Dean Speir

. Permit me to deconfuse some members here, starting with Graham Smith. I am the referenced "that guy" who owns, maintains and authors more than 80% of the content on The Gun Zone. I neither own nor control nor have any financial interest in any Website or enterprise that markets, sells or promotes any product or service relating to Glock or any other firearms company, either here or in the rest of the world. So, Graham Smith, you are not only incorrect, but egregiously so. As for "mlmiller1," your reading skills are demonstrably deficient as well. In respect to "Glock recalls," there have been a significant number of them, dating back to 1991 with the Models 21, and then the first one affecting the entire product line in April 1993. Glock Inc. declines to call it a "recall," instead referring to it as a "Product Upgrade." If it doesn't concern you, fine. But don't attempt to reassure others concerning a subject about which you are misinformed. I haven't written anything about Glock recalls or upgrades in several years now, but everything pertaining to the problems with the Austrian pistols published in The Gun Zone Glock pages is documented and verifiable. Thank you.

Yeah, me 'n' Baghdad Bob… separated at birth. That said, you are correct that the "small frame trigger bar" is different than that of the large frame Glock pistols… please excuse the lack of clarity in my message. As I posted, however, the triggers themselves would be interchangeable, and I believe that this goes for the connectors as well. I also believe that anyone who would pay $175-$200 for a "trigger job" on a Glock is not only certifiable, but probably capable of hot-rodding reloaded .40 S&W rounds in their Models 22, 23, 24, 27 and 35… but, hey!

They are the same triggers.

I had to re-read this thread a wee bit more carefully to deconfuse m'self, Seth… it seems that there have been two (2!) Models 34 which have gone topless… hmmmmn! What're the chances?!? Chunks of a catastrophic case failure and a spontaneously ejected magazine are, unfortunately, dispositive of nothing. Detailed images and a lab report would be instructive, but it sounds like you never got around to that. What does interest me, though, is if you and Bart compared your respective serial numbers, starting with the alpha-prefixes. I think that might be interesting, especially given the current "non-recall/recall" of a significant amount of Glock pistols within a certain range of manufacture due to the rear frame slide rail breakage. But allow me for a moment to reinterate that I have never documented a kB! in a 9 X 19mm Glock (or one punched out two silly millimeters to 9 X 21mm when that was all the IPSC rage back in the early '90s). I just never believed that one could pack enough propellant, even VihtaVuori's snappy 3N37, into a parabellum case to provide an overcharge sufficient to kB! any pistol! (And, of course, the 9 X 19mm cartridge being a tapered round, Herr Glock never saw the requirement to have an unsupported chamber in the Models 17/17L, 18, 19, 24, 26 and 34, that he did with the other chamberings.) But two catastrophic 9 X 19mm Glock failures… both Models 34… on the same Forum, yet! Given the actuarial tables on that, ol' son, you're talkin' loooooooooong money.

Speak of the devil… and the devil shows up. I realize that you're being ironic, 2alpha, but no, Glock doesn't produce bad guns, just ones that are a bit short of the "perfection" the company likes to promote. But you're correct, if you call Smyrna with a complaint, Glock, Inc. has two responses depending on the circumstances: The shooter is limp-wristing! It's an ammo problem! In fairness to Glock, that covers the majority of their complaints, #1, and, #2, it kinda looks like Banjo Bart's catastrophic failure is in fact ammunition-related. I've very much like to know more about it since I have in almost twelve years of tracking these events never been able to document a 9 X 19mm kB!… heard of a couple, but then everyone's "heard" everything at one time or another. Can you provide a cite on that, Loves2Shoot, because I'm with the duck of death on this one; I cannot find it anywhere within their manual. And when I asked GSSF's Chris Edwards a specific question about this very issue, he asserted that it was in their manula, yet he couldn't find it. (The most recent manual I have only warns this.) With all due respect, if "your friend" allowed them, or anyone, to get away with something like that, then he deserves whatever he did or didn't get in the way of satisfaction. I'm not an attorney, but two of my crew are, and the phrase "absent specific language" seems to resonate here. I, on the other hand, have some truly wonderful tales of Glock's customer service, including one just this week when one of my crew acquired a second-hand, slightly abused Model 30 which required some spiffing up and a new front sight. He contacted Smyrna and asked what he was in for since he wasn't the original purchaser, and he would also like to purchase one of the new (really neat!, BTW!) Glock pistols cases while he was at it. He was told to just send the Model 30 in, it would be refurbished to specs, and there would be no charge. Granted, that wasn't a kB!, look what happened to my Glock tale o'woe, but my friend was quite favorably impressed! I suspect that what Banjo Bart will be offered will be a replacement pistol at cost… that is their standard proffer. I doubt that they will return an unrepair pistol… this was SOP for them when I first started clocking these events.