Would you prefer a new Glock 17 in Gen 3 or Gen 4?

[BJJ]

I am hoping to acquire a G17 shortly. Gen 3 and Gen 4 versions are both available locally. At this point, is there any difference in reliability between the two? Which would you prefer and why? I like the mag release on the Gen 4. Not as crazy about the backstraps. I carry an issued Gen 3 G22 for work so I was thinking maybe a Gen 3 G17 would be the way to go so that everything feels exactly the same as my work gun. Any input is appreciated.

[Kyle Reese]

My Gen 4 Glock 17 surpassed 8,300 trouble free rounds yesterday.

The gun was built in July of 2012, and was purchased from AIM Surplus in November 2012. If you're issued a Gen 3 at work, it might make sense to get a Gen 3 Glock 17. I was on the fence for several years before opting to pick up a Gen 4, and I've been very pleased with it.

I'd select the Gen 4.

[JV_]

I prefer the smaller grip and texture of the Gen4. I'd take the Gen4 every time.

[Jay Cunningham]

Not a 17, but my Gen4 19 is rocking really well - accurate and reliable.

[orionz06]

I have a stable of gen4's with all of them being recent, since the FDE run, and most have over 2-3k rounds without issues, one doing a 2k round challenge without failure. Just snagged a gen4 G34 and will grab another without concern.

The issues people were having appear to be resolved with the Apex FRE. A newer Gen 3 may have the same issues anyway.

[ST911]

gen4 Glocks incorporate several useful bits of product evolution and would be my choice. Those I see are doing very well.

[Matt O]

Unless you were able to score an RTF frame gen 3, my vote would definitely also be for the gen 4.

[Cookie Monster]

It makes a lot of sense to make your duty gun.

I like the texture and smaller size grip (without backstrap) of the GEN 4.

When running the gun left handed and hitting the mag release with my trigger finger I find the GEN 3 preferable.

Cheers,
Cookie Monster

[ST911]

When running the gun left handed and hitting the mag release with my trigger finger I find the GEN 3 preferable.

I don't want to drift the thread, but tell me more about this. (If there's a thread with this already discussed, got a pointer?)

[jlw]

I don't understand Glock making changes to the internals, but that is water under the bridge at this point.

I recently received a Gen4 19 as a prize for winning a GSSF match. I took it got the indoor range just to check the sights, it was very accurate in that outing. I very much like the beaver tail.

I despise the texturing. In fact, despise might not be strong word.

If the beaver tail option doesn't interest you, go with a Gen3.

[JonInWA]

I went through the same Hamlet-esque soliloquy when I also won a Glock in a GSSF match in 2101. At the time I had Gen 3 G17, G19, G21, G34; after eliminating the (for me) relative esoterica (G20, G29, G32, G38...) it made sense to have a second to what I had. After narrowing it down to a G17 or G19, I went with the G19. I chose to remain with the Gen 3 configuration, as 1) All my others were Gen 3s, and 2) The problems with the Gen4s had reared their head(s), and 3) One of my goals would be to have analog set-ups between guns, including receiver configurations.

After much thought, I chose to go with a Gen 3 G19. It came with the MIM "dip" extractor-which was immediately stripped out, relegated to the spares box, and replaced with a NOS extractor. The triggerbar was replaced with a NOS Gen 3 triggerbar with the smooth trigger, and no dogleg/channeled rear extension. The connector was replaced with an OEM "minus" connector, and the coil triggerspring was replaced with a NY1 spring. The slide stop/release was swapped out for a Glock extended slide stop/release, and the polymer sights were immediately switched out by the departmental armorer on delivery for a set of Glock steel sights. As such, except for the sights, the set-up is an analog for how my G34 is set up, expediting using both guns in a single match with multiple divisions, such as GSSF. This set-up is also quite viable for carry and IDPA.

A close friend of mine asked for my input recently regarding a pistol for his wife-Things were narrowed down to a HK2000 or Glock G19; the wife much preferred the G19, so I recommended the Gen 4 G19, as by that time enough time seemed to have transpired for Glock to have a handle on the Gen4 G19 issues. Since she preferred the NY1 trigger, we swapped out the coil trigger spring, and also swapped out the OEM flat slide stop/release for the Glock extended one which she much preferred. She did experience some "brass-to-head" extraction issues-Glock thoroughly went through the gun, totally at their expense, and we also subsequently discovered that such extraction issues seemed limited to Blazer Aluminum-they did not occur with brass cartridges.

She enjoys the Gen4 grip, magazine release and shortened frame profile (i.e., w/out any backstrap added).

All food for thought. If I were to have to choose today, I'd probably get a Gen4 G19, adding a set of Warren Tactical sights, a Glock extended slide stop/release, and I'd see how I liked the OEM "dot" connector with the OEM coil trigger spring-if not, I'd go the "minus" connector/NY1 route.

