The number of pre-Friday “Gen4 Friday” posts is getting ridiculous.
Today I fired 1,236 rounds through the G17/4. It had three stoppages, all failures to eject that looked identical to the last one reported from the first range day. Ammo was 115gr Blazer (aluminum). The first stoppage occurred while I was shooting SHO; the next two were almost back to back and occurred while I was shooting WHO. I decided to clean off the extractor, re-lubricate the gun, and try some more. The gun fired over 700 rounds after that without a stoppage, even when shooting SHO & WHO.
After spending a little time on the phone with my buddy the experienced armorer instructor, he wanted me to check whether I’d put the right spring loaded bearing in the pistol when I switched extractors. Of course I did. Folks here have told me it was important, folks on Glock Talk said it was important, folks on pistol-forum said it was important. Of course I did.
Errrr… wait. Sorry. No.
I’d apparently got them mixed up and put the LCI extractor’s SLB in with the non-LCI extractor. So those stoppages won’t count against the gun, just against me.
You’ve got to admit, it’s sort of impressive that it shot 1,233 out of 1,236 rounds properly with the wrong part in the gun…
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
Wow, this is the most epic ever. lol
Over a thousand rounds in one day. I have dreams like that.
Thanks
ooooppppss…….brain fart!
So … when do you plan on cleaning it? 🙂
I tend to cut a lot of slack when the ammo in question is CCI Blazer. Just sayin’…
After 1500 rounds of pure hell with several changes of 0-2 springs from GLOCK over 12 months in my Gen4 G17 my problems were kicked with the 0-2-1 spring. At least I HOPE they are. 500 more rounds and no failures with no “back-in-tha-face” extractions either. Then again I have yet to try 1000 rounds a day in it. 🙂
Keep going Todd…
Man, my Gen4 19 is up to just under 1500 rounds trouble free. One cleaning when I first bought her, and nothing else since. This has been some crazy start to a 50K round challenge!
LOL. Can’t wait till Friday–or the next pre-Friday.
Throw away the damn thing before you become an exrperience armorer yourself Todd. Glock S U C K S…
Anyway you all have to admit Glock is trying to improve us not only as shooters but as armores to….
Hk Rocks
It seems, something is going on between you and the SLB 😉
Gen4 is a major mess-up by Glock. They work for some but not all. Their reputation for reliability has taken a major hit. Keep up the good work. I hope you find the magic combination that makes the Gen4 run.
This assembly/reassembly stuff seems to induce failures in your tests a lot more often than any other factor.
That said, each and every time you’ve messed something up, I’ve learned something. I’m sure I’m not alone. So there is a silver lining.
Thanks for the honesty and humility in your reporting. Keep up the good work!
So with the old part, the gun didn’t work, and it got changed but part of the old part got mixed in with part of the new part and it still didn’t work. I’m sorry, but this is a cluster. And I’m not blaming Todd. There shouldn’t have been an issue in the first place. It’s to the point where in order to have pride as a Glock owner, you have to be sure to stipulate that you own a Gen 3; if you own a Gen 4, you automatically have to qualify your pride by proclaiming that it works. Whatever happened to “if it ain’t broke . . .”?
I tend to cut a lot of slack when the ammo in question is CCI Blazer. Just sayin’…
I tend to throw boxes of CCI Blazer into the back of the ammo locker and hunt around for some REAL ammo to fire…
I’ve seen more than 3 million rounds of 124gr 9mm Blazer go downrange.
I think it’s really decent practice ammo with no more issues than any other high quality practice ammo, and less issues than some other name brand stuff I have seen.
I’ve had good luck with Blazer ammo too. It’s given me fewer problems than Winchester White Box and Federal Champion.
Blazer 115 grain has been reliable for me but accuracy no better than the also mediocre WWB, Federal, UMC etc.
However, I just started a 2nd case of 124 grain Blazer because the first case, not only was also reliable but seemed a good deal more accurate than the 115. The most accurate training ammo I’ve used in a couple of years.
