View Full Version : 4th generation Glocks?

08-17-09, 20:48
I understand that 4th generation Glocks are supposed to be coming out next year. I heard that they will have new interchangeable backstraps, but was wondering what other features might be in place. A small beavertail and steel chassis like the m&p would really be nice. I am tempted to add another glock to my collection (the 17 RTF), but wonder if it would be more prudent to just wait and see. What do you guys think? Or is the RTF the 4th generation glock and I am just confused?


08-17-09, 23:35
RTF is just a texture option, not a new generation.

08-18-09, 09:57
However, if you do index well with a current Glock, the adjustable backstrap feature is....irrelevant.

Not necessarily.

I can shoot a P30 in out-of-the-box configuration (all medium grip plates) just fine. But if I set it up "my" way (medium backstrap, small right panel, large left panel) I shoot it better, it's more comfortable, it points more naturally, and my access to the controls is improved.

Just because one size fits all is adequate for someone doesn't mean that improved ergonomics will be irrelevant.

Julie Golob (nee Goloski) is a great example. She certainly was able to handle a Glock well and won many, many championships with them. But she shoots the M&P better, and in no small part it's because she can set the gun up to fit her hand better.

I can drive my wife's car if I leave the front seat where it is normally, but if I adjust it to fit me properly, I'm more comfortable and my overall driving experience & ability is improved. Same same.

08-18-09, 13:11
I agree with your logic (and empirical experience), Todd, but the critical question/issue (at least for many of us) is "How much?"

An individual shooter (in this case, either regarding the P30 and/or a current/future Glock) will have to do their own index/skill matrix-How well do they shoot with a current Gen 3 Glock (or a previous, say USP/HK2000, etc. to remain in consonance with the P30 equation), as opposed to how much better will they shoot with a gun of the same family, albeit with adjustable receiver features?

If in fact they feel that they'd shoot better with an adjustable receiver varient, they would do well to do a cost-effectiveness matrix comparing the cost of the new gun with the cost of ammunition/practice to achieve an acceptable (to the individual) level of skill/performance with the current gun.

My suggestion is merely this: In the real world, most of us have somewhat finite resources (not to say Wifely Review Boards to go before), and given the choice between spending on ammunition and practice versus getting a new gun, the "time and practice" solution is probably less expensive-especially since that with a new gun you're going to have to put in the time and practice in anyhow to ascertain the ideal set-up.

Realistically, most of us on this forum are not Julie Golobs, or David Sevigneys, or Todd Greens, so our measured improvements are not likely to be as refined, or our ability to appreciate and utilize real operational differences in subtly different receivers is of a coarser magnitude (probably not what the marketing departments of HK, Glock, Beretta, SIG-Sauer, Walther, et al want you to think).

So-I agree that there is a difference between "just fine" and "perfectly set-up." And far be it for me to dissuade anyone from making the purchase of their choice, for their individual purposes. I'm just thinking that many of us would be better off by making an informed choice, and then resisting the siren call to be forever pursuing the ultimately perfect hardware solution, instead concentrating on integrating with (and adjusting to, as necessary) the tool of choice through "software solutions-" i.e., practice, training and competitions with said tool.

And then again there's the issue of choosing an established, well fielded platform, versus choosing either a new (or significantly modified) version, as there may (at least initially) be some operational hiccups. Let me put it this way: Given a deployment to an interesting environment, where there's even a remote possibility of the indigenious populace attempting to do interesting things to my persona, and then given a choice of selecting either my Generation 3 Glock G17 or a brand-new Generation 4 Glock 17 in it's initial market appearance, I think that it's pretty much a no-brainer: I'm gonna stick with my proven (both to me individually and empirically by many others) Gen 3 G17. And frankly, I'm unlikely to choose ANY new varient for serious defensive purposes until it's been both fielded for a significant amount of time (say a year or so), and undergone some objective systemmic evaluation and testing, by people/organizations that are credible- Even if with the new varient I feel that there is a quantifiable improvement in my shooting skills (assuming, of course, that I'm shooting operationally effectively to a desired performance level with my current/earlier varient).

Now, if it comes to choosing the best gun for a MATCH, my criteria (and selection) might well be different....(particularly in the situations of a Julie Golob and a David Sevigney, where there is corporate support, both in terms of equipment, training, and ammunition {and they're at the tip of the spear for their respective manufacturers' R&D on their given platforms as well as highlighting the products for marketplace exposure}) ...(funds/Wifely Review Boards permitting in my/our individual situations).

Best, Jon

08-18-09, 17:01
Thanks very much for the replies; I actually agree with both of you.

On one hand, backstraps do make a difference for me on some guns. I shoot an MP or HK45 OK with the standard sized straps, but I am noticeably better with the larger ones. I would actually like it if HK made a "L" backstrap for the HK45 to go along with the "S" and "M" included with the gun.

On the other hand Glock 17's have always fit into the crease of my big hand very, very well- and the new RTF seems to fit even a tad better with the toned down finger grooves. Given the uncertainty of what gremlins might find their way into generation 4 and the fact that I shoot the 3rd generation 17 well, I'll probably go ahead and start looking for a deal. There will always be more money to blow in 3 years once the G4 glocks have proven themselves if I decide that there is some feature I absolutely have to have.

Speaking of which, does anyone know of any other plans for product improvement besides the backstraps?

Thanks again.

08-18-09, 18:20
In my particular case, since the glocks fit me just fine, I actually prefer the simpler/more rugged one piece grip instead of interchageable backstraps/sides.

08-18-09, 19:35
Jon -- I'd take it a step further. Often when people on M4C ask about buying a new handgun, my answer is "buy more bullets for the one you've already got instead." All of us could benefit from more time behind the trigger and less time at the gunshop counter.

But at the same time, realities are such that many people will buy a new gun whether they're going to get meaningful training or not. They'll buy a new gun whether they're competent with the one they've already got or not. Sometimes because it's just easier to buy a new gun. Sometimes because people like to collect guns or enjoy the girlish thrill of buying new shoes-no-I-mean-guns.

And some folks are more constrained by time than money (or at least tell themselves it's so) and therefore they really are more likely to benefit from a gun that fits/works better in their hands.

I also know, at least for myself, that a new gun tends to energize my attitude towards range practice. I'm more enthusiastic about a new gun. I'll go to the range more often, shoot more while I'm there, and pay more attention to what I'm doing than when I've been shooting the same gun for a long time.

I don't think we're disagreeing at all. A gun that can be made to fit an individual more properly is an advantage. Most people, however, would be better off putting that same investment into more practice/training.

TiroFijo -- While a one-piece frame may be simpler, there is no evidence I'm aware of to suggest it is "more rugged." Do you have any examples of adjustable-grip frames failing?

08-18-09, 20:33
A gun that can be made to fit an individual more properly is an advantage. Most people, however, would be better off putting that same investment into more practice/training.

Agreed, and on the same note, a person will train/practice more with a gun that they enjoy shooting.

08-18-09, 20:43
I understand that 4th generation Glocks are supposed to be coming out next year. I heard that they will have new interchangeable backstraps,..

That will be Glock's 1st step into the 21st century. I'll get a G19 if they go that route. IMHO, they are trying to catch up to the M&P, to regain market share. I owned a G23 for years (14). I shot it well, but the grip was terrible for me, felt extremely awkward and uncomfortable in my hand. They should have used the grip angle John Browning used, like the High Power. It's a much more natural, anthropometric, fit to the human hand, than the grip angle on the Glock.

08-18-09, 21:45
I think that your assessment and summation is right on point, Todd (But, as always, it's been a good discussion, and hopefully helpful to the original poster and others).

Best, Jon

08-18-09, 22:42
I think it would be fair to say that the adjustable back-straps on the Gen IV Glocks is not geared for or marketed to the individual purchaser but instead to the department or agency buying 1-5,000 units and have a wide variety of shooters to fit.

08-19-09, 07:37
I think it would be fair to say that the adjustable back-straps on the Gen IV Glocks is not geared for or marketed to the individual purchaser but instead to the department or agency buying 1-5,000 units and have a wide variety of shooters to fit.

That's what I think... IF they bring the interchangeable backstraps version I hope they keep the option of the one piece grip.

Todd, I've never seen a failure with the interchangeable grip failing, and I don't think we'll see them often, but the guns that have them are still relatively new on the market... in any case, there is no doubt that the one piece IS simpler (less pieces to lose/disassemble) and more rugged (not constrained by dovetails/joints) by design, even if perhaps this more solid design is overbuilt. KISS is better for me. A departmente that must fit many users is different.

08-19-09, 08:23
My concern with and adjustable backstrap Glock has less to do with the backstrap per se (I'm sure that it'll be appropriately affixed and durable), but to the other components of the receiver that might have to be modified to allow such a backstrap. Problems unique with the G21 SF have been associated with the modified trigger housing mechanism, which is the one operational piece that had to be modified to make the Short Frame viable. The G30 SF has had some issues associated with the triggerbar interaction within the frame. Another problem area in recent production G21s has been with the ambidexterous magazine catch; fortunately Glock has provided the original magazine set-up as an option, and it's my understanding that's how the majority of them are currently being produced (which has the ideal result in that the original magazine catch/release set-up in a G21 SF allows all G21 magazines to be used, not just the ones with the release cut-out on the front face of the magazine tube's polymer skin for the ambidexterous catch).