In retrospect after several years since the Gen4 introduction/mods, I really, really wish Glock had simply left the internals as things were/are with the Gen 3, and simply applied the Gen4 magazine release and more aggressive Gen4 grip polymids/stippling to the receiver, and called it good....While I like the shortened frame/alternative backstrap approach, that necessitated the modified trigger mechanism housing, which adversely apparently modified (made heavier) the triggerpull with the "standard" connector-requiring the initiation of the "dot" connector-so I initially wasn't all that overjoyed with the new receivers, now with the "dot" or "minus" they're now viable. Hopefully Glock has sorted out the extractor/ejector issues, and while the new metal treatment replacing the original Tenifer isn't quite as weather impervious, it's probably good enough-and since it's a product-line across-the-board change, it's not like there's a difference (or choice) between Gen 3 and Gen4 regarding it.

Best, Jon

[David Armstrong]

Gen 3. 'nuff said.

[Savage Hands]

After multiple Gen 3's, I prefer my latest Gen 4 17 and 19. The 19 did have erratic extraction and brass to the face that was cured when I tested Apex Tactical's prototype extractor. Besides that they seem to be more precise (though slightly to the left) and I prefer the texture and mag release.

[jlw]

I went through the same Hamlet-esque soliloquy when I also won a Glock in a GSSF match in 2101. At the time I had Gen 3 G17, G19, G21, G34; after eliminating the (for me) relative esoterica (G20, G29, G32, G38...) it made sense to have a second to what I had. After narrowing it down to a G17 or G19, I went with the G19. I chose to remain with the Gen 3 configuration, as 1) All my others were Gen 3s, and 2) The problems with the Gen4s had reared their head(s), and 3) One of my goals would be to have analog set-ups between guns, including receiver configurations.

After much thought, I chose to go with a Gen 3 G19. It came with the MIM "dip" extractor-which was immediately stripped out, relegated to the spares box, and replaced with a NOS extractor. The triggerbar was replaced with a NOS Gen 3 triggerbar with the smooth trigger, and no dogleg/channeled rear extension. The connector was replaced with an OEM "minus" connector, and the coil triggerspring was replaced with a NY1 spring. The slide stop/release was swapped out for a Glock extended slide stop/release, and the polymer sights were immediately switched out by the departmental armorer on delivery for a set of Glock steel sights. As such, except for the sights, the set-up is an analog for how my G34 is set up, expediting using both guns in a single match with multiple divisions, such as GSSF. This set-up is also quite viable for carry and IDPA.

A close friend of mine asked for my input recently regarding a pistol for his wife-Things were narrowed down to a HK2000 or Glock G19; the wife much preferred the G19, so I recommended the Gen 4 G19, as by that time enough time seemed to have transpired for Glock to have a handle on the Gen4 G19 issues. Since she preferred the NY1 trigger, we swapped out the coil trigger spring, and also swapped out the OEM flat slide stop/release for the Glock extended one which she much preferred. She did experience some "brass-to-head" extraction issues-Glock thoroughly went through the gun, totally at their expense, and we also subsequently discovered that such extraction issues seemed limited to Blazer Aluminum-they did not occur with brass cartridges.

She enjoys the Gen4 grip, magazine release and shortened frame profile (i.e., w/out any backstrap added).

All food for thought. If I were to have to choose today, I'd probably get a Gen4 G19, adding a set of Warren Tactical sights, a Glock extended slide stop/release, and I'd see how I liked the OEM "dot" connector with the OEM coil trigger spring-if not, I'd go the "minus" connector/NY1 route.

In retrospect after several years since the Gen4 introduction/mods, I really, really wish Glock had simply left the internals as things were/are with the Gen 3, and simply applied the Gen4 magazine release and more aggressive Gen4 grip polymids/stippling to the receiver, and called it good....While I like the shortened frame/alternative backstrap approach, that necessitated the modified trigger mechanism housing, which adversely apparently modified (made heavier) the triggerpull with the "standard" connector-requiring the initiation of the "dot" connector-so I initially wasn't all that overjoyed with the new receivers, now with the "dot" or "minus" they're now viable. Hopefully Glock has sorted out the extractor/ejector issues, and while the new metal treatment replacing the original Tenifer isn't quite as weather impervious, it's probably good enough-and since it's a product-line across-the-board change, it's not like there's a difference (or choice) between Gen 3 and Gen4 regarding it.

Best, Jon


I swapped out the Gen4 trigger bar for a polished Gen3 bar as soon as I took the pistol out of the box, and I installed a set of Ameriglo Hack sights.

I really like the break produced by the Gen3 trigger bar teamed with the "dot" connector. It is lighter than a standard connector but with a cleaner break than a minus connector. I got my hands on several dot connectors and stuck them in several of my Gen3 Glocks.

I chose the 19/4 simply due to wanting first hand experience with them figuring I could sell or trade it if I didn't like it. My last GSSF prize gun was a 19/3, and it was simply lacking compared to my venerable old 19; so, I traded it away.

[Chuck Haggard]

My answer would be dependent on what you carry off duty, if you shoot matches on the side, attend training on your own, etc.

If you carry the G22 off duty, shoot IDPA or go to training on your own, then I'd say the gen 3 G17 just to stick with a gun as much the same as your duty gun. If you haven't been carrying off duty then I'd vote for a G19 so that you have a smaller gun to induce you to carry more.

One advantage to the gen 4 G17 is that if it just different enough that you will be less likely to go to work with the wrong gun in your holster, or end up with the wrong reloads/magazines for one of your guns.

