I'll probably get massive amounts of shit for this, but here goes.

Took either my 8th or 9th armorer's class (I can't remember which) yesterday. Lynn Freshly was the instructor. Overall, a good class. I learned a few things I didn't know about from previous classes and got a brand spankin' new, spiffy armorer's manual dated 05-2015 that includes the G42 and G43. The freebies were pretty good, too. Glock gave everyone a bench mat and a small silicone-like tray to hold parts to keep them from rolling away, which was pretty cool, especially since I needed a new bench mat anyway. Of course, we got the standard pen, armorer's tool and orange, cut away slide cover plate to check cruciform/firing pin engagement, as well as a GSSF sticker and business cards. However, there were a few derp moments.

The first was when the instructor started discussing Tenifer/nitration. Freshly said that the reason Glock went from Tenifer to the newer nitration metal treatment was because Tenifer was too "inconsistent". The way it was explained was that Tenifer used liquids to control the treatment and nitration uses gasses. According to Freshly, there were a lot of inconsistencies in the Tenifer treatment and that was why they went to nitration, it is much more consistent. WTactualF?!?!? Aside from MASSIVE amounts of abuse/neglect, you simply NEVER heard of rust on a Glock with Tenifer. Since they have gone to nitration, I have read and seen many reports of rusting slides and have experienced it myself on my formerly issued Gen4 G22 slide. So Tenifer was too inconsistent but nitration is more consistent? This does not work out with the results. Tenifer almost never rusted, so it was inconsistent. Nitration seems to have rust problems but it is more consistent? Seems someone got the results backwards. Freshly said that there were some problems with nitration when new, but they have been worked out and it is, overall, a much better process than Tenifer. No mention was made at all about environmental issues with Tenifer, as has been said the last couple of classes I took. When someone asked about the environmental issues, Freshly said that it wasn't the issue, the inconsistency was. Maybe they have worked out the rusting issues; my 3 year old G19 that I'm now using as my duty gun hasn't rusted yet, where my issued G22 had by this time.

Another was the issue of case head support on the .40 guns. Now, I know from experience (I used to have an old, 2nd Gen G23 and my experience with the above mentioned Gen4 G22) that Glock stepped up and really improved the case head support on the newer .40 guns. The Powerpoint presentation actually included a graphic showing that the poor case head support was a safety feature called the Special Safety Valve. Yes, it was actually called that. It was touted as a safety feature that, if the case pressure was 200% of normal, the case head lets go at the feed ramp and vents the high pressure gasses down into the mag well, blowing out the mag to vent the gasses. Again, WTactualF? They are saying that their poor case head support is a SAFETY IMPROVEMENT? I had a case head let go on the above mentioned G23 due to the extremely poor case head support. Sure enough, the mag blew out, as did the extractor. However, it was because that particular G23 had the absolute worst case head support I have ever seen on a functional firearm. It was so bad that even with factory ammo, it consistently bulged cases at the feed ramp on just about every round fired. So this is a feature now?

Freshly acknowledged that the .40 round in a Glock is right on the ragged edge. Both he and the LE district representative who was there (I can't remember his name) said that 9mm is gaining ground in LE and they could see .40 going the way of 10mm within 10 years. Both seemed to be really pushing 9mm over .40 and .45, as long as you use modern, good quality JHP ammo. While I agree that 9mm is pretty much equivalent to .40 and .45 WITH GOOD AMMO, I think they are wrong about .40 going away that easily. However, that's all a matter of opinion. The LE rep didn't really want to talk about it, but he hinted that most of the LE orders he is taking now are 9mm, not .40, so he may be right. Time will tell and we'll see.

Extractors are now considered a consumable part, just like recoil springs. We were told to check extractors very carefully for small chips on the extractor claw and replace when they appear. Not IF they appear, WHEN they appear. I don't want to start a MIM thread, but this was never an overall issue with the older, machined castings extractors but now is with MIM extractors. Interesting, and not in a good way.

Another interesting point was that Glock appears to have changed their stance about connectors, springs and so on. We were basically told that, even you use a "-" connector in a duty gun (and Freshly even said that he likes the "-" connector in a duty gun due to it being easier to shoot accurately, AS LONG AS you are properly trained to KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER!), as long as you use Glock factory parts, Glock will support it. Quite the change from previous classes, where it was preached that the "-" connector WAS NOT approved for duty use. Hell, I thought it was a big deal the last class I took, when we were told that the "-" connector with the NY1 trigger spring was now approved for duty use. Now, it seems that just the "-" connector with the standard coil trigger spring is good, too. Interesting.

