JonInWA
11-11-2015, 04:43 PM
I recently won a Glock award certificate at a local GSSF match, so it was decision time.
While all 5 of my Glocks were Gen 3 guns, and in either 9mm or .45 ACP, I decided on two things from the onset: First, that the pistol would be in .40, and Second, would be a Gen4.
Here is my logic and thought process behind my decision:
1. While I'm hardly the biggest proponent of the .40 cartridge (I'm pretty firmly in the camp that current credible 9mm cartridges do whatever a .40 will do, with less drama (i.e., pressure spike profile/recoil force/platform wear), less per-cartridge expense, and lower per-cartridge weight, and, for those concerned, generally greater magazine capacity, there's the undeniable fact that the .40 still is a credible cartridge (particularly in DocGKR-recommended selections), and in the previous two ammunition shortages/crazes, was often the only easily (and consistently) available cartridge, with concurrently reasonable prices-at least in my particular neck of the woods (Seattle metro area).
2. Glock (finally) designed the platform around the cartridge; the Gen4 G22 (and others) were designed around and optimized for the .40 cartridge, rather than being a work-around 9mm adaptation; this is particularly evident in the dual-nested, triple sprung Recoil Spring Assembly (unfortunately, however, that ironically placed the Gen4 G17s as being in the position of being a work-around adaptation of the Gen4 G22-and the initial results were not pretty...)
3. After a five year period, I was reasonably confident that Glock had in fact successfully ironed out the bugs in the Gen4 G22, some of which cropped up immediately after its introduction and persisted for some time;
4. I liked the re-designed texturing of the grip's cubids, and the provision of not only size-alternative backstraps, but also the additional provision of the size-and-beavertail alternative backstraps, what Glock calls their MBS (Multiple Backstrap System).
Upgrading my certificate to a Gen4 gun required $35, which seemed eminently reasonable-in addition to the Gen4 upgrades, the Gen4's ship with 3 magazines instead of the 2 normally provided with the concurrently available Gen 3 Glocks.
Due to Glock's production and distributor allocation process, it took about 4.5 months, from award certificate announcement to the gun being in my hand. Hey, it's a free gun, so I won't complain.
Upon arrival, I immediately had the Seattle Police Dept Armorer replace the OEM polymer sights with a set of Glock steel sights. They were NOS, so they're actually tennifer treated, a nice anti-corrosive benefit. While the front sight is large and blocky, with small light bars present when aligned with the rear sight, I've actually had very good-actually, surprisingly good-results with my previous G17 and G19 with these sights. Plus, they're dirt-cheap-only $12 per sight. While eventually I may migrate to the Warren Tacticals that I have on my G34, or the Warren-Sevigney Carry sights on my G21, or the Trijicon's which were the OEM sights on my other G19, for the time being I find the Glock steels to do well enough for my uses (carry, IDPA and GSSF competitions).
I also immediately replaced the slide stop lever with Glock's extended slide stop lever-I use this on all of my Glocks, and much prefer how it expedites simply thumbing the lever to go from slide-lock into battery. I have a mid-length magazine release lever inbound, although the OEM one has been adequate to date.
Additionally, I decided to install the mid-sized beavertail backstrap, hypothesizing that it would maintain platform triggerpull distance commonality with my similarly-sized/framed G17 and G34, and would provide a grip leverage advantage to mitigate against the pressure/recoil spike inherent to the .40 cartridge. While I'd previously read of user issues with the MBS (i.e., the top of the grip tang coming detached from the frame, and hanging off it), I have encountered not such issues when using the proper included long trigger mechanism housing pin, and insuring that it's properly installed with equal positioning on both sides of the receiver-there is sufficient housing sleeving provided on the inside of the backstrap to stabilize and secure the retaining pin. Additionally, on the current production Gen4s, the top of the beavertail strap "clicks in" to the top of the underlying top of the grip tang, providing additional installation securing.
I detail disassembled the gun, judiciously lubing critical contact/reciprocation points with TW25B, and used Weapon Shield for other protective lubrication.
Dryfiring and livefiring reveal that the Gen4 trigger seems to have a slightly, but noticeably heavier triggerpull than on Gen 3 Glocks. Presumably this is a result of the redesigned triggerbar (with the dimple incorporated on the vertical extension, and with the extended lower triggerbar dogleg incorporating a trough to mitigate against coil triggerspring fatigue), and possibly some concurrent subtle differences induced by the redesigned Trigger Mechanism Housing that holds the connector (mine of course is the Gen4 induced "dot" connector). While a bit heavier, the triggerpull is quite crisp and eminently manageable. It's been recommended to me that I stick with the OEM "dot" connector/coil triggerspring setup, as opposed to going to a "minus" connector/NY1 setup; reportedly the triggerpull becomes a bit mushy with the latter combination.