[JonInWA]

I swapped out the Gen4 trigger bar for a polished Gen3 bar as soon as I took the pistol out of the box, and I installed a set of Ameriglo Hack sights.

I really like the break produced by the Gen3 trigger bar teamed with the "dot" connector. It is lighter than a standard connector but with a cleaner break than a minus connector. I got my hands on several dot connectors and stuck them in several of my Gen3 Glocks.

I chose the 19/4 simply due to wanting first hand experience with them figuring I could sell or trade it if I didn't like it. My last GSSF prize gun was a 19/3, and it was simply lacking compared to my venerable old 19; so, I traded it away.

I've pretty much come to the same conclusion regarding the "dot" connector on Gen 3 (or earlier) Glocks. There are variances depending on the individual gun; On one of my Gen 3 G19s, with the "dot" connector, a Gen 3.5 triggerbar (i.e., with the "dogleg"/channelled lower coil spring attachment extension on the triggerbar) and a coil triggerspring, the resultant triggerpull is probably closer to 4 lbs, while on my Gen 3 G21 with exactly the same set-up it's a bit heavier. Reset on both is crisp, quick and discernible. Using the older "Gen 3" triggerbar (what with the flat/non-doglegged, unchanneled tail) would probably provide even a slightly lighter triggerpull.

Glock as realized that the "dot" connector probably provided performances closer to that with a "minus" connector than the "standard" connector on Gen 3 and earlier Glocks, so reportedly they're restricting providing them to Gen4 guns, requiring the gun's serial number prior to providing.

Best, Jon

[BJJ]

My answer would be dependent on what you carry off duty, if you shoot matches on the side, attend training on your own, etc.

If you carry the G22 off duty, shoot IDPA or go to training on your own, then I'd say the gen 3 G17 just to stick with a gun as much the same as your duty gun. If you haven't been carrying off duty then I'd vote for a G19 so that you have a smaller gun to induce you to carry more.

One advantage to the gen 4 G17 is that if it just different enough that you will be less likely to go to work with the wrong gun in your holster, or end up with the wrong reloads/magazines for one of your guns.

I do carry the G22 off duty, shoot IDPA and go to training on my own. However, I had not considered going with the Gen 4 to avoid confusion between the two guns which is a really good point. Realizing that I had just been in an on duty shooting with a gun that I was not issued and not authorized to carry at work would not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I think that may be the deciding factor. A friend on mine from work who is an awesome shooter and was our state's IDPA champ a few years ago competes with a Smith and Wesson M & P. There would certainly be a lot less difference between a Gen 4 and Gen 3 Glock than M & P and Glock.

Thanks to everybody for the thoughtful replies.

[Palmguy]

I have one Gen4 (a 19) and a half dozen Gen3s. I prefer the Gen4 grip texture and size, and mag release.

[jhprice]

Prefer my 1911 ist and foremost but my oldest boy has a gen 3 and 4 and if i had to choose i would go gen 4 hands down

jhp

[Up1911Fan]

I prefer the Gen4's grip texture, mag release and 3rd mag.

[GJM]

However, I had not considered going with the Gen 4 to avoid confusion between the two guns which is a really good point. Realizing that I had just been in an on duty shooting with a gun that I was not issued and not authorized to carry at work would not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I think that may be the deciding factor.

Currently, I am mostly training with a G4 G17, and carrying a G4 G22 with a KKM barrel and hard cast ammo. I had real concerns about getting confused with magazines -- spares and primary. To differentiate between 9 and 40, I went to Vickers base plates in FDE for my .40 magazines. Makes it very easy to tell 9 from 40.

[LSP972]

I went through the same Hamlet-esque soliloquy when I also won a Glock in a GSSF match in 2101. At the time I had Gen 3 G17, G19, G21, G34; after eliminating the (for me) relative esoterica (G20, G29, G32, G38...) it made sense to have a second to what I had. After narrowing it down to a G17 or G19, I went with the G19. I chose to remain with the Gen 3 configuration, as 1) All my others were Gen 3s, and 2) The problems with the Gen4s had reared their head(s), and 3) One of my goals would be to have analog set-ups between guns, including receiver configurations.

After much thought, I chose to go with a Gen 3 G19. It came with the MIM "dip" extractor-which was immediately stripped out, relegated to the spares box, and replaced with a NOS extractor. The triggerbar was replaced with a NOS Gen 3 triggerbar with the smooth trigger, and no dogleg/channeled rear extension. The connector was replaced with an OEM "minus" connector, and the coil triggerspring was replaced with a NY1 spring. The slide stop/release was swapped out for a Glock extended slide stop/release, and the polymer sights were immediately switched out by the departmental armorer on delivery for a set of Glock steel sights. As such, except for the sights, the set-up is an analog for how my G34 is set up, expediting using both guns in a single match with multiple divisions, such as GSSF. This set-up is also quite viable for carry and IDPA.

A close friend of mine asked for my input recently regarding a pistol for his wife-Things were narrowed down to a HK2000 or Glock G19; the wife much preferred the G19, so I recommended the Gen 4 G19, as by that time enough time seemed to have transpired for Glock to have a handle on the Gen4 G19 issues. Since she preferred the NY1 trigger, we swapped out the coil trigger spring, and also swapped out the OEM flat slide stop/release for the Glock extended one which she much preferred. She did experience some "brass-to-head" extraction issues-Glock thoroughly went through the gun, totally at their expense, and we also subsequently discovered that such extraction issues seemed limited to Blazer Aluminum-they did not occur with brass cartridges.

