Gen 4 Glocks? - new range report on pg 5 - Page 2

Handguns » Handgun Discussions

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Gen 4 Glocks? - new range report on pg 5 (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 2/10/2010 7:56:40 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Actually with no backstrap, its considerably smaller grip wise.

Marksman - I generally respect your opinions but I feel that statement is total BS

The Gen4 with no back strap is only 3mm smaller then the Gen3. That's .12 inches for us non metric guys. That is next to nothing IMO. I have held a Gen4 and felt no difference. Even holding a Gen3 and Gen 4 together the difference was almost impossible for me to feel. I know you feel the difference is more noticeable so instead of arguing about that point, let me ask you this... Do you really believe that anyone who would not or could not shoot a Gen3 because of the grip size will somehow find the Gen4 with it 3mm reduction acceptable? I sure don't.

Quoted:

Quoted:
They could've done much better. It's at least an attempt at progress though!

If improvements to a pistol were blowjobs, the Gen 4 changes would be the wife touching it with her tongue and saying "There, happy now?"

That is funny and pretty much my feelings on it.

Posted: 2/10/2010 8:54:41 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Actually with no backstrap, its considerably smaller grip wise.

Marksman - I generally respect your opinions but I feel that statement is total BS

The Gen4 with no back strap is only 3mm smaller then the Gen3. That's .12 inches for us non metric guys. That is next to nothing IMO. I have held a Gen4 and felt no difference. Even holding a Gen3 and Gen 4 together the difference was almost impossible for me to feel. I know you feel the difference is more noticeable so instead of arguing about that point, let me ask you this... Do you really believe that anyone who would not or could not shoot a Gen3 because of the grip size will somehow find the Gen4 with it 3mm reduction acceptable? I sure don't.

Quoted:

Quoted:
They could've done much better. It's at least an attempt at progress though!

If improvements to a pistol were blowjobs, the Gen 4 changes would be the wife touching it with her tongue and saying "There, happy now?"

That is funny and pretty much my feelings on it.

No worries about disagreeing

I based my assessment on the fact that 2-3mm is the difference found on other guns that I have heard many people say "is too big" to "is just right", ala the MK23 vs the USP .45, and a few others....G21 to G21SF. But then again, its all relative. Just because the USP is smaller than the MK23, doesn't mean the USP will work for everyone, it just means its smaller, same with the G21 and G21SF. The SF and USP may still be too big.

It is a small change no doubt, but for me, it was enough that I felt I couldn't get enough of my support hand on the gun with no backstrap installed. With the medium backstrap added, for myself, it was again ideal. Again though, when I first picked up the gen 4, I couldn't immediately detect a difference, until I picked up my gen 3, but thats irrelevant to those that pick up the gen 4 and still feel its too big...such as yourself. If its too big, its too big, doesn't matter how much smaller it is than the gen 3.

So again, yes. While smaller, 2-3mm may not make enough difference to make everyone happy.

Posted: 2/10/2010 8:58:31 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Actually with no backstrap, its considerably smaller grip wise.

2mm

Yes, it's about 2mm....verified with calipers. Though I really cannot see the difference, I can definitely feel it. In fact, I fondled both a gen 3 and a gen 4 side-by-side when I made my purchase, and the smaller grip was a selling point for me with my smaller hands. So, I consider the 2mm considerable. The "M" back strap makes it feel like a gen 3 to me...aside from the rough texturing.

Wait...2mm with calipers front to back, or 2mm circumfrence wise?

Someone should really do this measuring the circumfrence, because thats what actually matters to your hand. Again, not like it matters because again....if its still too big for ones hand with no backstrap, then its irrelevant.

Either way, glad you found one that fit your hand. Atleast it worked for someone

I would love to see someone measure the circumfrence of the popular service pistols out there. I've always felt that Glocks were one of the smaller feeling handguns out there, but I've been wrong before.

Posted: 2/10/2010 10:46:43 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Actually with no backstrap, its considerably smaller grip wise.

2mm

Yes, it's about 2mm....verified with calipers. Though I really cannot see the difference, I can definitely feel it. In fact, I fondled both a gen 3 and a gen 4 side-by-side when I made my purchase, and the smaller grip was a selling point for me with my smaller hands. So, I consider the 2mm considerable. The "M" back strap makes it feel like a gen 3 to me...aside from the rough texturing.

