Naphtali
11-16-14, 22:06
After stripping and reassembling a Gen 4 Glock 17 (mfg date 4-30-14), I pulled the slide fully to the rear after inserting it back on the frame and got this:
29729
29730
Salient points here are:
1) The slide would always come to rest ~ 2mm forward of where it should normally sit.
2) The slide could be moved rearward fully, and when released it would return to the position in #1 above.
3) The slide could NOT be removed. The trigger could be dry fired each time the slide was pulled to the rear, but this (and/or depressing the normal release tabs on each side) would not allow the slide to come forward any further than in the photos. The pistol was dead in the water at this point.
4) The only place I can find where this exact situation has been reported previously is here: http://ingunowners.com/forums/handguns/362036-glock-23-gen-4-recoil-spring-problems.html
5) There are a few YouTube videos showing that the RSA can be slightly off-center at its resting point on the barrel, and it will cause a very similar problem (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gCcW4OrzQY ). HOWEVER, the slide is easily removed in these videos. In my case, and the link in point #4 above, the slide is stuck on the frame in a way that I thought I'd need an armorer to fix it after a few minutes of failing to fix this on my own.
6) After 5 mins of screwing around gently (just using my hands), I finally got the slide off when I pushed rearward on the front of the RSA with moderate force using only my finger, and it moved slightly rearward. At that point, the slide STILL would not come off. But the first time I dry fired after that, the slide shot forward off of the frame.
7) The rear portion of the RSA was obviously bent as soon as I did a full inspection. See picture just below. This was definitely NOT the case prior to reassembly - I had stripped the gun to find whether I had a certain part # RSA (042 I think) which is stamped on that rear portion. So I had coincidentally just scrutinized this very portion of the RSA prior to reassembly (as well as fine tooth comb examining the gun after purchasing it - I would not have missed this).
29728
So now I get to send this back to Glock for, at minimum, exchange of the RSA. It's probably shooting for the moon to expect that they would tell me how to prevent this from happening in the other Gen 4 G17 I recently bought (which is the adjacent serial # to this one). Or how to prevent this from happening again if I just get a new RSA. I have little doubt that I had the RSA slightly improperly seated against the barrel on reassembly, and that's why the reassembly went wrong. But...
1) This shouldn't turn the gun into a paperweight with the slide stuck on the frame, and a crazy fix of (A) push the RSA rearward with moderate force and (B) dry fire the gun to shoot the slide forward off the frame. Until you (somewhat counterintuitively) do exactly (A) followed by (B), the gun is a paperweight.
and
2) Using only my fingers to push the RSA rearward shouldn't have bent the RSA. When the slide was stuck on the frame, I never tried to push it hard forward. Mild-moderate force (maybe ~ 10 lbs) wouldn't do the job, so I didn't try to force it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Info on the weapon:
-- Glock 17 Gen 4, mfg date 4-30-14
-- Completely unmodified
-- 1,050 round count with no malfunctions other than ~ 1% BTF rate (using Speer GDHP 124 +P and Speer Lawman TMJ 124 primarily). Incidentally, the other identical model I have made on the same date also has a ~ 1% BTF rate. Both have an average ejection patters of 5:00 - 5:30, which sucks, which is why I recently (happily) converted to the HK VP9 full-time. My left-eye dominant wife got tired of getting hit in the shoulder / earmuff consistently by the brass from both G17s. I digress...
-- Maybe 10 total field strippings / reassemblies during this time, only had a problem with this last one
Info on me
-- Don't carry a gun in my career, but I've shot almost exclusively Glock 17s for the past 15 years, shoot expert IDPA, not a certified armorer or anything, but I've stripped and reassembled a variety of Gen 1 through Gen 4 G17s thousands of times.
So I don't really have a specific question other than if anyone has thoughts on the above. It's not a huge deal to me, as I've already solved my Glock problems by having switched to the HK VP9 for concealed carry and IDPA about a month ago. This experience just reaffirms the wisdom of that decision - I can't bring myself to keep giving business to a company that uses you (yes you, the person reading this post, and me too) in the real world / on duty to beta test their weapons. HK's and Glock's engineering departments are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I digress - and thanks in advance for any advice / input.
29729
29730
Salient points here are:
1) The slide would always come to rest ~ 2mm forward of where it should normally sit.
2) The slide could be moved rearward fully, and when released it would return to the position in #1 above.
3) The slide could NOT be removed. The trigger could be dry fired each time the slide was pulled to the rear, but this (and/or depressing the normal release tabs on each side) would not allow the slide to come forward any further than in the photos. The pistol was dead in the water at this point.
4) The only place I can find where this exact situation has been reported previously is here: http://ingunowners.com/forums/handguns/362036-glock-23-gen-4-recoil-spring-problems.html
5) There are a few YouTube videos showing that the RSA can be slightly off-center at its resting point on the barrel, and it will cause a very similar problem (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gCcW4OrzQY ). HOWEVER, the slide is easily removed in these videos. In my case, and the link in point #4 above, the slide is stuck on the frame in a way that I thought I'd need an armorer to fix it after a few minutes of failing to fix this on my own.
6) After 5 mins of screwing around gently (just using my hands), I finally got the slide off when I pushed rearward on the front of the RSA with moderate force using only my finger, and it moved slightly rearward. At that point, the slide STILL would not come off. But the first time I dry fired after that, the slide shot forward off of the frame.
7) The rear portion of the RSA was obviously bent as soon as I did a full inspection. See picture just below. This was definitely NOT the case prior to reassembly - I had stripped the gun to find whether I had a certain part # RSA (042 I think) which is stamped on that rear portion. So I had coincidentally just scrutinized this very portion of the RSA prior to reassembly (as well as fine tooth comb examining the gun after purchasing it - I would not have missed this).
29728
So now I get to send this back to Glock for, at minimum, exchange of the RSA. It's probably shooting for the moon to expect that they would tell me how to prevent this from happening in the other Gen 4 G17 I recently bought (which is the adjacent serial # to this one). Or how to prevent this from happening again if I just get a new RSA. I have little doubt that I had the RSA slightly improperly seated against the barrel on reassembly, and that's why the reassembly went wrong. But...
1) This shouldn't turn the gun into a paperweight with the slide stuck on the frame, and a crazy fix of (A) push the RSA rearward with moderate force and (B) dry fire the gun to shoot the slide forward off the frame. Until you (somewhat counterintuitively) do exactly (A) followed by (B), the gun is a paperweight.
and
2) Using only my fingers to push the RSA rearward shouldn't have bent the RSA. When the slide was stuck on the frame, I never tried to push it hard forward. Mild-moderate force (maybe ~ 10 lbs) wouldn't do the job, so I didn't try to force it.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Info on the weapon:
-- Glock 17 Gen 4, mfg date 4-30-14
-- Completely unmodified
-- 1,050 round count with no malfunctions other than ~ 1% BTF rate (using Speer GDHP 124 +P and Speer Lawman TMJ 124 primarily). Incidentally, the other identical model I have made on the same date also has a ~ 1% BTF rate. Both have an average ejection patters of 5:00 - 5:30, which sucks, which is why I recently (happily) converted to the HK VP9 full-time. My left-eye dominant wife got tired of getting hit in the shoulder / earmuff consistently by the brass from both G17s. I digress...
-- Maybe 10 total field strippings / reassemblies during this time, only had a problem with this last one
Info on me
-- Don't carry a gun in my career, but I've shot almost exclusively Glock 17s for the past 15 years, shoot expert IDPA, not a certified armorer or anything, but I've stripped and reassembled a variety of Gen 1 through Gen 4 G17s thousands of times.
So I don't really have a specific question other than if anyone has thoughts on the above. It's not a huge deal to me, as I've already solved my Glock problems by having switched to the HK VP9 for concealed carry and IDPA about a month ago. This experience just reaffirms the wisdom of that decision - I can't bring myself to keep giving business to a company that uses you (yes you, the person reading this post, and me too) in the real world / on duty to beta test their weapons. HK's and Glock's engineering departments are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I digress - and thanks in advance for any advice / input.