She enjoys the Gen4 grip, magazine release and shortened frame profile (i.e., w/out any backstrap added).

All food for thought. If I were to have to choose today, I'd probably get a Gen4 G19, adding a set of Warren Tactical sights, a Glock extended slide stop/release, and I'd see how I liked the OEM "dot" connector with the OEM coil trigger spring-if not, I'd go the "minus" connector/NY1 route.

In retrospect after several years since the Gen4 introduction/mods, I really, really wish Glock had simply left the internals as things were/are with the Gen 3, and simply applied the Gen4 magazine release and more aggressive Gen4 grip polymids/stippling to the receiver, and called it good....While I like the shortened frame/alternative backstrap approach, that necessitated the modified trigger mechanism housing, which adversely apparently modified (made heavier) the triggerpull with the "standard" connector-requiring the initiation of the "dot" connector-so I initially wasn't all that overjoyed with the new receivers, now with the "dot" or "minus" they're now viable. Hopefully Glock has sorted out the extractor/ejector issues, and while the new metal treatment replacing the original Tenifer isn't quite as weather impervious, it's probably good enough-and since it's a product-line across-the-board change, it's not like there's a difference (or choice) between Gen 3 and Gen4 regarding it.

Best, Jon

Whew. Thanks for that concise presentation on which "mods" need to be made to what WAS perfection (except for the trigger spring; the NY1/light connector package is a must for a carry piece, IMO. Two of mine have it...). I suppose one thing led to another, but they sure gooned up what had been an almost bulletproof launch platform. The few I still have are all 90s-vintage; you, sir, just reinforced my decision to avoid the newer examples entirely.

.

[David Armstrong]

Whew. Thanks for that concise presentation on which "mods" need to be made to what WAS perfection (except for the trigger spring; the NY1/light connector package is a must for a carry piece, IMO. Two of mine have it...). I suppose one thing led to another, but they sure gooned up what had been an almost bulletproof launch platform. The few I still have are all 90s-vintage; you, sir, just reinforced my decision to avoid the newer examples entirely.
Yep. I'm still waiting for a good reason to change from my Gen 2 guns. Haven't run across one yet.

[JHC]

Yep. I'm still waiting for a good reason to change from my Gen 2 guns. Haven't run across one yet.

Do you stipple them or tape them? I'm so hooked on RTF2 and Gen 4 grippage Gen 2's feel like a bar of soap to me now. Then again the Captains of Crush Trainer has shown me I ain't all that when comes to gripping power.

[JBP55]

I have owned quite a few Glocks and I prefer the Gen 4. I have fired more than 50,000 rounds of factory ammunition from Gen 4 Glocks with Zero issues.

[BoppaBear]

I'll confess to not be a Glock guy, but I own one and plan to pick up another or two...the Gen 4's are the only Glocks that I have ever liked enough to buy.

[jlw]

Do you stipple them or tape them? I'm so hooked on RTF2 and Gen 4 grippage Gen 2's feel like a bar of soap to me now. Then again the Captains of Crush Trainer has shown me I ain't all that when comes to gripping power.


I like the rubber decal grips (side panels only), and the Gen4 texturing doesn't get along with the decal grips; thus, I despise it.

[orionz06]

Strangely enough the RTF2 is pretty slick for me, the Gen4 texture is better.

[GJM]

In my experience, the Gen 4 9mm models are very accurate, and I can detect no measurable difference in accuracy between a Gen 4 9, P30 or Sig 226. That accuracy (which may in part be related to the new RSA), plus a slightly smaller grip circumference, Gen 4 texturing, the Gen 4 mag release shape and ability to reverse it, and better ability to use a GFA or the Glock beavertail make the Gen 4 a no brainer to me. Finally, I prefer the Gen 4 triggers, as with a minus connector, it feels to me like it has more roll than a Gen 3. I am hoping Gen 4.5 or Gen 5 comes with a Gadget standard, but otherwise wouldn't change anything on the Gen 4 besides possibly undercutting the trigger and knocking down the edge of the trigger guard to avoid Glock knuckle.

Back in April, I got in a bulk box of Speer Gold Dot 124+P, and shot this group at 50 yards, checking POI. I then tried American Eagle 124 ball, and shot a second group at 50 yards about identical in size and point of impact.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/505_zps480c2ec9.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/505_zps480c2ec9.jpg.html)

[Comedian]

I prefer the smaller grip of the Gen 4's. I would go Gen4 for that reason.

[BJJ]

[QUOTE=GJM;136079]In my experience, the Gen 4 9mm models are very accurate, and I can detect no measurable difference in accuracy between a Gen 4 9, P30 or Sig 226. That accuracy (which may in part be related to the new RSA), plus a slightly smaller grip circumference, Gen 4 texturing, the Gen 4 mag release shape and ability to reverse it, and better ability to use a GFA or the Glock beavertail make the Gen 4 a no brainer to me. Finally, I prefer the Gen 4 triggers, as with a minus connector, it feels to me like it has more roll than a Gen 3. I am hoping Gen 4.5 or Gen 5 comes with a Gadget standard, but otherwise wouldn't change anything on the Gen 4 besides possibly undercutting the trigger and knocking down the edge of the trigger guard to avoid Glock knuckle.