Best, Jon

08-19-09, 08:42
TiroFijo -- Guns have been coming with removable/replaceable grips since the first revolvers. It's not exactly new technology. With the huge number of HK P2000s and now S&W M&Ps in service around the country, I think we'd know if there was a problem. And in neither case (HK or Smith) does the backstrap need to be removed for routine cleaning. Hell, you can detail strip the M&P without removing the backstrap.

Jon hit the nail on the head. The issue isn't the grip panels. The issue is whether the redesign of the frame itself will lead to compromises in durability or reliability; or, whether some other parts need to be redesigned to fit nicely within the new frame. The more of the old school Glock parts that go into the Adjusto-Glock, the more confident we can be that the new gun will run well and run for a long time.

08-19-09, 09:06
Todd, I think the interchangeable backstraps/sides thing IS a new thing in polymer guns... plastic does not lend itself well (or at least as well as metal) to small/thin/interlocking parts.

I don't think is a major issue, but I prefer a simpler design, if it fits me reasonably well.

I agree with you on the use of proven glock parts.

If Glocks wants a real improvement on their grips (less thickness and more rounded shape) they would have to go to thinner metal magazines, but that would be a major redesign and the zillions of current mags would not fit...

08-19-09, 09:27
Removable grip/backstrap panels have been in use for more than a decade (the Walther P99 came out in '97, for example). Tens of thousands of HK P2000s are in use with a huge federal agency. Hundreds of departments have been issuing M&Ps for years. If something was going to fail, I think we would have heard about it by now. Both the HK and Smith use a pin to keep the grips in place, btw.

Agree 100% on the metal mags thing. It would be a positive change but far too radical for Glock to undertake, especially considering how many militaries and LE agencies like (or at least tolerate) the mags as-is.

08-19-09, 12:42
...blah...blah...blah...comfort-smumfort...I shoot guns and train to stop bad people, not because they "make me feel good". You wanna feel good, buy some slippers.

Todd is highly competent in this area, I will not contradict his point of view. But, Glocks work, M&P's work. I just prefer Glocks. This whole "comfort thing" is killing me! Shoot what works for "you".

Jus' sayin'....:D


08-19-09, 19:54
"This whole "comfort thing" is killing me! Shoot what works for "you"."

The point is many people have to shoot what is ISSUED to them. One gun does NOT fit all in most cases. This is why H&K and S&W have been marketing pistols that can be made to FIT the vast majority of people with a small user made modification, enabling the user to make that issued weapon WORK for them. It is not about COMFORT it is about fit. A handgun that fits the shooter is easier to shoot accurately and safely.

08-20-09, 12:46
Shoot what works for "you".

And the more ergonomic options the gun has, the more likely one of them will be BEST for you ...

BTW, the Glock rep at TREXPO yesterday confirmed that the adj grip gun will also have a reversible mag button.

Jay Cunningham
08-20-09, 12:50
BTW, the Glock rep at TREXPO yesterday confirmed that the adj grip gun will also have a reversible mag button.


08-20-09, 12:58
BTW, the Glock rep at TREXPO yesterday confirmed that the adj grip gun will also have a reversible mag button.

In the G21 SF I much prefer the simpler non-ambi mag release, and the normal (non picatinny) rail. And I can manipulate the mag release just fine with the trigger finger if shooting left handed.

Let's hope Glock will still offer their normal Gen III frames as an option.

And since we are talking about glock, I think there is a lot of room for improvement in the texture of the grips (I have not tried the new version, but somehow does not look promising to me).

08-20-09, 13:47
It's not the SF ambi mag release. It is a new reversible button.

I'm fine with the "RTF" texture, I just wish they hadn't mucked with the finger grooves ... the pistol feels much blockier and is not as suitable for someone with medium-to-small hands. And the new slide serrations are just universally despised, for good reason.

08-21-09, 12:29
The new gun will have the standard,straight vertical serrations. Also, the frame will be a toned back rtf.

brushy bill
11-29-09, 19:50
Does anyone know if the dual spring will be in the .40 and above only or added to the G17 as well? I'm contemplating a G17, so if they aren't changing the internals, I might wait and see...however, if they are changing the internals, I'll go with a Gen 3. Thanks.

11-29-09, 20:43
The only thing about these new glocks I am interested in is whether or not they have more pronounced beaver tail. I can't uses a traditional thumbs forward grip with my glock 19 without slide bite.