Todd; I wish you would just stop the test-the G4 didn’t work. I just don’t see much validity when what this test has shown so far is to get a G4 to work you have to swap recoil assemblies, find an outdated extractor, and either know how to do it yourself or get somebody to do it for you. We’re not talking about how to get a 1911 running where tinkering is normal.
mark — I agree. I like to think of yesterday’s result as disproving the hypothesis that only the extractor needs to be changed. On the other hand, it does show how significant the extractor was to the problem, since even the wrong SLB putting too little tension on the extractor was enough to improve the performance dramatically.
re: Blazer — I’ve always had very good luck with it, even the now-discontinued 357 SIG.
Matt — I think that’s a very valid opinion: the gun doesn’t work as is and, if my and others’ experience with other “unfixable” 9mm gen4 pistols is any indication, Glock wasn’t going to be able to get it running with current production parts. Having said that, in another way it’s similar to the P30 test at the beginning. Something was working, and rather than (a) stop the test or (b) keep shooting (and carrying!) the gun in an unreliable condition, it was fixed with a parts swap.
Perhaps the tally kept at the top of each week’s report should differentiate between the stoppages the gun had with its “correct” (doesn’t work) extractor vs. the stoppages it will have with the “obsolete” (does work) extractor.
Todd-I remember the P30 problem but as I recall that was individual part problem-not a design issue. And HK did for you what they would do for every other guy-take it back and fix it. I’ve enjoyed all your tests and I see them similar to what Car and Driver or Edmunds does when it takes a car for a one year evaluation. A kind of -here’s what we experienced and it’s likely what you’ll experience too-. I’m kind of seeing this evaluation as a -might work/might not; experiment with an X, Y or Z recipe found on your local gun forum.
But it very well may be a “part” issue like the P30. Considering the Gen 4’s running up high round counts. With the same design.
Not bad for the wrong part, but I think we are forgetting that this is a new gun design with kinks in it that need to get worked out. I remember all the criticisms of the M&P pro when it first came out. Problems happen with new designs, it’s the price of doing business. I love Glocks, but like anything else that comes out new it will have its problems.
Considering myself neutral about Glocks (I don’t have a lot of experience, but my limited use of them was that I could get used to and comfortable with some models), and with all due respect, I tend to agree with Matt.
This issue seems to move the Gen4 into the category of inherent vice or design+manufacturing quality control problems. The P30’s problems were magazine springs (easily fixed with new ones), overly strong hammer spring (diagnosed, acknowledged, and replaced by HK), broken trigger spring (quickly fixed), and sear spring (quickly replaced and “no one tries to hide anything or make excuses”). Given the round count, abuse, and nature of the problems with both the P30 and M&P, I would describe the difference between them and your Gen4s as that of “keeping them running” versus “getting them to run.” Especially so, given the amount of expertise that has been brought to bear on this problem.
You have been more than fair in terms of your endurance tests, but in this case it is too early for the Glocks.
It’s my understanding that the redesigned extractor with the LCI isn’t just a Gen4 design flaw as it came out prior to the release of the Gen4s and is also on some Gen3s. I know my Gen3 19 RTF2s all have the LCI so I don’t think you can say the Gen4 is a bust based on this issue. Perhaps a bad lot of extractors…a VERY LARGE bad lot, but not a design flaw.
After 25 years of empirical data and incredibly reliable functioning, I’m not ready to proclaim Glock sucks or that their reputation has taken a hit just because of some Gen4 teething issues. After a quarter century of established history, I’m going to be patient and wait for this to play out successfully, which it will. Good luck, Todd.
Just because somebody has been around for a long time doesn’t mean they can’t bring out a lemon. Remember bean counters make a lot of the decisions these days. If they could save 5c per gun by skimping on a part they would do it. Colt has been making guns for much longer and even they must admit that the Double Eagle and the Colt Model 2000 All American wasn’t their best work.
It was said earlier in one of these posts “if it aint broken, don’t fix it”. I think Glock is learning that lesson again.
I, not being an gun armourer, nor having such highly qualified friends around either, would not even have tried to fix this gun. I would sure as hell not carry it and stake my life on it. Remember it just takes 1 “click” when you needed a “bang” to never see you make that mistake again. There is no do-overs when it comes to self defence situation and no second prize.
I own a Glock 27 Gen 3 and a Glock 23 Gen 3 but have never drunk the Glock Cool Aid. They are good pistols and proven. The Gen 4 on the other hand…… how much time is enough time? Also if this is a known issue why doesn’t Glock have a recall and fix the issue? Cause maybe they just don’t know.
