Some Thoughts On Engineering, Reliability and Durability and Available Platforms

[JonInWA]

I've been mulling over some thoughts on this subject, which recently bubbled to the surface when I had the trigger return spring on my Beretta 92D break. While a bit of a surprise (while realizing that prudent preventive maintenance includes replacing recoil, trigger return, and trigger bar springs every 5K rounds, I probably have less than 2K rounds downrange on the gun, which despite being manufactured in 1996 I obtained brand new in 2006-but I also have a significant amount of dry-fire practice triggerpulls on the gun, which in this case needs to be factored into the replacement matrix), it wasn't the end of the world, as 1) Beretta has a built-in feature where a broken trigger return spring can be simply flipped around, as the spring only acts on returning the trigger after the trigger pull-the triggerpull itself is controlled/dependant upon the triggerbar spring, and 2) Beretta reportedly has significantly redesigned/strengthened the spring after repeated reports of premature (at least in the eyes of both individual and organizational users) breakage, and 3) Wolff Gunsprings produces what appears to be an ingenious replacement unit based on a captive coil spring with a far greater longevity. For peace of mind, I've decided to try out the Wolff unit-report to follow.

What I realized as I dug into both the problem and the pistol is not only how well (and elegantly) engineered the Beretta is-but also how utterly dependant it is on some relatively fragile and somewhat exposed (particularly the triggerbar spring) components.

My thoughts then drifted towards comparing contemporaneous Glock (Gen 3, possibly Gen4) and HK platforms, where my thoughts are that while on a component-by-component, material-by-material comparative basis the HK is probably the superior pistol, due to superior materials (i.e., higher quality steels), ergonomics (particularly in the P30 and HK45 series guns) and engineering (i.e., regarding component integration and packaging within the platform)-but that in an overall user sense, while I certainly don't denigrade the HK, I consider a Glock to be the superior weapon.

Here's why: First, they work (especially the G17 and G19 9mm Glocks)-the quality of materials and engineering is "good enough" without being needlessly over-engineered for tens of thousands of rounds. Second, they are exceptionally user friendly in terms of both field- and detail-stripping and parts replacement. Third, they have a singularly low reliance on fragile, complex sub-components-and if something does break/malfunction, an average user with less than a half-day's worth of training (or less) can easily and competantly remove and replace the erring components. Forth, components and magazines are easily available, at reasonable prices, and Glock after-market support for both individual/commercial users and organizations is legendary (in a good sense).

I'm not ignoring ToddG's extensive and high round-count testing of the HK P30 and HK45-but I'm also remembering that while they demonstrated superb ergonomics, durability and quality engineering and component quality, when things/springs did go south, despite Todd's experience, familiarity with the platform and higher than than average bear skill set, the guns really needed to go to HK for tuning, repair, and parts extraction/replacement, as relatively specialized tools and gunsmithing skills really were required-Todd, definitely correct me if I'm wrong on this.

All of this applies in spades to the 1911 platform. Realistically, if (and if we're being brutally honest here, it's not an "if" but a "when") something goes wrong on a 1911, it's usually going to be a gunsmithing sort of day, particularly regarding the specialized and individualized fitting and tuning of individual components to a specific 1911. Throw in the much higher lubrication and more frequent spring replacement intervals inherent to the 1911 platform, as others have stated, it makes me think of it as a beautifully engineered hobbyist gun, not something to trust my life on in the field (especially on an extended/extended deployment situation, particularly given limited access to maintenance resources, parts and timely support).

So-What's my point? First, I'm hardly blind to the vicissitudes of the Glock platform- for example, OEM sights have been justifiably criticized for both fragility and a somewhat constrained sight picture (concentrating on the staked in thick polymer front sight blade-although the current OEM polymer front sight is both somewhat thinner and more securely screwed in), the OEM magazine release (why Glock hasn't made commercially available their mid-length release apparently exclusively produced for and provided to the FBI contract Glocks is totally beyond me-but I suppose it's great for LAV and Tango Down's bottom line). The jury is still out on the Gen4 guns, especially the non-.40 caliber ones. I have no doubt that Glock will sort things (i.e., springs) out, if they haven't already-but why they felt compelled to screw with the very much proven Gen 3 recoil assembly on the 9mm platform guns other than for reasons of potential manufacturing commonality and an incrimental increase in spring life is also beyond me...my personal thoughts at this point would have been a better/less problematic route to go on the G17 and G19 Gen4s might simply have been to massage the Gen 3 receivers for the new cubid checkering mold and the new magazine release, and called it good...

As I review the inhabitants of my gunsafe, as well as thinking back to guns that I've previously experienced, more and more I'm realizing the value in depending upon a weapon/weapon system that works in a holistic sense.

Thinking back-I've only had two trigger/trigger return springs break on me-that in the Beretta, and one in a Ruger Security Six (ironically, literally immediately after a detailed examination and refurbishment by Ruger-they immediately in turn provided me with a shipping label, went through the gun again, and it's been 100% to date some 7 or 8 years later); both springs have been of what I call the "mousetrap" type, dependant on leveraged tension achieved by the spring end(s) positioning against an immovable surface. Interestingly, I notice that one of the virtually unmentioned changes from the -Six series revolvers to the GP100/Super Redhawk series is that the trigger return spring on the latter is changed to a horizontal coil set-up-any complaints that I've ever experienced and/or seen surfaced on them concern their relative over-strenght tensility (easily resolved by Wolff aftermarket lower-weighted alternatives), not their breakage.

Similarly, Glock has over the years modified their OEM coil trigger spring in several aspects-providing a more durable, modified finish spring, with concurrently enlarged spring-end mounting point holes in both the trigger housing mechanism and trigger bar, and most recently a revision to the trigger bar mounting point, which now features not only the enlarged hole, but also a modified bend angle and inclusion of a channel, all aimed at reducing spring fatigue and subsequent material failure-and then, of course, there's the NY spring alternatives, combining a captive coil within a polymer leaf spring structure.

In one sense, we may well be in a golden era of capable choices. My conclusion is that individual/organization choices need to be made within the framework of individual use, capabilities, environment, and higher level support (and the availability and timliness of such support). What is "the best" is dependant upon each individual criteria matrix-but I certainly appreciate the choices we have (and the resources for comparisons that we have, and the dedication of members of our community.

Rant off! (and how's this for a first forum post?!)

Best, Jon

[gtmtnbiker98]

Nice read; however, what it all boils down to is personal preference shaded by a little "bias" - then there's always the Gen 4.

[David Armstrong]

For me it is simple. I've used a lot of different platforms and seen a lot of guns come through training or the range, and the Glocks have just been hands-down the most reliable across time and experiences.

[jslaker]

I'm not ignoring ToddG's extensive and high round-count testing of the HK P30 and HK45-but I'm also remembering that while they demonstrated superb ergonomics, durability and quality engineering and component quality, when things/springs did go south, despite Todd's experience, familiarity with the platform and higher than than average bear skill set, the guns really needed to go to HK for tuning, repair, and parts extraction/replacement, as relatively specialized tools and gunsmithing skills really were required-Todd, definitely correct me if I'm wrong on this.

HKs definitely aren't Glock easy to work on, but they're not impossible. I've detail stripped the frame of my USP (which is the same basic action as the HK45 and P30) using nothing more than a Bic pen as an ad-hoc punch. Seriously.

I made detailed, diagrammed pictures entire process a while back; I'll probably post them as a thread here in the nearish future for the hell of it assuming I still have them.

At any rate, there are a couple of tricky steps along the way -- installing the trigger return spring is frustrating and installing the the hammer+cocking piece+spring on LEM guns can be pretty aggravating -- but on the whole the experience wasn't any worse than when I've detail stripped other guns, like Berettas.

The thing I love about the HK system is that it's very elegantly engineered for a hammer-fired gun. Each piece has a clear, specific purpose, and is built from heavy rugged parts. I'm not sure there's much that could be stripped away while remaining hammer-fired and reliable.

[SecondsCount]

All "platforms" have their little quirks and although I run a 1911, and find them to be simple to work on, there is a lot to be said about drop-in parts.

I think being familiar with your gun is important. We saw Todd's recent blog entry where he got the plunger spring backward on his Gen4 Glock and other posts where people have made the same mistakes. Just picking a particular gun does not make one an expert on how to shoot it or fix it.

[ToddG]

My recollection is that the only times the P30 went back to the factory were

1. to figure out why it was having a 1:1500 or so failure rate in the beginning (out of spec mainspring)
2. to inspect the gun at the 50k mark

Off the top of my head, I don't think I ever sent the HK45 back.

In contrast, Glock has had my Gen4 19 for two weeks now trying to figure out why it's having so many problems; they see the same malfunctions, just don't know why it is happening yet.

If you're going to compare maintenance procedures between, let's say, a Gen3 G19 and a P30, you need to take multiple things into account:

• ease of detail disassembly and reassembly: Glock wins here by many thousands of points
• frequency of parts replacement: Glock's replacement cycle on springs is far more frequent than HK's. The P30's first recommended maintenance cycle is twenty-five thousand rounds. Advantage HK

For low round count shooters, the issue is completely academic. Neither is likely to be shot enough to need more than cleaning & lubrication. For moderate volume shooters, though, the question becomes whether you want a gun that will need a detail strip once a year, or one that will probably never need a detail strip? When you start talking about high round count shooting, it's the difference between taking the gun apart every month or 1-2 times per year.

I'd be willing to bet that if you compared actual time/round in maintenance, the two would be fairly similar. The Glock will be a fairly quick, easy job performed regularly while the HK will be a more involved (and sometimes frustrating) job performed rarely.

For the most part, I see the two as a complete toss up, then, and choosing one schema over the other has more to do with personal preference and mechanical skill than practical time considerations.

There is one benefit in favor of guns/parts that only require replacement at higher round counts, however. The Beretta that Jon began his post with serves as an excellent example. If your trigger spring has an expected 5k life, you know some reasonable percentage of them are going to break sooner. Jon's broke 3,000 rounds sooner. If that same spring was recommended to be replaced every 25,000 rounds and some break 3,000 rounds sooner, you've got a much wider band of "safe period" before you even start to climb up the outside of the bell curve.

[Red Leader]

In contrast, Glock has had my Gen4 19 for two weeks now trying to figure out why it's having so many problems; they see the same malfunctions, just don't know why it is happening yet.

That's a bummer. The recoil spring issue has been much talked about, but I take it this issue went above and beyond just Glock sending you an improved recoil spring assembly and having that be a done deal?

[ToddG]

The G19 had the latest recoil assembly in it when the problems began.

[Red Leader]

ToddG,

Thats a little disconcerting. I hope Glock takes care of you! I'd be real interested in what they find out.

To return to the original intent of the thread -

I like thinking about these things too. I like the little details. For example, one pistol I have (the S&W 3953) impresses me in its design. A lot of the 3rd gen Smith and Wessons have a good reputation for reliability. They might be a little dated when considering round count and frame materials or ergonomics, but they served a lot of police agencies (still might) and can be found for bargain prices. That model in particular (the 39xx series) has a very good reputation, but just recently I have been getting more familiar with its ins and outs as I've been detail stripping it and replacing springs.

Some of the main small parts, like the trigger, hammer, slide release, etc, are all forged and flash chromed (earlier pistols). It is a little bit more intense to detail strip than a 1911, but not too bad. the trigger return spring isn't the 'mousetrap' type, is is a solid coil that if it were to ever fail, I'm fairly sure would still operate the pistol.

When I think about 'inherent reliability', I am often drawn toward mag design and execution. It can make or break a lot of these pistols. I like the design of the S&W single stack magazine, it is very stout and I have not heard a lot of complaints about them.

All in all, it is a very good design and I really like the way it is built. It does have the magazine disconnect, but it has never bothered me and never caused a problem. If we are going right off the bat with mechanical principals, parts study and observation, it is hard for me to find a fault with it, which is why I am going to be transitioning to it as my main CCW. Plus its cheaper to shoot than my 45 which makes for more range time

[gtmtnbiker98]

The G19 had the latest recoil assembly in it when the problems began.

Did the problems begin before or after the extractor spring "issue?"