Back in April, I got in a bulk box of Speer Gold Dot 124+P, and shot this group at 50 yards, checking POI. I then tried American Eagle 124 ball, and shot a second group at 50 yards about identical in size and point of impact.


Nice shooting. Is that level of accuracy specific to the Gen 4 and not the Gen 3?

[Matt O]

[QUOTE=GJM;136079]In my experience, the Gen 4 9mm models are very accurate, and I can detect no measurable difference in accuracy between a Gen 4 9, P30 or Sig 226. That accuracy (which may in part be related to the new RSA), plus a slightly smaller grip circumference, Gen 4 texturing, the Gen 4 mag release shape and ability to reverse it, and better ability to use a GFA or the Glock beavertail make the Gen 4 a no brainer to me. Finally, I prefer the Gen 4 triggers, as with a minus connector, it feels to me like it has more roll than a Gen 3. I am hoping Gen 4.5 or Gen 5 comes with a Gadget standard, but otherwise wouldn't change anything on the Gen 4 besides possibly undercutting the trigger and knocking down the edge of the trigger guard to avoid Glock knuckle.

Back in April, I got in a bulk box of Speer Gold Dot 124+P, and shot this group at 50 yards, checking POI. I then tried American Eagle 124 ball, and shot a second group at 50 yards about identical in size and point of impact.


Nice shooting. Is that level of accuracy specific to the Gen 4 and not the Gen 3?

I haven't seen any objective back-to-back, rested group comparisons for the gen 4 or gen 3, but like GJM, I too have noticed (subjectively) that my gen 4 has a slight edge over my gen 3's. I shot this 6 round group at 50 yards last year when I first got my gen 4 and was trying to see exactly how accurate it was at various distances.

1502

[LSP972]

I have owned quite a few Glocks and I prefer the Gen 4. I have fired more than 50,000 rounds of factory ammunition from Gen 4 Glocks with Zero issues.

Others have not been so fortunate.

I tried one of those FDE G19s last year, which spit brass in my face. Fortunately for me, somebody on the other board wanted it badly- warts and all. I believe that was a late-production Gen 3 example. I have several acquaintances who have Gen 4 G19s that did the same thing.

I hear that these, and other issues, have all been ironed out now and everything is peachy-keen. That's great... until the next "engineering change", eh???

.

[David Armstrong]

Do you stipple them or tape them? I'm so hooked on RTF2 and Gen 4 grippage Gen 2's feel like a bar of soap to me now. Then again the Captains of Crush Trainer has shown me I ain't all that when comes to gripping power.
No, they work fine for me as is.

[JHC]

. Is that level of accuracy specific to the Gen 4 and not the Gen 3?

My avatar is an offhand 25 yard group fired with that Gen 4 G26 (same RSA as ever so it should not really be a Gen 4 thing - except that I've never shot quite as tight with my Gen 3 G26 although it's trigger pull is somewhat lighter). I've gotten better than that - measured 1.5" for 5 shots/25 yds/rested from a Gen 4 G17 and seen my elder son print similar with his. I have by comparison shot 2"-2.5" range rested 25 yd groups with my Gen 3 G17s on a few occasions. I've seen the same reported so often now that I don't consider it to be any doubt that the Gen 4's track a little more precise.

Does that matter greatly to me; not really. For my kind of shooting mostly the execution of a good press is the most important factor make my hits.

[Mr_White]

the execution of a good press is the most important factor make my hits.

I think this is the crux of it for me. Given the same trigger parts in a Gen3 and a Gen4, the Gen3 has a better (read: easier) trigger and I shoot at least as well with that on the range as the Gen4. I've tried testing them on the range before and seen no discernible difference in accuracy in my hands between the Gen3 and Gen4. That said, the best field shots I have made were with a Gen4 G17. I really like them both but I currently run Gen3 everything.

[GJM]

I think this is the crux of it for me. Given the same trigger parts in a Gen3 and a Gen4, the Gen3 has a better (read: easier) trigger

I would describe the Gen 3 and 4 triggers as being different, as opposed to better/worse. Since I shoot a Gen 4, the Gen 3 now feels abrupt at the break, where the Gen 4 feels like it rolls more. Of course, if I primarily shot a Gen 3, I would probably think the opposite about a Gen 4 trigger.

[Savage Hands]

In my experience, the Gen 4 9mm models are very accurate, and I can detect no measurable difference in accuracy between a Gen 4 9, P30 or Sig 226. That accuracy (which may in part be related to the new RSA), plus a slightly smaller grip circumference, Gen 4 texturing, the Gen 4 mag release shape and ability to reverse it, and better ability to use a GFA or the Glock beavertail make the Gen 4 a no brainer to me. Finally, I prefer the Gen 4 triggers, as with a minus connector, it feels to me like it has more roll than a Gen 3. I am hoping Gen 4.5 or Gen 5 comes with a Gadget standard, but otherwise wouldn't change anything on the Gen 4 besides possibly undercutting the trigger and knocking down the edge of the trigger guard to avoid Glock knuckle.

