2015 Glock 19 GEN 4 Handguns still unreliable / have design flaws

[LSP972]

If you are uninjured, I doubt it's the 6oz that is making the difference for you, but everyone has a different tolerance.

I know exactly what he's talking about. I tried carrying a P229 Scorpion briefly last year. The weight difference, over a day of IWB, was noticeable between it and my HK45C. The difference between the Sig and one of my Bowie G19s was VERY noticeable. And in the sub-tropical heat/humidity he lives in (same as mine), extra weight wears you down; especially if you're getting old. Its been in the upper 90's all week here; I'm about ready to strap on the G43 and throw capacity concern to the winds. And I haven't fully vetted that little pistol to my satisfaction yet, nor acquired any extra magazines; if that gives you an idea of the desperation I'm feeling.

In other news; I heard today that the local PD is sending a bunch of Gen4 G22s, acquired last year, back to Glock to have something done about their piss-poor finish. They are rusting like crazy.

My old agency is about halfway through swapping out Gen3/RTF G22s and G17s for new Gen4s; I'll be interested to hear how their finishes hold up. This Glock saga is beginning to sound like the M&P soap opera… every time you turn around, another problem crops up.

Who would have ever thought THAT???

.

[GJM]

Does no one like the TLG LEM P30 anymore?

I like LEM, but I like DA/SA more. I put this in the current P2000 LEM thread on this subject:



Actually, I think LEM is better for short fingers than DA/SA, as the initial take up is so light compared to DA, that finger placement is less critical on LEM. With a heavy DA trigger, you need to grip the pistol in such a way as to be able to work the heavy DA trigger.

As Darryl has said, I think LEM is ideal for someone looking for a long travel Glock, in terms of operation.

I personally prefer DA/SA. I like that the DA press is linear, which while a smidge slower than LEM, provides me great control and therefore, accuracy. I also like that the DA trigger is about twice the weight of LEM, which I think is helpful from the "not shooting things you do not want to shoot" perspective. Finally, I shoot better with SA than LEM, once you get to the shooting part. My technique is to flip and press, and with LEM that results in extra trigger travel that I find undesirable. As to decocking, I routinely shoot DA/SA pistols, so decocking is perfectly natural. And, if today was the day I went brain dead, and tried to holster a SA P2000, how is that worse off than holstering a Glock every day? All this adds up to DA/SA being a clear winner for me, based on my experience and the way I shoot.

[JHC]

Surf's agency if you recall put like 1700 Gen 4 9mm in sevice last with stellar results. I wish one of these was a gray frame. I'm planning on one of those in 19 format. Dump the guns, I care not but consider letting Glock look one or both over. Another member here just got a new frame from them to resolve an issue.

[GJM]

The reason I ask is, it's my understanding part of the gray guns HK trigger job cost is refinishing the parts. Since the HK internals are MIM, and thus only surface hardened, it's necessary to refinish them after working / polishing them to restore the surface hardness, usually with some type of Nickle /teflon finish like the Robar or TNT finish.

I am very interested in this discussion. I just looked at the GGI website, and they mention coating the parts on the HK package for lubricity and durability. There is no mention of a coating on the equivalent Sig P series package. On their 320 packages, they mention the coating on the Competition but not the Carry trigger package.

I also seem to recall Robert Burke mentioning that the Sig parts have a significantly greater hardness than the HK MIM parts. Looking forward to Robert's response on the HK carry package and coating question.

[HCM]

I am very interested in this discussion. I just looked at the GGI website, and they mention coating the parts on the HK package for lubricity and durability. There is no mention of a coating on the equivalent Sig P series package. On their 320 packages, they mention the coating on the Competition but not the Carry trigger package.

I also seem to recall Robert Burke mentioning that the Sig parts have a significantly greater hardness than the HK MIM parts. Looking forward to Robert's response on the HK carry package and coating question.

You can do a trigger job on the modem HK' but without that surface hardness the parts will wear very quickly. I've heard of enough issues with Bill Springfield trigger jobs to be cautious. It seems most who praise his work don't actually shoot much.

Sum Doode name Darryl talked about this over in MSW awhile back. http://modernserviceweapons.com/?p=1923

[LSP552]

It seems to me that the Glock 19 has always been Glock's problem 9mm model. After the initial 4th gen issue, it seems like the problems you read about are G19s. I'd be pretty sure of a new 17 or 26, but not the 19. No personal experience with the 4th gen 19, but I read too much about them to be comfortable buying one.

The DA/SA SIG platform is hands down my favorite setup and I have always done my best shooting with them. I appreciate and use Glocks for what they are, but I always gravitate back to the 226 and 239. I'm probably the one SIG guy who doesn't really like the 228 or 229.

I'm long retired now, so I don't have a problem carrying a 239 with a spare mag. While a G19 and the 239 are pretty close in size, I personally find the 239 hides much better than the square corner Glock slide.

[Patrin]

Dump the guns, I care not but consider letting Glock look one or both over. Another member here just got a new frame from them to resolve an issue.

One of the things I tried on my last range trip with the G19's was to swap the Glock factory extractors between the three guns to sort of simulate what Glock USA might do. These guns had the latest ejectors and RSA's, so I'm betting Glock would not change those. Can all 3 frames be bad...I don't know...I wouldn't think so.

Anyhow, as I said, with this test, the results were the same: BTF. In this short saga, I find it most perplexing that the first, seemingly, good running 04/15 G19 started exhibiting the BTF after the 700rd mark, right after attempting to break-in the other two I had just purchased. Odd coincidence.

In under a thousand rounds, compared to the many K's I have on the P-Series, I was shooting 5-6 points higher on my PPC scores. A highly shootable gun and, for me, due to the very, very predictable trigger. I like the Glock striker trigger.

I'm still considering what's more cost effective here...sending all three to Glock and go back to the range and potentially waste more $$$ in ammo or sell them for a loss. One would think it would be good for me to bring these issues to Glock's attention, then again, the same problem over three different guns with such close (consecutive) manufacture dates...Glock must know. If they don't, I'd have even less confidence in them as a company.

I'll be losing money either way, therefore I'm leading towards the latter.

[HCM]

I can't copy it via my phone but there is a good photo of the P320 trigger safety here: http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2015/02/...320-additions/

[Skeeter]

Problems like that sure are frustrating. If you have Glock work on them, please post how it turns out. On a related note, I've a G19 gen4 from Jan 2015, and so far its been flawless for about 2K rounds. The ejector also has the same number as yours, 30274.

[Patrin]

I can't copy it via my phone but there is a good photo of the P320 trigger safety here: http://www.bluesheepdog.com/2015/02/...320-additions/

Thanks, HCM.

I'm going to call SIG and see if this is a part I can purchase separately. If so, I may pick up a P320 compact, send it over to Robert Burke for a trigger job and try it out.

So far, reliability seems solid on the P320, but still new and not established.