Page 26 of 48 FirstFirst ... 16242526272836 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 474

Thread: Any other Glock 48 fans?

  1. #251
    Chasing the Horizon RJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ View Post
    Thanks, very interesting. Unfortunately I forgot to note which mag it was.

    By any chance, do you recall the caliper measurements of the “good” vs. “bad” mags, and where you measured?
    Out of interest, I measured three values near the center of the feed lip gap, and averaged them. I have three mags, two that came with the gun (C-1 and C-2) purchased mid-this year, and one (R-1) purchased off the shelf at a LGS in Venice FL this summer:

    C-1 - 0.329"
    C-2 - 0.334"
    R-1 - 0.329"

    So mag C-2 is "different", in that it's feed lips measure slightly bigger than the other two. My question is, would 0.005" difference in feed lip gap cause a 115 JHP to nosedive in a Glock 48?

  2. #252
    Quote Originally Posted by HeavyDuty View Post
    Do you have more info on the markings on the newer, more reliable magazines? Glock is good about swapping unreliable mags.
    I don't think there have been any revisions to the 43X/48 mags since they were introduced; does anyone know differently? I think the bad mags that I swapped out with the rep were marked 47574 with no visual differences to any of the other mags I have..

  3. #253
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ View Post
    Out of interest, I measured three values near the center of the feed lip gap, and averaged them. I have three mags, two that came with the gun (C-1 and C-2) purchased mid-this year, and one (R-1) purchased off the shelf at a LGS in Venice FL this summer:

    C-1 - 0.329"
    C-2 - 0.334"
    R-1 - 0.329"

    So mag C-2 is "different", in that it's feed lips measure slightly bigger than the other two. My question is, would 0.005" difference in feed lip gap cause a 115 JHP to nosedive in a Glock 48?
    I no longer have my notes with the measurements I took; I transcribed my scribble into a department email to other armorers and the LE rep, and I no longer have access to the system because I retired a few months ago (how perfect was my timing?? ).

    I do recall that the difference between the bad and good mags was small -- less than 10/1000 -- but the bad ones were consistently wider than the good. Thus, the feed lips were my working theory, with no visual difference to mag bodies/followers/springs. The consensus was that this was as good a theory as any, and the mags were sent to Smyrna for analysis, but I never heard the results.

    In any event, rather than going nuts trying to measure feed lips in the same spot from mag to mag, they can be easily vetted on the range. My method was: load three rounds of carry ammo into each mag (three rather than two, because I wanted the second-to-last round to be chambered by recoil rather than hand-cycled, to eliminate that variable). The bad mags would hang nose-up on the last round of Gold Dot at least half the time, so you won't wait long to encounter a failure!

    I spent a sore-fingered afternoon burning a full case of duty ammo through 10 mags, three rounds at a time (the 3 replacements from the rep, and 7 others I'd bought from the dept range shop). All 10 sailed through the test without a bobble, 33 three-round cycles per mag. My takeaway from this was that if the mag isn't right, you'll know very early -- no need to test it to death, which is good when you don't have access to your employer's ammo.

    I've done the load-three test with carry ammo with every new mag I've put in service since (I'm up to more than 3 dozen, purchased a few here & there), with no malfunctions. Based on all of this, the problem SEEMS to be confined to an early run of mags. My G48 was from the very first shipment that arrived at our shop; all three of the mags that came with it exhibited the problem, but all of the mags I've obtained since have been fine.

  4. #254
    I’ve been shaking out my two 48s with 147 HST and so far so good.

    I can’t make ‘em malfunction in any way and they feed them fine.

    I can shoot a 48 slow fire better than a 17, and reloads are MUCH better than with a 43. Accuracy is almost silly even with the plastic sights. Same as me with a 43.

    I’m very confident right now.

  5. #255
    Chasing the Horizon RJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Mac View Post

    In any event, rather than going nuts trying to measure feed lips in the same spot from mag to mag, they can be easily vetted on the range. My method was: load three rounds of carry ammo into each mag (three rather than two, because I wanted the second-to-last round to be chambered by recoil rather than hand-cycled, to eliminate that variable). The bad mags would hang nose-up on the last round of Gold Dot at least half the time, so you won't wait long to encounter a failure!
    Thanks for writing that up, I genuinely appreciate it.

    I have not heard of the three-carry-round test for a magazine before, that's an interesting check. Despite magazines being so critical on semi-auto pistols, and Glocks in particular, it's actually never occurred to me to think about how to check a magazine for function. I will likely try that test a few times using my G48 carry ammo (124+p/147 HST).

    Being a Glock shooter, malfunctions happen to me so rarely that it really surprises me when it happens (That came out awkwardly; I'm really trying not to sound like a fan-boi, but one of the reasons I choose to shoot Glocks is their reliability.)

    In any case, the GD 115 ammo that I had an issue with today is not what I carry in the G48. I doubt I will shoot any more, since I ran out of the once-chambered P365 rounds in my ready box. I don't have a lot of GD 115 for my wife's P365. I was only able to get it in the little 20 round jewel boxes, and it was pretty dear. At the current cost Self Defence ammo these days, I don't think I'll be doing any more testing of it in my G48. I have shot both 147 HST and 124+p GD with no issues. Admittedly, this is a pretty small number, less than 50 rounds, but I am confident either one would get the job done. I'll save the 115 for her gun.

    As a side comment on magazine part numbers, all three of the ones I have are marked "47574". Clearly, I need more magazines than just 3, so as I purchase more in the next few months, I'll keep an eye on them, in particular, record the average feed lip width out of interest. If it malfunctions again, I sure will note the mag number I have marked on there in large silver Sharpie lol

  6. #256
    Site Supporter MGW's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Kansas
    I went ahead and bought a 48. I owned an early two tone 48 but sold it after testing it beside a 43x. The drills that made me decide to switch were all max speed drills. For what ever reason I like this new 48 a lot better than I remember. It does recoil lighter than my 43x. It’s plenty accurate enough especially when shooting assessment speeds. I still think it’s personal preference but today I like the 48 better. I’m going to buy a second one and order some Heinie sights.

    Rich asked about a comparison between 48’s and smaller 1911’s. I don’t have much experience with anything smaller than government 1911’s so I can’t make a direct comparison. For what ever reason 1911’s and 48/43x’s work really well together. I honestly have not carried a 1911 once since vetting my pair of 43x’s. I gain a lot of capability with a 1911 but it’s really hard to convince myself to carry that extra weight and two fewer rounds.

    I’m going to commit the majority of my practice to the 48 in 2021. I really want to see how much I can squeeze out of it. Unfortunately running 10,000 rounds through it next year probably won’t happen. Not unless a pallet of ammo magically shows up on my door steps.
    “If you know the way broadly you will see it in everything." - Miyamoto Musashi

  7. #257
    Site Supporter ST911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Savage Hands View Post
    With all the testing you have done I'm definitely more confident in using 147 HST now, I did test about two mags worth when the gun was new with no problems but there's not enough ammo to replace it to evaluate it at this time. How did it group for you in the 48?
    It was fine, can't find a specific 147 HST result right now. Overall, the G48 shot as well as the other gen5s. Best targets for both the 43X and 48 were in the 2-3" range, 25yds, standing unsupported, 5rd group. On the Rangemaster bullseye course, results were typically 280-290. The 43X always seemed to edge out the 48 for the same reasons the 19X/45 edge out the 17. Hope that helps.
    الدهون القاع الفتيات لك جعل العالم هزاز جولة الذهاب

  8. #258
    Quote Originally Posted by ST911 View Post
    It was fine, can't find a specific 147 HST result right now. Overall, the G48 shot as well as the other gen5s. Best targets for both the 43X and 48 were in the 2-3" range, 25yds, standing unsupported, 5rd group. On the Rangemaster bullseye course, results were typically 280-290. The 43X always seemed to edge out the 48 for the same reasons the 19X/45 edge out the 17. Hope that helps.

    It does, thank you!

  9. #259
    Site Supporter HeavyDuty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Not very bright but does lack ambition
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Mac View Post
    I don't think there have been any revisions to the 43X/48 mags since they were introduced; does anyone know differently? I think the bad mags that I swapped out with the rep were marked 47574 with no visual differences to any of the other mags I have..
    Ooof. I was assuming they revised things.
    Ken

    BBI: ...”you better not forget the safe word because shit's about to get weird”...
    revchuck38: ...”mo' ammo is mo' betta' unless you're swimming or on fire.”

  10. #260
    Quote Originally Posted by RJ View Post
    Clearly, I need more magazines than just 3, so as I purchase more in the next few months, I'll keep an eye on them, in particular, record the average feed lip width out of interest. If it malfunctions again, I sure will note the mag number I have marked on there in large silver Sharpie lol
    Please let us know if you have any more issues with 43X/48 mags. I think they're good to go, but they obviously lack the decades of proven reliability we have from the full double-stack Glock mags.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •