AAR: Glock Armorers Course (03/2013)

[ST911]

Did they mention anything about the erratic ejection problems?

The course reviewed proper function, cycle of operation, diagnostic methods, preventative maintenance, and corrective action to resolve issues likely in the field, and how to receive tech/warranty service.

Any perceived or actual issues would be identified and addressed via the above.

[Copabeat]

Great information, thank you for posting it.

[dickmadison]

Awesome post - did he mention why they moved away from Tenifer to nitriding? I miss tennifer

[JV_]

I miss tennifer

I find the (new) black portion of the finish (phosphate) to be far more durable than the black that was applied during the tenifier days.

I've had Gen4 guns with 5000'ish rounds through them and the barrel wear, and holster wear, are like a Gen3 w/ 500 rounds.

[ToddG]

Skintop911, none of this is directed at you personally or even Mr. Clark. These are just comments based on my experience in the industry and specifically based on the years I spent dealing with the armorer instructors at Beretta and SIG:

A 9mm single stack and the carbine exist but are pending release at some point in the future.

Color me skeptical, especially given the out of control demand for carbines right now in particular. I guess it depends on what was meant by "exist." If we're talking drawings or even a rough early prototype, sure. But gun companies don't spend the time and money to develop and test new firearms just to let them sit on the shelves for months or years.

Trigger pins in new guns are applied with a glue-ish compound to prevent corrosion. They should be expected to come out hard at first.

Again, skeptical. People have been complaining about the pin/hole issue for a couple of years now and this is the first I heard that it was due to a glue. I know that the first pin and trigger pin on my test G17 gen4 required a hammer and punch to remove early on and no one at Glock claimed it had anything to do with glue; nor was there are such residue on the pins when they finally came out.

The slide serrations on the RTF2 were of Austrian origin for purposes of aesthetics. Facing the wrong direction, they function as a “forward assist” for the slide rather than aiding in retraction.

Glad to see that admitted. Now all the fanbois can stop pretending it's some special physics- and anatomy-defying discovery.

Glock slides and barrels are now nitrided. The change occurred in 2009 in US guns and 2010 in Austrian. Nitration is not tennifer. It still has a hardness of 64 of the Rockwell C scale, and is 99% saltwater corrosion protected. Nitrided slides can be distinguished bv a shinier surface over the flatter black of the tennifer slides.

Any comment on why the change?

Glock barrels are now test fired at 200% pressure. The old standard was 130% pressure.

Again, skeptical. Proof loads, both in Germany and the US, are specified by established standards. The suggestion that the G29 is being tested at 75kpsi and the G31/32/33 are being tested at 80kpsi is very difficult to believe especially given the fact that the underlying steel in Glock's barrels is not known to be particularly special in any way.

Gen3 and earlier RSAs may have a dash number (###-#). The dash number indicates that it is the current type. Those RSAs have Zytel added for additional heat resistance.

While the zytel certainly doesn't hurt, I wonder if anyone under any normal circumstances had heat-related issues with the earlier RSAs. To the best of my knowledge, it didn't become a "problem" until the M&P came out, where S&W salesman would run side by side tests of a Glock and M&P by firing 2k rounds through each as fast as they could. Under that kind of utterly impractical circumstance the Glock RSA would, in fact, fail.

Replace gen3 and earlier RSAs at 2500 rounds. Replace gen4 RSAs at 5000.

Interesting. Both of those numbers are substantially lower than originally published. When the gen4 first came out, they were saying 10k.

The “12:00 test” remains in the curriculum to test the RSA.

That's very interesting, as it had been removed from the curriculum for quite some time.

The LCI exists to satisfy requirements in states requiring same, and was standardized across production. It should not be relied upon to determine the gun’s loaded status.

While I understand the point they're making, I'm always amused when a manufacturer says "our thingamajig should not be used as a thingamajig."

The .40SW round is “already loaded to the brink of explosion.”

I would have asked how they manage to get proof loads at twice the SAAMI spec, then.

Manual addition: Headspace, barrel, and extractor gauge are listed and discussed.

That's excellent. While Glock has long prided itself on the illusion that one simple punch was its complete armorer kit, giving agencies and serious shooters some gauges to track actual functionality is laudable. I wish more companies did the same.

The Glock will run with nine parts removed or in a state of failure, unlike popular competitor product. They are the trigger spring, locking block pin, trigger pin, trigger mechanism housing pin, locking insert in the magazine, FP safety and spring, ejector, and slide stop. The mag release can also be removed and the gun will run, with attention to mag seating.

