should retain the recoil dampening effects of the backstrap, so literally nothing has been changed in terms of how the gun functions. It was admittedly a lot of work, but it didn't cost me hardly anything.
 
Long post cut short, it seems tarosean has taken the Gen4 RSA off his reason of dislikes and is down to the sights, which have not changed with the generations, so nothing new or different with the Gen4's there

(didn't like the RSA because though good for reliable feeding wasn't as good for a flat shooting gun as he mostly uses Glocks to compete, but it's easy to agree Glocks should put reliability ahead of shooting flat for competition)
 
The best thing Glock has going for it is the simplicity of design which makes for easy modification. If you've every tried to work on a pistol like the Walter PP series, you would really appreciate Glock's design.
 
Why do people think their guns get the same quality of MIM or cast parts that their airplanes do? A and O, folks.
I think this hits the nail on the head. When I researched MIM several years ago, I read over and over again that if done correctly (as in with enough QC to ensure proper dimensions) it was the most expensive and difficult way to manufacture small parts, more so than milling from castings and even from billets. The only definitive advantage I could find to MIM is that it's possible to make parts that would be either impossible or very difficult to manufacture with CNC machines, but as we know this doesn't apply to Glock as the basic parts haven't really changed much since the late 80s. On the other hand, I read that if you're willing to accept questionable QC standards, then it is possible to manufacture MIM parts faster and cheaper than castings.
 
The older P-22's were made by Umarex, not Walther. Does the frame say Ulm/Do on the side?

If not, then that's a Umarex peice of garbage.

Current model P-22's are made in the Ulm Walther factory.

I can say the PPX is a fantastic gun in its price range, 1000 rounds out of mine and its dead nuts reliable.
 
grampajack ....They no longer use Tennifer....
Good grief. :banghead:
Glock only stopped using the Tenifer BRANDED process.
They continue to use a nitrocarburizing process that hardens the metal EXACTLY as did the Tenifer process.

All gelatin desserts are not Jello.
All paper snot rags aren't Kleenex.
All artificial sport surfaces aren't AstroTurf.
 
Long post cut short, it seems tarosean has taken the Gen4 RSA off his reason of dislikes and is down to the sights

How did you gleam that bit of info?
It still sucks!
 
Good grief. :banghead:
Glock only stopped using the Tenifer BRANDED process.
They continue to use a nitrocarburizing process that hardens the metal EXACTLY as did the Tenifer process.

All gelatin desserts are not Jello.
All paper snot rags aren't Kleenex.
All artificial sport surfaces aren't AstroTurf.

Tenifer and Melonite aren't exactly the same thing, which is why the EPA allows Melonite to be used here in the states. I'm not saying that Melonite isn't great, but I've read that Tenifer is more wear and corrosion resistant. I know everyone bragged about Tenifer for years, then suddenly Melonite became just as good when the environmentalists went after Tenifer, so something isn't adding up. I really don't know the details of how harmful the cyanide is to the environment or how it effects longevity, but I've found that "green" alternatives usually turn out to be inferior. Like I said, I'm not condemning Melonite, but I would vote for Tenifer on my Glocks if given the choice. YMMV.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top