Interesting - I wonder if they’ve seen a difference between the 43X and the 48. I’m personally not a fan of mag extensions with the exception of Glock’s +2 for the full sized 9s, but reliability a WML is something that they need to figure out. I wonder if the added mass on the dust cover causes it to flex under recoil and drag on the slide?Originally Posted by HCM
Last edited by HeavyDuty; 10-01-2020 at 08:50 AM.
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.”
If you have a TLR7 and a 3D printer you can run it on your 43X/48 MOS today
https://grabcad.com/library/tlr7-adapter-key-1
I was told they were tested - but not approved. My agency has tested the rail models. We just updated our authorized list and the 43x/48 was not on it. In fact we stopped approving new G43s. Current 43s are grandfathered. No mas.
The slimline guns are not intended to be replacements for a full-size gun for fighting/service use.
There is no free lunch, when you jam five extra rounds in the magazine or hang a light off the gun you are changing factors in the cycle of operation.
Not to mention that the slimline guns are less forgiving of grip issues and therefore more difficult to shoot well.
They have a roll to fill and they do that role reasonably well. But a G 48 is not a G 19.
See, I’m not sure I can accept that. It’s a 19 sized weapon, just thinner. Assuming the mag engineering is solid, there’s no reason it shouldn’t be able to be made to run as well as a 19. Yes, I agree with this when it comes to the 43 and 43X due to the shorter barrel.
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.”
The word from DSU at the PFI conference regarding the lights:
"No lights are approved for the G43s or G3Xs, and may not be used with them in place. Glock knows and informed DSU that the pistols will not function to DSU standards with weapon lights in place."
I assume they're talking about something like a TLR-6. It also leads me to believe they weren't tested, and that DSU is just relying on info from Glock.
Yes, it's thinner, meaning less mass to function with the same round as a 19. Then start hanging things off it and change the mass and dynamics of the frame flex. We've seen that movie before with G22s.
These are trade off made to optimize it for it's intended purpose. You can tow a trailer with a Honda Fit but it's sub optimal.
Even if you get it to run as well as a 19 it's still going to be harder to shoot as well unless you have small to extra small hands.
I don't mean to be brash, but can't accept it based on what? Do you have an engineering background? There are a lot of things that one would think "they would be able to do", that just aren't.
Have other manufacturers ever had difficulty getting lower mass, full or mid size but thin 9mms to run reliability? Example - my 3913 has never bobbled once in almost 30 years. And I’m an analyst.
Do you have information that would counter that overall industry experience with slimline 9s?
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.”
I don't know that comparing that a 3913 to a G48 makes a whole lot of sense. By that standard, the S&W Sigma or Remington R51 are proof that you can mess up a full-size or compact 9mm, but nobody is applying either to Glock specifically or pistols as a whole. Glock itself had trouble getting the RSA right on the 9mm Gen 4s and keeping Gen 3 .40s running reliably with many weapon lights. Here you have a gun with a new magazine design for Glock that is really a scaled up 43 as opposed to a scaled down 19.
Reply With Quote