Gen 4, Glock, Model 17's

[Street Survival]

Gentlemen,

I have a quick question for all our Competition Shooters or Active Combat Shooters. Do you truly believe all the bugs have been worked out of the New,Gen 4, Glock, Model 17's? Let me know what your current (November 2010) experience is. I'm about to purchase 2 of them. Thanks for your input.

[JHC]

We've got four Gen 4 9mms here (17x2 and 19x2). All four have original 01 or 03 springs respectively. We have 10.2K rounds through them and there has not yet been a single failure to feed, fire or eject. I cannot explain the issues some have had with some of these guns; I've never been around one to examine or test fire. A handful of our shooting friends have some as well and they've only had success with them also.

5K of that through one 17, 2300 through the other. Over 90% of this ammo was 115 grain fmj- WWB, Blazer, Federal, Remington-UMC.

[Memphis]

I have a Gen4 19/17 and 22/23. The 17 and 22 have 3k and 1.2k rounds respectively and without fail. I compete with the 17 every weekend and practice with it twice a week. I have NEVER experienced a malfunction of any sort. Both of the compacts had 2(each) FTE within the first 50 rounds and never a problem since with about 500 rounds through each.

YES. The "bugs", if there ever were any, have been worked out. They have a newer '02' spring for the 17 that's been out for a good while (I have one in mine) and from what I understand the 19 now has a "beginner spring" for people that have the wrists/grip of an 8 year old girl.

Edited November 22, 2010 by Memphis

[Street Survival]

Thanks for the update. Keep them coming.

[imadvm]

I have a Gen4 G17 and so far have had no problems with it.

[ck1]

I had a Gen4 17 and had many many problems through over 5000rds, nothing like anything i've ever experienced with more than 5 times that many rounds through the Gen 3 17's.

Also, FWIW, of the several that have showed up since a few months back at our local club since they were released, exactly none were spotted at yesterdays match.

Hearing of a few issues here and there might mean nothing, just an accident, but judging by the shear number of issues being reported with them, it seems to be closer to a trend.

If you're getting 2 anyways, make at least 1 a Gen3.

Memphis, while entertaining, your "beginner's spring" theory might need a little more research, do a search and you'll find guys who are long-time Glock shooters and certainly not beginners (Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn, etc...) reporting many of the same issues and things that have been popping up all over the firearms forums since the Gen4 17s were released (and by coincidence that never surfaced with the Gen3s).

BTW, I have no problems closing a COC #1 gripper with my support-hand and will be moving to the #1.5 this week, if that means I have a grip like a little girl and am obviously limpwristing then you must be really really strong.

Edited November 22, 2010 by ck1

[Beretta Lover]

Guns used for duty and ccw should be looked upon with the same reliability criteria as parachutes and airtanks. I guess if your gun is going to be strictly a gaming platform it might've worth fooling with a gen4. The fact that the issues are real and documented by people on this forum was enough for me to buy a gen3 g17. I don't know if block has addressed the issues completely or effectively. If I had to have a gen4 I would replace the guide rod and spring. I have been the first guy to get a new model gun before and I wont doit again

[JHC]

Memphis, while entertaining, your "beginner's spring" theory might need a little more research, do a search and you'll find guys who are long-time Glock shooters and certainly not beginners (Larry Vickers, Ken Hackathorn, etc...) reporting many of the same issues and things that have been popping up all over the firearms forums since the Gen4 17s were released (and by coincidence that never surfaced with the Gen3s).

BTW, I have no problems closing a COC #1 gripper with my support-hand and will be moving to the #1.5 this week, if that means I have a grip like a little girl and am obviously limpwristing then you must be really really strong.

There could be something up with some Gen 4s such as yours. But I don't think the root cause has been found for the seriously problematic guns yet. You had about the worst Gen 4 G17 on record on the net and the 02 spring didn't help you. From sheer numbers it looks to me like the vast majority run well.

It's worth noting that you're reference to Larry Vickers makes it sound like his test Gen 4 G17 failed when in fact he posted on M4C that his gun ran fine. But he still didn't like the design. The rest is folks repeating that LAV and Hackathorn have said they've seen students have problems. I'm just clarifying here as the way you wrote that it would sound like LAV for instance had his 01 sprung gun fail.

It could take time to uncover every possible cause of the guns that stutter. It seems to have taken years and a couple after market tuners to discover the root cause of the M&P reset issue. If there are some number of lemons, I'm not convinced its a recoil spring thing.

Edited November 22, 2010 by JHC

[JBP55]

My G4 G17 has fired 9,700 rounds with Zero Issues. It has been flawless with all types of ammunition and shooters. It is as good as any Glock I have ever owned and I have owned dozens. If I ever have an issue with it I will post same.

Edited November 22, 2010 by JBP55

[Memphis]

ck1,

Don't be offended. I know there have been legitimate issues with a few of the first Gen4 G17 and I've heard of a couple of issues with the Gen4 G19 also. I'm not under the impression that it's all a spring issue or even a grip issue nor do I think it's a design flaw. I equate the issues to something like a "Monday Car" where there were some inconsistencies in the build of those particular firearms that have/had issues.

All I'm trying to say is, just because the neighbors Ford broke down doesn't mean mine or yours will.

P.S. At 6'1" and 180# I wouldn't say my grip is anymore than average. I did however intentionally try to make the guns jam and other than the issues mentioned, I can't make mine break down.

[JHC]

With an absurd loose 3 finger grip both my Gen 3's and Gen 4's will have limp wrist stoppages. And both Gens WILL cycle 124 gr NATO when fired in the same manner. LAV's main watchout makes basic sense. But I can't measure the difference.

[ck1]

Guys, if your Gen4 9mm's run fine consider yourselves lucky and I'm glad they're working out for you, the grip is better, the texture is better, the mag release is better, even the trigger's, while slightly heavier, now break more crisply, so they're better too IMO.

With all do respect, there are lots of reports of issues with the Gen4 9mm's and they're not all coming from me and based on what has been experienced and reported in the past with the previous generation guns it can't just be pure coincidence.

If you disagree that's fine, no big deal.

That said, after talking to a few very talented and experienced gunsmiths' I do not think it is a too stiff/too soft recoil spring issue but in fact more of a timing issue, here's the theory I think makes the most sense: the new recoil-assemblies in the Gen4s are a dual-spring set-up yielding different spring-rates for both lock-up and slide-velocity separately, so it's now become more complicated than simply going up or down in spring-strength, now it needs to be addressed differently - what's the right strength for the inner spring? What's the right spring-strength for the outer one? They work together and effect each other greatly.

They have to be tuned to work right in a relatively light recoiling 9mm once the slide-mass becomes great enough to be a factor (probably why the dual-spring works just fine in the sub-compacts, less slide-mass). Under-recoil the "hiccup" that happens in-between the recoil-impulse switching rates steals and bleeds off a small amount of energy that would normally go into cycling the slide (again, this actually a plus in the subcompacts). Now, losing that small amount of energy isn't the only thing that could be causing problems, that "hiccup", and the changing of spring-rates mid-recoil-impulse can also affect ejection/extraction: normally, or in the "old single-spring design", the recoil-impulse generates a smooth backwards stroke as the gun unlocks and starts to cycle, the case rim is under the extractor hook so the extractor rips the empty brass out of the chamber, the back of the case backs up into the ejector which gets it out from under the extractor hook and voila, the empty brass gets thrown clear... In a Gen4 that "hiccup" between spring rates puts a stutter into this operation, while slight and occurring lightening fast, it interrupts a smooth backwards stroke enough to where every now and again the brass can be shifted under the extractor hook before it makes contact with the ejector exactly like it's supposed to, what once was routine is now random, and random is bad, and also, if the spring-rate controlling slide-velocity is strong enough to overcome what recoil-energy that's left over after the "hiccup" it may not even be cycling fully (If you wanted to see what I'm talking about an easy experiment would be to use some snap-caps, pull the slide back to the rear smoothly, it'll throw out the snap-cap, now try pulling it back not all the way, like 95% with a "flick", most of the time the brass will fly out, sometimes it won't, smooth is better than the "flick").

