|
3,109 rounds |
5 stoppages | 0 malfunctions | 0 parts breakages |
What a week!
The pistol appears to be running fine now that it has the (technically obsolete) extractor and spring loaded bearing installed. Even shooting the pistol with a dramatically compromised grip weak hand only I could not induce a stoppage. The gun has now successfully performed through enough rounds, including my JHP ammo (Federal 124gr +p HST, which has never suffered a stoppage of any kind in the gun regardless of extractor or SLB), that I’m carrying it with confidence.
The pistol has not yet been cleaned, though obviously the slide was detail stripped to deal with the faulty extractor. My plan is to clean and lubricate it before the Speed Kills/Get SOM class in Seattle this weekend and use that as the start of a 2,000 Round Challenge now that the pistol is in the final configuration (hopefully) for the test..
The G17 turned in some very reasonable accuracy this week. Five 5-shot 25yd groups from a bench turned in an average of 2.52 inches shooting the 124gr +p HST, with a best of 1.89″ and a worst of 3.12″. I also shot Tom Jones’s excellent Bullseye 1000 test, scoring a respectable 835-9X.
One of the most interesting bits of data from this week was running the F.A.S.T. fifty times to create a baseline as well as to compare to last year’s HK45 test. Here are the results from the last series with the HK and the G17:
| HK 45: 27-Oct-2010 | G17: 24-Mar-2011 | |
| Average (total) | 5.46 | 5.50 |
| Average (raw time) | 4.50 | 4.66 |
| Best run | 4.14 | 4.21 |
| Worst run | 8.46 | 8.69 |
| Head hits | 80% | 83% |
| Body hits | 98% | 98% |
| Draw (avg) | 1.43 | 1.56 |
| Head split (avg) | 0.45 | 0.45 |
| Reload (avg) | 1.94 | 2.01 |
| Body splits (avg) | 0.23 | 0.21 |
Of course, as I’ve said before it’s cheating to shoot the F.A.S.T. more than three times per day, but as I’ve already got my challenge coin (and I consider myself disqualified from setting the world record, not that I see myself beating Sevigny’s run any time soon) it’s an interesting way to gather comparative information. Counting only the first three runs each day, my scores were:
Monday 21-Mar
- 4.41 (-1H): 1.50, .42 / 1.91 / .20, .20, .18
- 4.42 (c): 1.48, .50 / 1.87 / .19, .19, .19
- 4.38 (c): 1.52, .40 / 1.92 / .20, .17, .17
Wednesday 23-Mar
- 4.97 (c): 1.57, .68 / 2.00 / .27, .23, .22
- 4.84 (c): 1.68, .64 / 1.90 / .21, .20, .21
- 4.78 (-1H / -1B): 1.65, .46 / 2.05 / .21, .21, .20
The Monday runs were trying to push myself with the new gun, and I was happy with the results. The Wednesday runs I was trying to straddle the speed limit and get a long row of clean sub-5 runs, but completely messed up on the third try.
There are three big changes for me switching to the Glock:
- Magazine release button on the left side of the gun (actuated with my strong hand thumb). For the past thirteen or so years, I’ve shot Berettas, SIGs, Smiths, and HKs all using my trigger finger to hit either the reversed or ambidextrous mag catch. With the Glock, the catch is too far back for me to get reliable contact with my trigger finger unless I twist the gun in my hand, while I can reach it without much movement using my thumb. It is going to take time to relearn that technique, however. A few times, I’ve failed to hit the catch hard enough and the magazine has hung up.
- Heavy Glock trigger. I’ve set my pistol up with the factory “-” connector and NY1 trigger spring. When mated to the gen4 trigger bar, I’m getting about a 7.5# trigger pull. That is about 25% heavier than I’d like, but it’s the lightest weight I can get using stock parts and the NY1 trigger spring. The pull is smooth, though, and rolls through the break nicely. I’m going to stick with this configuration for the first 10,000 rounds and then if I decide to switch away from the NY1 trigger spring, I’d be doing it at the same interval when the standard coil trigger spring would be replaced as part of preventative maintenance anyway.
