ck1

I've seen a few posts of issues with the Gen4 34's already just like with the other Gen4 Glocks, and not just with the 9mm's, seems quite a few are even having teething issues with the .40's too (just not quite nearlyas many as with the 9's). While a few have Gen4's that run fine, the issues are are more or less epidemic in proportion compared to the proven Gen3 Glocks. Personally, after trying (and then promptly getting rid of) 3 different problematic Gen4 specimens, in hindsight I have no idea why someone (including myself) would want to risk picking up a potentially "moody" Glock when there are ones out there that run like a watch as half the reason I shoot one is based on their reliability and how proven the Gen3 platform is. If someone absolutely needed the smaller grip to the point where it was a real deal-breaker I'd push them in the M&P or better yet CZ direction.

After spending a bunch of loot on the 19rd Factory Shadow mags (I have large-ish hands too and like how the longer base pads lock-in my support-hand), and then of course, the pretty much essential +10% springs too, I eventually ended up going to the 19rd Mec-Gar AFC mags also... there's just no comparison quality-wise, the AFC mags are just flat out better IMO (not to mention a bunch cheaper). Got 'em here: http://gregcotellc.com/cart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=97_130&products_id=592&zenid=5cc574322f349589b98c5c82a2c1aaca

I ride the safety just like on a 1911, puts my thumb in about the same position as it rides on Glocks too.

Another thing you might want to consider is maybe swapping out the safeties to the higher-riding 85 Combat type safeties... changes the grip-feel of the guns a whole lot (probably more so than thinner/thicker grips even). While they work for many, having gone to the 85-types I cannot stand how the lower 75SA/Shadow safeties feel now, the higher-riding ones work better for getting my thumb up and out of the way of my support-hand and allowed the thinner grips to work awesome for me when I previously thought they were too thin with the original safeties on there. (P.S. - I'm also an XL motorcycle glove, and the VZ grips + the higher safeties fit my hands like the grip was tailored for me.)

I agree with squirrel's, I found that the over-travel screw will allow you to over-adjust it very easily, taking away all manner of over-travel, but if you dry-fire it, hold the trigger back, rack it, and then rock the hammer up and down slowly a bunch of times, if you can feel the slightest "rub" then you have to back the screw out until you're sure they're not rubbing while resetting under use (and when I say "slightest" I mean it, we're talking what is barely detectable, that almost cannot be felt, is enough to round the sear/hooks off over time). I actually broke out a flashlight to visually confirm that there was an ever-so-slight gap (talking like a piece of paper's thickness or two) when rocking the hammer back and forth, those sears are only case-hardened so even a little unwanted wear or rounding is no good. You still end up with about zero over-travel, just not quite exactly like the feel of a 1911 that's had all of it taken out, but no chance of sear/hooks wear messing things up.

I wholeheartedly recommend the Warren/Sevigny competition set, the rear notch-width to front blade width is about perfect for our games and I really find that their flat black, non-serrated rear helps one to keep a sharper focus on the front blade and it's alignment as compared to rear sights with serrations. For me, for the front I've come to far and away prefer the uncluttered and crisp picture of the all black set (serrated front only) over FO's. In the past, with FO fronts, I tended to rush shots, pulling the trigger as soon as the glowing dot appeared in the rear notch, the plain black fronts keep me more honest and I can literally count the serrations, and the precision I gain using them more than makes up for any ultra-slight speed-of-acquisition advantage the FO's may have.

IMO the Glock's Tenifer is about one of the toughest finishes out there... the EXO finish seems to be more about aesthetics than a real needed improvement in function, if someone wants a two-tone Glock then that's cool, but I don't see any real advantage in function, enough crud to stop a regular Glock will no doubt stop an EXO-finished Glock too. Last summer I shot a regular non-EXO 3rd Gen G17 from May to September (approx 5000rds) with just 6 drops of TW-25B and no cleaning without a failure, can't really ask for much more. That said, the bluing on my STI Trojan wore off in mere minutes (swear if you looked at it too hard it would wear) and if there wasn't FP-10 dripping out the back then it was too dry, now there's a gun that could use the EXO treatment!

