does the Fourth Generation Glock 19 fall short?

[anonimoose]

Shooters,

Oy. Feel like I'm opening up Pandora's Box here. In short, despite the admonition that there is no one "perfect" firearm, I am in the hunt for a pistol:
- that is chambered in 9mm
- that can serve as both a carry piece and as a home defense tool (so no pocket pistols, and ideally railed to add a Streamlight if it stays home)
- that is comfortable to shoot for both myself and the female companion (who has tiny hands, ring size 4.25)

For a long time, the last requirement has basically ruled out the Glock since the grip is too blocky (more for her, but still). Thankfully, there are a number of great alternatives with either slimmer or more ergonomic grips -- the various Berettas (PX4 Compact, Subcompact), Kahrs (CM9, CW9, etc), Rugers (SR9c), Smith & Wessons (39xx, 69xx, M&P9 series) and Walthers (PPS, P99). (I've found the Springfield XDs just as bulky as the Glocks, and the HK and Sigs are beyond my budget.)

However, I recently tried out the gen4 G19 with the smallest backstrap (the 2mm makes a difference!) and got a whiff of the Kool-Aid. Even with all these great alternatives out there, I can't help but think that if the Glock fits, go for the Glock. After all, no one I met has been able to deny that Gaston's firearms are the gold standard when it comes to reliability. They may say that this or that are "just as good", but even the haters can't deny that the gen3 G19 has been utterly, boringly reliable.

Has that changed with the gen4 G19? I know it's still a Glock and that replacement recoil springs have largely fixed the issue, but do the documented issues with the gen4 G19 chip away at the aura of utter reliability? Is the gen4 G19 no longer the gold standard for reliability, but "just another" modern polymer pistol, on par with its peers/competitors?

Oy. Incoming!

respectfully,
Moose

[NVBigEd]

The gen4 Glocks are terrific pistols. I have a gen4G17 and I have had no issues in @1500 rounds. I think the gen4 drama is a good example of the "downside" of the Internet. There was some issues with the new recoil spring configuration with the earliest 9mm gen4 Glocks. There are now 2 upgraded versions of the 9mm recoil springs and the gen4s are acting like, well, Glocks.

But, do a search in your browser for gen4 Glocks and you will get thousands of hits for "problems". I believe if Glock would have actually had all the "problems" they have been credited with, Glock would be in chapter 11! If you want a simple, reliable, sweet shooting and durable 9mm, you won't be disappointed with a gen4 G19.

[Don Glock]

get whatever you like. just know that there is a third updated recoil spring for the gen4 g19's. it's the "0-4-1" spring. look for one with that spring :)

[9mm]

G4 G19 only problem was had to get another spring for target loads(light) making sure when I get the G26 its a G3. Plenty out there at gun shows. They seam to be $30 more though, but I do not care.

[Boats]

"Gold standard for reliability?" Snort.:D

With Gen 4, Glock took the reliability problems of the undersprung Gen 3 Glock 22, which often would malf when hanging a light on its dustcover, and transplanted those problems into the G17/19 by initially being too cheap to give each caliber its own calibrated recoil spring set up in the new approach.

They are eventually going to figure it out, but it was bad form to make early Gen 4 9mm adopters their guinea pigs on springing the 9mm identically to their .40S&W model.

They probably have it sorted out enough to buy one. . .maybe.

[Don Glock]

^^i have to agree with you on that one, boats (:eek:)



glock did try to cheap out in the name of cross model compatibility.

[RT]

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=440144

[voyager4520]

I'd buy one that starts with a serial number PY*-000 or later. The PY and later ones were test-fired after like November.

The problems could've been caused by a number of things, out-of-spec extractors, out-of-spec trigger housings w/ejectors, etc. I honestly don't think it was the guide rod.

The latest ones don't seem to be having problems though, and of the people who had problems every one I've heard of who replaced their extractor, trigger housing, and latest guide rod now have flawlessly functioning guns.

[Daryl]

There have been numerous issues with the Gen4 Glocks. Even chambered in .40S&W, as evidenced by PD's recalling them and re-issuing the old firearms (Oakland PD for one, and others are mentioned in a thread over on GT).

And some of these incidents are very recent, so there may be something still not quite right with the Gen4's. Some work, and some don't.