- Ameriglo i-dot Pro sights. These sights are working out far better than I would have predicted. I first used them a few weeks back when Glock loaned me a pistol for the Atlanta Aim Fast, Hit Fast class and now that I’ve put another three thousand rounds downrange I’m a believer. There’s still a learning curve, though, and it’s taking some time to acclimate to the big Hackathorn front sight. Once I’ve had a few more weeks of serious shooting with them, I’ll do a separate write up all about them.
The most noticeable difference so far has been first shot speed on the F.A.S.T. Between the heavier (and much different, compared to LEM) trigger and different sights, my press outs need a lot of work.
So there you have it. Conspiracy theories and other internet lunacy notwithstanding, the test continues. See you next week.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
Previous Glock 17 gen4 Endurance Test posts at pistol-training.com:
- 99.8%
- It Lives
- Week Zero
- When Will It Stop?
- Announcement
Glad the gun seems to be working now, although switching out the whole extractor assembly kind of takes it far enough away from a stock Gen4 G17’s form that I’m not sure this test is a really a representative test of a Gen4 G17 anymore… it seems to be more a “custom configuration” than “stock”..? Not exactly the same, but a bit like running a reliability test on an off-the-shelf 1911, installing an AFTEC to cure extraction problems, and then continuing the test as if it where stock.
In the past you’ve swapped some springs here and there to get a trigger feel you were after, this seems to be above beyond that, swapping parts to fix a problem is different IMO.
Any reason you haven’t just flipped the mag release around guessing not to require Gen4 mags)?
Chuck, he already said he didn’t flip it because it’s too far back to get a reliable press without turning his hand.
I have mixed feelings on continuing the test with the swapped extractor. It kind of goes against the concept of testing an off the shelf gun.
Good to hear! Hopefully the gun proofs his reliability over the next weeks.
Since I know you’re a data packrat, how’s it compare to the first FAST runs with the HK45, rather than the last ones?
(I’m curious, because while the Glock’s trigger pull is heavier, it’s also shorter, and I’d expected a noticeable difference in splits due to shooting the 9 minimal…)
Great report. That’s a heavy trigger alright. I’ve seen a few folks report weighing the Gen 4 with only a “-” connector at around 5 lbs even. The take up is pretty firm and even. Have you tried that yet on anyone else’s gun yet? Anyway, sounds like a good plan to run it as set up for first 10K.
BTW the “-” connector is how all four of our Gen 4’s are setup.
I am with Jeff having to switch out the extractor yourself to get the gun running on a BRAND NEW gun is just crazy. It really defeats the purpose of the whole thing. I carry a Glock everyday all the time and it makes me mad that they are just imprioving themselves out of existence.
Todd, this isn’t YOUR endurance test. 😉
We still need to see how the new RSA design and “hogged out” frame holds up for 50K rounds. Some have predicted disaster. I already knew that four Gen 4 9mms will run great out of the box. What I don’t know is the long term endurance. There are several other design changes that will be interesting to watch age over the course of that much shooting.
I’ve found the Gen4 trigger bar with the dimple to be the cause of the now “heavier” Glock triggers. My Gen4 17 had a terrible stock trigger. I tossed the Gen4 trigger in the trash and replaced it with a Gen3 trigger bar assembly. The trigger was much lighter afterwards with no other work performed. I’d say as long as you’re swapping out Gen4 parts for Gen3 parts you might as well put in a Gen3 trigger bar and see if that helps the trigger pull weight. If nothing else this test will show how to take an ill Gen4 Glock and turn it into a reliable pistol.
Todd,
Keep up the great work!
You know I bet it was the Extreme Super Moon that was causing the problems.
I’m on the fence on this test now. I kind of agree that the if the parts weren’t sent by Glock to address your problems, that it is sort of meaningless in the whole scheme of “Gen IV” testing.
Dear Todd,
This exercise has failed to be valid as a be-all, end-all Test of All Gen4 Glocks Everywhere. No need to stop the test, but if you could just turn it into a one-data-point kind of thing, where it’s sort of just “a year with a G17/4 in the high-round-count life of ToddG,” I think we’d all appreciate it. Then we could sit back and enjoy the show, sit at the edge of our seats to see who wins the next silly competition, and maybe learn a thing or two about installing the right parts in the right orientation.
