Glock 17 gen4 Endurance Test: Week 21

12-Aug-11 – 14:03 by ToddG
31,706 rounds 7 stoppages
(+1 w/non-LCI extractor)
0 malfunctions 0 parts breakages

The G17 had just three short sessions this week totaling less than six hours on the range. There were no stoppages or problems of any kind. Also, to the continued disappointment of someone in Tukwila, WA neither the pistol nor I were involved in any dramatic gun battles this week. Sorry.

The modified Grip Force Adapter continues to behave like a rabbit’s foot, bringing luck and success. Cold F.A.S.T. runs were all sub-5 and clean this week, as they have been since installing the darn thing:

  • 8-Aug, 4.55 (clean): 1.53, .49 / 1.85 / .24, .23, .21
  • 10-Aug, 4.37 (clean): 1.42, .45 / 1.83 / .24, .22, .21
  • 12-Aug, 4.96 (clean): 1.58, .61 / 2.01 / .26, .26, .24

On today’s run, I rushed my grip in the holster and needed more time to recover for the follow-up shot on the 3×5; then I caught myself looking at the target to see if I’d hit when I should have been concentrating on the reload. Candidly, I was surprised to see I made it under the 5-second wire.

As mentioned last week, the pistol was due for its 30,000 round maintenance. In addition to a thorough cleaning, the recoil spring assembly, slide lock spring, and trigger return spring were all replaced. I cannot tell a difference in the tension between the old RSA and the new one. As I’ve said previously, the current G17 gen4 recoil spring assembly (0-2-1) probably doesn’t need to be replaced as often as recommended by Glock. But to the extent possible, all factory parts replacement recommendations are followed for the endurance tests.

The back-up G17’s round count is now 550. Still no stoppages but the gun continues to toss brass in random directions. While we’re all genuinely interested to see how it runs, there is this nagging thought that the gun I need to rely upon if my primary breaks might have a known unresolved issue… and that just doesn’t seem too bright. Of course at this point the back-up also needs different sights, connector, slide release, and a modified GFA to be an identical quick swap for the test gun. Perhaps it needs a different designation than “back-up.”

Train hard & stay safe! ToddG

Previous Glock 17 gen4 Endurance Test posts at

  1. 10 Responses to “Glock 17 gen4 Endurance Test: Week 21”

  2. Todd: For the back up G 17, try filing a bit off the tip of the ejector to make it less pointed. That was a suggestion someone made here a while back; I tried it on my Gen4 G-23, and it got rid of the random ejection, eject-in-th-face problem. Having more contact between the brass and the ejector seems to work–or at least worked in my case.

    By SteveJ on Aug 12, 2011

  3. SteveJ — Except then, just like swapping extractors, I’m not really evaluating whether the gun arrived in a reliable condition. While erratic ejection is definitely a bad sign, if the gun continues to go bang every time I can’t really complain…

    By ToddG on Aug 12, 2011

  4. Please correct my impression if I am wrong on this one.

    It sounds as though Glock magazines do not have a sub-30k round replacement schedule. If so, I suppose that’s great. Yet it seems to leave Glock as an outlier. The HK P30, for example, did seem to have a schedule for magazine spring replacement.

    By J on Aug 12, 2011

  5. Rather than calling it a back-up, why not just call it a spare? A spare tire isn’t always identical to the tire it’s meant to stand in for in case of failure, after all.

    By MichaelD on Aug 12, 2011

  6. Todd:

    My view is that a gun that goes bang every time is a big part of reliability–but not all of it. Erratic ejection is more than just an irritation. When the brass goes pinging in your face, for example, you have a problem. (Before I fixed my ejector, I had a shell casing stick between the frame of my glasses and my forehead, leaving a not inconsiderable burn mark, and apparently I’m not the only one).

    Based on that, I think it makes sense for you to see if there is a simply fix to the ejector problem.

    Personally, I’m trying to get a Gen 4 G22 and G23 to feed hot loads reliably (the 23 now ejects reliably) and I find the more data on possible fixes of all sorts for Gen4 problems, the better. (I think the Gen 4 is a worthwhile development–if it can be made to work).

    By SteveJ on Aug 12, 2011

  7. Todd,

    I have kept up on all the endurance tests that you have done. I have owned sig 229, Hk P30S in 40 cal. and a number of glocks, 17,19,22,and currently I carry a glock 23. The only reason for 40 cal. is because the gun serves to protect against both humans and while hiking black bear and cougar. I have always had a alot of faith in the glocks however it doesn’t seem its as reliable right out of the box as the hk guns that you have tested (HK 45)or(HK P30)? It even seems like you had less problems with the M&P at this point than you’ve had with the Glock. I am starting to take a hard look at the M&P in 40 cal. and even thought about going back to HK P30, the M&P seems like it would be easier to work on than the HK. What I am getting at is which would you choose as far as reliable,and easy to work on and get parts? HK P30 40cal, M&P 40 cal, or would you stay with the Glock 23? I understand that there is no perfect gun they are machines with parts, and machines break from time to time or have some bobbles.
    You have spent way more time shooting all of these weapons than I ever will, and I respect your opinion, I just want to Know of the 3 guns I listed above and the 2 requirements I listed which would you choose for concealed carry? I refer everyone I know with questions about guns to check out your web site. Thank You for your time.

    By Alan on Aug 13, 2011

  8. FWIW Todd posted his thoughts on a CCW choice in a thread on the Handgun board of his Forum. Final choice didn’t suprise me. Runner up did. 😉

    By JHC on Aug 14, 2011

  9. JHC,

    I looked in the forum and couldn’t find it.

    I’m also interested to see Todds thoughts at this point in the testing process.

    By Alan on Aug 14, 2011


    Post #14

    By JHC on Aug 14, 2011

  11. JHC,

    Cool, thank you, I read the post I’m still interested to see if Todd has any new thoughts on my original post.


    By Alan on Aug 15, 2011

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.