Glock 47 MOS

[JHC]

Did you shoot the 47 ?

Did you shoot the 47 slide on the 19 frame ?

In dry handling the 47 feels like a 17, but when you shoot it, the recoil impulse and tracking is noticeably better.

IME about 1/3 of people shoot the G17 grip 10-15% better, 1/3 shoot the G19 grip better and 1/3 shoot both about the same.

I’m a G17 grip person but YMMV so shooting both the 47 and the 47 slide on a G19 grip are necessary to make any real determination.

If how guns feel in the hand dry was an accurate measure of performance I would be shooting S&W M&Ps, VP9s etc. I feel great but I don’t shoot them because timers and Targets don’t lie.

I hesitate to say such things because I can't back it up with any hard data empirically but dang if I don't believe that 100%. It's the best handling Glock I've shot IMO.




D2s and D3s SHO all from 7 yds.

[Robinson]

Did you shoot the 47 ?

Did you shoot the 47 slide on the 19 frame ?

In dry handling the 47 feels like a 17, but when you shoot it, the recoil impulse and tracking is noticeably better.

IME about 1/3 of people shoot the G17 grip 10-15% better, 1/3 shoot the G19 grip better and 1/3 shoot both about the same.

I’m a G17 grip person but YMMV so shooting both the 47 and the 47 slide on a G19 grip are necessary to make any real determination.

If how guns feel in the hand dry was an accurate measure of performance I would be shooting S&W M&Ps, VP9s etc. I feel great but I don’t shoot them because timers and Targets don’t lie.

I actually owned a G47 briefly, and it was a nice pistol. For some reason I just think the G17/G47 grip doesn't work for me, whereas the G19 grip does. I'd really like to try the setup that you and @JHC mentioned -- A G47 slide on a G19 frame. Sounds like a good option, but then it takes two pistols to make one and I don't need a G45.

[Cool Breeze]

If you like the 17 why are you assuming you won't like the 47? And why are you assuming that changing the recoil spring will make the pistol less reliable/functional?

I could just as easily ask why is there the assumption that changing the recoil spring (by shortening it and adding mass to the slide) will have no effect on reliability or functionality? I provided why I question that assumption in my previous post. If Glock made this gun to meet a contract requirement that was based on easier inventory controls and not improving the function of the pistol - I think that this is a reasonable question. It was widely reported on this site that the changes to the Gen5 19 (from the gen 4) were based on the FBI contract which required improving the functional/shooting requirements of the pistol (namely accuracy) - so that seems in line with the usual standards of Glock evolution of its pistol design. In the Glock Performance Trigger thread, multiple people (who seem to be in the know) claim that Glock takes an incredibly long time to develop and test new updates because they want to maintain their reputation of reliability. This rollout seems a little haphazard to me. That being said, maybe Glock had this idea in the works for awhile, did extensive testing, and whispered it to the feds who then decided to put it in their contract requirements and voila here we are. My present understanding is that is not the way it worked but I could be wrong.

Nobody is complaining about the change to a standard locking block. I'm surprised someone isn't claiming he can feel the difference in recoil with the change from the legacy 17 locking block in the G.5 guns.

I actually did think of this but only started googling it after I made my original post in this thread. I actually think its an interesting question and as fan of Glock products, I would love to know why they changed the locking block. Did it have to do with function of the pistol or was it a manufacturing/inventory/parts decision?

[Noah]

I could just as easily ask why is there the assumption that changing the recoil spring (by shortening it and adding mass to the slide) will have no effect on reliability or functionality? I provided why I question that assumption in my previous post. If Glock made this gun to meet a contract requirement that was based on easier inventory controls and not improving the function of the pistol - I think that this is a reasonable question. It was widely reported on this site that the changes to the Gen5 19 (from the gen 4) were based on the FBI contract which required improving the functional/shooting requirements of the pistol (namely accuracy) - so that seems in line with the usual standards of Glock evolution of its pistol design. In the Glock Performance Trigger thread, multiple people (who seem to be in the know) claim that Glock takes an incredibly long time to develop and test new updates because they want to maintain their reputation of reliability. This rollout seems a little haphazard to me. That being said, maybe Glock had this idea in the works for awhile, did extensive testing, and whispered it to the feds who then decided to put it in their contract requirements and voila here we are. My present understanding is that is not the way it worked but I could be wrong.