Likewise with the sights and the triggers. Stop forcing us to buy whatever gun you’re testing. Stop insisting that we configure our pistol with the same springs and upgrades as you do. But above all, stop pretending like our guns will exhibit exactly the same behavior as yours.
Also, what are the part numbers for the 17T extractor parts?
Thanks in advance,
Consternated in Computerland
How is carry comfort compared to the HK45?
Todd, I’ve followed your endurance tests of the M&P 9mm, P30, and HK 45 with great fevor. I can’t help but this test runs against what the previous tests were about.
We all know 9mm Gen 3 Glocks run like raped apes. The real question on everyone’s mind is will a stock Gen 4 run the same way? I feel like this part swap is not adequately answering that question. In my humble opinion, this seems to diminish the goal of the test.
MDS
Really?
I’ve kept my mouth shut through some pretty odd stuff being said on here. But when I read your post I had to speak up……but then I realized that’s exactly what you want.
So I’d like just to ask nicely that negative comments be kept to yourself.
I’m not a ToddG flag waver so before you go there I’d like to stop you. I’m a Pistol-Training.com reader that enjoys learning from professionals. I don’t enjoy petty ill-conceived rants of adolescent delirium.
Jeff H
Jeff H,
I took MDS’ post to be tongue in cheek. Maybe I misinterpreted it?
SLG and MDS
Then I apologize. I guess I should have kept my mouth shut. Don’t I feel stupid.
“factory “-” connector and NY1 trigger spring”
That is the way ALL my glocks are set up. Yes a very consistant not-stacking 7-8 lb trigger and that’s fine with me. 25 yard head shots with my Glock 27, Winchester T series 155gr JHPs, standing, two handed, and a IDPA target. Every shot makes it well within the head zone (it helps having a glock rear sight tool to get it right on.)
Your 17 should now just run and run. Mine has passed the 1000 round mark in a Glock .vs. 1911 match were we had to shoot 1000 with no cleaning. Of course mine is a Gen 2!
Keep it up! I think Farnam is at 175,000 rounds out of his Glock 17.
SLG,
“Maybe I misinterpreted it?”
Gawd, I hope not, but who can tell on the intertubes?
SLG, Jeff H, Tam,
Totally tongue-in-cheek. I actually put “;) for the humor impaired” at the end of the post, then deleted it before I hit submit. Don’t feel too bad, though – after GNAR’s comments on the 99.8% post, you might be a little primed for rampant insipidness.
The truth is that I really enjoy Todd’s tests for what they are – one man’s experiences with a particular sample. Todd’s experience, his clear writing, and most especially his mild ocd regarding record-keeping, make for insightful, informative reading. But when folks cry foul because it’s not possible to extrapolate the Universal Laws of Everything from Todd’s experiences and preferences, it’s highly distracting and more than a little annoying.
And frankly, I’d had a long day and was feeling belligerent. 😉
A question on scoring the FAST. Does a miss add a time penalty or does a miss mean that run is invalid? Or something else?
Todd’s score posted above shows a miss, but I don’t see a time penalty and he obviously kept the score.
Tony B,
A miss adds time. 1 sec. for body shots, 2 sec. for head shots. Your score is your total time. Todd may be tracking other things at this point, since shooting for score is kinda moot now.
MDS,
No big deal, I thought it was funny. I’m always careful (well, not always) to add an emoticon, but it annoys me to do so.
Tam,
You’re certainly right about the “intertubes.” I’ve been misunderstood a few times…I’m sure it will happen again.
I’m genuinely surprised by the consternation over the test. I guess I don’t see changing the extractor as much different than changing the sear in the M&P in ’08 or the hammer spring in the P30 in ’09.
If we just stopped the test and started with another G17, Glock gets a free pass. I’m not willing to do that. If I kept shooting it with the bad extractor, what would that have proved?
The gun didn’t work so it was fixed. Unlike previous tests (which were factory supported), this repair came as a result of Google, Glock Talk, and some spare parts… just like anyone else would do.