Funny enough I wasn’t expecting a high round count before failures started. I’m surprised there aren’t more light strikes.
I think I’ll wait till I hear what the FBI, NYPD, D.C., and other cop organizations do with the Gen. 4s BEFORE I plunk down money on one.
I’ve got plenty of Gen. 3s anyway and it takes so long to wear them out!
re: Blazer
I’ve never had a problem with feeding or accuracy or general reliability, but it has been my experience that extraction/ejection problems can be exacerbated by the aluminum-cased rounds.
From what I’m reading above, the written accounts of the test and the follow on written data continues to build the case that gun owners / shooters that attempt to improve the performance of a factory Glock by making changes to a stock pistol run the risk of altering the reliability of the weapon, as this test proved.
If you’re not a properly trained and certified Glock Armorer, or if at a minimum, you don’t have the Glock Armorers manuals and parts lists for each model, how do you ensure you’re not upgrading the pistol with the wrong parts? As a certified Glock armorer myself, I’d have to refer back to the armorers manuals or possibly call the factory to ensure the parts I wanted to upgrade were the right ones.
Have you ever walked into Autozone and bought spark plugs for your car without looking in a manual to check the part # or by having one along as an example??
1. I’m still not exactly sure what condition / configuration the gun was in when you received it. That would be useful and a serial # would solve that as it would show how the pistol left the factory.
2. Exactly what changes / modification were made to the pistol after you received it? (include parts and part #’s that were changed)
3. What changes / modifications have been made to the pistol since the the first changes / modifications were made?
4. What have been the results of the testing since then?
If you want to claim that you are doing a proper endurance / reliability test on a weapon, standard military test and eval protocol would be to test the weapon in a standard ‘out of the box’ or ‘as is’ condition from the factory.
From what little I’ve read about this ‘so called’ endurance test, I’d say it was botched from day one. I’d also be forced to infer that you – “ToddG’ have little and probably no formal military test and evaluation process experience so all these results are basically invalid and the basis of good ole gun industry nerd-net rumor.
Experience and history has proven that the real basis of public figures conducting endurance tests of weapons is so the gun writer / blogger / test people can get free guns and free ammo and also to create a buzz so more people will visit their site or read their publications.
If you want to see how a real test is conducted, use your freedom of information act rights and FOIA the Gen4 Glock test procedures and results of the ATF’s testing that was conducted last year. Although it was done with a different caliber pistol (.40 cal), the merits of the Gen4 design were put to the test, validated and was the basis of the multi year contract to buy Glocks for ATF personnel.
My other suggestion is to run the test through an independent lab and then write about the results so you can maintain your credibility as the independent third party.
Throwing any gun company under the bus as this test did to Glock is detestable and all the sympathetic nerd-net commentators that bashed Glock for non-credible test results fall into the same category. This is not a debate about what pistol is the greatest. Yes – HK, FN, S&W Sig blaa blaa blaa all make good pistols. The basis of this thread is the endurance testing of a Glock. Any one that posts anything relating to another pistol manufacture is merely looking for a pedestal from which they can speak to the masses and be heard. Stay on topic of shut your soup cooler mouth breathers.
The blog thread that contains all the bad information should be redacted and then this entire test should be restarted from scratch with a stock Glock pistol or a pistol with the properly installed correct parts.
Then and only then will the results fall into the credible and properly performed endurance test.
Good luck and I’m certain the testing will go much better once you tighten up your test process.
BTW – if you want to have an educated conversation, let me know and I’ll contact you. I’m not afraid to hide behind a screen name
GNAR — That was hilarious! Where to begin?
You want the serial number of the pistol? It’s in the photos. Perhaps you should read more than one post here before jumping to conclusions.
You want to know what has been changed to the gun? It’s in previous posts linked at the bottom of this one. Perhaps you should read more than one post here before jumping to conclusions.
Think this test was done just to get free guns & ammo from Glock? Read the announcement post about this year’s test. Perhaps you should read more than one post here before jumping to conclusions.
Think I should send a FOIA for the ATF test protocols and results? The protocols are public record and available via FBO. The test results are not available through FOIA per federal procurement regulations. However, I just happen to be the guy who consulted with ATF on the procurement, who helped write their test protocol, and I am the only person outside of ATF who has, actually, seen every single detail of the test results. Perhaps you should read more than one post here before jumping to conclusions.
