One other thing worthy of mention. The weapon light malfunctions tend to stay isolated. Its not a widespread issue. But it happens enough. I've seen some LE have G22's have just about every gun malfunction with Surefire X200's on them and the county just next door have guns the same that haven't even experienced an issue. Thought the variable might have been ammo so they used the other agency's ammo and their guns still ran. Its just hard to nail down what the exact cause is. I personally think its a tolerance stacking issue based on when they were built. But I also know that the heavier spring cured the ones that acted up. Go figure

00, where did you get the info on the Glock 21/20 recoil spring? I just bought one. You are correct... the plastic retainer just pops right out. However, the Glock 20 and Glock 22 recoil spring are identical in length when un-captured and have exactly the same number of coils. The guy at Glockmeister said they were all 17 pounds and the only difference in the 20/21 spring is the rod is about 1/6th inch longer than the others. He was right. I'm glad it only cost me $7 plus tax to find out.

Just trial and error. I had a G20 that felt much stiffer than the G22. I swapped them out and the gun ran 100%. I guesstimated the G20 spring was somewhere between 18-20# and then bought the ISMI 20# spring and it felt stiffer than the G20 spring. The G22 in question has not had a single problem since using the 20# ISMI spring. I then started using the 20# ISMI spring on other problem guns and the problems disappeared.

Any issues with the Surefire on 9mm Glocks, like the 19?  I mainly have the Surefire X300 on my AR, but it's availible for the Glock if I want it, I just have not shot it with the light on it yet.  Too bad I didn't see this last week, as I blasted some rounds out from the 19 then.

It will be fine. It is very rare for any Glock to have this problem.



 

The guys in this thread must be a figment of my imagination. The agencies that had issues must not exist. The Gen 4 with heavier recoil spring must be a mere hallucination.

Or maybe they finally did what H&K, Sig Sauer, and S&W did so long ago, and changed their design to cope with the .40 and 357. I mean, there had to be a reason that H&K designed the USP around the .40. There had to be a reason that S&W didn't come out with a .40sw pistol first, even though THEY INVENTED THE CALIBER (they had to design a pistol around the .40). There had to be a reason for the P229 being designed around .40, and the P226 having extra mass added to the slide and a heavier recoil spring for the .40 and 357 (15lbs for 9mm vs. 20 lbs for 40/357).

And I know you'll bring up the locking block and third pin, to which I say that does nothing to slow the velocity of the slide. Merely a bandage to the actual problem.

But it doesn't matter now. The Gen 4 is out, and it has a heavier recoil spring for the 40 and 357. YAY!

The GEN4 spring is actually not much, if any heavier than the GEN2/3. GEN4 is 17-19lbs. and the GEN2/3 is 17-18lbs. The purpose of the GEN4 spring is simply to increase spring service life due to the standard one occasionally experiencing problems at 6000+rds (perfectly reasonable.) The standard Glock's work perfectly fine when properly maintained in almost all cases. You people always bitch about the relatively rare problems that arise, but never make any mention of the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of .40 Glock's that experience no problems.




 
 

Actually, the new spring is a full two pounds heavier for the .40. It does make a difference. The new 02 spring is 17 lbs, the same weight as the Gen 3 spring. Do you honestly believe that the original Gen 4 spring (now in use only in the Gen 4 Glock 22) would have caused failures to eject (stovepipes) in the very same platform in 9mm, with no increase in weight?

And your assertion that the Gen 4 was merely an endeavor to increase the life of the guide rod is a bit ridiculous. 5,000 rounds is Glock's recommended interval for changing out the spring. This is perfectly acceptable, and is the same as most other manufacturers. Do you really think they would waste all that time, money, and effort in redesigning the frame and slide around a newly designed recoil spring, just for a little increase in life expectancy? Say that to yourself, and think about it. Sounds ridiculous, no?

And what do you say to the rest of my post, which conveniently disappeared from your quote? If everyone else designed new pistols, or heavily modified existing designs, to cope with the 40/357, what did Glock do to NOT necessitate ANY of these changes (heavier slide/recoil spring)? You can't ignore that the USP/P2000/P30, the P226/229, and M&P are some fine examples of durable pistols that were designed, or heavily redesigned, around the 40sw. They are all platforms that certainly have some issues, but none of the problems are caused by a specific caliber.

I really don't understand why it's so hard for you to admit that there is a design issue with the 40/357 Glocks. You can't just put a larger caliber into a pistol without increasing the slide mass by a significant amount, or spring weight. Pointing out a flaw in the design, and "bitching" about it, as you say, only allows for the manufacturer to improve further on the design, and come even closer to actual perfection.

If it makes you feel better, this is probably the only real issue with the Glock design, and even with a marginal increase in spring weight (2lbs), it solves the issues. Though it did take them long enough...