Initial familiarization and zeroing sessions revealed the following:
1. That the gun exhibited the not-uncommonly reported phenomenon of shooting slightly to the left (by 1.5" - 2" with the rear sight centered in the slide; judiciously drifting the sight to the relatively far right in the sight dovetail (almost to the far end of the dovetail on the right side) easily resolved the problem, achieving a center-hold POA/POI; the gun seems to slightly prefer 180gr bullets (compared to 165 gr cartridges). Superb results have been noticed with Federal HST 180 gr cartridges (their brass cartridge variant reportedly produced for one of the alphabet agencies).
2. Accuracy, at least to date, seems to be more than adequate, but unspectacular approximately 2" groups, with me shooting offhand at 7-15 yard distances to date. Some of that may well be me-we'll see how it is as I accrue more hammer time on the gun; I pan on shooting it in a hybrid 7 stage ASI/IDPA match this weekend.
3. I genuinely like, and appreciate the benefits provided by the Gen4 features-particularly the new RSA, grip texturing, and the beavertail backstrap. Over time, I'll do some due-diligence testing with the "naked" frame and alternative backstraps (both the plain and beavertail options).
4. The new black-gray oxidized outer finish currently applied has a matte sheen, but seems more susceptible to surface wear/rub marks than the previous matte/semi-gloss finish applied to my Gen 3 Glocks. Operationally,of course, this is of absolutely zero consequence.
5. The barrel has the "dot in the pentagon" marking, reputedly indicating the use of a stronger "Grade 6" steel. One of my Gen 3 G19s has a "pentagon without the dot" (Grade 5 steel), the other newer one has the "pentagon with a dot" marking. Hey, in .40, the stronger the better as far as I'm concerned-for both longevity and safety, although I'll likely only use commercially manufactured standard-pressure jacketed loadings in the G22.
6. Functioning to date has been absolutely flawless and with no "brass to face" ejection issues (although expended cartridges do seem to exit the gun with some velocity).
While it's unlikely to be one of my more heavily used Glocks in the long run, I do intend to invest sufficient time and roundcount on it to sufficiently wring it out and thoroughly familiarize myself with its character and performance envelopes. All of my existing Gen 3 holsters of course work, so that's an additional benefit/cost savings; I did recently have Tactical Tailor make up a Tanker rig for wilderness carry, sufficiently sized for use with all of my Glocks, from G19 to G21. For normal use, I usually gravitate towards my well-proven Blade-Tech kydex IWB that I had made for my G17.
I'll keep the forum posted if anything noteworthy or interesting develops.
Best, Jon
While all 5 of my Glocks were Gen 3 guns, and in either 9mm or .45 ACP, I decided on two things from the onset: First, that the pistol would be in .40, and Second, would be a Gen4.
Here is my logic and thought process behind my decision:
1. While I'm hardly the biggest proponent of the .40 cartridge (I'm pretty firmly in the camp that current credible 9mm cartridges do whatever a .40 will do, with less drama (i.e., pressure spike profile/recoil force/platform wear), less per-cartridge expense, and lower per-cartridge weight, and, for those concerned, generally greater magazine capacity, there's the undeniable fact that the .40 still is a credible cartridge (particularly in DocGKR-recommended selections), and in the previous two ammunition shortages/crazes, was often the only easily (and consistently) available cartridge, with concurrently reasonable prices-at least in my particular neck of the woods (Seattle metro area).
2. Glock (finally) designed the platform around the cartridge; the Gen4 G22 (and others) were designed around and optimized for the .40 cartridge, rather than being a work-around 9mm adaptation; this is particularly evident in the dual-nested, triple sprung Recoil Spring Assembly (unfortunately, however, that ironically placed the Gen4 G17s as being in the position of being a work-around adaptation of the Gen4 G22-and the initial results were not pretty...)
3. After a five year period, I was reasonably confident that Glock had in fact successfully ironed out the bugs in the Gen4 G22, some of which cropped up immediately after its introduction and persisted for some time;
4. I liked the re-designed texturing of the grip's cubids, and the provision of not only size-alternative backstraps, but also the additional provision of the size-and-beavertail alternative backstraps, what Glock calls their MBS (Multiple Backstrap System).
Upgrading my certificate to a Gen4 gun required $35, which seemed eminently reasonable-in addition to the Gen4 upgrades, the Gen4's ship with 3 magazines instead of the 2 normally provided with the concurrently available Gen 3 Glocks.
Due to Glock's production and distributor allocation process, it took about 4.5 months, from award certificate announcement to the gun being in my hand. Hey, it's a free gun, so I won't complain.
