Thoughts on G48/34/35 Built on Too Small Frame for Cost Savings?

[powell556]

One of my admittedly emotional triggers is when manufacturers produce something that is suboptimal in the name of cost savings, even if that compromise is only 1% worse. Especially when it comes to something I might rely on for my life. Everything in the world is a compromise so as long as I’m educated on the particulars of the compromise, then I can get over it.

I really want a glock 48 but I dislike that it’s built on a g43x frame for cost savings purposes. One less SKU for them to produce in bulk. Similarly the glock 34 and 35 are built on a 17 frame.

These guns require that the end of the slide have some kind of bottom extended shroud thing (is there a technical term for that?) to cover up where the polymer slide should be, but isn’t, because glocks accountants decided it would be too cost prohibitive if they had their own frames.

My belief is that this must be a trade off that is suboptimal because otherwise, all glocks would be built on a frame that’s 1/2” too small and have this slide bottom shroud.

I do recognize that there’s a consumer benefit to frame sharing in that an end user can share slides on frames. I personally don’t see that as useful but I’m sure some people derive a benefit from it.

Here’s what I’m curious about:

Is there a name for this shroud thing?

Any potential issues with guns that have this style of frame? Perhaps in military austere environments where crap might be able to get in from that shroud?

How much of a compromise is this?

Is there anyone who refuses to buy or carry these types of guns due to potential issues from carry or use? Even if the people are curmudgeonly, I’m looking to see if this has been discussed elsewhere.

[GJM]

I have to say this is one of the oddest complaints that I have ever heard. Commonality/compatibility is a feature not a defect. My 17 is effectively a parts kit for my 34, and the 43/43X/48 interchangeability is likewise a very attractive feature to me. Didn’t CBP just specify a full size pistol that interchanges with the mid size Glock pistols?

[Eric_L]

Shroud, or I personally thought it was a dust cover......


https://www.lonewolfdist.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=919708

One of my admittedly emotional triggers is when manufacturers produce something that is suboptimal in the name of cost savings, even if that compromise is only 1% worse. Especially when it comes to something I might rely on for my life. Everything in the world is a compromise so as long as I’m educated on the particulars of the compromise, then I can get over it.

I really want a glock 48 but I dislike that it’s built on a g43x frame for cost savings purposes. One less SKU for them to produce in bulk. Similarly the glock 34 and 35 are built on a 17 frame.

These guns require that the end of the slide have some kind of bottom extended shroud thing (is there a technical term for that?) to cover up where the polymer slide should be, but isn’t, because glocks accountants decided it would be too cost prohibitive if they had their own frames.

My belief is that this must be a trade off that is suboptimal because otherwise, all glocks would be built on a frame that’s 1/2” too small and have this slide bottom shroud.

I do recognize that there’s a consumer benefit to frame sharing in that an end user can share slides on frames. I personally don’t see that as useful but I’m sure some people derive a benefit from it.

Here’s what I’m curious about:

Is there a name for this shroud thing?

Any potential issues with guns that have this style of frame? Perhaps in military austere environments where crap might be able to get in from that shroud?

How much of a compromise is this?

Is there anyone who refuses to buy or carry these types of guns due to potential issues from carry or use? Even if the people are curmudgeonly, I’m looking to see if this has been discussed elsewhere.

[Dorsai]

The slide extended beyond the frame with most guns prior to the polymer craze, largely spearheaded by Glock. Look at the M1911, Browning Hi-Power, Radom, Tokarev, Walther PP, etc. In the case of the Glock, the G48/34/35 have a re-engineered recoil spring plug area so that they can used the same recoil spring as the G43x/17. It isn't a compromise or sub-optimal. Yes, it simplifies the production line, but that generally results lower costs to the consumer. And it makes it more flexible for us as well. Your objection is subjective, not objective, and there is nothing wrong with it. Nor am I trying to change your mind. It's no skin off my nose. I understand wanting a gun to be just like you want. I've customized guns to make them the way I want, not the way the manufacturer wanted. It cost me money, but I had the disposable cash and it was worth it to me. Not because there was something objectively bad about the stock product, it just wasn't what I wanted.

[ChaseN]

*double checks URL*

Nope, this isnt arfcom.... 🤔

[Caballoflaco]

If you’re looking for hard data the Border Patrol didn’t find any deficiencies in testing similar configurations of glock 17 slides on glock 19 length frames for their new pistols, and they often work in what can be called an austere environment.

Methinks you’re worried about nothing.

[HCM]

I have to say this is one of the oddest complaints that I have ever heard. Commonality/compatibility is a feature not a defect. My 17 is effectively a parts kit for my 34, and the 43/43X/48 interchangeability is likewise a very attractive feature to me. Didn’t CBP just specify a full size pistol that interchanges with the mid size Glock pistols?

They did, the G47.

This complaint reminds me of something... oh yes.

[Chain]

It's not cost savings it's common sense. The ratio of 34 to 17 sales has got to be, what, 1:50?

[Lester Polfus]

*double checks URL*

Nope, this isnt arfcom.... 🤔

Discussions like this one do seem to stem from a particular spectrum.

[powell556]

Interesting on the G47. If that was tested hard then the overall design seems fine.

I’m still of the mindset it’s for cost savings, because if it was 100% as good, why do glock 19/23 size frames exist— why not just use an extended slide on a g26 frame?

They could consolidate down to subcompact and full size frames only if no compromise existed I think. Compact guns could just use sub compact frame and extended guns like g34 could use full size frame.