Details out on Glock 17M

[Hauptmann]

I hope they went to a front dovetail, the current set-up has always been a weak spot.

Elephant in the room. Kinda like old style 1911 stamped front sights......piss poor design.

[StraitR]

So if the 17M turns out to be a turd with removable finger grooves and new high speed barrel rifling, will my Gen 4 crunchntickers be worth more?

[scw2]

For those that have lived through prior releases of new pistols/glock models, as a civilian would these likely be available in the first half of 2017, or would one probably be looking closer to 2018 before these become available?

[Hauptmann]

So if the 17M turns out to be a turd with removable finger grooves and new high speed barrel rifling, will my Gen 4 crunchntickers be worth more?

Most likely the new 17M with be the sh**z, and your G4 will be about as useful as dog poo. I'll take that worthless POS off your hands for $100. Take it or leave it.

[pastaslinger]

Don't care about rifling changes as Glocks are great in that they have high velocity for barrel length

Do care about trigger- really should be improved

[HCM]

But, I like the finger grooves................

JB weld.

[GJM]

While a dovetailed front sight might be ideal on a clean sheet of paper design, I would be really unhappy if I couldn't use legacy front sights on it, given there are probably more options of different height and style Glock front sights than for any other platform.

[Greg]

Smoother trigger like a 43?

Say What? The trigger on my 43 wrecked my trigger finger until I hit it with a round file.

[SW CQB 45]

The new safety plunger is the one that's got me (yea, and the rifling). There's a bit of a history for fucking around with the recoil spring, but I don't know of any history of messing with the safety plunger. AFAIK it's been the same part basically this whole time, and they are compatible across generations, models calibers, etc.

I've always kinda thought that, from a design perspective, its shape and the implied interface with the striker was....let's say "less than confidence inspiring", but it's very interesting to see that change all of a sudden. That means completely new tooling and compatibility breaking of 2-3 major functioning parts: plunger itself, striker (new interface), maybe plunger spring. That's a whole lot of stuff for something that didn't seem broken....unless it really did have issues and they never made news because of redundancy.

in reference to the proposed FPS change

I manage approx 180 Glocks (mainly G21, 32, 17 and 19) since 1998.

I have seen a lot of impact marks on the firing pin safety plunger and on the opposing end of the firing pin. The firing pins were impacting the firing pin safety (plunger) and over time (sort of fitting itself).

the FPS rotates and many times the impact marks are all the way around the plunger body.

I have seen NIB Glocks misfire with a slow controlled press and then work perfectly with a hammer press and down the road, they work fine.

I wonder if the oblong or rectangular FPS will minimize the time for the two parts to fit (if they are out of time) as the FPS will no longer rotate. hmmm.

I recall at a very early armorers class (mid 90s), we were told to buy 100 trigger bars (pre plus trigger bar days) and hold them up to the light and the ones with the taller firing pin safety depressor.....put those off to the side to make those guns that did not pass inspection.....to pass. Then years later.....the plus trigger bar came along.

pure guess on my part.

Our dept was awarded through the court system a older G19. It was a two pin with no finger groove that had hardly been shot. After upgrading the rough internals, I wanted to assign it to myself because the lack of finger groove was nice. I am ready for a personal glock that does not have to have the finger grooves ground off. HA!

[El Cid]

I fully expect the internet to crash Monday when pics from IMPD hit. Lol!