Still, there were some good things. I got to check out (but not shoot) a G34 and a G43. I'd been considering both but have never had a chance to hold them, let alone shoot them. It seems that every time I have $$$ and go to check out a G34, no one has them. The G34 (a Gen4 gun) felt very good. GIven all the good reports I have heard about the G34, I can see one being my next duty gun. The G43 felt AMAZING in my hand. Probably the most comfortable feeling single stack I've ever felt. The trigger on the G43 I held wasn't the best; it was quite a bit heavier than your typical Glock trigger, but felt otherwise the same and very familiar. I don't think it was enough heavier to cause an actual shooting issue, but it was heavier. I'm not crazy about the 6+1 capacity, but I think the G43 will be my next purchase. I love my 9mm Shield that I now carry for backup/off duty, but the G43 just felt so much better to me, and the trigger seemed better, that I think, when I can come up with the $$$, it will be replaced by a G43. I'm poor, so by the time that happens, +1 and +2 mag floorplates should be available enough that the 6+1 capacity shouldn't be an issue.

Now, don't get me wrong. I still like Glocks. For what they are, they are a good gun- reasonably priced, generally reliable, durable and accurate enough. If you used one to shoot someone and it got taken as evidence, not a big deal and you won't be out a huge amount of money, just get another. What I don't like is the corporate mentality of late and the drive to make everything as cheap as possible, regardless of consequences to reliability and longevity. I just think that all the changes to the course in the last few years, after very few changes up till then, is interesting.

Bub75

They still doing sketti for lunch?

Nah, this class they had some nasty pizza. Not real good at all, sauce was entirely too sweet. I was kinda let down. Lunch at these is usually pretty good, too.

Bub75

I guess the VP9 and 320 scared 'em into the 3.5lb connector.  That and the fact that a NY-1 with a 3.5lb connector is not useable in a Gen4.

Nice writeup about the class. I am in the "retired" line of business now so continuing education stories I always find interesting and informative.
mike

Lynn talked about the Special Safety Valve during my last Glock class. I was afraid to repeat it because I was sure that I had just misunderstood him. He also spent a lot of time talking about how Glock had reworked everything in the US factory to match that of the European Factory, is was all about being consistent.

That's a pretty good summation of the recent class I took. Did he mention that all the G42 & 43 use microstamped barrels?

Something about the forensic ballisticians were bitching about matching projectiles and Miami PD wanted it way back in the day.

Oh and we had fried catfish, okra and FF's. Cole slaw too.

 Bub75, Thank  you for putting up that excellent report!  It took a certain amount of courage to write out that information; and, if I'd done it, I think I'd have included a couple of pictures of naked women, too.  (That way a lot more people might be inclined to read their way through the prose in order to extract the valuable lessons and insights you have to offer.)  

Really, my compliments!  Your report is as good as, or better than, anything I've ever read about much too often, frequently problematic, Glock pistols on anybody's gun board.  You're right; not everyone is going to agree; but you really came right out and said what needs to be said.  

A few personal observations:  Glock has always screwed around with the original standardized ferritic nitrocarburizing (Tenifer) treatment process.  The initial liquid salt bath process produced a very durable, hardened finish that - during the repeated heating and cooling cycles could be effectively manganese-phosphate coated, and finally finished off with a wear-resistant polymerized oil finish.  

One of the biggest problems was that the  liquid salt bath took too long, and the subsequent finish was much too expensive for a volume-conscious manufacturer like Glock, GmbH to produce!  The first changes to be made were in the standard heating and cooling process.  These changes, of course, adversely impacted the final slide finish; and THIS is where so many of those grayish looking Glocks with the soft easily scratched slides came from.  

So they’re calling it, ‘nitration’; are they!  It’s more than likely some variation of the other much faster and cheaper gaseous ferritic nitrocarburizing process.  (100% predictable; and, no matter the rationale, only a matter of time before Glock went to it!)  

