TacticalReload

I know. It's weird how Glock fanboys seem to come from a position of ignorance while HK fanboys come from a position of arrogance. They take the "you suck and we hate you" philosophy and have internalized it. Meh... whatever. I still love the feel of the gun and can live with its shortcomings for my purposes.

I'd personally have more concerns about the slide than the frame; but considering that factory 180 grain ammo is usually just about at major PF anyway, I think it's unlikely that you'll see problems outside of what people normally see with Glock .40's.

It seems like this might be a topic that has come up from time to time. Do any of you who shoot the VP pistols notice that it becomes unusually and uncomfortably hot? Specifically, my support thumb rests on the take-down lever; and it gets hot enough that I am forced to adjust my grip. I'm talking generally about shooting a few hundred rounds in a range session at a typically brisk but not purposely "mag-dumpy" manner. The reality is that I really like the way the gun feels and handles -- plus I bought it primarily for use as a defensive gun since I've been shifting to the P320 for competition shooting -- so it's not really a deal breaker at all. It's just something that I found to be quite curious as I've not had this issue before on any pistol (except for the P7) unless we are talking about a lot of rounds fired for an extended time. That being said, I'm guessing most of us are not the type of people who even bother packing up and heading to the range just to shoot 50 rounds through a gun and go home. I tried asking this question over at the HK forum; and it was promptly met with a bunch of the usual (and fully expected) a-holish responses. I should have known better... I don't know why I bother asking these types of questions anywhere except on this forum.

When using one of the frames I have, the pistol feels very solid. When using the other, it rattles around like crazy when I shake it. Unfortunately, the loose one is the size that fits me better. It doesn't seem to affect anything as far as accuracy and function, but it is kind of annoying. I suppose this is just a byproduct of the needed clearances built into a modular design.

I would just call SIG at this point. That's good... without those, you'll never get any substantial number of views / subs on youtube.

I handled a lot of them before buying one so I'm not sure the production dates of the pistols I looked at. However, I can say that there did seem to be very noticeable variances between the examples... mostly in the trigger feel and weight along with how snugly the FCU fit in the grip module.

That's for the update. Good videos, BTW... very thorough; and unlike most youtube videos, it provides sensible, level-headed commentary from someone who actually shoots their pistol instead of trying to use it to prove how mall ninja they can be.

Nope, finger grooves will be removed and it will have an ambi slide release lever I've always thought that Glock is so stubborn that it would take an act of Congress to make them change their ways. Ironically, that's almost the truth apparently. As much as the idea of a Glock w/o grooves is intriguing to me, I'm pretty sure I'll wait a couple of years for them to work out the bugs. You'd think that this is relatively minor as far as function goes, but it seems like there are always issues with their changes.

I went with an RMR because it's one of the few that's low profile enough to still cowitness with BUIS. Also, there is a screw on the back of the Razor that locks down the dot adjustment... it won't be easily accessible if you have a rear sight mounted, if that matters to you.

I thought for sure that this was going to the P320 since they specified no finger grooves. Everyone is now speculating that Glock is going to be putting out a new frame. It would be nice but I think it's just as likely that the Feds are accepting the finger grooves on their new pistols. We shall see.

I bought a batch of once fired .40 brass supposedly from LEO guns. It was obvious that it was Glock brass... some of it was bulged to the point where I couldn't get it to chamber into a P226 or an M&P40. It's the reason why I try to make a point of finding roll-sized brass when buying once-fired stuff any more. Of course, I've fired thousands of .40 major through a Glock with a factory barrel and never ran into bulges quite that bad so I'm not sure what was going on. It was probably setback from cops who rechamber the same round or two daily for months on end until they are fired off during regular qualifications.

IMO, the "issue" is not seeing two sets of sights when focusing on the target... it's seeing two targets when focusing on the sights. I can't see how this product would solve that. The biggest hurdle that you have to get over is just trusting your brain. Bring the gun up where it looks right and fire without thinking about it. You might be surprised at what happens. That being said, I still have to close one eye when I'm looking for pinpoint accuracy at long distance.

At the moment the Q5 is a rare sighting. Having never handled a P320, examine a PPQ long slide side by side with a P320. If the base versions don't work for you, the optic ready examples will be no different. This is definitely correct with regards to the Q5. Aside from the milled slide, a couple of holes, and a different color trigger, they are the same.

I don't disagree with your premise. Generally, for defensive guns, I leave the innards alone. For example, the Glock in question has an Apex trigger but it's mated to a factory trigger bar, factory "-" connector, factory NY-1 trigger spring, factory connector housing, factory striker, and factory striker spring. The striker block safety is Apex, but its spring is factory. The slide lock and mag release are both Vickers Tango Down. The mags are factory, but the base plates are Vickers Tango Down, as is the grip plug. So everything that would affect reliability is a factory part and everything that's aftermarket serves a legit purpose for me. But then I come to that darn plastic guide rod, and I'm not sure how to answer the reliability question. I've had issues with the factory part in the past, but I had a buddy who had a different issue with an aftermarket replacement. Both however, are quite unlikely, I think... so I just wanted to see if anyone has strong feelings either way.

