Glock single stack vs Glock double stack reliability?

[Josh17]

I've tried to google search this with so many conflicting answer.

I'm wondering if the Glock 43 has ANY reliability advantages over the Glock 26, due to the Glock 43 being a single stack. It seems more simple
so I've heard some claim it's more reliable, while others claim the opposite the modern day double stack mags are actually more reliable with less likely to have jams, failure to feeds, etc. Everything I read was very old, so I wanted to hear some new info especially from people on this forum. Plus if anyone has used both the Glock 43 and 26 maybe can put some input if either one has seemed to be better reliability wise. I'd assume that a modern day single stack would be slightly more reliable since it's simple and they stack right on top, but maybe I'm wrong and there's no difference?

Here's one post I read online saying a double stack is better:

"No. Single stack mags can be just as good, or just as bad as double stack. In fact , many older single-stack designs are much more susceptible to feed lip damage and/or lip spreading apart then those found on modern double stack mag designs. The double stack to single feed lips are sort of braced by the inward taper of the magazine at the top. Rc"

Now here's someone who claimed single stacks are BETTER:

Single stacks consist of a single column of ammunition stacked one on top of the other. Double stacks are two columns of ammunition stacked together in a staggered manner(looks like a zipper). As the rounds are feed into the pistol they are pushed into the top magazine taper which acts as a funnel to feed into the pistol.

Single stacks are inheritantly more reliable in that they require less pressure to feed, and they put limited friction on the rounds being fed into the pistol. They are also less prone to suffering from drop jumbles where if you drop a loaded magazine on the ground the ammunition stays aligned properlyl.

Double stacked magazines give you about double the magazine capacity of single stacks, but they are "slightly" less reliable for two reasons. They are more prone to drop jumbles and the ammunition loses alignment and won't feed without fixing the problem. The second reason is that as the rounds are being fed into the top taper of the magazine the cartridges roll against themselves and if there is dust present, it can cause slow feeding speeds and malfunctions. Then of course, there is additional pressure needed from the magazine spring to push the cartridges up through the magazine taper and weak springs will cause malfuctions.

So, both designs have their own advantages and disadvantages."


--- So any input or really solid answers? Modern day single stacks vs modern day double stacks: and SAME manufacter: Glock 34 vs 26. So I'm wondering is there any possible difference in reliability, any at all? Even if Single stacks are 1% more reliable overall I'd like to know (or if it's the other way around). Anyone who knows about this or has first hand experience firing the G43 and G26 I'd like to hear.

[Fishbed77]

I think it's impossible to make such generalizations about single- versus double-stack magazines.

I've seen plenty of double-stack (Glock, Walther, Ruger, SIG, etc.) mags that have never had a single malfunction ever.

And I've seen single stack mags (1911, Kahr, etc.) have plenty of problems.

If anything, I think double-stack magazines may typically more reliable, just because they tend to be newer designs with anti-tilt followers, better finishes, stronger/better spring design, and more refined geometries.

As far as Glock single-stack versus double-stack, I doubt there would be any difference in reliability. If anything, the double-stack mags probably have the slight perceived edge, and only because they have been refined over a few generations now.

[raimius]

With Glocks specifically, I think the G42/43 are new enough that it's hard to tell. One would assume (especially with Glock's reputation for reliability) that they would do enough testing to be reasonably sure of their design's reliability.

They probably have some statistics from their internal tests, but I doubt they publish them.

[IdahoG36]

I have six Glocks. Four are double stack; the 42 and 43 are of course single stack.

So far, all six have been 100% reliable shooting various factory fmj and jhp loadings, as well as my reloads. I had read many reviews that early Glock 42 owners had experienced FTF and jamming issues. My 42 is a recent production gun and has been flawless.

I have so far shot 50 rounds of 124gr Federal HST and 250 rounds of Winchester 124gr NATO out of my Glock 43. It has been perfectly reliable from the first shot to the last.

I owned several Glocks about 10 years ago, and moved away from them, and now I currently own six. In all of the shooting I've done with Glock pistols, I have never had a single malfunction. So for me, there is no discernible difference in reliability between single and double stack Glocks. They have all been 100% reliable.

[burrhead]

My G36 has about 10 k rounds through it and I've never had a failure that wasn't due to sub-standard ammo (twice) or, one time, running the gun during a test when it was extremely filthy . I carry it every day with complete confidence that it will go bang and feed another round every time.

As to the G42/43, who knows. They're too new but I would expect them to be just fine.

[Josh17]

Thanks for all the replies. It seems like there basically is no difference at all (and with the G43 being new also harder to tell).

I did watch one video of the G43, new in box compared to all other single stack 9mm also new in box. They didn't clean or lube them,
Kept same mags as they came with. The G43 and only 1-2 other different models Made it over 1,000 rounds straight out of the box with no problems. All other brands of single stack 9mm had a jam/etc way before.

I think everyone seems to agree there's no real difference between single vs
Double. Thanks for the replies just wanted to double check.

