Gen4 19 - The problems have started ....

[echo19]

I called Glock CS this morning and complained about my G17 Gen 3 which is having extracting problems. I told the man I was an armorer and have been for over 12 years. He told me it wasn't an extraction problem but more than likely ammo. I told him I used two different manufacturers. His recommendation was to have another armorer watch the ejection pattern and I had the option to send the gun in. I'm not an idiot, I had two people watch the pattern and the brass landed back on the pistol or on my arm. Piss poor customer service for an armorer, I can just imagine what a non-LEO, non-armorer is getting. HK is looking better.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[TCinVA]

Glock has done alot of dumb shit in the past. This isn't the first time they've done it, and it won't be the last either. The same can be said of any other gun company, HK, S&W, SIG, Beretta and Ruger included.

As much as I can remember, the current Glock fiasco with the Gen 4 RSA's and ejectors/extractors bears more than a passing resemblance to Glock's handling of the PHase III issues with the NYPD; Glock dicked around a major police department for months while refusing to acknowledge anything was wrong. Only after the NYPD took the drastic step of calling out GLock and contacting Ruger did Smyrna/Austria actually do anything. Glock's behavior during the Gen 4 issues is only par for the course, with some minor improvements.

I've always thought it was silly to market one's product as "Perfection."....but downright inexcusable to actually believe it.

[Long tom coffin]

I've always thought it was silly to market one's product as "Perfection."....but downright inexcusable to actually believe it.

There's never been anything perfect about Glock or its firearms. Depending on who you ask, there were lots of little imperfections. Glock's pistols weren't "Perfect", they were (and are) retardedly simplistic. I mean, logic dictates that the more complicated a machine is, the higher chance of mechanical failure, correct? There's more possibilities for things to go wrong.Obviously, the reverse that the more simple a machine, the less chance of mechanical failure. And that's how glock operates. Glock isn't anything special; they just figured out how to craft a halfway decent and reliable pistol for an acceptable price point with a minimum of moving parts. Well, they did.


Now if we could just get Gaston to realize this.

[JHC]

Meh, Chevy ain't "Like a Rock" either. Whatcha gonna do? "Glock; we're a pretty good choice." (d90king)

[ToddG]

I mean, logic dictates that the more complicated a machine is, the higher chance of mechanical failure, correct?

This is a fallacious argument. Complexity does not inherently mean less reliable. Take a top end Swiss watch movement. It is phenomenally more complicated than any handgun. But it's expected to beat half a million times a day with less than a 0.006% error rate... for a lifetime, with a maintenance routine every 2-5 years.

Alternatively, you could follow the "logic" to its obvious conclusion. A one-piece gun would be the height of simplicity, but would not work at all.

[TCinVA]

Glock's pistols weren't "Perfect", they were (and are) retardedly simplistic.

Well of course not...but actually stating that isn't really welcomed in Glock's corporate culture, from what I understand.

Hence the problems.

[JonInWA]

The other thing that kills me is that we routinely expect continuous, uninterrupted performance from another tool, utilizing controlled and enclosed explosions, with minimal operator lubrication and maintenance expectations-our modern vehicles. These things literally have thousands and thousands of interreacting components, both mechanical and electronic, and are continuously exposed to less than ideal environmental situations. Yet it's a realistic expectation for most modern vehicles to perform flawlessly for thousands of miles before maintenance intervals-which are mostly lube, oil and filter changes.

Yeah, the analogy may be somewhat flawed if doing a one-on-one comparison between a firearm and a vehicle (not too many firearms cost tens of thousands of dollars {unless you really feel compelled to buy a new production Krieghoff P.08 Luger, et al...} for example. But still...

Obviously, there's a size-to-result, and cost (both R&D, basic resource procurement, manufacturing, packaging, shipping, distribution, marketing, forcasted aftermarket service/warranty requirements and the ultimate purchaser's) factors to be taken into account. But for crying out loud, it really seem like all that we're asking for is a return to the pre-2010 Gen 3 G17/G19 level of performance; it's not like we all need to run out and buy new SIG 210s...

Best, Jon

[Long tom coffin]

This is a fallacious argument. Complexity does not inherently mean less reliable. Take a top end Swiss watch movement. It is phenomenally more complicated than any handgun. But it's expected to beat half a million times a day with less than a 0.006% error rate... for a lifetime, with a maintenance routine every 2-5 years.

Alternatively, you could follow the "logic" to its obvious conclusion. A one-piece gun would be the height of simplicity, but would not work at all.

That's taking my argument to unreasonable levels.

[Kyle Reese]

All I want fer Christmas is a 9mm Gen 3 Glock (pre 2010), a 9mm Gen 3 Glock (pre 2010), a 9mm Gen 3 Glock (pre 2010).

[JV_]

I just want a Gen4 that works well. I think we're very close....