I carry a Gen3 Glock, and appreciate the reliability Glocks are known for. Without that reliability, I see no reason to own one.

I'd personally wait on the Gen4's in any flavor. Glock is obviously letting the consumer test their new design, and I won't commit 'till it passes.

My advice is to buy a gen 3, or buy a different brand 'till Glock figures out the issues involved in the many reports of gen4 failures.

Daryl

[Smaug]

To suggest that Glock is letting the consumer test their guns for them is pure ignorance. You guys are being dramatic and taking it personally. No matter how much testing they do in-house, they cannot approach the amount of mileage that thousands of shooters will put their guns through.

That said, they should have anticipated: different loads, accessory or no accessory on the rail, etc.

It would be a lot more accurate to say that Glock didn't anticipate enough different scenarios before releasing the G4 guns.

Ruger has been having these same types of problems with the LCR, LCP, and LC9. I suspect it has something to do with new management pressuring them to get everything done by a deadline "or else." In real life, things happen to set back schedules. If management is going to push through them to still try to make the date, then these quality issues will appear.

Down to an employee level, I know how it feels, and I'm sure lots of you all do too. The choices are to either work more and more hours for free and keep the quality up, or cut corners and limit one's work hours to something reasonable. I'm not paid by the hour, and I do put in some extra hours here and there to keep the standard high. But there is a limit. I'm only one person, and management has chosen not to hire another.

It is worth noting that When Glock was a 100% European company, these things didn't happen. Not that the Europeans can do things better than we can, it is just that their management is not so short-sighted and greedy that they're willing to sacrifice the end product (along with their reputation) to make a deadline.

[anonimoose]

Shooters,

Thank you all for your replies. RT, thanks for the link to the other thread. I think Daryl put it best: I carry a Gen3 Glock, and appreciate the reliability Glocks are known for. Without that reliability, I see no reason to own one.

While most would agree (some more grudgingly than others) that the gen3 Glock 19 equaled or outperformed its competitors in the late 1990s, it does seem that Glock's competitors in the modern polymer pistol market have "caught up" and are now just as utterly, boringly reliable (this was basically the first option in the poll).

Look, I don't dispute that the gen4 G19 is probably a solid, reliable pistol. And yes, NVBigEd is right:
But I believe if Glock would have actually had all the "problems" they have been credited with, Glock would be in chapter 11!

But we can't deny that there have been some problems attributed to the gen4 G19. Isn't this the same as the internet rumors re: Kahr, Kel-Tec or Ruger? 99% of them swear by their reliability, but the 1% who have problems complain online, and then the chorus of Glock enthusiasts inevitably chimes in: should've gotten a Glock!

Maybe what goes around comes around? Even though 99% of gen4 G19 owners swear they're just as good as the other Glocks, there is that 1%, and once again, the chorus of Glock enthusiasts chimes in, only this time they're saying: get a gen3! (even as the non-Glockers cry out: get an XD! M&P! P99!)

In the end though...it's a buyers market and a good time to be an American shopping for a reliable pistol. No longer is it "Glock or nothing else!" Maybe in 1994. But nearly two decades later, I think most on this forum would feel confident going with one of Glock's (more ergonomic and/or slimmer) competitors.

When I was looking at the Ruger SR9c, more than few individuals said that while it was a great firearm, they were going to withhold final judgment since it just didn't have the years and years of proven reliability of the gen3 G19. Well guess what? Neither does the gen4 G19.

respectfully,
Moose

[MidwestRookie]

Internet idiots still talk crap about berettas because of the literal handful of early m9s having slide problems 30 years ago..don't expect to hear the end of the gen4 problems and complaints any time soon...

[TailGator]

I agree with your conclusion and Daryl's comments to a large extent, but with some caution. I bought my only Glock, a G26, before the 4th generation Glocks came out. It has been extremely reliable. When Glock starts to say that the pistol is ammo sensitive, which they did at least for a while when the problems started being discussed, that to me is an inherent admission of decreased reliability, because previous generations of Glocks functioned with pretty much anything that fit in the chamber. On the other hand, it is hard to tell from the discussion how common the problem really is; was the problem widespread or only widely discussed? I haven't seen any figures that said whether 1 out of a thousand or 200 out of a thousand pistols had problems functioning with a given light target ammo.