Wait...2mm with calipers front to back, or 2mm circumfrence wise?

Someone should really do this measuring the circumfrence, because thats what actually matters to your hand. Again, not like it matters because again....if its still too big for ones hand with no backstrap, then its irrelevant.

Either way, glad you found one that fit your hand. Atleast it worked for someone

I would love to see someone measure the circumfrence of the popular service pistols out there. I've always felt that Glocks were one of the smaller feeling handguns out there, but I've been wrong before.

The 2mm was front to back. I just used thread around the circumference of my G19 and the same spot on the gen 4 and the G19 was 4-5 mm further around. However, It was more of a pain in the ass than I figured marking the thread.....and my margin of error is probably 4-5 mm anyway.

Posted: 2/10/2010 12:36:50 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Actually with no backstrap, its considerably smaller grip wise.

2mm

Interesting. This is the first I've heard you can leave the backstrap off. (reports from SHOT were that the smallest/thinnest one replicated the standard size) .

Can someone take a good pic of the rear with no backstrap installed? Are there not sharp edges? 2mm = about 80-thou, not a huge difference, but about the difference between standard and "thin" grips on a normal service pistol, so definitely noticeable.

Posted: 2/10/2010 12:48:50 PM EDT

[#6]

According to the above poster who measured, the front to back dimension of the grip was decreased roughly 2mm, but that was comparing a gen 4 17 to a 3rd gen 19 if I am reading correctly.

I have a generation 4 Glock 17, as well as a generation 3.

The gen 4 with no backstrap IS smaller than a generation 3, and my guess is if you measure the circumfrence like the above poster did with the thread, the difference between the gen 3 and gen 4 will be really close to what he discovered, which will be more like 4-5mm. There are no sharp edges with the backstraps off, its quite comfortable.

To clarify, you have no backstrap (smaller than gen 3). Then, you have the medium backstrap (identical to gen 3) and then you have large.

Circumfrence is the dimension we need to be concerned with, not length front to back. While I dont know for sure, I assumed it was more than a 2mm difference before, because to me the smallest you can make a Gen 4 17 was too small for me to be comfortable with it.

NVGdude, check out my write up of the gen 4 here

Posted: 2/11/2010 8:54:17 AM EDT

[#7]

The "Official" measurement that I've seen posted is 3mm difference between the Gen3 and Gen4 with no add-on back strap

Posted: 2/11/2010 11:02:16 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
The "Official" measurement that I've seen posted is 3mm difference between the Gen3 and Gen4 with no add-on back strap

For circumfrence?

Posted: 2/11/2010 12:01:24 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The "Official" measurement that I've seen posted is 3mm difference between the Gen3 and Gen4 with no add-on back strap

For circumfrence?

Wasn't stated but my assumption is front to back width as I've never seen a circumference measurement listed from Glock of any other manufacturer.

Posted: 2/11/2010 12:12:35 PM EDT

[#10]

I thought the 3mm measurement was frontstrap to backstrap, as well.

Posted: 2/11/2010 1:14:11 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
I purchased my Gen 4 G17 a little over a week ago. In my exceptionally limited experience with it (100 rounds down the tube + much dry fire practice) I'm happy. I've had no problems, and it feels / shoots like a Glock. However, though internet reviews are pretty sparse, I'm reading a lot of negativity:

1. The mag release it too big.
2. The dual recoil spring assembly is / will be defective.
3. The replaceable backstraps look / feel like crap. (I leave them off because I wanted the slightly smaller grip)
4. Should have "fixed" the grip angle.
5. Glock is just trying to take back market share from the M&P line.
6. The barrel assembly is proprietary.
7. It's not a "real" Glock.
8. etc.

Most of these postings refer to the Gen 3's as THE standard and apparently the pre-declared favorite. ( I have a Gen 3 G19, and I love it.) Here's my question to those of you here that may remember.....Did the Gen 3's receive similar scrutiny and doubt as they replaced the Gen 2's? The Gen 3's had ergonomic changes - finger grooves, thumb rests, rail. They also had mechanical changes - extra pin, changed extractor, etc.

How long will it take for Gen 4 to prove itself as the Gen 3 clearly did so many years ago? Or will it?

