View Full Version : Glock 23 and Mounted Light
I realize that there have been numerous documented failures with Glock 22s and attached lights. Do the same problems exist when you attach a light to the 21 or 23?
Don't know about the 21 but my 23 experienced major malfunctions with a Surefire x200 attached. It was reliable otherwise.
roberto232
05-30-09, 01:24
I have several friends at my office that are Glock Armorers and they say all you have to do is get the stronger mag springs…..I have them in all my Glock 31 mags…..I have a Surefire x300 on my gun and one Glock Armorer I was telling you about has one on his Glock 22…..Other Sgt has a Long Slide with a Streamlight on his…..no issues so far for either of us…
I haven't had any issues with an TLR1, M3 or a Surefire X300. I currently have the X300 attached. I have mags with #6 and #8 followers and it works just fine. However, I did have problems with the M6 light. My advice is to buy the one you want, take it to the range and shoot lots of round through your gun before making a decision to leave the light on your gun.
I've been running a Glock 21 with first a X200 and now a X300 for the past three years, have a little over 5k rounds through the gun and I have not had one FTF or FTE.
I believe the function issues are specific to the 40 S&W Glocks and are solved by changing the mag springs.
Springs don't always solve the problem, do a search here and other forums, lots of info.
Its the .40's in general, and them not every individual gun, but more then enough to raise concerns.
Bob
I've got an X300 on my G23. I've put 400 rounds through it, all with the light attached. I've had one failure to return to battery shooting off hand. For what it's worth it was bought new in December this year. A coworker has a G23 with a TLR2 attached and I've seen her have one failure while qualifying. Recently she switched over to a G21 (which is what I carry at work) after she qualified on a night course and was shooting winclean and had 12 failures out of a 25 round qual. Her G23 is a few years old though. A glock rep. came to the department last week and inspected any glock any officer wanted to have looked at. I didn't worry about it since my G23 is only 5 months old.
If I were you pigglet, I would try shooting some weak hand drills again. If you get another/more malfunctions, I would not trust your G23. Try it without the light to and see if you have any. If you only have some with the light on, I would take it off. 1 malfunction in 400 rounds is too many if it is indeed the light.
As mentioned, the mag springs isn't a guaranteed fix. Check out 10-8 forums and the threads on the subject over there.
If I were you pigglet, I would try shooting some weak hand drills again. If you get another/more malfunctions, I would not trust your G23. Try it without the light to and see if you have any. If you only have some with the light on, I would take it off. 1 malfunction in 400 rounds is too many if it is indeed the light.
As mentioned, the mag springs isn't a guaranteed fix. Check out 10-8 forums and the threads on the subject over there.
I reviewed the threads over at 10-8 Forums as well as past threads here. That research mainly mentioned the Glock 22 in combination with a light. I found very little that discussed either the 23 or the 21 with a light attached.
If I were you pigglet, I would try shooting some weak hand drills again. If you get another/more malfunctions, I would not trust your G23. Try it without the light to and see if you have any. If you only have some with the light on, I would take it off. 1 malfunction in 400 rounds is too many if it is indeed the light.
As mentioned, the mag springs isn't a guaranteed fix. Check out 10-8 forums and the threads on the subject over there.
I would definitely say 1 malfunction in 400 is too many. I will admit that I wasn't focusing too much on form when I was shooting off hand and will continue to shoot with the light attached and see how it works out next time shooting off hand with more support behind the gun. That being said, I carry a G21 on duty with no problems, and will continue to carry my p220r carry model off duty. I have no doubt if I remove the light from my G23 it will function fine and if that's what it takes I'll do it.
You don't read as much about problems with the 23 simply because they aren't as commonly issued, but they are out there. I'm sorry I can't be more specific. I thought they were mentioned in some of those threads. I might have some info. saved on my work computer and will post it if I can find it. I don't recall light issues with the G21, but I can't say for sure.