I thought I had a pretty good grip technique going on with the Glocks as is, but after watching how Sevigny's elbows/arms are "pushed out" to the sides more (elbows bent out to the sides more so instead of just bent more down, almost overly exaggerated) and then noticing a couple vids and pics of Vogal doing pretty much the same type of thing, now I'm a convert too. It's certainly counter-intuative at first (like most grip/stance technique things it seems), but the "elbows-out-to the-sides-thing" does seem to work really well and is now starting to feel more natural to me. I've noticed it helps the gun return to the same spot shot-to-shot and makes it easier for me to track the sights under recoil more so than I've experienced in the past, but the biggest gain I've experienced is that it also kind of forces one to have more strong-hand palm around the back of the frame and has more or less eliminated the tendency to sometimes print low-left with Glocks for me. I don't know, it's worth checking out I guess, wish I'd noticed it and tried it sooner...

I want to pick up a new Glock too and have been toying with the idea of trying a Gen4 again (I had 2 early Gen4 17's that were both s**t) because I'm an LEO and I can get a "blue label" Gen4 17 for $450 (a Gen4 34 for around $550 when, if ever, they become available, not sure if they're correct but my LGS said all Glock blue labels are Gen4's now) which is cheaper than a Gen3 and comes with an extra mag.... Thing is I'm kind of thinking like this: if I'm ok with buying a new gun that works "most of the time" and is potentially a headache, maybe I should just try out another 9mm 1911...

My take is that you're talking about two very different animals, apples to oranges as they say... M&P's, if you get one that doesn't have any issues (many do) can be made to be very very good after sending them to Burwell or installing the Apex stuff, they'll end up as good or better than any of the other polymer/striker guns out there for sure... But... The CZ Shadows are on a different plain IMO and are just upper echelon guns in comparison that don't really need anything straight out of the box, and no matter how much you were to spend upgrading any M&P, it would never be up to anywhere near where the Shadows sit on day one. A Shadow Custom's trigger will hang with a sweet 1911 in SA and a top shelf revolver in DA, not to mention the extra weight, 1911-like barrel-lug lock-up, and long slide rails... It's always more Indian than arrow, but frankly, arms-race speaking, a Shadow can honestly contribute to a guy seeming to become a better Indian "overnight" then as is the case with even a tricked-out M&P. Edited to add: it's not really "cheap plastic vs. expensive steel"; a 5" M&P pro with Apex guts or a trip to Burwell is around a $900 piece of plastic, to get what a $1000 Shadow gets you would be well north of $2k in the 1911 world... the Shadows are worth every penny of what they cost IMHO. (In fact, the fact that you haven't found a Shadow to try yet doesn't surprise me... guys order them and keep them, used ones last mere minutes before they're snapped up.)

Not to bum anyone out, but I've yet to see a 9mm 1911 that will really honest-to-goodness load reliably from slide-lock that hasn't had it's feed-ramp re-cut to a shallower angle. I got pretty close to 98%-reliable using Wilson ETM's in a Trojan using FMJ exclusively, but I would still get a nose dive every now and then (usually in a match). In IDPA I started loading 9 instead of 10 and that was a lot more reliable, in USPSA SSTK loading 10 I would put a drop of FP-10 directly on the feed-ramp in the safe area between stages and that worked out fairly well, also load as long as your chamber will allow you to get away with... Seriously, if you have the loot, stop fighting with mags and have Mr. Tripp re-cut your feed-ramp to less-steep more short-OAL-friendly angle like he does for SSTK .40's and it'll run like a Glock... the loading/nose-dive issues come from running a shorter-OAL round in a platform designed for a longer-OAL round, good mags help, but they can't overcome space and time...

If a G19 doesn't work for you, then in my and millions of others shooter's opinion you probably just need to keep at it. Not a single other pistol mentioned in this thread can match a G19's balance of reliability, shootability, size, lightness, and "real gun, not a toy factor" ...meaning that you could shoot matches with it if you wanted to and could go to war with it if you had to, even neglect it, and it would still more than likely save your hide if called upon... that's why they're so ubiquitous.

