Details out on Glock 17M

[Eastex]

A good friends son just graduated Texas A&M with a electrical engineering degree. We've had a few talks about how he hoped his son was able to keep reality and theory balanced in his future career. It just seems mind blowing to me that the guys engineering this new pistol didn't run down all the possible problems their new changes might cause. Surely it wasn't someone thinking "okay just slap a coil spring in there , it works in the 43". If I didn't constantly run into other things that were engineered ass backwards I might not believe it. It's to the point now that when I do have to assemble or work on something around the house that is put together right I'll actually make a point of telling someone about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Hambo]

Fucking bravo, sir. Well done.

As to the serious stuff in this thread: Were new 17M specific holsters being used with the 17M pistols?

How many 17M holsters are available?

[RJ]

A good friends son just graduated Texas A&M with a electrical engineering degree. We've had a few talks about how he hoped his son was able to keep reality and theory balanced in his future career. It just seems mind blowing to me that the guys engineering this new pistol didn't run down all the possible problems their new changes might cause.

I will say that after 32 years in Aerospace, implementing complex projects for DoD and international customers, it's surprising what happens to the solution along the way to the final product. Too many of our Engineers can design and implement a high quality solution that meets the Requirements, only to have the wheels come off when it comes to actually fielding that product, in it's final "correct" form.

In this case, I feel for the guys in Smyrna; I am sure there is egg on their faces having to withdraw all their pistols from the trials with the IMPD. But it would not surprise me in the least to find that somewhere, somehow, someone misread a document, or fielded a part that was not to the correct version due to lax Configuration Management or Integrated Logistics Support processes or practices, leading to these slides coming off in dry fire.

When I taught Systems Engineering internally at my company, I always emphasized "if you did not document what you built, you did not build anything."

[GJM]

We will need to wait for the dust to settle, but this is what I don't understand. Given how incredibly easy it is to work on a Glock, why didn't they counter to counter replacement parts, and install them on location. My guess is it is either something more complicated or the customer got pissed and said essentially "get this crap out of here, until it is fixed."

[Range1]

My partially educated guess is they are not 100% sure of the cause and want Glock to correct their own problem not pay for the manpower to do Glock's work. As I said just a guess. Also don't think any decision has been made yet as to send them back, fix them on site, or what. For now I would guess they just stopped issuing them until a solution is found.

[JHC]

We will need to wait for the dust to settle, but this is what I don't understand. Given how incredibly easy it is to work on a Glock, why didn't they counter to counter replacement parts, and install them on location. My guess is it is either something more complicated or the customer got pissed and said essentially "get this crap out of here, until it is fixed."

Prolly. But don't you know there is a Glock engineer somewhere saying to his wife, "I told them not to fuck with that spring design."

But, if one assumes this is the MHS submitted design, it should be safe to say the MHS trials will involve more than "static range" testing as the FBI testing has been described by a post or two here.

BTW, why would one suggest the FBI didn't perform all the manipulations of the gun that Indy did? They have gotten accolades for their testing in discussions before it was learned which gun won.

[GJM]

No doubt, Indy is using holsters that hold the gun too limply.

[LSP552]

Sometimes things happen with parts from a particular vendor run. When LSP went SIG P220 for issue, the guns started having hammer reset spring failures. Every gun needed those replaced.......and the problem went away.

It is embarrassing, but this could just be a part issue and not a design issue. But who knows, Glock hasn't done very well introducing new stuff lately.

[ranger]

The good news is we keep this thread going!

[BehindBlueI's]

As to the serious stuff in this thread: Were new 17M specific holsters being used with the 17M pistols?

Nope. They are supposed to fit any 17/22 holster as there was no significant change to externals that would require a new holster.

My partially educated guess is they are not 100% sure of the cause and want Glock to correct their own problem not pay for the manpower to do Glock's work. As I said just a guess. Also don't think any decision has been made yet as to send them back, fix them on site, or what. For now I would guess they just stopped issuing them until a solution is found.

Range staff yesterday said they were being sent back.