As for the FAST scores, I always record them that way. So 5.12 -1H equals a 7.12, etc.
I don’t get all of the heartburn either. The gun didn’t work out of the box. The extractor was replaced, with a Glock part, and the gun now works. That’s precisely what would I would do with my own gun. Let’s get on with the test.
As somebody thinking hard about jumping on the Gen4 train, I very much approve of Todd’s approach here. If I ended up with a gun that had issues that could be fixed with a simple part swap out, I’m all for it. Most of the “experts” you come across on the internet don’t have nearly the volume of fire that Todd does, which makes me a bit dubious of their conclusions. Hell, Todd’s put more rounds through this gun in one week than many people will in the entirety of the time they own a gun.
In some ways, I’m actually glad Todd got a “bad” gun for this reason.
IMO if it’s utilizing Glock parts, it’s still a Glock.
Now if Todd swapped the entire slide for a Lone Wolf, that would be a different gun.
Todd, Is the extractor not an integral design change that differentiates the G4 from some other generations? And isn’t the extractor you installed not readily available? So for a guy out there like me that currently doesn’t own a Glock but is considering a G4 myself, can I really go out and buy a G4 and expect the same results you’ve experienced since the first 500 round fiasco? For me, and possibly a few others, I see the test as something I can’t relate too.
Glock changed the extractors in late model Gen 3 guns as well, it’s not unique to the Gen 4.
Todd:
1. I have an early Gen 4 G-22. When I ran it with the NY1 spring and a (-) connector, the trigger pull was about 7.5 pounds also. I put in a Gen 3 trigger bar to make diassembly easier, and it dropped the trigger pull to just a bit over 6.5 pounds. You might want to try that.
2. I don’t know why people are complaining about this test or your fixes, but I think your tests are outstanding and add significant data for the rest of us. The problem with the ejector is an example. A lot of people are having problems with Gen 4’s and by identifying the ejector as a possible source of the trouble you have alerted us to a potential fix. Keep it up.
3. Of course, we do have to hate you for shooting a 25 yard group like that. Personally, I can barely see the bullseye at 25 yards, much less shoot a less than two inch group with a non-target pistol.
Todd,
I think the reason this seems different from your previous tests is that-
Well, when you had the P30 spring that was out of spec, it was replaced with a P30 spring. And when the MP9 sear was replaced, it was replaced with an MP9 sear.
And when the Gen4 extractor was broken, it was replaced with…*not* a Gen4 extractor. Which makes your gun not entirely Gen4, it’s a one-off. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just not going to be universally perceived as in the same spirit of the previous tests. It makes one wonder if, had you replaced the extractor with another Gen4 extractor, the issues would have persisted.
Either way, I’m going to keep reading.
Actually, in the P30 test, HK replaced the P30 LEM spring that came in the gun with one from a different variant.
For the purpose of increasing reliability?
Yes.
Aaron, there is no Gen 4 extractor. The LCI extractor was tweaked in late Gen 3 guns.
It seems very important to “prove” the Gen 4 design is a problem. It may well be somewhere, but the LCI extractor which appears to have been problematic for this gun, predates the Gen 4 and there have been reports of 2010 Gen 3’s with this same issue.
Unless the long-term endurance test has evolved into: “can ToddG get a gun to run for a year doing what ever he has to?”, I can’t see why you would continue it at this point.
When one goes into their LGS and comes home with a Gen4 G17 they get the extractor assembly it was shipped with, not the non-LCI-assembly from an older model… changing connectors and even springs is more a matter of feel as the parts are readily available and practically ubiquitous, not so with the older non-LCI-extractor assemblies.
I say either re-install the stock extractor parts and continue the Gen4 test in “as-shipped” stock form or just abandon the test, as IMHO continuing like this ruins or at the very least erodes the reputation of legitimacy associated with your tests over the last three years. Maybe modify the test and run an older Glock side-by-side, perhaps the older non-LCI-extractor equipped guns, but the test as it stands now in an empirical sense has no “control” anymore, and clear observer-effect and observer-bias.
