The Glock 48 is dumb: Change My Mind

[rob_s]

Part of Glocks business model is maximizing parts commonality. Many of the issues with Gen 2/3 Glocks involved use of the G17/19 RSA designed for 9mm in the .40 cal G22/23. They then repeated this in the opposite direction when the early Gen 4 17/19’s had issues because they tried to run 9mm guns on an RSA re-designed for .40 cal.

Yup and it’s idiotic.

I don't know that I'd agree that designing to use existing parts is "idiotic". In fact, I'd say it's genius.

That said, there are likely design considerations that one should take into account that you may not have to when designing from scratch.

IIRC the KAST "midlength" in their 5.56 guns is simply the 7.62 gas tube re-purposed. However, if you're going to re-purpose that gas tube, you can't use the same size gas port as everyone else using a traditional carbine or mid-length tube. You gotta spend a little more engineering time to make that standardized part work properly.

Maybe what you mean is that Glock's method of doing so can be idiotic?

[HCM]

I don't know that I'd agree that designing to use existing parts is "idiotic". In fact, I'd say it's genius.

That said, there are likely design considerations that one should take into account that you may not have to when designing from scratch.

IIRC the KAST "midlength" in their 5.56 guns is simply the 7.62 gas tube re-purposed. However, if you're going to re-purpose that gas tube, you can't use the same size gas port as everyone else using a traditional carbine or mid-length tube. You gotta spend a little more engineering time to make that standardized part work properly.

Maybe what you mean is that Glock's method of doing so can be idiotic?

From a pure $$$ POV it could seem like genius but in actuality it is false economy. From a functional POV thinking you can sell duty guns in two very different calibers without adjusting slide weight or springs like literally everyone else is willful blindness at best.

[LittleLebowski]

Maybe what you mean is that Glock's method of doing so can be idiotic?

That works. I sure got bit by it with the Gen4s, but my G48 runs well.

[rob_s]

From a pure $$$ POV it could seem like genius but in actuality it is false economy. From a functional POV thinking you can sell duty guns in two very different calibers without adjusting slide weight or springs like literally everyone else is willful blindness at best.

I think we're basically agreeing.

it's good in concept provided you've done the cost:benefit analysis and put in (and include the cost in your analysis) the engineering time, but the specific example given was not a good one.

[luckyman]

Part of Glocks business model is maximizing parts commonality. Many of the issues with Gen 2/3 Glocks involved use of the G17/19 RSA designed for 9mm in the .40 cal G22/23. They then repeated this in the opposite direction when the early Gen 4 17/19’s had issues because they tried to run 9mm guns on an RSA re-designed for .40 cal.

Yeah agreed, which is why I specified “from their own inventory”. If all the other sane choices would have been an additional item form them to stock it gets much more likely they might not have done that research.

[RJ]

@HCM I forgot to ask when this came up, did your agency test and disapprove the G48 also, or just the G43/43X?

[HCM]

@HCM I forgot to ask when this came up, did your agency test and disapprove the G48 also, or just the G43/43X?

We tested both the 48 and 43x. 43 was previously approved but the testing lead to new 43s being deauthorized.

[M2CattleCo]

I don’t know; I’m skeptical Glock engineers would have been so inept as to not consider other options from their own inventory.

I could picture where they made their choice based on weighting requirements differently, like saving .05$ per pistol, or maybe having an easier to rack slide in the LGS being seen as a sales advantage for their target demographic, but I have to imagine they at least considered options from the viewpoint of reliability.

A longer spring is a better spring. No two ways about it.

Same as with short vs 5” 1911s and rifle vs carbine AR springs.

[OlongJohnson]

Lots of products are designed with a heavy dose of wishful thinking.

[CLaw]

So, reliability and spring issues aside... does there seem to be a consensus on 43x vs 48 as far as shootability? Or is it like the 45 vs 17 debate? 45 tracks faster... 17 recoils less... etc.