[vyse.04]

I know this topic was specifically about Glocks, but when considering all brands there are other things to think of besides single/double stack magazines. A big cause for concern is the slide length (size) and recoil spring strength. Many of the compact/subcompact guns are a bear to lock back, which goes for both double/single... Although single stack guns are typically made to be smaller, so the timing is a bit less forgiving. There seem to be more complaints about the Defender sized 1911's, as opposed to Government models (all else being equal except for size) when hearing about FTF/FTE's.

On the topic of Glocks, I've only ever fired their single stack offerings (Glock 36 and 42). I put 300ish rounds through a 36 over two sessions with no issues, and 150 through a 42 with no issues (aside from an inadvertent magazine drop halfway through). They were both range rentals, which made it seem even more promising. My wife like the 42 so much that it is going to be her first handgun purchase, EVER. I liked shooting it as well, but am contemplating a 26 or 36 to go along with it.

[Big Shrek]

Single stacks are for those who like to make a lot of mag swaps.
Practice it.



You want tiny pistol with a big mag, S&W Shield. Done.

[Schnitzjr]

You know, when I bought my G43 last month I thought it looked like a sliced G26. Turns out, I was correct; both guns are identical in height and length but the G43 is thinner (duh).
I did notice two other details:

1-the G26 is a 3 pin design, the 43 is a single pin (like the old Gen 2 Glocks)
2- The G26 has a much thicker barrel wall than the G43.

One could easily describe the G26 as a more robust design just on those two point alone....
Does this make the G26 better, more reliable or longer lasting?
Beats me but it is food for thought.

[druryj]

My experience pretty much mirrors that of IdahoG36 in Post# 4 above. When we're talking Glocks, and Glock mags, few manufacturers can match the design or quality of the magazine itself. Glock sure got the mag part right, regardless of which model you choose.

[Ibmikey]

I have a Glock 42, my buddy has the same model. Both of these single stack Glocks have been shot multitudes of times without a malfunction of any kind, a Glock is going to perform as expected each time/everytime....Gunny says so!

[TailGator]

I'm wondering if the Glock 43 has ANY reliability advantages over the Glock 26, due to the Glock 43 being a single stack.

My G26 has been through several thousand rounds with no failures that could not be attributed to plainly abnormal ammo or, for a couple of rounds when she was first learning, my daughter's ineffective support during firing ("limp wristing" for those who don't object to the term). I am not a Glock fan boy - of the seven handguns currently in my safe, only one is a Glock - but I honestly don't know how a pistol could be more reliable.

The argument about the mechanism being more complex because the rounds have to funnel down to a single feed point made me smile. I was trying to imagine a failure of a funnel in the garage or the kitchen. Some people will argue or find fault about anything.

[FlippinHippie]

In single stack Glock magazines, the bullet barely clears the magazine lip before hitting the feed ramp whereas with double stacks the bullets clears the magazine by a wide margin.

In fact, with the single stacks, the bullet actually scrapes along the front rim of the magazine creating unnecessary friction on the bullet. I had a model 36 that continuously malfunctioned and sent it back for a replacement. The replacement was just as bad. I tried different mags and all had the same issue.

I even tried grinding off the offending tip a bit, but then the bullets would plow and hang up on the feed ramp.

I see this same design with my new model 43, but so far no issues. With only a hundred rounds through the gun, the polymer coating the steel on the magazine lip has already worn off. When comparing the loaded magazines of my model 26 with the 43, the differences (aside from the thickness) are obvious.

Does anyone here know why Glock does this?

[10mm4ever]

This may have been explained already but here's my take on single stack vs double column in a nutshell. A single column mag must raise the rounds up the mag body a greater distance in the time between extraction and the next round being bumped forward into the chamber by the stripper rail. That's a very narrow window of time for the mag spring to push those rounds up the mag body,a distance equal to the diameter of the cartridge. A double column mag in the same given caliber is only required to push the rounds up a distance that equals about half the diameter of the cartridge in that very narrow window of time. All other things being equal, the double column has the advantage. This has to be one of the reasons that sub machine guns designed around single stack mags never worked so well.

[FlippinHippie]

Yes, I understand how the double stack is more efficient. Still, that does not explain why Glock designs their singles different from their doubles.

[kozak6]

A double column mag in the same given caliber is only required to push the rounds up a distance that equals about half the diameter of the cartridge in that very narrow window of time.

But against much greater friction as the stacks merge.

I think the theoretical reliability of single stack vs double stack magazines is irrelevant since actual reliability more depends on the particular implementation by the manufacturer.

If anything, Glock double stack magazines have a well proven track record for reliability.

The real question should be is the 43 as reliable? Certain design compromises must always be made for a subcompact pistol. There aren't really many torture or endurance tests of the 43 yet.

This has to be one of the reasons that sub machine guns designed around single stack mags never worked so well.

Are there any single stack SMG's? As for double stack SMG magazines, most are double stack double feed, which is a bit different than double stack single feed like a Glock magazine. I think it's interesting that double stack double feed never caught on for pistol magazines.