Thanks for playing!
GNAR Champ,
“As a certified Glock armorer myself…”
You might want to consider that a good chunk of the readership here knows exactly what that’s worth.
This is me with drinking a Mexican Coke (made with real cane sugar) out of a bottle.
This is me eating some popcorn.
This is me waiting for GNAR’s next post.
David Barnes
TAM First – “As a certified Glock armorer myself…” comment is a self deprecating remark directed at myself. Unless you have a photographic memory and you live inside Glock Eng Dept, you can’t possibly know every part, part number, part revision for every pistol which is why they make reference material and teach people to use it during their classes. It’s reference material for people so they don’t use a G17T extractor in a G17/4.
Todd – Honestly, I did spend a few minutes searching around for the original data but I don’t have hours of free time to filter through endless useless comments. Hence the questions in the earlier comment which still go unanswered – I see you pick and choose what you want to answer, that’s fine it’s your site. This combined with the fact that you used an extractor from a G17T in a G17 means that all the results that everyone is having fun writing about are all BS and again, should be redacted, simple enough. Again – your site so do as you like but it’s obvious that this isn’t a forum for objective testing and thought processes, yet another site to put in the nerd-net category.
Thanks for Playing back but I’m done.
Have fun with it from here out….
GNAR — Just can’t bring yourself to take responsibility, eh? No, it’s the website’s fault that you cannot read the main entries that answer every single one of your questions. It’s those other pesky readers (who actually read) and their pesky comments. Etc.
BTW, back in ’03 when I got the 17T (as explained previously), it used the same extractor as the regular 17. It became a separate part number (and different part) years later. I would think someone as fond of part numbers would know that.
I’ll keep playing if you will…
GNAR Champ,
“As a certified Glock armorer myself…”
You might want to consider that a good chunk of the readership here knows exactly what that’s worth.
I also stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. By any chance GNAR are you with Delta Force or did you just follow them around when they went to Denny’s? Also did the guns the ATF tested make it to Mexico?
GNAR,
Thanks for calling it like you see it. It’s clear from your post that you’ve got a problem with these fake tests – as do I and as does the rest of my team. People running fake tests, hiding behind their internet forums, and blatantly lying about their credentials. Think about it: if “ToddG” already saw the ATF’s Gen4 testing, why would he run another test? Just for fun? No, it wouldn’t be fun for him because he hates Glocks, remember? It just doesn’t add up.
You want the truth? Here’s a glimpse: I’m just a trigger-puller with my unit, but there are some heavy hitters on my team. We’ve been using Glocks since forever, and our armorer spent 3 months in Austria and Smyrna designing the Gen4. Little-known fact: the so-called “inconsistent extraction issues” are a design feature. We do lots of house-clearing in the less upscale parts of certain jungle-infested countries. One time my buddy was surrounded by 6 bad guys. He shot three of them in the face, and I had his six so I nailed a couple more – but one of them stayed unhit long enough to put a 40-cal in his back. I immediately took him out with my 338lm from 850m. My buddy was lucky that his armor saved him. So the “inconsistent extraction” is actually a tool for getting out alive when you’re surrounded – in the right hands, that is. If my buddy had a Gen4 at the time, he would have been able to hit two bad guys with each shot: the one in front of him with a bullet, and the one behind him with a white-hot shell casing. Turns out, you can control the extraction – a fact which “ToddG” would know if he wasn’t a limp-wristing, 1911-loving, HK fan-boy. The delayed unlocking of the Gen4’s barrel means the extracted shells are a lot hotter than other guns, enhancing their effectiveness when directed into the eyes of the poor schmuck standing behind you. The Glock engineers didn’t think it could be done, but our armorer showed them a couple of tricks, and now we have the Gen4. It does take practice, though, which is probably why “ToddG” can’t pull it off.
The entities that pay my salary don’t like to make noise, so you won’t hear about this anywhere. Suffice it to say, it’s refreshing to hear someone on this witless board with the courage to point out that the emperor has no clothes. (Or what’s worse – only orange-colored clothes…) I feel comfortable posting on here because few people on this board have the inside scoop to make me from this info. If you know who I am and who I work for, make contact – you won’t be sorry.
Now that’s funny. 8)