CZ Shadow.

Guess I'd echo most everyone else in saying the G19 is pretty much THE go-to carry Glock, with modern +P JHP ammo you're not giving up much, if anything, but you are getting the watch-like reliability and capacity that Glock's in 9mm bring to the table. The G36 is an ok pistol, but when I think "Glock" I think reliability and capacity, neither of which is a strongpoint of the G36, with the former seeming to be below what most expect from a Glock. I know that a couple of guys I know who are dedicated ".45acp only" types swear by the G30 and have tried and gotten rid of the 36's... I know some people are into the caliber-thing more than others and for many of them the 9mm might as well be a pellet-gun, if that's the case I would look at the .45gap models, while not popular with the mainstream, the list of agencies fielding it is impressive and the teports I've read say the guns seem to run as if they think they're 9mm's, and being the same size as them fits more hands than the thicker 30/21 guns. Really I think it's important to remember that even the a G34 is much lighter and easier to carry than a full-size 1911 and lots of guys carry those, I've been carrying one IWB from time to time at 3 o'clock and it's been fine, and I've been carrying a G17 AIWB for over a year without any real issues. Glocks are light, which I think is more important than size, so all of them can be carried IMHO.

In ESP I ran a Trojan 9mm for a while and it was nice, when it worked correctly, but I quickly got tired of the headaches 9mm 1911's cause and went to a CZ 75 Shadow, if there's a better "built-for-it" gun for ESP (other than the same 75 Shadow just in SAO) I've yet to see it, they've got the sweet trigger and accuracy that's every bit as good as the 9mm 1911's except they run like a watch... That said, and as said, it's the Indian not the arrow, and I'm back to shooting a Glock 'cause it's the same as what I have to use for work and what I EDC, and while it's WAY less forgiving of any errors, it'll still get it done if the idiot pulling the trigger does his part. P.S. Not to throw fuel on the fire or anything, but anyone who knows anything about how firearms work, after working on, or detail-stripping one who says an M&P isn't a single-action gun, or at the very least, just as or more single-action than an XD is delusional and lying to themselves. I have no idea how S&W got away with telling the ATF/BATF it was a DAO/safe-action and got them classified as such... Rules are rules, but, and with all do respect, Robert Ray has got a pretty good list of "head-scratchers" going on with many of his decisions. IDPA moving to someone better informed or more technically-oriented, or better still, to some type of committee format as far as technical rules are concerned would only add legitimacy and help, not hurt (IMHO).

I had the same exact thing going on for a while... super f'ing annoying. I was shooting a CZ Shadow for a while and it was less of a problem with the heavier gun and it's sweet trigger, but with the Glock it was driving me crazy. I did 2 things to cure it that ddpenn and sportshooterjeff already mentioned, not sure if it was one or the other, I'm guessing both... First thing I did was to get the gun more in my stron-hand's "palm", turning it more so than in the past, I think had got in the habit of having my strong-hand cheat to the right side of the grip to give a bigger empty space for my support-hand to land... I saw some action pics of Sevigny and Vogel one day and thought to myself how "weird" their strong-hand arm looked as compared to mine and it clicked that it looked like they had their palms around the backstrap more so than I did, so I decided to try it out... even in dry-fire I could feel the difference right away. This actually does a couple things that are good and uniquely help in particular to shooting Glocks IMO: it helps you stay honest about not getting too much of your trigger-finger's pad on the trigger (using more towards just the tip than towards the joint), and your strong-hand thumb gets to be more forward, and I think that pinch between your thumb and upper-part of your trigger-finger helps clamp down and helps to settle down such a light-framed pistol. The second thing I did is that I'm now closing a Captains of Crush #2 even with my support-hand... My newfound increase in grip strength has been my real breakthrough this past year and has improved my shooting more so than anything else. I particularly think it has benefits for guys shooting Glocks as I can hold the lighter pistol in a "vise" now and the trigger-loading that happens during the pull that happens as the striker compresses no longer affects my shots or sight picture unless I totally lose it and get lazy. YMMV, but what you're describing is what plagued me for the longest, and I managed to overcome it by doing the above, could be worth a shot, I know the added grip-strength will help just about anyone who shoots pistols.

