Glock +2 Baseplate Failure

[El Cid]

Has anyone see this happen with stock G17 mags, no extension?

In 11+ years I haven't. I suspect flat base plates distribute the force better but I have nothing scientific to back up my theory. I do know the feds test such things and that was one of the rumors as to why the P320 failed their trials (if it actually failed - we will likely never know).

[ssb]

Yea, just plain old current generation mags, loaded to capacity and dropped.

I haven't, and I tried to make it happen.

My pet theory after playing with them is that it has to do with how the Glock floorplate attaches. A fairly light strike to the rear of the + basepad will dislodge it because of its slides-backward-to-attach mounting. That's with an unloaded mag. With a loaded mag, I dropped them onto my garage floor directly on the bottom of the basepad with no issue. Dropping the + mags slightly at an angle (where the force would end up on the rear of the basepad, pushing forward), however, meant that things would go a-flying. With the flat (non-extended) floorplates, there simply isn't much room for this hit-the-rear action to happen.

This also occurred with the Arredondo +3s, FWIW, and that testing (along with losing half my magazine in the street outside my apartment...) led me to swear off Glock extensions. I'd bought the Arredondos believing they would be more secure. In drop testing, they failed at about the same rate as the OEMs.

[El Cid]

I haven't, and I tried to make it happen.

My pet theory after playing with them is that it has to do with how the Glock floorplate attaches. A fairly light strike to the rear of the + basepad will dislodge it because of its slides-backward-to-attach mounting. That's with an unloaded mag. With a loaded mag, I dropped them onto my garage floor directly on the bottom of the basepad with no issue. Dropping the + mags slightly at an angle (where the force would end up on the rear of the basepad, pushing forward), however, meant that things would go a-flying. With the flat (non-extended) floorplates, there simply isn't much room for this hit-the-rear action to happen.

This also occurred with the Arredondo +3s, FWIW, and that testing (along with losing half my magazine in the street outside my apartment...) led me to swear off Glock extensions. I'd bought the Arredondos believing they would be more secure. In drop testing, they failed at about the same rate as the OEMs.

Yea I imagine it's a mag extension thing more than a Glock mag extension thing. I've had good luck with TTI's up until last month when one of my +5's developed feeding issues. With Arredondo my 9mm Glock extensions work great as do their Para P14 extensions. However the Arredondo G21 extensions never ran right for me.

This is why shooters are happier with longer tube mags like the ETS, Magpul, and OEM Glock 22rd 40cal mags.

I should add I have built 3 of the G17 mags with the OEM +2's and have been using them in matches with zero problems. Also I have several of the Glock 33rd mags which come with the +2 floor plate. They have all run in every 9mm I've tested them with. But I've never dropped a full one. Might have to go try that.

[ST911]

I've used a good number of the 7151 OEM magazine extensions since they were released without issue. Use includes training on dirt and concrete, gun games, and bouncing around in all manner of containers and vehicles. I don't use them as much for the extra capacity as the extra length in pouches and sleeves. When I've seen issues of others they were the old variant of extension, or the insert was missing from the newer.

I would buy an OEM 22-25rd magazine (as offered in .40), but Magpul is likely already filling what market interest there is for it.

For clarity, the 7151 "new version" extension I speak of is this one..

[DocSabo40]

No experience with the factory +2, but the TTI ones are definitely not carry worthy. In my sample size of 6, they auto-deconstruct when they hit hard surfaces, even when empty.

[jh9]

In 11+ years I haven't. I suspect flat base plates distribute the force better but I have nothing scientific to back up my theory. I do know the feds test such things and that was one of the rumors as to why the P320 failed their trials (if it actually failed - we will likely never know).

The standard Glock mags have ears on the body and grooves on the floorplate to keep them from coming off. Even with a GTUL some of them are a right pain in the ass to remove. There's more than just the locking plate to keep the basepad on.

Extended pads depend on the manufacturer. I don't know about the OEM +2s, but I suspect they don't have the same cutouts? I know the Taylor Freelance extended pads use two hex screws and a piece of sheet metal on the back, which more or less serves the same purpose.

[El Cid]

The standard Glock mags have ears on the body and grooves on the floorplate to keep them from coming off. Even with a GTUL some of them are a right pain in the ass to remove. There's more than just the locking plate to keep the basepad on.

Extended pads depend on the manufacturer. I don't know about the OEM +2s, but I suspect they don't have the same cutouts? I know the Taylor Freelance extended pads use two hex screws and a piece of sheet metal on the back, which more or less serves the same purpose.

They do have the cut outs. You can see them in the pic ST1911 posted above. That's why I mentioned the feds earlier. They are typically very reluctant to allow anything on duty that didn't come with the weapon.

[jh9]

They do have the cut outs. You can see them in the pic ST1911 posted above. That's why I mentioned the feds earlier. They are typically very reluctant to allow anything on duty that didn't come with the weapon.

Do you happen to know when the design changed?

AFAIK They didn't always have the ears/cutouts. (Not just the +2 basepads but the standard magazines) I have no idea when that changed and how many of the older versions are still floating around.

[El Cid]

Do you happen to know when the design changed?

AFAIK They didn't always have the ears/cutouts. (Not just the +2 basepads but the standard magazines) I have no idea when that changed and how many of the older versions are still floating around.

No idea. They've always been a pain to remove and install so I thought they were always like that. But I didn't get into Glock's til 2006.

[Chuck Haggard]

Before I started carrying the OEM +2 base pads and 11 coil mag spring combo back in 2006 I did a LOT of testing. Including dropping them on the tile floor of my armory numerous times, loaded and unloaded. All of the aftermarket + base pads would pop off, the Pierce were really bad about this. The Glock OEMs didn't for me. I've also never had a stoppage from one of these mags yet, including training on some shitty ranges, field carry, being caught in flood waters for hours, etc.

I have to wonder if Glock has changed the material they make the newer base pads out of, or the mags themselves, to make this more likely to happen.

FWIW, I'm not yet sold on the MagPul 21 round mgs, or the 17s for that matter, I'd had mag related stoppages from both so far, and I haven't even been using them that long.