With the gen3, I always had to melt or file them to break the corners because of how they dug into my hand. Also, I've seen online a case or two of people who pressed them in TOO far and the spring actually slipped out of the hole into an adjacent hole where it's not supposed to be... And they spring pressure became insufficient to hold the mag in place and it looks darn near impossible to get the release removed to fix the problem without destroying the part.

Nothing touching the frame. It's between the slide and the barrel, not on the frame anywhere. Probably what you meant to say. No, I did mean between the slide and frame. We were talking about reliability and "flex". At all stages during the action of firing / feeding with the exception when the gun is basically at full lockup, the RSA is between the slide and frame. The barrel is loose when it's not locked up and isn't under tension from the spring and rod.

Glock seems to keep shortening the recommended interval. It's been a while since I went through the armorer's course, but I'm seeing online that people are claiming they now say 2k rounds. If that's actually true, I feel that might be the best indication yet that the polymer rod is a farce... certainly the spring itself can withstand a good bit more use than that. Good thing that (1) most people don't shoot much at all and (2) the RSA is a cheap part.

Well, technically it's mounted between the slide and frame.

You always hear about how the factory polymer rods were "designed to flex" and therefore it's a feature, not a bug. In 99.9% of these type of cases, I take it with a grain of salt. I find it hard to believe, if steel happened to be cheaper than plastic, that they wouldn't be using steel instead. However, considering the issues that they experienced with weapon-mounted lights, I wonder if there isn't something to the whole "run it stock" thing.

I think it's almost a given that nearly everyone swaps to a different guide rod in their competition Glock. My question is... do any of you who use a Glock for self or home defense also move to an aftermarket guide rod? I've never had a factory plastic rod break in half, but I did have one chip slightly at the end that seats against the barrel lug. I also have had two that were deformed. One was on a used pistol that I purchased that was so warped that it caused feeding issues because it was impeding the slide's movement. I don't plan on changing spring weight from factory, but I don't get a warm and fuzzy feeling from plastic guide rods any more after these problems. That being said, swapping functional factory parts that might affect reliability in a defensive pistol makes me a little uneasy as well. So what do you folks think about the matter?

If there was that much of a variation i don't think they could make aftermarket Sears. Of course some guns do need timing adjustments to make them work but that's not to hard While I don't disagree on the premise, I swapped or modified the internals on more than half a dozen different M&P's; and I don't think any two of them had identical sears (angles, lobes, striker engagement surfaces), trigger bar loops, or trigger pull weights. I've seen FAR more variation in M&P's than I have from Glocks or any metal framed pistol models.

I agree. I think a majority of people who complain specifically about the DA to SA transition are actually saying, "I don't like the long, heavy DA pull."

I get the feeling that people aren't making that part because of the wide gun-to-gun variation.

I'd say run it until it starts giving you problems rather than simply replacing it (unless it really bothers you having the stock part in place). Either way, when you replace it, I'd go with an Apex part instead.

I've never had an issue with a heavier trigger spring failing to return the trigger fully... it does, however, feel a little more sluggish. I'm not anywhere near a fast enough shooter to out run the trigger, but others may find it to be an issue I suppose. Most of my experience has been with Gen3 guns as I have only put about 5k rounds through various Gen4 guns and most of them were on stock guns. I've gone with as light as a 4# striker spring, 11# recoil spring on a tungsten guide rod, reduced striker block spring on a re-contoured block, and extra power trigger spring (all Wolff) mated with the stock striker and Ghost Rocket connector (all parts highly polished). It was 100% with properly seated Federal primers in .40 minor loads. I've also used a Vanek trigger in a Gen4 with a 4# striker spring that was 100% with Federal and Winchester primers, but this was with the Jager lightened striker. I'm not sure which trigger spring weight he uses, but he does relocate the connection point on the trigger bar. In both cases, the pull was around the 3 to 3.25# mark although the Vanek trigger was slightly more crisp with a more positive reset. At the end of the day, though, we are talking about Glocks... despite what the fanboys say, they don't exactly have the best triggers in the world. If you want the utmost in reliability, just run it stock with a minus connector and polished parts. Using a polished and / or re-contoured striker block with a lighter striker spring is a good way to smooth the pull and lighten it a small bit without affecting reliability. As mentioned, a lighter striker spring will go the farthest toward reducing the pull weight, but IMO is also the spring change that is most likely to reliability issues (light strikes) with some ammo.