I actually did think of this but only started googling it after I made my original post in this thread. I actually think its an interesting question and as fan of Glock products, I would love to know why they changed the locking block. Did it have to do with function of the pistol or was it a manufacturing/inventory/parts decision?

I think they changed the 17/34 to the 19 lock block because it paved the way for "modularity" as now found in the G19/45/47 family

[Cool Breeze]

I think they changed the 17/34 to the 19 lock block because it paved the way for "modularity" as now found in the G19/45/47 family

This is an interesting point that their motivation was "modularity." Knowing Glock's traditionally longer r&d periods, this could have been in the works as Glock's response to the modularity "success" of the P320 for several years before the CBP contract. Being as the company's bread and butter is reliability and track record (and not innovative designs), I think these are interesting questions. However, while I'm a fan of Glocks, the company is not immune to bad decisions (the extraction issues of the later gen3/gen4 9mm guns is just one example of that) - which is why I'm curious.

[Lon]

I actually owned a G47 briefly, and it was a nice pistol. For some reason I just think the G17/G47 grip doesn't work for me, whereas the G19 grip does. I'd really like to try the setup that you and @JHC mentioned -- A G47 slide on a G19 frame. Sounds like a good option, but then it takes two pistols to make one and I don't need a G45.

Do what I did to make mine. Buy a 47 and trade the frame for a G19.5 frame. I’m sure some 19 owner would rather have a 45.

[Tokarev]

This is an interesting point that their motivation was "modularity." Knowing Glock's traditionally longer r&d periods, this could have been in the works as Glock's response to the modularity "success" of the P320 for several years before the CBP contract. Being as the company's bread and butter is reliability and track record (and not innovative designs), I think these are interesting questions. However, while I'm a fan of Glocks, the company is not immune to bad decisions (the extraction issues of the later gen3/gen4 9mm guns is just one example of that) - which is why I'm curious.

Several tens of thousands of G47s have been in use across US Border Patrol and Air and Marine locations nationwide. Guns are being used in everything from coastal salt water locations to snow and cold and desert locations. The guns have generally been working well outside of the tendency to shoot holes in stuff as part of the disassembly process. CBP isn't the first agency to experience issues with this when moving over to the Glock. And they won't be the last....

The only thing that seems to be a somewhat issue is the mags. A dozen or more witness holes in the mag body is a good pathway for the introduction of dust and dirt and the mags aren't the easiest to take apart for constant cleaning. But the witness holes aren't anything new nor is the difficulty in field stripping.

Aside from this, we've seen a small handful of recoil springs that have bent or even come unriveted. But this is something that has been seen occasionally since the intro of the Gen 4 dual spring. It isn't widespread as far as I know and is probably caught by simply looking things over during routine inspection. Replace the spring if the washer that interfaces with the barrel is starting to look a little wavy.

I'd speculate, given the time from CBP solicitation to adoption, that the G47 concept was already well vetted internally by Glock. The concept could have been developed as part of the G19X military stuff or it could have been in the works as simply part of an effort to streamline and simplify production. Or it could have been requested by some foreign military or police force. Or it could have been rushed into production to meet the CBP modularity requirements. I guess only Glock engineers know for sure.



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

Gen 5 guns did have an issue with the new ambi slide release spring wearing a bit of plastic away inside the frame. The issue has been fixed, as far as I know, with a spring that's slightly larger diameter. The issue was discovered by AZ DPS and Glock was very quick to fix it. This was before CBP adoption and has not been an issue with the G47. Again as far as I know.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[WobblyPossum]

@Tokarev, I remember some discussion on the parameters of the CBP contract testing that NIJ performed but don’t remember the specifics. Would you be able to summarize what the guns went through in testing? Might help to assuage some of these concerns too.

[Tokarev]

@Tokarev, I remember some discussion on the parameters of the CBP contract testing that NIJ performed but don’t remember the specifics. Would you be able to summarize what the guns went through in testing? Might help to assuage some of these concerns too.

Prospective guns were submitted to accuracy, durability and reliability tests. This included some environmental tests. Guns were also submitted to safety tests that included drops, etc.



Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk