View Full Version : Glocks and aftermarket metal rod concern

August 23, 2010, 07:08 PM
Straight to the point... I have a concern with putting metal rods in Glocks. My concern is that the back flat wide cylinder plate of a metal rod may cause undue wear to the frame. The location it happens is on the horizontal plane on the inside of the dust cover, just ahead (in the anterior/muzzle end direction) of the gapped polymer wall just ahead of the slide lock and above the slide lock leaf spring. What happens is there is some gouging from the hard, sharp angled metal recoil rod base which occurs upon the slide cycling and the recoil rod tipping upward at the end of slide rearward travel. This happens when the rod contacts the bottom of the recoil rod hole in the slide just below the slide hole for the barrel. To better explain: the recoil rod is slightly angled in the dust cover housing as there is plenty of vertical room for it to drift downward angle (in the posterior region of the rod) near where it contacts the polymer wall ahead of the slide lock. As the slide travels back (recoil), the horizontal direction of the slide eventually scrubs more on the bottom of the recoil rod which has a slight angle in terms of its position. At the same time, the recoil spring is compressing with increasing force against the anterior rim of the recoil rod base, which in turn is being pushed more and more against the split polymer wall in the frame. At the very end of travel, the combined forces cause the rod to angle upward at the front of the rod -- muzzle end. When this happens, the bottom of the recoil rod wide cylinder moves against the polymer frame, where it has settled and scrapes it. Since the rod is metal with a sharp angle and harder than the polymer of the frame, a gash is created on both sides of the bottom of the frame above the leaf spring of the slide lock.

Now here is the problem, or potential for problems... If this goes on long enough, there is a potential for this gash to be dug in deep enough so that the recoil rod base can come into contact with the slide lock leaf spring and depress it slightly, if not too much. Depress it enough during return to battery and the slide lock can potentially be lowered enough to be entirely missed by the forward facing lip of the barrel lug and cause the slide to go too far forward, if not be launched off the frame (the latter being doubtful as the cruciform plate engages the tang of the striker and also there is general slide to frame part friction points). The only thing preventing this scenario (or at least delaying its possible inevitability) is the height of the slide lock and or position of the lip on the front of the barrel lug. If there is a big enough gap, the doomsday scenario of the slide lock being pushed low enough for the barrel lug lip to miss it is delayed or even never realized if the digging into the frame discontinues adequately for some reason.

For those of you who have been using metal rods for some time, you may see this gouging I described. You may even see marks on the slide lock leaf spring from where the recoil rod base is rubbing it. For those of you with factory dual assemblies which have metal bases, you too can possibly see some evidence of this phenomenon.

So I am not trying to alarm anyone, nor "bash" or whatever (I'll never understand this sentiment)...I am merely trying to get some feedback about my concern from members who have many more rounds downrange in their Glocks with various aftermarket metal rods. Please give your thoughts and reports of your experiences. Also, I have some possible solutions including beveling the sharp angle of the back of the recoil rod base to lessen the carving action. Another possible solution is the creation of a thin, intricately shaped metal piece to be inserted and kept in place by the slide lock leaf spring designed to protect the soft polymer of the frame by covering this portion. Inventors, get on it! Anyway, your thoughts?