Personally, I keep going back to the fact mentioned above that Glock turned a pistol that ate anything into one that has, or had, at least some ammo sensitivity. I hope it is a solved problem, but I am not in the market for another Glock until I am sure. I am kind of glad that my tastes are taking me another direction for my next purchase so I don't have to decide, actually.

[anonimoose]

Can I have a moderator delete this thread, please?

After doing a better search, I realize this whole discussion is rather duplicative/redundant.

[Don Glock]

I'd buy one that starts with a serial number PY*-000 or later. The PY and later ones were test-fired after like November.

The problems could've been caused by a number of things, out-of-spec extractors, out-of-spec trigger housings w/ejectors, etc. I honestly don't think it was the guide rod.


yeah my gen4 g23 had an out spec extractor causing crazy ejection patterns and fte's, but so did my gen3 g19.

i think many of the gen4's that continued to have probs after the "spring upgrade" probably had bad extractors.




Can I have a moderator delete this thread, please?

After doing a better search, I realize this whole discussion is rather duplicative/redundant.

i too am a gen4 owner, and like these kinds of discussions. this is how i pass along to others that a simple extractor change may resolve all issues. if the thread bothers you, avoid it :cool:

[Daryl]

To suggest that Glock is letting the consumer test their guns for them is pure ignorance. You guys are being dramatic and taking it personally. No matter how much testing they do in-house, they cannot approach the amount of mileage that thousands of shooters will put their guns through.

Ignorance? Perhaps, but buying a make and model of firearm with known issues would seem stupid.


That said, they should have anticipated: different loads, accessory or no accessory on the rail, etc.

It would be a lot more accurate to say that Glock didn't anticipate enough different scenarios before releasing the G4 guns.



So, you're saying that they didn't test them completely, and left it to the consumer? Isn't that what I said, and you called ignorance?

No matter how you state it, it amounts to the same thing.

Daryl

[Boats]

this is how i pass along to others that a simple extractor change may resolve all issues.

I apologize, but I found this line hilarious. It's funny to me because an extractor change to a properly dimensioned one made of spring steel will "cure" most "lemon" 1911s out there too.

What an ironic parallel Glock has encountered with at least some of its Generation 4 pistols.

[Don Glock]

I apologize, but I found this line hilarious. It's funny to me because an extractor change to a properly dimensioned one made of spring steel will "cure" most "lemon" 1911s out there too.

What an ironic parallel Glock has encountered with at least some of its Generation 4 pistols.

glock extractors are not made from spring steel like 1911's, boats lol :)

[10mm4ever]

I think the entire 4th gen line "falls short". Yet again they changed grip textures(big shock) and then replaced a simple recoil spring/guiderod that worked, with a two stage unit that Glock evidently doesnt comprehend??? I think "slow to respond" would be an understatement when it comes to replaceable grip inserts as well! The real "leaders" have gone to modular designs with replaceable frame rails and steel chassis that prevent the polymer from flexing like a rubber hose under recoil.

[Tactical Jackalope]

"Gold standard for reliability?" Snort.

With Gen 4, Glock took the reliability problems of the undersprung Gen 3 Glock 22, which often would malf when hanging a light on its dustcover, and transplanted those problems into the G17/19 by initially being too cheap to give each caliber its own calibrated recoil spring set up in the new approach.

They are eventually going to figure it out, but it was bad form to make early Gen 4 9mm adopters their guinea pigs on springing the 9mm identically to their .40S&W model.

They probably have it sorted out enough to buy one. . .maybe.


Good GOD! You know your ish! I love you!



Anyways yeah, it's like Windows....Don't get the first version of anything, ie: Glock 4th GEN...1st wave, I don't trust it till all the bugs are out.

[IdahoG36]

I think that the 3rd gen G19 was a perfect firearm. No need to really change anything. The only Glocks that I had an issue with was the G20 and G21. The grip was simply too large for my hand. Enter the SF. Problem solved.

Glock is just adapting to the times, like all other firearms manufacturers. Glock was originally a military firearm, and the military generally has a one size fits all mentality when it comes to weapons. Now that their largest market is the civilian market, they are giving the customers the options that they desire.

You either adapt to market conditions or go out of business, regardless of what business you are in.