In short, if the gun is found to be so unreliable that you cannot continue the test as you can’t safely carry it or reliably teach without distraction with the specimen, then so be it, don’t go moving the goal posts…
There have been some interesting thoughts on this test. Just like one P30 running well doesn’t mean that all P30’s run well, one gen 4 Glock running poorly doesn’t mean that all gen 4 Glocks run poorly.
Having said that, and as far as I’m concerned, THIS gen 4 Glock failed “the test.” We’ve all had earlier generation Glocks run really well, so the idea that a Glock can run well is not new. Given the fairly widespread reports of unreliability with the Gen 4’s, I know I won’t be looking for one anytime soon.
I’ve got to disagree that the test should be scrapped. It’s no secret that many Gen 4 G17’s and 19’s have had problems (some 22’s and 23’s also–including mine). Stopping the test now merely says, yep, that’s right, there are problems.
If Todd can get the 17 to run and return to normal Glock reliability by putting in an older extractor then he will have highlighted a potential fix that others can use. To put it another way, he will have shown how at least one Gen. 4 was made reliable by a simple fix.
However, if he starts having FTE’s and FTF’s again, it is going to raise concerns about the underlying reliability of Gen 4’s, and if that is a valid concern it needs to be known.
In addition, this type of information could help pinpoint what the basic problem is. My guess is that the tolerances are simply too tight in Gen 4’s. Notice how Todd had to beat the pins out of the frame. I’ve had to do the same thing–something I never saw on a Glock before. The extractor issue suggests to me a similar cause.
Anyway, no matter how this winds up, I think that the data Todd is generating is exceptionally valuable. To date, his torture tests have validated the M&P, the P30 and the HK45 as pistols that can survive a beating. I think that this test has the potential to help make or break the Gen 4 and I urge Todd to keep it up.
1. Has the test advanced the understanding of pistolcraft? Yes.
2. Has the test demonstrated a reliable fix for a Gen4 Glock? Perhaps.
3. Is this still an endurance test? No. The pistol failed the test.
If a novice asked me, “Should I buy a Glock?” I’d respond, “Not a Gen4,” and forward a link to this blog.
Most people aren’t capable of doing this work on their own, diagnosing it, or learning how to be a Glock armorer. Moreover, how many LE agencies can say, “Um, yeah, you know those hundreds of Gen4’s we ordered? We need to order hundreds of the Gen 3 extractors so our people don’t die in reliance on their sidearm.”
My suggestion:
Stop the test, say “The Gen4 is a piece of crap out of the box,” and run a Gen3 for comparison.
THAT’s drama.
Postscript: This blog is important enough for Glock to look up and say, “We f’ed up” and change their practices. Shoot the Gen3 and prove a point.
I really dont know what to think about this test right now but Im looking forward to the i-dot pro write up.
Todd-
My apologies. I went back to the archives to check and still didn’t see that… my mistake. I begin to further understand your point.
JoeC-
Okay. I am simply pointing out that if the Gen4 comes with the LCI extractor, and most Gen3s didn’t, then the LCI extractor will be referred to as a Gen4 extractor. It may not be accurate at an armorer’s or gunsmith’s level of understanding, but it will suffice for most users.
In other words, the LCI extractor is primarily identified with the Gen4 Glocks, as it was present in a relatively small minority of Gen3s.
I think it might be important to “prove” a design flaw in the Glock Gen4, just as it would be for any other pistol. Because if there is one, people who use a sidearm for any sort of defensive purpose should maybe not find out about it at 2:00AM during a traffic stop gone sideways.
Maybe I’m a bit personally invested, as my father just bought a Glock 26 for carry on my recommendation (based on my experience with a early Gen3, FTR).
Aaron – I guess this needs to be stated AGAIN.
Gen3 Glocks have been coming with LCIs for YEARS. Your generalization is just wrong.
My recent Gen3 guns have the exact same extractor as my 2 Gen4 guns.