If the dual-spring is dialed-in correctly the gun should run like a top, which is why I think there are guns out there that guys swear by, but, if the springs are off from what was intended (and variances in spring strengths are pretty common and darn likely) you get a gun that runs like s**t and stovepipes every now and then.

Glocks are mass-produced and modular, and their new fancy dual-spring-recoil-assembly only has a limited window of variance before the trouble starts, since I highly doubt they're putting lots of time and energy into making sure the spring-rates on each and every recoil-assembly are correct and work right before they go into the guns on the production line, the end-user becomes the spring tester, some will be great, some will not be so great, some will flat out suck.

If smiths' who are experts at hand-building top-shelf race guns happen to think dual-rate springs are hard to tune to get to run correctly and reliably, then I have no idea why Glock is putting them into an assembly-line production gun. The old single spring worked just fine and like the guns themselves prove that that less is more IMO.

Edited November 25, 2010 by ck1

[Duane Thomas]

That's certainly an interesting theory. And I assure you I'm not saying that sarcastically, it is an interesting theory. I don't know if it's anything more than a theory - and I'm also not saying that to be snotty, I just don't see any proof it's anything more than a well-intentioned attempt to explain an observed reality, that early Gen-4 Glock 17s had failure to extract/eject issues. Personally I'd go for the obvious answer of the problem being caused by putting a spring system developed for .40 level recoil into a 9mm as the explanation over some sort of "hiccup" theory. The question is, have 02 spring system Glock 17s had failure to extract/eject issues? Mine hasn't.

Then again, in the interests of total honesty, I have to admit that, after firing a bit of ammo through the gun just out of curiosity to see if it cycled with my 135-ish match ammo, I yanked the dual spring system and replaced it with a Jager guide rod and ISMI 13-pounder. But that had more to do with the fact that I like, and am really grooved-in on, the recoil impulse of the ISMI 13-pounder than not trusting the stock system. I do find the real-world feedback in this thread from people who've fired thousands of rounds of their match handloads through Gen-4 G17s with the 02 spring assembly, without a problem, to be more compelling than a theory that says there should be a problem.

Just out of curiosity, who are the "smiths who are experts at hand-building top-shelf race guns" who have this "hiccup" theory?

You do know that pulling the slide most-but-not-all-the-way-to-the-rear with a single strand spring will also fail to kick the round/casing out as well, right?

[coframer]

What is a 01 or 02 spring assembly?

[Duane Thomas]

The 01 spring assembly was designed by Glock for the Gen-4 G22 in .40, and also initially installed in the Gen-4 G17 in 9mm, which predictably gave failures to extract/eject with the much more lightly recoiling cartridge. The 02 spring assembly is a lighter, but still two spring/rod setup, intended to work with 9mm, that is being installed in current production Gen-4 G17s, and has been for quite some time now.

[Chuck Anderson]

We've started issuing Gen 4 17's as replacements to a stock of beat to shit Glock 22's. Over the last year we went from having one frame rail crack a year or two to about one a week or more during qualifications. Some of that was due to some guns never having the recoil spring changed in almost 10 years. Some was a steady diet of 185-190 PF ammo.

We've got 17 G-17 Gen 4's out and have noticed some issues with our first batch. Glock has made a number of improvements to the Gen 4 series that haven't been advertised by them. I might be off a bit on the order of the changes but here goes. The trigger housing was changed fairly early on. Not the change to the G37 housing that was necessitated by the backstraps but a change in the design of the top of the housing. Apparently a large PD in CA got a group of the guns, tested them, had a nasty failure where they couldn't even get the gun apart, (The T-Type they sent out Nationwide said they had to beat it apart with a 2x4). When Glock got it back they figured out fairly quickly that while swapping backstraps they didn't put the trigger housing pin back in. Housing slid up and locked the gun up. The new housing won't do this even if you leave the pin out.