It would be interesting to hear from someone at S&W on this issue, as I imagine they could list a bunch of parts that can be broken or removed from their guns, too, without failing. Many brands/models will still function with the trigger return spring broke. For SIG, we used to claim the same thing with the quiet caveat that the gun would have to be held upside down while it was fired... but on paper, "fires even with the trigger return spring broken."

Maintenance acronym: SAMM: Shooter, Ammunition, Maintenance, Mechanical Failure

I assume this is meant as the order in which to examine things if there is a problem?

Manual addition: There is a factory recommended spare parts list published.

That's awesome. I'd love to see it.

Instructor: “What does oil attract?”
Student: “Morons.”

Excellent.

Student, re: the extended slide stop lever: “why would I need an extended lever to hold the slide open?”

Also excellent.

Thanks for taking the time to type out your notes!

[ST911]

I find the (new) black portion of the finish (phosphate) to be far more durable than the black that was applied during the tenifier days.

I've had Gen4 guns with 5000'ish rounds through them and the barrel wear, and holster wear, are like a Gen3 w/ 500 rounds.

I'm watching a batch of gen4s (mostly 9mm) and noticed this as well as I document and photograph them. Earlier models show finish wear earlier and more significantly than current models, internally and externally.

Skintop911, none of this is directed at you personally or even Mr. Clark. These are just comments based on my experience in the industry and specifically based on the years I spent dealing with the armorer instructors at Beretta and SIG:

No worries. I knew you'd have a few.

Again, skeptical. People have been complaining about the pin/hole issue for a couple of years now and this is the first I heard that it was due to a glue. I know that the first pin and trigger pin on my test G17 gen4 required a hammer and punch to remove early on and no one at Glock claimed it had anything to do with glue; nor was there are such residue on the pins when they finally came out.

First I'd heard of that as well, but I have noticed a harder pin removal in the last few years of production than earlier. I don't notice any residue either.

Any comment on why the change?

I vaguely recall mention that it was a process easier to do and manage (regulatory? environmental?), but have no notes on it. That does wash with earlier explanations elsewhere.

While the zytel certainly doesn't hurt, I wonder if anyone under any normal circumstances had heat-related issues with the earlier RSAs. To the best of my knowledge, it didn't become a "problem" until the M&P came out, where S&W salesman would run side by side tests of a Glock and M&P by firing 2k rounds through each as fast as they could. Under that kind of utterly impractical circumstance the Glock RSA would, in fact, fail.

Would the added zytel offer anything in rigidity or overall structural integrity in addition to heat resistance?

I assume this is meant as the order in which to examine things if there is a problem?

Correct to my memory.

That's awesome. I'd love to see it.

For clarity, it's a list of recommended spares for agency armories, by number of guns supported.

[ToddG]

First I'd heard of that as well, but I have noticed a harder pin removal in the last few years of production than earlier. I don't notice any residue either.

Thus my skepticism. I think the pin/hole issue has something to do with size or angle changes. "It's glue" is exactly the kind of made-up justification that spreads through an armorer instructor cadre, leaving the majority of the guys innocently ignorant of the facts.

I could certainly be wrong, but since Glock pins weren't exactly falling out to begin with it seems... unlikely.

I vaguely recall mention that it was a process easier to do and manage (regulatory? environmental?), but have no notes on it. That does wash with earlier explanations elsewhere.

Makes sense. I'm sure Bill R. could write a thesis on the differences between the two, but as an end user I don't find it meaningful.

Would the added zytel offer anything in rigidity or overall structural integrity in addition to heat resistance?

Given the recommendation to replace every 2,500 rounds, I'd guess not.

As for the SAMM thing, while it doesn't sound as cool I'd think "maintenance" would come before "ammunition," especially at the agency level where quality ammo is likely used.

[Ray Keith]

Do current armorers get updated in any way on new information? I have never received a thing from them. It's like being a CHL instructor in Texas, thank goodness I'm still enjoying the 2009 newsletter or I'd be upset.

[ST911]

Do current armorers get updated in any way on new information? I have never received a thing from them. It's like being a CHL instructor in Texas, thank goodness I'm still enjoying the 2009 newsletter or I'd be upset.

No, not generally. The recertification cycle is intended to manage needed updates. Not as speedily as when it was two years, but it's probably often enough. Not much changes, and almost none of it is critical.

Better maintainers and programs will have periodic contact with their field rep(s). Some reps are more active than others as well.

[LOKNLOD]

As for the SAMM thing, while it doesn't sound as cool I'd think "maintenance" would come before "ammunition," especially at the agency level where quality ammo is likely used.

My personal version is SMARMY -
Shooter
Maintenance,
Ammo,
Really are you sure about the shooter?,
Mechanical Failure,
Yeah it turned out to be the shooter.