Back in April, I got in a bulk box of Speer Gold Dot 124+P, and shot this group at 50 yards, checking POI. I then tried American Eagle 124 ball, and shot a second group at 50 yards about identical in size and point of impact.

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/505_zps480c2ec9.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/505_zps480c2ec9.jpg.html)




Nice group at 50 yards!!!! Same to Matt O.

[JHC]

Nice group at 50 yards!!!! Same to Matt O.

Yeah that is pretty sick offhand 50 yard shooting - esp with a Glock (vs Sig P210 etc, but even then). I've shot some fancy 25 yard stuff offhand but at 50 I've only approached that with a rested custom 1911 or 6" S&W revolver.

[JonInWA]

Yep. I'm still waiting for a good reason to change from my Gen 2 guns. Haven't run across one yet.

Not to rain on the Gen 2 parade, because they're intrinsically good guns, but I can actually think of several cogent reasons to choose a Gen 3 or Gen4 over them-and several cogent reasons to correspondingly go (or remain with) with a Gen 2:

Reasons for a Gen 3/Gen4:
-Superior barrel to slide fitting. The Gen 3/Gen4 Glocks have noticeably more tightly fitted barrels, which should result in a corresponding incremental increase in accuracy;
-An improved coil trigger spring, and correspondingly improved attachment holes for said spring in the triggerbar and trigger housing mechanism components, reducing coil spring fatigue and potential breakage at flexation points;
-An improved slide lock spring, reducing the chance of breakage, which renders the gun inoperable;
-The component safety upgrades, replacing the triggerbar, firing pin, extractor and extractor angle, firing pin safety plunger and spring;
-improved firing pin spring;
-subtly revised grip angle, due to the removal of material for the frontstrap fingergrooves and a slight re-sculpting of the rear tang, and the dished-out thumb divots, providing (at least
for me) a more natural and instinctively point;
-a better front sight-yeah, the OEM piece is generally, usually, most of the time polymer, but at least now it's screwed-on, and slightly thinner (and yes, I fully realize that most Glock owners on this forum likely have replaced the OEM polymer sights anyhow);
-improved magazines; better metal liners, revised followers, and drop-free;
-aesthetically more durable oxide/phosphate final exterior finishing;
-improved inner component finish;
-additional strength/durability derived from the additional locking block pin;
-improved locking blocks;
-improved metal pins, reducing the potential for drift and corrosion;
-improved recoil spring assembly-both in that the RSA is not a captured unit, easing re-assembly, and that the recoil spring is made of a more rigid/durable/heat-resistant Zytel polymer (at least on later-production Gen 3 guns; the Gen4 RSAs are a metal/polymer mix, and capable of greater longevity before programmed replacement-the Gen 3 RSA recommended replacement interval is at the 2.5K-3K round count, the Gen4 at the 7K roundcount interval);
-easier connector removal from trigger housing mechanism due to a molding modification;
-improved barrel forward breech beveling geometry on G19, reducing the infamous type 3 stoppage/jam;
-incorporation of a frame rail for mounting attachable lights if desired;
-LCI extractor which hopefully no one, myself included, relies upon...); and lastly,
-seemingly improved out-of-the-box triggerpulls on later-generation Glocks compared to earlier Gen 1 and Gen 2 guns

Reasons for a Gen 2:

-many prefer the slightly greater receiver girth and lack of frontstrap fingergrooves;
-established durability/reliability (provided safety upgrades provided and improved magazine followers installed);
-less problematic extractors, both from a functional and materials composition standpoint;
-more durable/more anti-corrosive Tenifer metal treatment (I believe Tenifer was provided to Gen 3 guns up to some point in 2010, and the Gen4 guns by definition have the substitutive metal treatment, which apparently is melonite/ion-bond DLC, or some similar derivative, more acceptable to the EPA);
-a "grabbier," less slippery final oxide or phosphate finish, chalkier in appearance

I recently totally went through two very early (1989 and 1990) Gen 2 G19s for a friend-the 1990 one was totally rebuilt, with only the original receiver, barrel, slide, and magazine catch/magazine catch spring remaining after the rebuild. It was interesting observing some of the component evolutions from the earlier to the contemporary generations. Frankly, many of the Gen 3/Gen4 improvements that I've enumerated above can be very easily retro-fitted to earlier Gen 2 guns. However, when comparing and using a Gen 2 side-by-side with a Gen 3 or Gen4, I feel that the later guns are slightly better. Additionally, Glock engineers are noted for making incremental running improvements to their guns, many unannounced and unheralded-even to their their own marketing and LE support personnel.

As I've mentioned before, I think that there have been some significant, and arguably avoidable, stumbles in the 2010 and later production Gen 3 and Gen4 Glocks. My opinion is that they're addressable, either by Glock or by aftermarket component substitutions if necessary. While I'm certainly not averse to a properly updated/upgraded Gen 2 Glock, I much prefer the later generation ones, and see them as representing genuine improvements to the basic design.

I perfectly accept that individual experiences and preferences may well vary from mine.