On the front of the slide where the cutout is for the recoil spring assembly is they've always used a flat on the inside for the normal RSA guns and a recess for the Dual guns like the 26, 30 etc. For the first 75K that went out the door they forgot that cut. The fix is a 012 recoil spring assembly. Has 0 on the left at 9 o'clock, 1 on the bottom at 6 o'clock and 2 on the right at 3 o'clock.

The other issue that we seem to be running into with them is the trigger safety. For some reason it's kicking too far forward and when you put your finger in the guard you can push it to the side locking the gun up. This one seems to be an accross the board issue, Gen 4 or 3 and happens from time to time with the molds, we just happened to get a batch of Gen 4 17's with the hitch.

That said we're running a familiarization fire with two of the Gen 4's on the range during our winter qual. Just about everyone in the Dept has shot them and the large majority like them. I've been out there for several days and haven't seen any issues with the guns. We did have a problem with one of the guns failing to reset. The connector/trigger bar interface was dry as a bone. Glock apparently didn't put any of the copper lube in this location and it was adding enough friction that if you let the trigger out slowly it didn't want to go all the way forward. But this is more of a maintanence issue than a Gen 4 issue. We had the same thing happen with Gen 3 guns.

I've shot the guns with our practice ammo, Win White box 147 at about 1000 fps. Holding the gun just barely enough to hang on the gun will still run 100%. I can't for the life of me, (and I have have been able to) figure out how to "Limp wrist" a Glock.

I've got two at home. One will be my raid gun as soon as I get my 19 for duty and get some night sights on it. The second is set up as a competition gun. Runs great, no malfs, even with the first spring. The only reason I'm not using it in competition is because it shoots about 3 inches high at 25 yards. As soon as get around to picking up a taller front sight it will replace the 17 RTF for GSSF.

[JHC]

Chuck, that is just one outstanding post. I really appreciate you sharing all that detail. Re the West Coast agency; me thinks I've heard some of those issues alluded to without details elsewhere. But in any case, this was really illuminating.

So many our our Glocks have run so hard so long without cleaning and lube I would not have guessed lube on the connector/trigger bar sensitivity to lube.

Our 1st Gen 4 G17 shot much higher than that at 25 yds with a Warren/Sevigny .215 tall front but went to POA=POI with their .245. One 2nd G4 G17 this wasn't an issue at all. I guess that sort of thing is rather common with Glocks.

Edited November 25, 2010 by JHC

[ck1]

Duane, I'd mention the smiths' by name but not so sure they want to be pulled into a Glock Gen4 flame-war at my expense... The guys who suggested "timing issue" to me build 1911's and 2011's ground-up, and usually the cost of one of their guns will get you 5 or 6 Glocks easy, and the theory is really mine so don't want to slander anybody.

You're correct, just a theory, no proof since I'm not a physics professor or engineer, that said, it makes the most sense to me as there seems to be guns out there that some guys swear up and down are the best thing since sliced-bread, while at the same time there's a fairly loud buzz coming from less than stellar experiences with many others....

Most of us on here who've played with different strength recoil-springs have experienced first-hand how much they can affect how a gun runs, seems to me these new dual-springs make that variable twice as complicated and in general my impression of the Gen4's is that it seems to be more a matter of how lucky you get with your recoil-assembly than the rest of the gun, and appears Glock is still figuring it out fully themselves...

Chuck, thank you for the very informative post.

Edited November 25, 2010 by ck1

[JHC]

ck1 - interesting stuff.

I think I've been pretty consistent (hither and yon) never trying to talk anyone out of a Gen 3 but simply reporting my good results with now four Gen 4 guns. So long as they fit one's reach I think the RTF2 Gen 3 models might be the pinnacle of evolution for Glock 9mms. The .40 Glock is probably best in Gen 4 format. I found the Gen 4 G23 to run pretty much as flat as a 19 which seemed just sick.

[JBP55]

ck1 - interesting stuff.

I think I've been pretty consistent (hither and yon) never trying to talk anyone out of a Gen 3 but simply reporting my good results with now four Gen 4 guns. So long as they fit one's reach I think the RTF2 Gen 3 models might be the pinnacle of evolution for Glock 9mms. The .40 Glock is probably best in Gen 4 format. I found the Gen 4 G23 to run pretty much as flat as a 19 which seemed just sick.

I concur.

[Memphis]

ck1,

Ever send the G17 in for service? I'm just curious if they would have applied some of the new found technology to yours to make it run.

Do you still have it or was it sold/traded/other? If you did move it to a new home, does the new person have issues?

[Duane Thomas]

Duane, I'd mention the smiths' by name but not so sure they want to be pulled into a Glock Gen4 flame-war at my expense...

You've been here for awhile now, right? We don't really do flame wars here. BrianEnos.com has been called "an oasis of civility on the Internet" so many times it's becoming a bit of a cliché, but it's true. The sort of posturing and rudeness that is normal on some other shooting related message boards simply doesn't fly here. And in the rare cases when we get a few clueless individuals who didn't get the memo, normally the mods are all over that in short order.

I hope I'm still on the right side of the civility equation here, but you have to know that putting forth as the basis of your concerns the statements from unidentified "smiths who are experts at hand-building top-shelf race guns" and then refusing to identify them when asked is going to undercut any credence your feelings of concern, caused as far as I can tell by a "fairly loud buzz" on the Internet, have with other people here, right?

BTW, I'm curious. Again, I hope I'm being polite when I ask, these experts who charge thousands of dollars to build 1911s and 2011s....how do you figure that qualifies them to have opinions on Glocks? Just asking. Most smiths, in my experience, have fairly narrowly defined areas of expertise. For instance the guy who's great at building top shelf competition revolvers might or might not be the guy you want working on your auto pistol and vice versa. The guy who charges - and deserves - thousands of dollars for working on a completely different gun design might not be the one to listen to for their opinions on Glocks. And so forth.

[Duane Thomas]

Chuck, really great post. Thanks for sharing your, and your agency's, experiences.

The bit about that one PD that put the gun together without the mainspring housing pin, which locked up the gun so tight it took a 2x4 to get it apart - and then sent out a message advertising that fact - kind of blows my mind. Most people would slink into the shadows while swearing all present to secrecy over THAT one instead of sending out a nationwide notification. And from what I'm getting from your post, even after it happened, they still couldn't figure out the problem and had to send the gun back to Glock to diagnose. Wow.

The new housing won't do this even if you leave the pin out.

One would be tempted to say to say that would make the gun idiot-proof in this area. But as the old saying goes, every time you think you've built something idiot-proof, the world builds a better idiot.

[Sean Gaines]

I have always wondered when glock was going to shoot themselves in the foot, and try to over engineer a gun with a simplistic design, and make it unreliable.

Sounds like glock is aware of the problem, and is taking care of it. Personally I have not taken the gen 4 apart and inspected it and measured it. Is the slide and frame the same as the gen 3 in regards to interchangeabilty? Or are the gen 4 a completely different animal all together, compared to the other generations?

[JBP55]

I have always wondered when glock was going to shoot themselves in the foot, and try to over engineer a gun with a simplistic design, and make it unreliable.

Sounds like glock is aware of the problem, and is taking care of it. Personally I have not taken the gen 4 apart and inspected it and measured it. Is the slide and frame the same as the gen 3 in regards to interchangeabilty? Or are the gen 4 a completely different animal all together, compared to the other generations?

You can run a G3 slide on a G4 receiver and it will function like any other Glock. I tried several different G3 slides on my G4 G17.