Good luck with the 23 and light, hopefully it works out for you.
shootmovecomm
05-30-09, 16:45
I have read at least one post on this thread that likens the failure issues of the M22 or M23 to the ".40's in general." UNTRUE!!! I am not on the Glock design team but I can vouch for the effectiveness of the .40 cal round especially 165 to 180 grain HP's coming out of these pistols and its reliability. It is the mag springs that are the issue as discussed by members on this thread who are in the know or are experienced with the M22's and M23's or Glocks in general.
When running a light on one of the .40 cal variants, 9mm variants or even the 45 variants it is important to get the enhanced or new mag springs from Glock. I have been running anything from a Glock light, TLR-1, and an M6 for about 6 years now, daily on my service M22's. This gun is used in an I have to count on this gun environment. My organization began to experience issues on the range with failures to feed and the slides failing to lock to the rear after the magazine was empty around 2004. Several calls to Glock and a couple of armors notifications later Glock informed us that the issue is that a Glock polymer frame is meant to provide a slight degree of flex when the weapon is recoiling after a round has been discharged. When a light is attached to the frame rails it acts as a reinforcement or bridge in the frame therefore not allowing for that "acceptable" degree of flex. The 1st generation magazines have also been engineered to allow for that flex without a light attached to the frame and with the light on it places the mag spring under an added degree of stress when it is feeding rounds and so the effect is that the mag springs wear out faster. Here is where your problem lies.
In this day and age where so many lights are now being utilized, introduced, or operated on these guns on an every day basis it exposed that engineering flaw. Glock then redesigned the magazine springs with a different or stiffer spring ratio from what was out there before to compensate for the lights and dramatically increase reliability. Before we saw any real mag issues with the 1st generation mags or unenhanced mag springs we had thousands of rounds through these individual pistols and the mags where loaded to capacity and usually never unloaded and rotated out.
I have read at least one post on this thread that likens the failure issues of the M22 or M23 to the ".40's in general." UNTRUE!!! I am not on the Glock design team but I can vouch for the effectiveness of the .40 cal round especially 165 to 180 grain HP's coming out of these pistols and its reliability. It is the mag springs that are the issue as discussed by members on this thread who are in the know or are experienced with the M22's and M23's or Glocks in general.
When running a light on one of the .40 cal variants, 9mm variants or even the 45 variants it is important to get the enhanced or new mag springs from Glock. I have been running anything from a Glock light, TLR-1, and an M6 for about 6 years now, daily on my service M22's. This gun is used in an I have to count on this gun environment. My organization began to experience issues on the range with failures to feed and the slides failing to lock to the rear after the magazine was empty around 2004. Several calls to Glock and a couple of armors notifications later Glock informed us that the issue is that a Glock polymer frame is meant to provide a slight degree of flex when the weapon is recoiling after a round has been discharged. When a light is attached to the frame rails it acts as a reinforcement or bridge in the frame therefore not allowing for that "acceptable" degree of flex. The 1st generation magazines have also been engineered to allow for that flex without a light attached to the frame and with the light on it places the mag spring under an added degree of stress when it is feeding rounds and so the effect is that the mag springs wear out faster. Here is where your problem lies.
In this day and age where so many lights are now being utilized, introduced, or operated on these guns on an every day basis it exposed that engineering flaw. Glock then redesigned the magazine springs with a different or stiffer spring ratio from what was out there before to compensate for the lights and dramatically increase reliability. Before we saw any real mag issues with the 1st generation mags or unenhanced mag springs we had thousands of rounds through these individual pistols and the mags where loaded to capacity and usually never unloaded and rotated out.
This has been discussed over and over...
Its slide velocity, with a light attached the frame does not flex as much, increasing the slides velocity, and the magazine can not keep up.
The new springs do not always solve the problem. Each gun is an individual. The problem only seems to appear in the .40cal gun. Its not a problem with the round, the gun was not fully re-engineered to handle the .40cal round. When lights were added to the equation failures went up.
I do not think I've ever seen or heard of a problem with lights attached to a 9mm or 45 glock. The only problems I've heard of with the G21 was some fails to fire, attributed to some out of spec part, that escapes me right now, or, according to Glock a lack of maintenance, but they came out with a new part.