Best, Jon

[David Armstrong]

I perfectly accept that individual experiences and preferences may well vary from mine.
That is the key, IMO. Part of my appreciation for the Gen2 is that I have over 200,000 rounds of live ammo plus countelss hours of dry-fire and other training with the Gen 2 platform. I personally find the Gen 3 grip to feel awkward. And many of the "improvements" you list for the Gen3 I don't consider improvements, I consider them steps backward for how I use the firearm. If I had to carry a Gen 3 I would without any qualms. I'd gripe a lot about it, but I wouldn't feel appreciably less equipped than my Gen2. But I was VERY happy to find a like-new Gen2 G22 so I wouldn't have to use the Gen3!:D

[ST911]

Re accuracy: One of the things I've noticed with gen4 accuracy is that it's more consistent across loads, while a gen2 or gen3 will tend to favor some particular ones. I'm not a bullseye shooter, but on a really good night I can see the difference materialize. Better shooters out there could probably quantify it for better data.

Re grip surface types: I've been shooting my gen4 G19 intensely since Dec. I share the other poster's opinion that the earlier guns feel pretty slick. Not quite a bar of soap, but I do sense that something is missing. I know for sure that shooting in the rain and mud my gen4 stays put much better than the others.

I never liked the finger grooves, and am glad they're less pronounced on the gen4s. I'd love to see gen4 grip texturing and dims on a non-FG/R frame.

[JHC]

yeah the two Gen 2's and one Gen 1 I've owned were 4" 25 yd guns vs my above experience with Gen 3's and 4's.

[Cool Breeze]

I've been contemplating this for awhile and still have yet to figure out what is my next move as I don't "need" anymore guns. My largest concern now with the Gen4s (as I own 3 gen 3s and no Gen4s) is the new trigger housing. I dry fired a Gen4 a year or 2 ago and and it was before the dot connector and I didn't like it at all compared to a stock gen3. Also, the grip texturing actually seemed too aggressive (not on the sides but on the back strap) and irritated my palm for the short amount of time I did shoot one of my buddy's. I suppose I could always just modify that as I do wish the Gen3's texture was better especially in wet circumstances. I'm still confused about the trigger though. Until I tried out the two combinations that I never tried (see below) I probably could then make a better decision. Anyone else have the grip texture issue like me (maybe i just need calluses to develop????)?

Gen3 - minus connector - I like it but it might be just slightly too light to me
Gen3 - dot connector - I really like this a lot
Gen3 - standard connector - I don't mind it but it would probably be the heaviest (at least for me) that I would want
Gen4 - minus connector - never tried
Gen4 - dot connector - never tried
Gen4 - standard connector - did not like

[JSGlock34]

I just passed the 500 round mark on my GEN4 G17FDE. No malfunctions to report, nor has the dreaded 'brass to face' problem manifested, even during weak hand shooting. The 500 rounds are mostly Blazer 115 grain FMJ, but I've also fired a small amount of Winchester Ranger RA9B.

I've been running this with a '-' connector since the beginning, along with a "$.25" trigger polish, in order to mimic my GEN3 setups as closely as possible. I have also added Trijicon HD sights, a Glock 'FBI' extended magazine release, and a Pearce plug.

I may try the dot connector just to see what everyone is talking about. So far I've been running the pistol without one of the backstrap inserts, but I'm considering trying out one of the 'beavertails'.

[pr1042]

Ideal combo for my Gen 4s is the now standard dot connector with a Gen 3 trigger bar. I've sold off my Gen 3s as I greatly prefer the texture of the Gen 4

[ST911]

I have also added Trijicon HD sights,

What are your POI deviations like for different loads? The HDs seem to trend high with most 9mms.

[Super J]

I prefer my gen 4 17 to my gen 3 17. The enhanced mag release as well as the backstrap make a world of difference to me

[JSGlock34]

What are your POI deviations like for different loads? The HDs seem to trend high with most 9mms.

I'm a 'drive the dot' shooter, which is one of the reasons I like the HDs so much. That bright yellow ball is easier for me to focus on. At 5-15 yards my point of aim is point of impact. Further out (25 yards) I find I get better results with the traditional bottom hold.

ETA - I haven't done much load experimentation. I bought Blazer 115gr in bulk and that has been my standard practice load for years. Rarely I'll put some Winchester RA9B Ranger through (but not so much lately considering the price and availability of ammo).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

I'm a 'drive the dot' shooter, which is one of the reasons I like the HDs so much. That bright yellow ball is easier for me to focus on. At 5-15 yards my point of aim is point of impact. Further out (25 yards) I find I get better results with the traditional bottom hold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That post pretty much sells me on those sights.

[Spr1]

That post pretty much sells me on those sights.



Trijicon HD's (in orange) have been a minor miracle for my 50+ year old eyes.

I apologize for the thread drift.....

[Morbidbattlecry]

Gen 4 all the way. I got one of the really bad Gen 3 guns. And its turning into a money pit.

[JSGlock34]

That post pretty much sells me on those sights.

I'm pleased with them. I was using Warrens for years and was concerned that the wider front sight would cost too much precision, but I'm a convert now. My eyes aren't getting any younger either, and I find it harder to hold that hard front sight focus, particularly on the dim indoor ranges I typically shoot at (why oh why can't they all be lit like the NRA range?). The HD sights are the best I've come across in that environment.