In my opinion the only real cure for Glock’s cockamamie, ‘nitration’ and MIM component parts problems is for more and more purchasers to move away from their problematic Glock pistols, and go to either:  H&K, Walther, SIG; or, perhaps even, Ruger handguns.  (Let’s not forget about Steyr, either.  Mechanically speaking Steyr pistols ARE, ‘the better Glocks’; but the high powered marketing machine, and all that, ‘show biz glitz’ just aren’t there!)  

I agree with you about the G-34.  I, too, believe that it would make an excellent service pistol; in fact, there’s two officers in this area who are already using them as such.  (A fraction of a second slower coming out of the holster; but, at the same time, easier to aim and score hits with!  

It’s also refreshing to finally hear about a Glock factory representative who is apparently affirming what so many of us have known for years about Glock’s 40 caliber/10mm problems.  About time, too!  (Maybe we can finally, 'come out of the closet' on various Glock boards!)    

So, right now, it looks like we all going to have to continue living with Glock’s weak ejection and dangerously annoying BTF problems, huh!  (Doesn’t anybody give a damn about the other guy and his REAL safety, anymore?)  I will, however, agree that the world population is presently experienced enough to keep their fingers off striker-fired plastic pistol triggers; so, maybe, it is time for minus (-) connectors to become commonplace in law enforcement.  

Very good report!  Again, thank you.  



FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION:  Another Corroborative Glock Analysis!

I forgot to post about the weak ejection issues. According to Freshly, the weak ejection issues were restricted to SOME very early Gen4 guns and were quickly remedied and there are no problems now. Glock still refuses to acknowledge that the issues started with Gen4 with MIM parts and soon spread to the 3rd Gen guns when they started using MIM parts, namely extractors. Never mind the many reports of weak/erratic ejection on NUMEROUS 3rd Gen guns. I had the same problem with my G19 when I first got it. Luckily for me, the new 30274 ejector solved most of the problems. It still ejects kinda weakly with standard, non-+P ammo, but it is at least consistent now. To be fair to the gun, even when the gun was ejecting to the left (yes, it was bad enough that it ejected empties to the left of the gun 2-3 times/mag), it ALWAYS ejected.

As for the population being experienced enough to keep their fingers off the triggers, apparently you don't know very many cops! I've lost count of how many cops I've had on the line that simply cannot keep their fingers off their triggers. As soon as the gun comes out of the holster, their finger goes RIGHT to the trigger. I've even had a guy ND 3 times while shooting at a target 21' away. Once right in front of his feet, once about halfway to the target, once right at the feet of the target, then two rounds in the center mass of the target. Keep in mind, most cops ARE NOT gun guys. The only time most of them get to the range is for qualifications or training and they flatly refuse to shoot any other time, unless the Dept provides ammo and pays them to shoot. Even if they really were capable of shooting like Navy SEALS when they came out of the Academy (and none were, so far anyway), the lack of practice/training kicks in and their skills atrophy quickly and things like the 4 rules seep right out of their heads, no matter how many times we drill it into them, yell and scream. While I honestly don't think a trigger pull 1 single pound (or thereabouts) less than the factory approx 5.5 lbs will make any difference, after being a LE trainer for ~20 years, I completely understand why Glock and administrators cringe when the question of light triggers comes up. I'm going to carefully forget to mention to any of the guys that the "-" connector is approved now.

As for the issue of the .40 going away, sorry, I honestly don't think its going to happen. There isn't anyone more traditional and hidebound than cops. A few years ago, we got a new Chief and he changed policy from being able to carry personally owned guns to having to carry Dept issued guns. I lobbied really hard for G17s. I showed everyone test results till I was blue in the face, and what was everyone's opinion? .40 is so much better than 9mm and we'd be taking massive steps backwards going to 9mm. Luckily, we got another new Chief a few months later who reinstated the old policy. I ditched the Dept issued G22 and started carrying my G19. A lot of people in LE are so hung up on 9mm performance 20 years ago that they cannot make themselves believe that 9mm has pretty much caught up to .40 and performs pretty much the same. Sucks, but there it is. The ONLY way I see .40 going away is if Glock makes the 9mm guns so much cheaper than .40 guns that the administrators buy 9mm because of the cost. That's probably not going to happen, either, because Glock wants to sell guns and really doesn't care if it is 9mm or .40, as long as it says Glock.