Held a Gen 4 but didn't shoot it. I didn't care for the texturing on the grip. Seems like it'd be a good cheese grater for one's hands.

Posted: 2/11/2010 3:35:03 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Held a Gen 4 but didn't shoot it. I didn't care for the texturing on the grip. Seems like it'd be a good cheese grater for one's hands.

Side and clothes in a CCW role as well.

Posted: 2/14/2010 2:09:19 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
I purchased my Gen 4 G17 a little over a week ago. In my exceptionally limited experience with it (100 rounds down the tube + much dry fire practice) I'm happy. I've had no problems, and it feels / shoots like a Glock. However, though internet reviews are pretty sparse, I'm reading a lot of negativity:

1. The mag release it too big.
2. The dual recoil spring assembly is / will be defective.
3. The replaceable backstraps look / feel like crap. (I leave them off because I wanted the slightly smaller grip)
4. Should have "fixed" the grip angle.
5. Glock is just trying to take back market share from the M&P line.
6. The barrel assembly is proprietary.
7. It's not a "real" Glock.
8. etc.

Most of these postings refer to the Gen 3's as THE standard and apparently the pre-declared favorite. ( I have a Gen 3 G19, and I love it.) Here's my question to those of you here that may remember.....Did the Gen 3's receive similar scrutiny and doubt as they replaced the Gen 2's? The Gen 3's had ergonomic changes - finger grooves, thumb rests, rail. They also had mechanical changes - extra pin, changed extractor, etc.

How long will it take for Gen 4 to prove itself as the Gen 3 clearly did so many years ago? Or will it?

ON most any product, human nature makes those folks who own the previous version to crap on the new one. If the new one doesn't pan out, Glock will either revert to the previous version, or make an even newer version that corrects it. The RTF version is an example. Glock doesn't make the cheese grater slide anymore but has adopted the textured frame..Anyone interested in collecting should probably stock up on cheese grater models, or SF models before they disappear. Very low volume production before the GEN 4 comes out will make them collectible.

Posted: 2/14/2010 5:59:55 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Actually with no backstrap, its considerably smaller grip wise.

2mm

Interesting. This is the first I've heard you can leave the backstrap off. (reports from SHOT were that the smallest/thinnest one replicated the standard size) .

Can someone take a good pic of the rear with no backstrap installed? Are there not sharp edges? 2mm = about 80-thou, not a huge difference, but about the difference between standard and "thin" grips on a normal service pistol, so definitely noticeable.

There are some folks over in our Glock forum who've gotten gen4 G22s, and posted some pretty good pics of 'em. Come take a look.

Posted: 2/14/2010 11:00:22 PM EDT

[#15]

I picked up my Gen4 G22 on Friday, and made a quick trip to the range yesterday and ran about 100rds through it. As one would expect from a Glock, it functioned 100% reliably. I like the new frame texturing as well as the larger magazine catch. The installed/small backstrap was also a plus. I have small hands and can finally hit the mag catch without having to break my grip, and am able to get better purchase on the trigger.

I like it. I'll probably be in for a G23 when they're available.

Posted: 2/15/2010 9:32:26 AM EDT

[#16]

GEN 3 AND GEN 4 GLOCK ...FAIL... i guess we will see how the gen 5 turns out

Posted: 2/15/2010 10:01:17 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

GEN 3 GLOCK ...FAIL...

The GEN3 Glock is one of the most successful handguns in history.

Posted: 2/15/2010 10:23:33 AM EDT

[#18]

I really like my 19 RTF.

Posted: 2/15/2010 12:06:33 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
GEN 3 AND GEN 4 GLOCK ...FAIL... i guess we will see how the gen 5 turns out

Fail according to who? Gen 3 was incredibly popular and its my opinion that gen 4 is nothing short of an improvement.

Posted: 2/15/2010 2:13:56 PM EDT

[#20]

The gen3 may not fit some people, but it is anything but a fail.

Posted: 2/15/2010 8:18:23 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
GEN 3 GLOCK ...FAIL...

The GEN3 Glock is one of the most successful handguns in history.

Yeah, but a used Gen 2 sells for more than a used Gen 3. Lots of people really hate the finger grooves.

Posted: 2/15/2010 10:05:17 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
GEN 3 GLOCK ...FAIL...