2002 SHOT Show Report:
http://www.cybershooters.org/shot_show_2002.htm
“The most notable (because all guns will have it) is the new extractor, which has a lump on it that protrudes from the gun when the chamber is loaded, otherwise known as a loaded chamber indicator”
The problem is the design was updated since it’s release, and is now occasionally problematic. This updated design is appearing in Gen3 AND Gen4 guns, since (early) 2010. It’s not generation specific.
Mitch:
I hear what you are saying, but still disagree. To my mind the Gen 4 gets a lot of things right–the backstrap, the texturing, the re-subdued slide, and for the .40’s the new recoil spring (the middle finger on my shooting hand–which always got pinched by the Gen. 3’s–will sign an affidavit that the double spring reduces felt recoil). Unfortunately, too many of them don’t work with Glock reliability.
While most of us aren’t Glock armorers, those who already own Gen 4’s (a lot have been sold) can potentially learn a lot from these tests.
In addition, maybe it will help Glock fix the problem. They obviously thought it was a recoil spring issue in the 9 mm’s (and were partly right) but the extractor issue looks to be maybe even more significant.
I hear you when you say that Glock messed up (clearly it did), but I think what Glock needs now is data to help them generate their internal fixes. If this 17 now runs like a top, they will have one more–very public–data point indicating that they have an extractor problem. And just maybe they will also go back to the looser tolerances that made Glocks what they were.
@ James V:
Le sigh.
“I guess this needs to be stated AGAIN.
Gen3 Glocks have been coming with LCIs for YEARS. Your generalization is just wrong.
My recent Gen3 guns have the exact same extractor as my 2 Gen4 guns.”
Followed by a statement that the redesign featured in the Gen4 was started in early 2010. This being early 2011, that is one year. No plural. Since the third generation Glocks were first released in the late ’90s I would say my generalization that the majority of Gen3 Glocks feature the non-problematic extractor stands.
If you’re just wanting to get caught up on the presence of an LCI with the gun (when to this point, the terms have been used rather interchangeably in this thread), rather than talking about what everyone else was (the extractor that appears-based on data available so far-to be unreliable) well, sure. Congratulations. You found someone who was *wrong* on the internet, and you fixed ’em real good with your all-caps words and your sarcasm.
Todd, I for one don’t see the parts exchange you did to get the gun running smoothly to be such a “deal breaker” as other apparently do. I also don’t recall anyone calling “foul” when you announced that unlike the S&W and the HK weapons, the Glock testing would not be supported by Smyrna, breaking previous protocol. Which I might gamble to say may have resolved your extractor problem before the testing had started.
If I purchased a firearm and it does not work correctly, I contact the manufacturer and work with them to resolve the issue and carry-on smartly. You did the replacement on your own not wanting to hold-up testing…good for you. So, I would give any mind to the anal-retentive rants of some. Continue on and we look forward to your postings.
If the extractor could be readily purchased, I wouldn’t see continuing the test to be a problem. However…if the replacement extractor can’t be easily purchased, I think continued with the gen4/old extractor is a waste of ammo.
If there is ever to be the “Gen 3.5” 9mm which has only begun to be rumored – pounding the crap out of this Gen 4 may hasten that. So pound on!
I don’t see why the test has to be stopped – it just has a giant asterisk next to it.
“This gun sucked monkey balls from the factory due to a poor extractor.”
Continued torture testing will test the *rest* of the gun – see if the springs, barrel, what have you hold up. If it finds problems with the extractor, that’s an extra data point that you can’t just fix the extractor problem with an older model. If it finds problems with something else, you can *probably* conclude that that problem will happen with a Gen4 style extractor as well.
It has already failed the test, but it’s still useful to see what score it failed by.
As an aside, Do we know how Glock manufactures small parts like the extractor? Is is forged, milled, wire EDMed?
Like an earlier user said it could be a building tolerance issue, with some guns getting in a good range and Todd’s gun unfortunatly being out of range.
But what happens to those other guns once they get some wear? How long will it be before they all hit that point? How many other tight spec components might fail?
I was originally in the stop the test camp, but with the number of Gen4s out here I think this is the best way to get some data on some of the other newly spec-ed components in the gun. And who else knows of anyone who will do it in an honest and forthright manner like Todd does?