Bub75

The last few times it's been sandwiches from Jason's Deli.  Last time they all had mayo.  Really pissed me off.

Like most armorer classes,  like every single one I've been too,  Glock uses it for sale pitches.  The only saving grace is that it's only one day.

The 34 would be an excellent duty gun. I have a 35 (due to the .40 vs 9 debate) and love it (would prefer a 34 though). I really like my 43 also. My Shield is good but the 43 just feels right in a way the Shield never quite did.

I agree the .40 isn't going away but it just won't be as popular as it once was. We went from 9mm/.357 Sig to .40 a year or so ago. I went through the whole deal of showing ballistics/gel testing/cost comparison/shootability/etc. Unfortunately, a couple guys with influence were stuck in the whole "but it's got a 4 in it so it must be better" mindset and we got stuck with the .40. Now the armorer is buying about 30% less ammo for us to shoot due to high cost.

I love Glocks, own fifteen of them and carry a 19 at work. I have been to three armorer classes and plan on taking my fourth when I'm home on R&R.

With that being said, I have never witnessed anything consistent with their instructors. "This caliber sucks/is great, They should discontinue this model, Nick the Glock Doc is banned" etc. There is way too much personal opinions and baggage associated with these guys, lol. And they refuse to acknowledge when there is a problem with their product. During my last class I was told that their was zero problems with the 4th Gen's when they were released. I proceeded to state that I worked for a certain training provider that had a "batch" of 4th Gen 19's shit the bed, only got a "Really?" from the instructor and the conversation was changed. YMMV.

One thing glock makes every effort to do is never waver from the glock perfection stance- every issue that comes up blame limp wrists bad ammo too much oil etc etc. way back in the 90's at the advent of the forty my brothers department ( he was range officer and armorer at the time) had a very early batch of pistol break tons of extractors like half the pistols broke first range session, they sent spare extractors a few times until they admitted to him they redesigned the angle on the extractors due to problems. A short time later a neighboring department also going to glock 40 had the same issue- glock took a product they knew to be defective and instead of removing it from inventory they shipped it anyway to people who might carry it in harms way ,

Yeah that surprised me too.   He said they are clones, down to where stuff is on the line.  Anyone from either could go to the other and start banging out glocks.

Always BBQ here.  Only once has it been sandwiches, from heavenly ham, but every other time BBQ.

I know this probably doesn't mean shit to the LEO guys, but I recently picked up a Glock 23 after dropping the caliber altogether about 15years ago.
Side by side with the 19, using standard ball ammo (124-147gr vs 165-180gr), it's really a no brainer as to recoil and follow up, shooting on trigger reset.

I just seriously doubt the benefit nowadays with the higher pressure .40, or 10mm for that matter.

Ours was pizza from a small local joint and very good

My duty gun is a Sig P229 in 40 cal.
I also own a G23 that I carry off duty sometimes, (Sigs fit my hand better, but the G23 is easier to conceal and handles sweat etc better...).

Shooting my G23 with 165 gr Gold Dots side by side with my Father's G19 with 115 gr +P+ 115 gr rounds, the G23 has noticeably more recoil than the G19.

I'm one of the firearms instructors for my Dept. Speaking with the head of the firearms training dept about out next guns, he said we'll be sticking with Sig 40 cals unless he is directed otherwise...he doesnt like the idea of going to 9mm. "Why go backwards" is his mindset.

In my experience/opinion the Sigs seem to have less of a difference in felt recoil than some others.

 
   Well, THAT settles more than a few heated discussions!      

 
 Interesting!  In regard to the future of S&W 40 caliber pistols and their use by American law enforcement, I have developed the following opinions:  

First, I am heavily experienced in the use of both chamberings.* Simply stated, I think we may agree that, ‘it takes more from a shooter’ to skillfully handle and accurately fire 40 caliber ammunition than it does to score hits with any 9 x 19mm (either the, ‘old’; or the, ‘new’ type of 9mm ammunition).  A majority of 9mm pistols are, simply, easier to shoot straight!**  

Second, there is a substantial cost difference between these two chamberings which I have to imagine L.E. administration is NOT going to be able to ignore or, at least, not with casual impunity!  

Third, not that it matters, (and, quite frankly, I most sincerely hope that it never does) but the universal adoption of 9 x 19mm cartridges would put US law enforcement on an even par with ALL Western military commands.  The additional advantages in both manufacturing and logistics should be obvious!  

Fourth, for a whole bunch of different (but entirely pragmatic and, therefore, valid) reasons, steel frame pistols are on their way out!  (Like none of us have noticed!)  

Fifth, Polymer frame pistols operate better, safer, and more smoothly with lower peak ignition pressure cartridges like either the 9 x 19mm, or 45 ACP rounds.  

Sixth, whether looked at from the point-of-view of either:  cost, or supply, or ease-of-use and increased hit probability 9 X 19mm cartridges ARE the better choice!  

Seventh, (Ready?)  Glock, GmbH/Inc. will - I am 100% positive - be in complete agreement with American law enforcement’s universal changeover to 9 x 19mm pistol and sub-gun ammunition.  ‘Plastic pistol perfection’ IS POSSIBLE TO ACHIEVE in:  380 ACP (9mm Kurz), 9 x 19mm, and 45 ACP; and, again, I am certain that Glock management very well knows it.  

The other calibers and chamberings?  For a variety of different reasons they remain, ‘less than perfectly desirable’.  


*  I hesitate to use the word, ‘caliber’ because this is not an, ‘apples for apples’ comparison of cartridges.  ‘Chambering’ is a better word.  One is popularly expressed in millimeters - Which is not a caliber designation - and the other is expressed in inches - Which is a caliber designation;  i.e.:  9 x 19mm or .355 x .75”, and .40 x .85” or 10 x 21.6mm.)  

**  45 ACP, as well!

Is there a new updated Armorer manual. Would be nice to have it on PDF.

Yep, new as in (IIRC, manual is at work and I'm home) April 2015. According to Freshly, we are only the second or third class to get it. In fact, he said something to the effect that he thought Glock was all out of them and we would have received an older manual and he was surprised that they had sent the newest ones for our class. It has three sections. First is Gen4, second is "Earlier Generations" and third is G42 and 43. My all in one printer is out of ink and won't let me scan without it or I'd scan you a copy and send it to you. Pretty good manual, overall. Nothing really new about the double stack guns, but the addendum for the G42 and 43 was nice.

Oh, another tidbit that I forgot about till just now. Freshly was a little upset that his G18 had to go back to Smyrna. He said something about the ATF and paperwork. Apparently, and I'd heard something about this before, the Instructors all get G18s because there is a LE only class for instruction on shooting the G18 and a separate armorer's class for it. The LE sales rep who was there said that the Instructors won't be getting them back. He said that the ATF had a problem with the Instructors having machine guns that they took across state lines without filling out the proper paperwork and sending it in whenever they do. Apparently, its never been an issue before now but the ATF stepped in and made it an issue. I wonder if that was an Obama thing or they just decided to enforce the existing rules? I don't know much about Class 3 and dealing with the ATF with it, but I had always thought that Class 3 goodies needed paperwork sent to the ATF every time you went out of your home state. Not a big deal with me since I can't afford to collect stamps. I'd LOVE a chance to shoot a G18, but I also know that will never happen, either.

Bub75

Yeah, when I mentioned to Kyle Lamb that his unit was using the Glock in .40 even though he uses an M&P (and lots of other former unit trainers were all talking about the benefits of the 9mm), he mentioned to me that his former unit were all using 165gr since their G22s couldn't handle 180gr (I'm assuming they shoot +P).  I don't know the pressure numbers, but I thought it was an interesting statement.   NOTE:  I've since read they've gone to G19/17/26/34s.

Despite what the MIM-apologists say, I like that Lone Wolf is offering a non-MIM (or some other supposedly superior quality) locking block, and Apex is making non-MIM extractors (though I've read mixed reviews on the Apex extractor--so I haven't upgraded yet, since BTF only occurs 1 in 200rds).

Non-FFLS have to submit a 5320  (interstate transportation) form to take MGS out of state. FFLs play by different rules.

I imagine there was an incident and Glock is recalling them and blaming ATF.

Thank you bub75 for taking the time to write all that up.

The MIM extractor issue doesn't surprise me that they're saying to replace them/are disposable now, it is what it is, like it or not.... I recently bought a POS Shield that had a number of MIM parts on it, in fact I think most of the manufacturers have gone to MIM on most of the internal components, look at any modern handgun and you'll find a lot of MIM parts. It may be a contributor to the ealry BTF issues but I really (personally) think that whole thing was blown way out of proportion. The pistols with the issue still functioned, and that's what really matters (but that's a whole other discussion).

I'm kid of surprised by the "-" connector thing though. I recently bought a used G26 (after I sold the POS Shield) that had one in it (all other internal parts were stock) and I didn't like it at all. I thought it took away a lot of trigger feedback and gave the trigger a "mushy" feel, not as predictable as a standard connector. I promptly replaced it with the standard connector. I can indeed foresee ND's becoming more common place with people who don't shoot very often utilizing a "-" connector.

Thanks again.

I dunno, I'm of two minds about MIM. When you have a gun designed from the ground up to use MIM, like the S&W M&Ps, and you use good MIM parts, I really don't see an issue. I have a 9mm Shield that I use for backup and off duty and was amazed by all the MIM in it. I gave it a try and really like it. I hate to throw out cliches, but it really is a gun that "shoots" bigger than it is. Its a subcompact that shoots like a full sized gun. Also, I really haven't seen any complaints about the MIM parts in the newer S&W guns designed to use MIM from the start breaking or prematurely wearing out.

For guns that weren't designed for MIM parts, I think you can run into trouble very fast. Using MIM for parts that were designed to be forgings or castings doesn't seem, to me, to be a good thing. MIM isn't as strong as forgings or properly done castings. When you have a part not designed to be MIM and try to use MIM, like for example Glock extractors, you don't have the meat in the part to ensure strength. That's why extractors are now considered normal wear parts. The claw isn't big and beefy enough to be made from MIM and, after an undetermined number of rounds, the claw starts chipping and breaking off. We were told, flat out, to inspect the extractors for small chips and to immediately replace any that had small chips. We were told that when the small chips appear, larger chips were right behind and the extractors would become unservicable and unreliable. This goes right back to MIM not being as dense and homogeneous as other manufacturing methods. Unless the gun is designed to use MIM parts and can have the parts beefed up enough that the lack of density isn't a factor, the parts can fail from simple use. I understand why gun manufacturers use MIM, but I'm probably not alone in that I'd willingly pay a little more for the gun to use the original parts rahter than trying to cut costs by using MIM parts.

Anyway, sorry to turn this into a MIM thread, but IMHO, this goes right to what is wrong with Glock nowadays.Trying to cut costs by going cheap on parts then failing to acknowledge that there may be or have been problems. I like the guns; I hate the corporate mentality.

The "-" connector issue doesn't really surprise me all that much. In fact, Glock has approved basically any kind of trigger setup you can think of, provided you use factory parts. Any combo of parts, springs and connectors, as long as they are factory parts. Glock has coasted for years and hasn't really innovated much at all. Even what innovations they have put into effect (namely, the Gen4 guns) only came out years after other manufacturers came out with them and they started losing market share because of the failure to incorporate such innovations. Glock triggers really, when all is said and done, are pretty decent. Not worked over 1911 decent, but really pretty good for a combat gun. However, they have lost quite a bit of market share with LE in the past few years to other manufacturers who have innovated. Really, all they have left anymore, short of redesigning from the ground up, is to make sure that people can switch the gun up however they like it. People have been using "-" connectors in Glocks for years and Glock finally bowed to pressure and recognized it as a legitimate setup. I kinda thought it would come sooner or later In fact, when I get around to ordering one, I'm going to try out a "-" connector and a NY1 trigger spring in my G19. I played with one, but didn't shoot it, a few years ago and really liked it. Initial takeup was kinda stiff, but the let off was good and the reset was lightning quick. The trigger was maybe a touch heavier than with the standard connector and the standard coil trigger spring but not enough to matter. I'd like to actually shoot that combo and see how it works. I also want to experiment with the "-" connector and the standard trigger spring. I've never played with one and am interested in trying. I hear that the trigger gets more mushy, but we'll see. Basically, I like to experiment and its good that I can experiment and not have to worry about my experimentation not being approved to use on duty in the event I really like something.