The GEN3 Glock is one of the most successful handguns in history.

Yeah, but a used Gen 2 sells for more than a used Gen 3. Lots of people really hate the finger grooves.

I would sure hate to let three tiny bumps of plastic get me all worked up.

Posted: 2/15/2010 10:51:56 PM EDT

[#23]

I "owned" a 4th Gen 17 until this afternoon. I traded a guy for a like new 3rd Gen G17. What I didn't like was:
1. Grip size w/o backstraps (too small)
2. Backstraps...something like the M&P or XDm would've been better, just didn't care for the feel of the 4th Gen with the backstraps on
3. Trigger sucks! They did something to the trigger to increase the pull weight. I put in a different trigger w/trigger bar and it felt much better.
4. The grip texture is crap. I like the plain Jane 3rd Gen grip as well as the RTF grip, don't like the nobbers on the 4th Gen

What I liked
1. I liked the recoil spring set up, made for a very smooth, soft cycling pistol.
2. I liked the mag release. Very easy to reach w/o readjusting your grip.

Overall, it didn't do anything for me. Makes an ugly gun uglier. I'm more than happy with my newly acquired 3rd Gen 17, I have no use for the 4th Gen in any flavor.

Posted: 2/16/2010 5:13:29 AM EDT

[#24]

While we're on the topic of hate for the G4 Glocks, here's a legitimate gripe:

...using a heavy spring designed to stop excessive slide velocity in a .40 caliber handgun on a 9mm handgun can result in sub-optimal results when using FMJ practice ammo. Why on earth Glock insists on using the same bloody recoil spring in 9mms and .40's is beyond me.

Posted: 2/16/2010 5:28:32 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
While we're on the topic of hate for the G4 Glocks, here's a legitimate gripe:
...using a heavy spring designed to stop excessive slide velocity in a .40 caliber handgun on a 9mm handgun can result in sub-optimal results when using FMJ practice ammo. Why on earth Glock insists on using the same bloody recoil spring in 9mms and .40's is beyond me.

This is not good.

Posted: 2/16/2010 6:54:24 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

I "owned" a 4th Gen 17 until this afternoon. I traded a guy for a like new 3rd Gen G17. What I didn't like was:

1. Grip size w/o backstraps (too small)

2. Backstraps...something like the M&P or XDm would've been better, just didn't care for the feel of the 4th Gen with the backstraps on

3. Trigger sucks! They did something to the trigger to increase the pull weight. I put in a different trigger w/trigger bar and it felt much better.

4. The grip texture is crap. I like the plain Jane 3rd Gen grip as well as the RTF grip, don't like the nobbers on the 4th Gen

What I liked

1. I liked the recoil spring set up, made for a very smooth, soft cycling pistol.

2. I liked the mag release. Very easy to reach w/o readjusting your grip.

Overall, it didn't do anything for me. Makes an ugly gun uglier. I'm more than happy with my newly acquired 3rd Gen 17, I have no use for the 4th Gen in any flavor.

Have you ever taken your Glock to a pistol class? I took a gen 3 32 and hated it about an hour into the first day. The gen 3 texture SUCKS for "grippyness." Especially here in the FL summer where your palms sweat within the first few minutes of running drills.

Posted: 2/16/2010 7:06:12 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Held a Gen 4 but didn't shoot it. I didn't care for the texturing on the grip. Seems like it'd be a good cheese grater for one's hands.

Side and clothes in a CCW role as well.

I have carried my Gen 4 G22 every day since Jan, 10... I have also run 1200 rounds through it, 700 of that was in one 3-hour session. I have never had a single issue like what you are describing.

Posted: 2/16/2010 7:40:54 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
This is not good.

It likely won't be a big deal, as the guns will probably run with +P ammo. +P 9mm really is the modern 9mm spec...but the fact remains that most of the FMJ stuff out there isn't running at +P. 9mm Glocks have always, in my experience, worked best with +P or NATO spec ammo so in that respect this isn't that unexpected...but it probably will cause people who don't know any better some heartburn when their shiny new Glock 17 can't make it through a range session with ball without puking.

The reason the Glock .40's sucked was trying to drill a bigger hole in the G17 and make it work. The thinking behind using the .40 springs in the 9mm guns is pretty much the same flavor of stupid, IMO.

