Details out on Glock 17M

[GJM]

Presumably Glock, the FBI, and Indy did a fair amount of testing, that included a variety of holsters.

I will bet ten, my whole month's allotment of PF wagering dollars, that the problem has nothing to do with holsters, and has everything to do with the slide lock -- possibly the design if something changed with it, how the problem pistols were assembled by Glock, or something done with the pistols locally, post delivery. Anyone else want to get in on this bet?

[BehindBlueI's]

That's pretty much what I figured. But dimensional changes nobody thought should be a big deal for holster fit could potentially play a role in something like this.



...or perhaps just the opposite. Perhaps.



IIRC it was the Indiana SP that pulled Glock 22's from the field and issued 17's after the 22's turned out to be a total disaster.

EDIT - Yup!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1616676/posts

2006!

What dimensional changes?

[Tango]

Is it that hard to accept a possible design flaw from Glock at this point, or are we still doing the whole "If a problem is not acknowledged, then a problem simply does not exist*." thing? It is what it is, and I'm glad they caught it now (whatever it is) in a manner that didn't cost anyone their life. Embarrassing? Absolutely, but it could have been much, much worse. The only certain failure I see so far is that these guns were already in the holsters of cops on duty when a deadlining issue was found.

*Like the M guns not being sold commercially, but nobody will talk about it, even after the question has been asked multiple times.

We can bicker all we want, but the fact is, everybody on PF is either LEO or supports LEO and Glock seemingly takes care of the boys in blue better than anyone else. Nobody here is rooting against Glock, or the 17M, or the people in which it was designed for.

Not to derail, but the breakage issue is most likely in a training timeout until the guns are looked at by Glock. So not being in touch with all things LEO, what other guns have been issued and pulled for deadlining issues in the past?

It is very hard for certain folks, very hard indeed when it is a Glock. People went BANANAS when the USMC fielded new Colt 1911s. This is AFTER extensive testing led to a redesign of the frame. It didn't stop guys from bad-mouthing everything from USMC leadership, Colt, 45 ACP etc. Those guns were trashed by people and have done nothing but run since going to the field AFTER issues found in TESTING were resolved. Heck, one guy was so mad about the 1911 decision that he leaked photos of testing and lied about the gun trials. Where is the unbridled outrage at Glock for putting life dependent equipment in the field and THEN having the issue?

[TCinVA]

What dimensional changes?

Glock has, from time to time, tinkered with the dimensions on frames. I have a Gen3 G17, for example, that will not work with a GFA because on that run of guns the frame is slightly bigger around the back than it is on other Gen3 guns. Now why would Glock do that? Beats the hell out of me.

Sig, too, has tinkered with dimensional changes on their guns to the point that some groups who issued a particular type of Sig (Like a P226) found out that new, supposedly identical guns, didn't fit in the holsters.

Given the description of drawing frames instead of the whole gun, the thought that perhaps the interface between holster and handgun is contributing to that result is running around in my head.

[Totem Polar]

What times we live in. Glock hasn't even publicly announced this model, there are no 'official' photographs, and yet we're actively following the blow by blow of the first rollout. I'm sure there is a lesson somewhere in there for companies contemplating new product roll outs and testing.

The same times we live in are what put every interaction and decision that LEOs make in the field up on the world stage for everyone to armchair if something doesn't go completely optimally--including many who don't know what they are talking about. Seen in that context, it would make sense to have the same scrutiny given to companies who make millions selling the gear used by those LEOs. If Glock (or any company with fat contracts) can't handle either the scrutiny of--or the fallout from--that relationship, then they can stay out of the kitchen. Or, maybe lose their kitchen privileges (just ask Colt mfg.) JMO.

[El Cid]

Glock has, from time to time, tinkered with the dimensions on frames. I have a Gen3 G17, for example, that will not work with a GFA because on that run of guns the frame is slightly bigger around the back than it is on other Gen3 guns. Now why would Glock do that? Beats the hell out of me.

Really? I have GFA's on almost all my Glocks. That includes Gen 4 and Gen 3 G21's. The gen 3 was a PITA... But it fits. Your G17 is larger in the back than a 3rd gen G21?

[TCinVA]

There is a serial number range of 3rd Gen 9mm Glocks that the GFA wouldn't fit on. Mine is LVUXXX.

[El Cid]

There is a serial number range of 3rd Gen 9mm Glocks that the GFA wouldn't fit on. Mine is LVUXXX.

Damn. I had no idea. That's a little scary that the guns were so far out of normal dimensions.

[DEG]

There is a serial number range of 3rd Gen 9mm Glocks that the GFA wouldn't fit on. Mine is LVUXXX.

The grip force won't fit on Glock serial numbers that love porn? There is joke there somewhere writing itself.

[JSGlock34]

There are some G34 Gen3 holsters that won't work with the Gen4. Raven Concealment Systems's Phantom, for example.