Bub75

Here is my experience with a brand new Shield I got this spring and their "customer service". In the end they fixed it after 2 trips back but after it spending more time back at S&W than in my possession and their complete lack of addressing the problem the first time I sold it for a used gen4 G26 and didn't look back. Ejection has been perfect and I've been keeping an eye on the extractor for any issues but so far haven't found any. It also runs perfect with any and all ammo I run through it including steel cased, which was S&Ws first response to my extraction issue. "Our guns aren't tested with steel cased ammunition". That's like buying a car and saying you can only run gas from Exxon brand gas station..... WTF?!

My personal opinion is the whole MIM issue is over blown and the people who keep bringing it up just want to bitch about Glock. I also think it may be more of an issue of stacked tolerances as some people have reported that a change of extractor (including Apex) doesn't solve the issue. Furthermore, the BTF is not a reliability issue so much as an annoyance, the pistols still function. I owned a G30 from when they first came out and before MIM and that would throw brass @ my head on occasion but it went bang every time so I didn't care. I know of another that does it as well (pre MIM).  

Any and all manufacturers have had issues at one time or another. I choose Glock because they simply work every time. I've owned Sig, S&W and Ruger handguns but in the end for my Glock does everything I ask of it. And you cannot argue that the Glock design is ridiculously simple compared to other manufacturers.

If that makes me a "fanboy" then I really don't care, I have tools that I am confident in trusting my life with.

Not arguing with you on any certain point, just discussing....

Thanks again for the detailed write up.

 
Yeah, as I've already posted in several different threads, I too think that, 'stacked tolerances' plays a part in Glock's BTF problem.  I've also indicated that I suspect the factory of opening up parts of the extractor cutout; it's difficult to say for certain.  However what stands out in my mind is that Glock pistols never suffered from this particular disease BEFORE MIM EXTRACTORS came along.  THAT is a fact that can't honestly be argued!  Why?  Because prior to, as early as, the middle of 2010 it would have already been repeatedly rumored and frequently discussed upmteen thousand times on everybody's IGF; and THAT NEVER HAPPENED!    

I bought an Apex steel extractor; and I ended up sending it back to them.  My opinion was, and remains, that the claw design wasn't quite what it needs to be.  Glock's MIM problem isn't imaginary; nor is it, 'overblown' when it's YOUR $600 dollar pistol that's doing it!  Neither are Glock's current, and ongoing, BTF problems not critical because these pistols continue to function - regardless!  

Taking a red hot ejected case to the eye isn't my idea of being reliable.  I can't speak for other people; but, I don't usually wear eyeglasses all day long.  So, yes, I do have concerns - concerns which I believe to be 100% legitimate - about having to draw and fire the EDC/BTF G-19 that I carry around all of the time.  Neither one of my older G-21's are world-class screwup pistols like my newer BTF G-19 (with it's recently announced, 'consumable extractor'.)    

Raven, try this and see if it helps if you want.  Pull your extractor and sand (400 grit or finer) both flat sides of it lightly on a flat surface. You'll notice the wear marks on the high points as you see here on 1 of mine. Notice that only the "high" areas of the extractor have been touched, I didn't go crazy. Do a little and try, if it doesn't help try a little more and so on. Also hone the bump that I'm pointing at towards the claw. This is what I did with the G30 that had the issue and it solved it. Honing the flat sides ensures that the extractor isn't rubbing on anything and honing that bump should allow the claw to grasp the rim edge a little more firmly. As I've said, I've done it with positive results and you don't need to do much to get more tension on the rim.

PreemptiveStrike,  I appreciate that; and thank you for the information!  Yes, I've got several, 'extra' G-19 extractors; and I'm going to get some 400 grit paper and give your suggestion a try.  I'll post again, and let you know.  (I really like my G-19, and most sincerely wish none of this had ever happened to me!)  

This also worked for me to solve BTF issues on both a G19 and G17 gen 3.  FWIW I used a cheap sharpening stone instead of sandpaper.



 

They have not

I think you missed my point. I never said they raised prices. I said that I'd gladly pay more for a Glock made the original way with no MIM. I honestly think they haven't raised prices is that they are using MIM to cut costs. Everyone is using MIM now, so not much chance of that happening, through.