As far as gripes go, this is a relatively minor one, IMO. I think that Glock should take some proactive steps and warn folks that mild 9mm ball ammo may not work well in the Gen 4 G17 guns because the spring is designed for optimal durability and reliability with high pressured 9mm ammo.

Quoted:
Have you ever taken your Glock to a pistol class? I took a gen 3 32 and hated it about an hour into the first day. The gen 3 texture SUCKS for "grippyness." Especially here in the FL summer where your palms sweat within the first few minutes of running drills.

No doubt. I find most of the guns out there to be very slippery. Even on 9mm's using ball I almost always have to readjust my grip because my left hand doesn't have enough purchase on the gun to stay put under recoil, even squeezing with all my might and using every technique in the book (including the pec technique) to keep my hands together. I've taken to adding 3M safety tape you can get at Home Depot to strategic points on the left side of the gun. I use the 3M stuff because it stays put (other brands don't, in my experience) and the texture is rough enough to add grip without being so rough that it tears your skin apart. The gain in control under recoil is dramatic.

This is, incidentally, why the RTF frame was invented. A high-speed military unit who issues Glock .40's wanted better purchase on the weapon and they handed Glock a bunch of money, hence the RTF frame. I don't know who came up with the idea for those gay C shaped slide serrations, but that person should be smacked. Those things suck.

Posted: 2/16/2010 8:17:29 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
The reason the Glock .40's sucked was trying to drill a bigger hole in the G17 and make it work.

Saying that the first and most widely used .40S&W pistols "sucked" is being a bit ridiculous.

Quoted:
I don't know who came up with the idea for those gay C shaped slide serrations, but that person should be smacked. Those things suck.

They have been discontinued. All new RTF2 models have the standard serrations.

Posted: 2/16/2010 8:21:36 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Saying that the first and most widely used .40S&W pistols "sucked" is being a bit ridiculous.

No, it's an acknowledgement of the incredibly spotty history the .40 caliber Glocks have had from parts breakages to kabooms to problems with mounted lights. Glock's original plan for a .40 gun was basically to drill a bigger hole in the barrel of a G17...all so they could be "first" with a .40 gun. The end result was a lot of problems that they are STILL TRYING TO CORRECT with the 4th generation guns.

Posted: 2/16/2010 8:29:52 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Have you ever taken your Glock to a pistol class? I took a gen 3 32 and hated it about an hour into the first day. The gen 3 texture SUCKS for "grippyness." Especially here in the FL summer where your palms sweat within the first few minutes of running drills.

No doubt. I find most of the guns out there to be very slippery. Even on 9mm's using ball I almost always have to readjust my grip because my left hand doesn't have enough purchase on the gun to stay put under recoil, even squeezing with all my might and using every technique in the book (including the pec technique) to keep my hands together. I've taken to adding 3M safety tape you can get at Home Depot to strategic points on the left side of the gun. I use the 3M stuff because it stays put (other brands don't, in my experience) and the texture is rough enough to add grip without being so rough that it tears your skin apart. The gain in control under recoil is dramatic.

This is, incidentally, why the RTF frame was invented. A high-speed military unit who issues Glock .40's wanted better purchase on the weapon and they handed Glock a bunch of money, hence the RTF frame. I don't know who came up with the idea for those gay C shaped slide serrations, but that person should be smacked. Those things suck.

Yup, by day three I FUCKING HATED that 32. I sold it shortly thereafter. Not to mention how sore the bottom of my trigger finger was after day one which made days two and three very painful. I'm still not sure what it was that was killing me, I think it was the mold line in the middle of the trigger guard just below the trigger.

ETA - The guy who hosted Randy Cain's Tactical Handgun 101 class was a guy named Irv Lehman. He had a can of brake cleaner in his truck and kept spraying the slide of my 32 since my hands were so slippery I couldn't press check the gun. Yeah, I'm a Dago so it goes without saying but it was ridiculous. I constantly had to keep readjusting my firing grip during drills because the fucking Glock was doing the Dance of the Sugarplum Fairy.