Not entirely true. Just as the tab on the trigger pushes up on the plunger. The plunger pushes down on that tab on reset. For example purposes, pull the plunger out and see what happens to your reset. It's certainly a give and take. Lighter plunger spring with reduce trigger pull a little but hinder reset a little too. Heavier (stock) plunger spring adds a little to trigger pull but also helps with reset. Nope, to reset the trigger in the Glock design there's no need to let out the trigger far enough to have the FPB plunger move down and engage. The FPB plunger is disengaged during the first portion/stage of a Glock's trigger pull, even before the striker is even fully cocked; after the trigger breaks, to reset the firing mechanism the trigger bar only needs to be let out far enough to reengage the connector (the connector's angle comes into play; and why a 5.5 connector has a shorter reset than a 4.5, steeper angle on the connector equals a heavier pull, but takes less distance to reset), during this process the FPB plunger is "trapped" in a disengaged state by the raised tab on the trigger-bar and the FPB only reengages once the trigger has been let out fully to where it's "at rest"..

Yeah, the 17L is not approved for Production, so that's a no-go. Your G34 is a fine choice, I'm shooting one myself these days and pretty sure it may be the most popular choice in Production these days, that said, the main reason I'm back to using a G34 is it's the same platform I use for work and EDC so it makes sense for me to use it in training and competition as well, but as a former Shadow shooter, I'd totally recommend trying one if you can and if one is in your budget. Shadows have most of same reliability and and no-nonsense ability to be run hard and dirty and take abuse as we're used to with Glocks, but they also have the heft, built-in inherent accuracy and sweet triggers that rival top-shelf 1911's, and arguably, maybe the best ergos out there. IMO the Shadows are head-and-shoulders more forgiving and easier to shoot well with than a Glock, but if you're in a similar position as myself they may even be too good for some as they're really closer to a tuned custom pistol than a knock-around duty sidearm. No question though, for what they cost, even at $1200 for a Shadow Custom, they are fantastic values and A LOT of gun for the money, there aren't many pistols out there that can flat out embarrass many expensive boutique 1911's in accuracy and trigger quality that will still run like a good Glock.

The " Glock trigger-bar-nose re-shape trigger-job", as far as Glock trigger stuff goes this is pretty advanced, be prepared to be buying a new trigger-bar if it doesn't work out right... I don't use power tools to do this, I think they make it too easy to go too far and mess it up, a file, 600 grit, and Flitz are enough... http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72964