Bub75

No offense but I think you're overestimating the role of MIM in this "issue",  I've seen it in pre MIM guns. Also people have swapped MIM extractors for the super duper Apex ones and had no luck so I don't think it's the only cause. How much force is exerted on an extractor to hold a case in place during the extraction and ejection cycle? Answer is not a lot. It is a critical part, I'll give you that, but it's not a part that undergoes a lot of stress. What is causing the "issue", in my opinion, is how hard the extractor is holding onto the rim of the case during the extraction and ejection cycle. If it doesn't hold onto it firmly enough you get erratic ejection.

My personal opinion is that it's an issue to do with stacked tolerances and I'd further venture a major contributor is the slide (it's what holds all of the other components in place) so if the slide is on the "outer edge"  of its tolerances and then you add other parts that are as well you have a "perfect storm" type situation.
But I don't work at Glock and don't know what they know. Either way the reason I say that the issue is over exaggerated is that the guns still function. I didn't even notice the G30 was doing it until someone else shot it and commented on it.

I'm very curious to see if Raven has success in trying what I suggested as I've seen it work and another member said they have too.

You may well be right and I may be making a mountain out of a molehill about the MIM parts. However, I did a LOT of reading about this because my 3rd Gen G19 was displaying BTF with I bought it about 3 years ago. It was so bad that probably 2-3 shots per mag, it was ejecting cases to the left of the gun, in addition to what came back and hit me in the head. You are right in that the cases always ejected, but I think we can agree that ejecting cases to the left isn't normal at all. In my case, the 30274 ejector (mostly) cured the issue, but I have read that it hasn't in quite a few cases. I still have a few cases now and then flying off in strange directions, but at least they all fly to the right now and none hit me or go to the left. I have also read that, in some of the cases where the 30274 ejector didn't cure the problem and the owner was able to get his hands on an older extractor, that often did solve the issue. To me, since the older style extractor did solve the issue, that tells me that the problem is the new extractor.

Now, you may well be right in that it is a tolerance stacking issue. There are plenty of new guns out there that didn't have the issue, which lends some credence to your theory. However, given the numbers of guns that did have the issue, I think we can both agree that something changed to cause the issue. Was it the extractor itself? Maybe. Was it changes in the machining of the slide? Maybe. Problems with the tolerances of the new extractors? Maybe. I don't think anyone outside of Glock will ever know. But, there was a problem and it wasn't limp wristing or poor ammo or a lot of other things that were blamed for the issue. To me, the ejection issues indicate a problem. It indicates that something about the extraction/ejection process was compromised and was not working properly. With a little wear, will the erratic ejection become failures to extract/eject? I don't know and don't really want to find out.

While I haven't personally tried out your extractor mod, I have done some reading and have heard that it works pretty well. I plan on ordering another extractor at some point and, when I have spares in hand, I may well try it myself.

If you don't agree with me about this, that's OK. Nowhere does it say that we all have to agree about everything, all the time. What I have posted about this is simply my opinion only. I think I'm right, you think you're right. No problem. We just agree to disagree. Hopefully, someday we'll find out what the problem was. If I'm wrong, I'll own up to it. Wouldn't be the first time, won't be the last time.

Bub75

Do you still have to either be a GSSF member or sponsored by a dealer/LE or can just anyone sign up for them now? I had to join the GSSF to be able to take it (that was in 2011). I wouldn't mind doing it again but it's not worth jumping through the hoops or the expense for me.

Thanks for the information. Very informative.



I have to say, I strongly agree with that statement. So much so that in my case, I have no interest in the newer Glocks and will stick with pre-MIM, tenifer treated Glocks. I probably would have made an exception for the 43 if it fit my hand as well as it apparently fits yours but that was not the case.

Anyway, thanks again!

Thanks for the info.

Lynn was the instructor for my Armorer's class a few years ago.  The "special safety valve" wasn't mentioned, but he did suggest that a 5.56 bullpup carbine was in the works, but we've all heard that before.

The only thing mentioned about the trigger configuration was it was up to department policy, and as long as Glock factory parts were installed there was no problem from any standpoint.

It was made perfectly clear that the use of aftermarket parts other than sights would get our certification revoked.

There was only a supplement on the Gen4's with the armorers manual, and not much time was spent discussing them.

Had no issue taking the class, at a local PD training facility, with my GSSF membership last month. I think I was the only non-LEO or FFL dealer in there.