Posted: 2/16/2010 12:25:08 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
While we're on the topic of hate for the G4 Glocks, here's a legitimate gripe:

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h251/baxshep/IMG_0619.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h251/baxshep/IMG_0622.jpg
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h251/baxshep/IMG_0618.jpg

...using a heavy spring designed to stop excessive slide velocity in a .40 caliber handgun on a 9mm handgun can result in sub-optimal results when using FMJ practice ammo. Why on earth Glock insists on using the same bloody recoil spring in 9mms and .40's is beyond me.

ALMOST EVERY TIME I HAVE SEEN THIS PROBLEM....

The solution was exactly the same- clean off the fucking gold lube. Every time I've read about this, someone took their gen 4 out without cleaning at all, and had that problem.

That Gold shit is an antiseize, not an ideal lube, and thus far one good cleaning was all it took to cure that problem from what I have read thus far.

Thats why in my testing I did everything in my power to limp-wrist the gun using the shittiest weakest readily availble 9mm. I had exactly one failure, and it was one of the first rounds fired through it.

Couldn't for the life of me get it to happen again no matter what I did, and I have total confidence that mine will feed UMC all day every day.

ETA- to the poster above, I had a problem with my trigger bar too. Its as if it is "higher" than the previous ones. I actually couldn't get mine to assemble because the flat part of the trigger bar was hitting the side of the firing pin safety and binding it up a bit. I replaced it with an older trigger bar and it corrected the problem, as well as made my trigger pull a little lighter.

Glad Im not the only one who noticed that.

Posted: 2/16/2010 1:19:54 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
ALMOST EVERY TIME I HAVE SEEN THIS PROBLEM....

The solution was exactly the same- clean off the fucking gold lube. Every time I've read about this, someone took their gen 4 out without cleaning at all, and had that problem.

Wasn't the case this time.

Posted: 2/16/2010 3:13:34 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
ALMOST EVERY TIME I HAVE SEEN THIS PROBLEM....

The solution was exactly the same- clean off the fucking gold lube. Every time I've read about this, someone took their gen 4 out without cleaning at all, and had that problem.

Wasn't the case this time.

Any idea what ammo it was?

Posted: 2/23/2010 3:07:07 PM EDT

[#35]

I had heard of the problems with the G17, and I wanted to see for myself.

I went out this afternoon and bought a new 4th Gen. G17, took it home, cleaned all of the crap out of it, and took it to the range. I ran 115grn WWB, that cheap 115grn federal stuff in the purple box from wally world, 115 blazer aluminum ( a rather light load), 124+p and 147 HST, and 147 Gold Dot. I ran 20 mags, roughly 350 rounds, about half of those were with a TLR-1 attached.

Not a single hiccup. I tried it with a VERY weak grip and even with my elbow chicken winged out at about a 90* angle, and it still would not jamb. This thing feels like a dream. I own 4 other G17s, and this one shoots the best by far. The recoil impulse is different enough to notice it, and it makes for very quick double taps.

I cannot wait until the new G19 comes out.

Posted: 2/23/2010 3:09:00 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
I had heard of the problems with the G17, and I wanted to see for myself.

I went out this afternoon and bought a new 4th Gen. G17, took it home, cleaned all of the crap out of it, and took it to the range. I ran 115grn WWB, that cheap 115grn federal stuff in the purple box from wally world, 115 blazer aluminum ( a rather light load), 124+p and 147 HST, and 147 Gold Dot. I ran 20 mags, roughly 350 rounds, about half of those were with a TLR-1 attached.

Not a single hiccup. I tried it with a VERY weak grip and even with my elbow chicken winged out at about a 90* angle, and it still would not jamb. This thing feels like a dream. I own 4 other G17s, and this one shoots the best by far. The recoil impulse is different enough to notice it, and it makes for very quick double taps.

I cannot wait until the new G19 comes out.

Good report! Congrats on your new G17. I'm looking forward to the 19/23 Gen4s coming out as well and hope that early reports are similar to yours above.

Posted: 2/23/2010 3:29:22 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
I had heard of the problems with the G17, and I wanted to see for myself.

I went out this afternoon and bought a new 4th Gen. G17, took it home, cleaned all of the crap out of it, and took it to the range. I ran 115grn WWB, that cheap 115grn federal stuff in the purple box from wally world, 115 blazer aluminum ( a rather light load), 124+p and 147 HST, and 147 Gold Dot. I ran 20 mags, roughly 350 rounds, about half of those were with a TLR-1 attached.