Upon arrival, I immediately had the Seattle Police Dept Armorer replace the OEM polymer sights with a set of Glock steel sights. They were NOS, so they're actually tennifer treated, a nice anti-corrosive benefit. While the front sight is large and blocky, with small light bars present when aligned with the rear sight, I've actually had very good-actually, surprisingly good-results with my previous G17 and G19 with these sights. Plus, they're dirt-cheap-only $12 per sight. While eventually I may migrate to the Warren Tacticals that I have on my G34, or the Warren-Sevigney Carry sights on my G21, or the Trijicon's which were the OEM sights on my other G19, for the time being I find the Glock steels to do well enough for my uses (carry, IDPA and GSSF competitions).
I also immediately replaced the slide stop lever with Glock's extended slide stop lever-I use this on all of my Glocks, and much prefer how it expedites simply thumbing the lever to go from slide-lock into battery. I have a mid-length magazine release lever inbound, although the OEM one has been adequate to date.
Additionally, I decided to install the mid-sized beavertail backstrap, hypothesizing that it would maintain platform triggerpull distance commonality with my similarly-sized/framed G17 and G34, and would provide a grip leverage advantage to mitigate against the pressure/recoil spike inherent to the .40 cartridge. While I'd previously read of user issues with the MBS (i.e., the top of the grip tang coming detached from the frame, and hanging off it), I have encountered not such issues when using the proper included long trigger mechanism housing pin, and insuring that it's properly installed with equal positioning on both sides of the receiver-there is sufficient housing sleeving provided on the inside of the backstrap to stabilize and secure the retaining pin. Additionally, on the current production Gen4s, the top of the beavertail strap "clicks in" to the top of the underlying top of the grip tang, providing additional installation securing.
I detail disassembled the gun, judiciously lubing critical contact/reciprocation points with TW25B, and used Weapon Shield for other protective lubrication.
Dryfiring and livefiring reveal that the Gen4 trigger seems to have a slightly, but noticeably heavier triggerpull than on Gen 3 Glocks. Presumably this is a result of the redesigned triggerbar (with the dimple incorporated on the vertical extension, and with the extended lower triggerbar dogleg incorporating a trough to mitigate against coil triggerspring fatigue), and possibly some concurrent subtle differences induced by the redesigned Trigger Mechanism Housing that holds the connector (mine of course is the Gen4 induced "dot" connector). While a bit heavier, the triggerpull is quite crisp and eminently manageable. It's been recommended to me that I stick with the OEM "dot" connector/coil triggerspring setup, as opposed to going to a "minus" connector/NY1 setup; reportedly the triggerpull becomes a bit mushy with the latter combination.
Initial familiarization and zeroing sessions revealed the following:
1. That the gun exhibited the not-uncommonly reported phenomenon of shooting slightly to the left (by 1.5" - 2" with the rear sight centered in the slide; judiciously drifting the sight to the relatively far right in the sight dovetail (almost to the far end of the dovetail on the right side) easily resolved the problem, achieving a center-hold POA/POI; the gun seems to slightly prefer 180gr bullets (compared to 165 gr cartridges). Superb results have been noticed with Federal HST 180 gr cartridges (their brass cartridge variant reportedly produced for one of the alphabet agencies).
2. Accuracy, at least to date, seems to be more than adequate, but unspectacular approximately 2" groups, with me shooting offhand at 7-15 yard distances to date. Some of that may well be me-we'll see how it is as I accrue more hammer time on the gun; I pan on shooting it in a hybrid 7 stage ASI/IDPA match this weekend.
3. I genuinely like, and appreciate the benefits provided by the Gen4 features-particularly the new RSA, grip texturing, and the beavertail backstrap. Over time, I'll do some due-diligence testing with the "naked" frame and alternative backstraps (both the plain and beavertail options).
4. The new black-gray oxidized outer finish currently applied has a matte sheen, but seems more susceptible to surface wear/rub marks than the previous matte/semi-gloss finish applied to my Gen 3 Glocks. Operationally,of course, this is of absolutely zero consequence.
5. The barrel has the "dot in the pentagon" marking, reputedly indicating the use of a stronger "Grade 6" steel. One of my Gen 3 G19s has a "pentagon without the dot" (Grade 5 steel), the other newer one has the "pentagon with a dot" marking. Hey, in .40, the stronger the better as far as I'm concerned-for both longevity and safety, although I'll likely only use commercially manufactured standard-pressure jacketed loadings in the G22.
6. Functioning to date has been absolutely flawless and with no "brass to face" ejection issues (although expended cartridges do seem to exit the gun with some velocity).
While it's unlikely to be one of my more heavily used Glocks in the long run, I do intend to invest sufficient time and roundcount on it to sufficiently wring it out and thoroughly familiarize myself with its character and performance envelopes. All of my existing Gen 3 holsters of course work, so that's an additional benefit/cost savings; I did recently have Tactical Tailor make up a Tanker rig for wilderness carry, sufficiently sized for use with all of my Glocks, from G19 to G21. For normal use, I usually gravitate towards my well-proven Blade-Tech kydex IWB that I had made for my G17.
I'll keep the forum posted if anything noteworthy or interesting develops.
Best, Jon