I read elsewhere that Larry Vickers and Wilson Combat are collaborating on a Glock rear sight that is specifically designed to pair with the HD front.

Back to the topic at hand...I agree with the comments that the GEN4 grip texture is a great improvement. All of my GEN3 pistols wear skateboard tape, which has worked great but can play havoc with cover garments. I should've grabbed the RTF2 GEN3 when it was available...alas, the GEN4 grip is nice and grippy. Definitely a step up.

I'll be shooting my GEN4 G17 at tomorrow night's KSTG, but I'm doubtful I'll notice much difference at all compared to the GEN3 G17 I've been shooting regularly at KSTG.

[GJM]

I mostly shoot a Warren tactical rear paired with a Heinie tritium front sight, with the front sight painted orange over two coats of white base paint. Trijicon HD sights are my wife's primary choice, and I use them on some pistols.

Recently, a friend and PF member, suggested I tried a Dawson FO front sight, but paint the front sight orange as I do the Heinie. Here it is on the right, with the painted Heinie on the left:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/FO_zpsca21f6d0.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/FO_zpsca21f6d0.jpg.html)

The more I shoot this FO front sight, the more I like it. Yesterday, as the light faded, I shot the FO pistol next to an identical G17 with the painted Heinie front sight at 50 yards. I was sure I would be hating the reputed lack of precision with the FO, but I absolutely shot the FO sight better at distance, even with less light that I was sure would favor the Heinie. Obviously I give up no light capability, but at this time of year we don't have a lot of darkness in Alaska, I always carry a light in my front pocket, and many times it would be dark I have a long gun with mounted flashlight available. Alternatively, I could run a WML, if I was looking for more low light capability. Robert Vogel mentioned to me that he ran a FO on his duty gun last fall, and I discarded that idea for the standard reasons. However having the front sight painted orange gives you a lot of what the HD sight has going for it during the day.

[JSGlock34]

I read elsewhere that Larry Vickers and Wilson Combat are collaborating on a Glock rear sight that is specifically designed to pair with the HD front.

Funny - the day after I posted this, Soldier Systems (http://www.soldiersystems.net) posted pictures of the Vickers Glock sight here (http://soldiersystems.net/2013/05/29/sneak-peek-vickers-tactical-glock-rear-sight-by-wilson-combat/).

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20130529-095242.jpg

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20130529-095305.jpg

[Little Creek]

I recommend the Gen 4. I have Gen 4 Glock pistols in 4 sizes: G22, G17, G19, G26. I also have a G20 SF. I bought my first Glock after they came out with the SF frames. I love those Gen 4 and SF frames.

[Clyde from Carolina]

I mostly shoot a Warren tactical rear paired with a Heinie tritium front sight, with the front sight painted orange over two coats of white base paint. Trijicon HD sights are my wife's primary choice, and I use them on some pistols.

Recently, a friend and PF member, suggested I tried a Dawson FO front sight, but paint the front sight orange as I do the Heinie. Here it is on the right, with the painted Heinie on the left:

http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg251/GJMandes/FO_zpsca21f6d0.jpg (http://s250.photobucket.com/user/GJMandes/media/FO_zpsca21f6d0.jpg.html)

The more I shoot this FO front sight, the more I like it. Yesterday, as the light faded, I shot the FO pistol next to an identical G17 with the painted Heinie front sight at 50 yards. I was sure I would be hating the reputed lack of precision with the FO, but I absolutely shot the FO sight better at distance, even with less light that I was sure would favor the Heinie. Obviously I give up no light capability, but at this time of year we don't have a lot of darkness in Alaska, I always carry a light in my front pocket, and many times it would be dark I have a long gun with mounted flashlight available. Alternatively, I could run a WML, if I was looking for more low light capability. Robert Vogel mentioned to me that he ran a FO on his duty gun last fall, and I discarded that idea for the standard reasons. However having the front sight painted orange gives you a lot of what the HD sight has going for it during the day.

If already mentioned and I missed it, I apologize, but what do you use to paint front sight organge?

[punkey71]

If already mentioned and I missed it, I apologize, but what do you use to paint front sight organge?

Although the question was not directed at me, I have used Testors model paint in fluorescent orange over a white base coat.

Very bright and durable.

I couldn't find it local so I ordered online from Testors directly.

Applying on a serrated front fight with a toothpick was very easy. Flat, non serrated sights were a pain in the ass.

Harold

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Chuck Haggard]

Funny - the day after I posted this, Soldier Systems (http://www.soldiersystems.net) posted pictures of the Vickers Glock sight here (http://soldiersystems.net/2013/05/29/sneak-peek-vickers-tactical-glock-rear-sight-by-wilson-combat/).

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20130529-095242.jpg

http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/20130529-095305.jpg



If the front of that sight was also serrated that would be rather awesome.

[GJM]

1) Gee, just what the world really needs, another Glock sight design. (humor)

2) I use Sharpie paint sticks, fine point, in white and orange. I paint two coats of white as a base coat, followed up by an orange coat.

[JonInWA]

I use White-Out or Liquid Paper as a base coat, and Testor's Neon or Flourescent color oil-based paint.

Best, Jon