I've gotten real close to what you're describing a couple times, but it requires some trial and error, and maybe a couple of extra trigger-bars as you're bound to ruin at least one figuring it out (at least was the case for me), but with a little luck, when you nail it you end up with a really good trigger... Here's the thread that helped the most: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=72964 ...basically you re-shape the trigger-bar's "nose" for less resistance through the pull as the newly profiled "nose" will do what it needs to with less fuss ,and it shortens over-travel and the reset substantially at the same time. This is surely more in-depth than the ubiquitous $.25 trigger job and the potential to put your pistol out of commission is far greater, if you remove too much material in the wrong spot the striker either won't release, the trigger won't reset, or both, and you'll need a new trigger-bar (in fact, as a tip, when done right a re-shaped trigger-bar to be used with a 5.0 connector will not work properly and release the striker when tried with a 3.5 connector, as the re-shaped "nose" will match-up with the connector's angle closely). As always, after any trigger mods, load no more than 2 rounds and test it for a little while to make sure you don't go class 3, get doubling, or any other bad behavior... Be careful. EDIT: FYI, I do not use any power tools when doing this (or really any trigger-work), and if you own a Dremel, I recommend keeping it in it's box or giving it away to a friend if you can't resist it's aura... around firearms they usually end up causing more harm than good. A small file, some 600 grit, a flat surface, some Flitz, and an old T-shirt or cotton rag (to polish out the Flitz, the Q-tip method kinda stinks IMHO) is all that's ever really required IMO to do any Glock trigger stuff... TIPS: Before you attempt this, remind yourself to be patient and get it in your head that you'll be taking apart and reassembling your pistol a bunch of times, because you will be, remember that going slow, and taking meaningful time to look at the Glock lower with the slide off, actuating the trigger, paying close attention to how the trigger-bar and connector are interacting as you re-shape it's nose is the secret to success, with the slide off you can disengage the trigger-safety and watch how the trigger-bar "nose" is traveling along the connector, done right it will start to look like the "nose" isn't even touching the connector until right at almost the end of the trigger-bar's travel. Take too much material off the "nose's bump" length-wise (horizontally) and the trigger-bar will slip down before it's gotten to move the the striker-tang rearward or will not have enough of a "bump/curve" left to be pushed down by the connector at the end of it's rearward movement and release the striker properly, also, don't take off so much material at the middle part of the "round of the nose" that the trigger-bar won't have anything there to let it sit against the side of the connector post-striker release and right before trigger-reset (this is why you need to spend a few really looking at the interaction, so you don't remove material in spots where it's necessary). This isn't an exact science, YMMV, good luck, and may the force be with you...

^^^ +1. If both types have CZC competition hammers installed and 13lb hammer-springs there isn't a huge difference between the FPB-equipped guns and the no-FPB Shadows, but once you try one without a FPB you'll probably want one, it's just a "cleaner" trigger-pull as 2 springs used for the FPB are out of the trigger-pull process, and the reset becomes half as long too. You can easily turn a 75B into a "po' man's Shadow" by installing the hammer and springs and removing the FPB, but the problem is you'll probaly end up loving it, and won't be able to use it competitions in it's "FPB-liberated" state, and then you'll just end up buying a Shadow anyways (at least that's what happened to me after I converted an SP-01)... If you really need to save a few bucks, the 85 Combat is the only one besides the Shadows that doesn't have a FPB, but IMO the older "duck-tail" type frame isn't as nice as the newer higher-beavertail frame you get with the Shadows. Maybe look at it this way, the couple extra hundred bucks for the Shadow will be back in your wallet after you end up selling your other polymer 9mm's that you won't want to shoot anymore ...

DQ's from ND's while lowering the hammer manually are rare, a lot more infrequent and it's far less dangerous than some make it out to be... We've all done it a million and half times and it's no big deal, you get comfortable with it... the trick is to not get too comfortable, that's when the accidents happen. Used Shadows turn up less often than Bigfoot, they're that good, unless your super lucky it could be a long wait...

My vote would be a RIA Tactical, then just change out any of the guts to nicer stuff if you want to, you'll still come out less banged up money-wise and you can add exactly what you want or really nothing if it's fine as is. I've been really impressed with just about every RIA I've ever handled or shot not even considering their price-tag, a gun that costs twice as much will not be twice the gun shooting-wise or in some cases with some brands possibly even as good. All 9mm 1911's can give you headaches regardless of price, so don't think spending more automatically equates to more built-in reliability. I've owned a tricked out 9mm STI Trojan, but after shooting a couple Spartans and RIA's I'd say the extra $400-700 is a lot just for the Trojan's under-cut trigger-guard and ramped-barrel. Also, FWIW, I ended up spending more than I had to mainly because I was convinced having a ramped-barrel in a 9mm 1911 was a necessity, don't fall in the same trap, just my own theory here, but these days the 9mm magazines are vastly better than they once were and the usual suspects (Wilson ETM's, Tripp's) present the rounds pretty high and in-line to the chambers and don't nose-dive nearly as bad as they were once notorious for doing (actually, sometimes the 9mm mags seat high enough to break ejectors, but that's a different discussion). I'm actually starting to see more and more non-ramped 9mm 1911's running better than the ramped ones, as the ramps are really too steep on the ramped ones and once they're a little dirty rounds smash into them and hang up anyway, seems having the steep ramp out of the way may just be better...

Man, I just switched back to shooting Glocks full-time after over a year shooting Shadows... all I can say is that going fro a Shadow to a G34 is like going from a Ferrari to a second-hand 80's Mustang, you can still be fast, but it takes A LOT more work and it's crystal clear what's the superior tool for the job. The things I like about the CZ's is they bridge the gap and marry the qualities of both a top-shelf 1911/2011 and a boringly reliable Glock. They have maybe the best ergos out there with the controls in the right spots for easy access while at tge same time having no levers in the way of a good high, thumbs-forward grip. They've got the right amount of heft to soak up recoil and help you stay steady without being too heavy to run quick. Like squirrels said, the design has built-in attributes that lead to a fast accurate gun, the bore-axis is low, and they have light, fast-cycling slides as most of the weight is in the frame, and the rails are really long so they can be just as accurate as real tight-fit guns while at the same time being able to be loose enough to run dirty and reliably. Then there's their triggers, Shadow triggers are every bit as good as sweet 1911 triggers, and in some ways IMHO, maybe even better in somecways as the pivoting design means they can go lighter without danger of hammer-follow or other bad behavior and their trigger-reset has more snap in it than most 1911's, closer really to a short Glock reset. They're just great guns, you can compare a Shadow Custom to a $3k 1911 and still come away impressed, but the Shadow will run better with far less maintenance. For $880-1200 you really can't get a better gun IMO, and that money gets you the platform's top of the food-chain specimen that can compare with any top tier pistol... Sheesh, with custom 1911's, $1200 may not even get you something that's even ready to run a full season without adding things or tuning it some.

I run a lighter firing pin spring and I have had excellent luck (i.e. 100 percent ignition) with Winchester primers in the Winchester and Black Hills factory ammo I use for carry, though I do indeed run Federals for my reloads. I've noticed that too, it does seem like the primers in most carry stuff are more sensitive than the lower rung target FMJ the companies put out... That said, numbers/percentage-wise, compared to target FMJ, I haven't shot a whole lot of carry stuff on a reduced-power striker-spring really, and I HAVE had a couple light-strikes with my usual carry stuff (124gr +P Gold Dot JHP), so in general, never in a million years would I recommend anyone carry a Glock with a reduced-power striker-spring installed, Murphy's law has a way of, well, being Murpy's law... As far as range or match shooting goes, IMO, a Glock with a reduced-power striker-spring installed vs. a stock-strength striker-spring is just a totally different gun and should probably be discussed as such... A Glock w/ a RPSS installed feels and acts so differently when compared to a stock gun, for example: feel-wise things that seem amplified in a stock gun like second-stage creep, snatchy-ness, or mushiness when using a 3.5/4.5 connector go virtually unnoticed in a RPSS-equipped gun as the lighter spring allows one to pull right through it without same "fight" a stock spring would put up. Also RPSS-equipped Glocks can run 13lb recoil-springs as a norm, it's possible to go down as light as an 11lb recoil-spring with coils clipped off even, same just isn't true in a stock-striker-spring'd gun, with them 15lbs is safe and bomb-reliable, but depending on the particular specimen, a 13lb recoil-spring can be pushing it... Think my point is that changing the striker-spring affects the whole way the Glock design works drastically and profoundly, they become different animals, so discussing aftermarket tweaks and parts swaps without mentioning that important piece of info (striker-spring weight) just makes things confusing. So FWIW, the same super-sweet connector that is the absolute cat's ass in a RPSS-equipped Glock can feel super mushy and like near total crap in the same exact gun with a stock-weight striker spring in place. Those of us who shoot the cheapest factory FMJ they can find have to stick to the stock striker-spring to avoid light strike issues and are just doomed to a heavier trigger-pull I guess, but it doesn't bother me much, Sevigny, or Vogal would still probably whip me with an 8lb connector and the NY2 spring installed (like 16lb pull?), no matter what, it's the Indian not the arrow...