Not a single hiccup. I tried it with a VERY weak grip and even with my elbow chicken winged out at about a 90* angle, and it still would not jamb. This thing feels like a dream. I own 4 other G17s, and this one shoots the best by far. The recoil impulse is different enough to notice it, and it makes for very quick double taps.

I cannot wait until the new G19 comes out.

Posted: 2/23/2010 6:11:15 PM EDT

[#38]

I took my Gen 4 17 to the range today for the first time and I like it just fine. This is one of the first guns in a very long time that I watch t.v. holding. I love the pyramids on the rtf, but I love the bite of my TRP operator which most think is a bit too harsh. The bad news is that my uncle came with me and the gun jammed on him six different times. I could not get the gun to jam when I tried to purposefully where he could not get the G17 to run for him. We were using Academy Monarch ball range ammo.
Well, it is going to take alot more rangetime for this new G to earn a spot in the rotation. Damn, the reason why I bought a Glock is the fact that they eat everything all the time.

Posted: 2/23/2010 6:13:17 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
I took my Gen 4 17 to the range today for the first time and I like it just fine. This is one of the first guns in a very long time that I watch t.v. holding. I love the pyramids on the rtf, but I love the bite of my TRP operator which most think is a bit too harsh. The bad news is that my uncle came with me and the gun jammed on him six different times. I could not get the gun to jam when I tried to purposefully where he could not get the G17 to run for him. We were using Academy Monarch ball range ammo.
Well, it is going to take alot more rangetime for this new G to earn a spot in the rotation. Damn, the reason why I bought a Glock is the fact that they eat everything all the time.

1- ammo
2- did you clean it

Posted: 2/23/2010 6:19:56 PM EDT

[#40]

Monarch ball from Academy Sports.
I did clean it.

Posted: 2/24/2010 7:14:56 AM EDT

[#41]

The good news is they continue to make Gen 3. I have the Gen 3 G17 RTF. If I want the good ergos I use my M&Ps.

Posted: 2/24/2010 10:48:50 AM EDT

[#42]

I thought you didn't need to clean Glocks.

Sorta like an ugly woman–– no need to buy dinner, but you still get dessert.

Posted: 2/24/2010 3:23:15 PM EDT

[#43]

I also bought a Gen 4 G17. I only fired 150 rounds through it so far, but I had two failures to eject(stovepipes).
The pistol was cleaned and lubed first. Ammo used was Blazer Brass 115gr. FMJ.
I'm going to try some more ammo, and different brands as soon as I can.
I'm hoping that those two stovepipes were just proverbial "break in" jams, that I hear so much about, but have never experienced with Glocks before.

Also, compared it side by side with my BIL's Gen3 G17. The Gen4 did seem to have a little less muzzle rise. Also, other than the new recoil spring system, and the redesigned slide for it, the uppers are identical. The guts of the slide, including the barrel, are exactly the same between the Gen3 and Gen4. I was somewhat surprised by that, and relieved, because everyone on here seemed to think the barrels were somehow different between the Gen3 and Gen4. I can tell you they are the same. The barrel from my BIL's Gen3 G17 dropped right in and functioned fine in my Gen4 and vice versa.

Posted: 2/24/2010 3:38:20 PM EDT

[#44]

Isn't it highly likely that it's just a break-in issue? If the new recoil spring system was designed for the heavier .40 and is used in the 9mm, wouldn't this make sense? I know some HK P30s have this break in period of about 200 rounds that doesn't mesh well with WWB 115gr FMJ.

Posted: 2/26/2010 1:31:06 PM EDT

[#45]

Love my gen4 g17. Runs like all the other glocks my wife and I have owned. Runs like a timex.
Glock Perfection, glad that even I can't eff that up.

Posted: 2/26/2010 10:01:43 PM EDT

[#46]

They look nice but it's nowhere close to tempting me to replace my G17 RTFII

However, why can't someone just combine the ergos of a Springfield XDM, the bore axis of an M&P9, and the reliability/accuracy of a Glock? Can't be that hard...

Posted: 2/27/2010 5:01:28 AM EDT

[#47]

I haven't read this thread in it's entirety due to its length, with that said I DO NOT own a gen 4 GLOCK yet either.

