Gentlemen,
This is a synopsis of our issues here at the Topeka PD with our attempt to transition to the Glock 22 as a duty weapon.
(Note, for the record I am not a Glock hater, and I owned five personal Glock .40s before we had all of our issues, my guns worked fine, but I find Glock .40 reliability to be hit and miss)
We decided to transition to the Glock system from our S&W 59 series pistols after research and a shoot-off between different weapon systems, we were looking for a DAO system to replace our S&Ws.
Our Chief at the time decided to change calibers and go with the .40. We ordered guns and started a transition process in March of 2006. During the Glock Instructor Workshop we had a few issues with fails to feed using the 165gr CCI Lawman practice ammo, but this was thought to be new gun and possibly the old “limp wrist” syndrome.
The plan at that time had been to just shoot FMJ ammo for training and qual, then load up with the chosen duty load, the 165gr Gold Dot, and go to work. I insisted that we test fire the duty ammo in our guns just to be sure even though that was not the plan (that duty ammo is expensive you know?). We then found that our guns had numerous fails to feed issues, especially with the guns that had lights mounted on them.
I did more testing as we went through with the transition classes (our boss insisted that we stick to the time schedule) and found that the malfunctions were common with the 165gr Gold Dot duty ammo.
I contacted Glock and they first told me that the ammo was too hot, and that the G22 was designed around a 180gr load. I crono’d the 165gr ammo we had and found it clocked 1185fps through our guns, above the book velocity of 1150fps, so I thought, “Well, could be”. I got ahold of CCI and they graciously agreed to swap out our ammo for the 180gr Gold Dot, I knew that to be a really decent duty load from feedback from friends on the KCMOPD who have used the 180gr Gold Dot for years.
Well, the guns didn't run much better with the 180gr ammo (note; clocked at 1050fps through our guns). Glock then said that the guns were only made to run with their lights (we were issuing the Insight M3X light at that time).
I pointed out that I had two issues with that statement; 1. We had two of their lights and the guns still didn’t work with those either, and 2. Some of the guns with no lights at all didn't work either.
They then said it was “limp wristing”, by the shooters. I again pointed out two facts;
1. I was one of those shooters, I have a 350lb bench press, and I have been shooting for over 35 years, I did not believe that I was “limp wristing” the guns.
2. The guns choked when I ran them with a good strong grip, (for the record I shoot high thumbs with a strong isosceles stance) but ran when weenie gripped on purpose. When I shot with a two finger limp wrist grip the guns suddenly started working for me. Since the issue was excessive slide velocity I am dead sure that limp wristing the guns bled off enough slide impulse to slow everything down enough for the mag springs to keep up, thus the guns started working.
They said they’d get back to me on that issue.
We started to get different ammo types and do test shoots of all of the available duty ammo. I found only two types to work in most of our guns, most of the time; The Winchester Ranger-T 180gr load and the FBI special loading of the 165gr Gold Dot (loaded to 1020fps over my crono).
Is started to dig deeper and found out several things. The FBI had an agreement with CCI for the special 165gr mid-range load, they also had a non-disclosure agreement at that time and could not sell that ammo to anyone else. This ammo had been developed by the FBI to help cure reliability, durability and recoil issues that they had with their earlier 180gr ammo. Even then the FBI issues the G17 to folks who have problems with qualification with the .40s.
I also found out that the Indiana State Police were having issues with their G22s at the same time we were, so I eventually was able to get ahold of their senior range guy, Sgt. Kevin Rees. I found that they were having the exact same issue we were with fails to feed. The ISP had absolutely no weapon mounted lights, so lights wasn’t the problem.
The ISP guys had a shoot-off with all of the available duty ammo and found that they could not get their guns working. Glock took about 100 of the guns back and reworked them but they still did not work. The ISP eventually traded the G22s for G17s in order to get a reliable weapon system.
After alot of shooting and weapons testing, including parts swapping, turning reliable 9mm framed guns into .40s, and vice versa, only to find that the .40s still didn’t work but the 9mms did, I tracked the issue down to one variable; the frames.
Glock changed the frame design of their weapons in Dec of 2005, the design changed how they build the dust cover/serial number area. This led to less flex in the frame in that area. The older guns had a serial# plate that protruded from the frame like a big staple, the new frames had the plate imbedded in the plastic about 1/10” or so.
This frame change led to a repeat of the same issue that first popped up back when the finger groove/rail guns (FGR) first came out and folks started hanging lights on the guns.
History lesson for folks who don’t know; When the FGR guns first came out the .40s started to have fails to feed issues due to the light being on the dust cover rail. The lights took some of the frame flex out of the system during recoil, this led to greater slide velocity and thus fails to feed issues due to the slide running so fast that the mag springs could not keep up. The fix back then was the 11 coil magazine spring.
The problems we had WERE NOT the same issue, we had brand new mags with 11 coil springs, the new issue was the same in effect (fails to feed) but was caused by the frame redesign which brought less flex to the system, thus when a light (or sometimes not) was hung on the gun there was even less flex and the 11 coil mag springs still couldn’t keep up with the greater slide velocity.
I deduced that our issue was excessive slide velocity. Months later this was confirmed for me in conversation XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXX advised that they had done some high speed camera work and found that slide velocity was in fact the issue. I suspected frame bounce (much like bolt bounce in M4 carbines) but XXXXX is of the opinion that the stripper rail underneath the slide causes the rounds in the mag to be pushed down so fast that by the time the slide is coming forward again the mag spring has not been able to feed the rounds back up to the feedlips, thus the top round stubs into the front of the mag tube never reaching the feed ramp.
This is the same issue as described by many other departments to me, most recently last month by a Sgt. from Milwaukee PD (they have about 900 G22s that don’t work).
What I have found;
Lower recoil and intensity ammo will work almost all of the time. Specifically the 180gr Ranger-T and the FBI spec 165gr Gold Dot seem to work for almost everyone almost all of the time. We did have a few guns that would not run with the Ranger-T with lights mounted on the guns though.
Heavier recoil springs; I found that the Wolff springs with the SS guide rod made a difference. The heavier 20 and 22lb springs (as I recall without notes) cured the issue, most of the time, for most shooters, with most ammo.
I am told that the 14 coil ISMI mag springs also work, but that you lose one round from the magazine capacity.
Whatever the attempted fix I have found that the factory recoil springs on the Glock .40s should not be allowed to go more than 3000 rounds without being changed, as in
ever. I recommend swapping springs after 2000 just to be safe.
The issue with the guns is simple; excessive slide velocity. The cause is, IMHO, a design flaw in the weapon system. The Glock small frame guns were made to be 9mms, which they absolutely excel at. I firmly believe that the G17 may be the most reliable handgun ever made, mine run like an AK47, every ammo, dirty or not, light mounted or not, etc.
Even in the guns that actually work the Glock .40s (and .357Sigs as well) suffer from the frame gun not being made to handle the beating it takes, much like the old S&W model 66 didn’t hold up to being shot with .357mag ammo in the long run, thus the 686 being developed.
There is more, but I have to make it upstairs to my Lt. promotion interview now.
Let me know what else you need and what else I can do to help out.
Chuck
Originally Posted by Chuck Haggard
Denials notwithstanding. Great read.
Reply With Quote