I do however own a gen 3 G17 and G19. The G17 is the standard which all modern combat handguns are judged by period. Outside of the US it is a 9mm world and GLOCK owns about 70% of that.

In a recent class taught by Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn at the US Training Center (aka Blackwater) it was discussed that if they were going into harms way and could only take one handgun it would be a GLOCK 17. There was nothing wrong with the gen 3 G17 and G19. So the old saying “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” comes into play here. The gen 4 recoil system was designed to solve issues that the previous generations of .40 S&W GLOCKs exhibited, not the 9mm guns.

I am really looking forward to a G17 and G19 with interchangeable back straps as well as the new less abrasive RTF so my guns can fit both myself and my Fiancé. But until the gen 4 G17s and G19s can operate to the same degree in which their gen 3 counter parts do I will stick with what I already have.

There are several guy’s in the business set to do some serious testing with the gen 4 G17 and I look forward to their findings…

Posted: 2/28/2010 3:55:37 PM EDT

[#48]

Update.......

I had only put 100 rds of WWB through my Gen 4 G17 on its first trip. Just finished the second trip....

100 more WWB
50 Federal Champion
50 My own reloads - 125 grn plated fmj, 4grn Bullseye

200 more flawless rounds with no problems of any kind.

I've been reading a few reports of failures with weaker rounds, but I'm not seeing it with mine. My reloads are pretty light....

In addition, I once again shot my buddy's Gen3 along with this one, and I do belive that the Gen 4 runs a little smoother...smoother action and reduced recoil (but not by much)

The grip texture was less of an issue this time...I guess I toughened up the first time

I love my Gen 4....

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:56:47 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I "owned" a 4th Gen 17 until this afternoon. I traded a guy for a like new 3rd Gen G17. What I didn't like was:
1. Grip size w/o backstraps (too small)
2. Backstraps...something like the M&P or XDm would've been better, just didn't care for the feel of the 4th Gen with the backstraps on
3. Trigger sucks! They did something to the trigger to increase the pull weight. I put in a different trigger w/trigger bar and it felt much better.
4. The grip texture is crap. I like the plain Jane 3rd Gen grip as well as the RTF grip, don't like the nobbers on the 4th Gen

What I liked
1. I liked the recoil spring set up, made for a very smooth, soft cycling pistol.
2. I liked the mag release. Very easy to reach w/o readjusting your grip.

Overall, it didn't do anything for me. Makes an ugly gun uglier. I'm more than happy with my newly acquired 3rd Gen 17, I have no use for the 4th Gen in any flavor.

Have you ever taken your Glock to a pistol class? I took a gen 3 32 and hated it about an hour into the first day. The gen 3 texture SUCKS for "grippyness." Especially here in the FL summer where your palms sweat within the first few minutes of running drills.

I didn't need to take it to a class. The 3rd Gen grip has always worked for me, I've added Talon Grips to all my 3rd Gen Glocks and now they are very grippy. The RTF2 texture is even better still. The Gen4 grip texture wasn't uncomfortable or abrasive by any means. I actually found it not grippy enough when my hands got sweaty as my palm was mostly contacting the tops of the polymids (or whatever the hell they call them) and not the grip as a whole. I've shot 3rd Gen Glocks with wet hands and have never had an issue with control. The Gen4 Glock's grip also doesn't lend itself to sandpaper grips or stippling, the latter of which will be done to all my non-RTF2 Glocks once funds allow. Overall, I didn't like it and have no need for it. A class wouldn't change that for me.

Posted: 3/1/2010 2:57:40 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

I took my Gen 4 17 to the range today for the first time and I like it just fine. This is one of the first guns in a very long time that I watch t.v. holding. I love the pyramids on the rtf, but I love the bite of my TRP operator which most think is a bit too harsh. The bad news is that my uncle came with me and the gun jammed on him six different times. I could not get the gun to jam when I tried to purposefully where he could not get the G17 to run for him. We were using Academy Monarch ball range ammo.

Well, it is going to take alot more rangetime for this new G to earn a spot in the rotation. Damn, the reason why I bought a Glock is the fact that they eat everything all the time.

That was the Gen 1,2 3 Glocks that ate everything

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Gen 4 Glocks? - new range report on pg 5 (Page 2 of 3)

Handguns » Handgun Discussions

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us