Right now, it would appear that if you are running or intend to run a light on a .40cal Glock, you are taking your chances.
Bob
This has been discussed over and over...
Its slide velocity, with a light attached the frame does not flex as much, increasing the slides velocity, and the magazine can not keep up.
The new springs do not always solve the problem. Each gun is an individual. The problem only seems to appear in the .40cal gun. Its not a problem with the round, the gun was not fully re-engineered to handle the .40cal round. When lights were added to the equation failures went up.
I do not think I've ever seen or heard of a problem with lights attached to a 9mm or 45 glock. The only problems I've heard of with the G21 was some fails to fire, attributed to some out of spec part, that escapes me right now, or, according to Glock a lack of maintenance, but they came out with a new part.
Right now, it would appear that if you are running or intend to run a light on a .40cal Glock, you are taking your chances.
Bob
People are going to believe what they want but this post is right on the money.
shootmovecomm
05-30-09, 19:16
This has been discussed over and over...
Its slide velocity, with a light attached the frame does not flex as much, increasing the slides velocity, and the magazine can not keep up.
The new springs do not always solve the problem. Each gun is an individual. The problem only seems to appear in the .40cal gun. Its not a problem with the round, the gun was not fully re-engineered to handle the .40cal round. When lights were added to the equation failures went up.
I do not think I've ever seen or heard of a problem with lights attached to a 9mm or 45 glock. The only problems I've heard of with the G21 was some fails to fire, attributed to some out of spec part, that escapes me right now, or, according to Glock a lack of maintenance, but they came out with a new part.
Right now, it would appear that if you are running or intend to run a light on a .40cal Glock, you are taking your chances.
Bob
Fair enough and I understand your concerns. When you say the frame was not reengineered to handle the .40 you are referencing the fact that they slapped the .40 slide, barrel, etc on to the 9mm frame? I would agree that in essence that sends up a red flag however when the rubber is put to the pavement there has been no problems since mag spring replacement. I know of at least one U.S. military organization that is currently utilizing the M22 overseas operationally with Surefire x200's and X300's. Havent heard of any significant complaints as of yet.
In essence they only changed the mag and barrel at first, the slide is the same as is the recoil spring.
New guns, are supposedly addressing the issue.
Again, every gun is different. What ammo, round count, particular light, alignment of the stars, all play a role.
My last employment had no issues running M3 lights and ball ammo, switched to TLR1's and Ranger JHP and trouble ensued.
Bob
shootmovecomm
05-30-09, 20:07
Bob, I will agree with the individuality of a gun and the slight deviations that can and will cause them to perfom differently. The issuse that we were having was with the very first Glock tactical lights with the "old type" magazine springs shooting Winchester Ranger 165 grain. I have never pushed FMJ's through the gun. Mainly Winchester Ranger, Speer, and Remington. In actual recorded shootings the Winchester has thus far perfromed the best. It's funny that you should say TLR1's and Rangers used in conjunction caused the problems. Due to the fact that we have ALOT of both fielded out that maybe something to heed.
When we had all of the issues with our G22s we only had one guy with a G23. His gun didn't run either.
We had 350 G22s, and one G23, so the sample on G23s is rather small.
I have talked to other folks at various LE agencies who have had issues with G23s, but as was said above there are not nearly as many 23s as 22s.
shootmove, your info applies depending on what time frame your Glock .40 was made.
I had 5 personal Glock .40s that didn't have any issues. The 350 my department bought wouldn't run.
Milwaukee and Detroit, most recently, are going to the M&P for very good reasons.
The Glock 9mms, in my testing, run like an AK. Any ammo, any light, loose or strong grip, dirty or not, they run.
shootmovecomm
05-30-09, 23:14
tpd223,
EBR and FEX are the lettering series on the serial numbers. We have been getting them in since 2000. What are the letter series on those guns that have had the issues? I am also curious to know what was Glock' s response to these issues and the remedy? If you are able to elaborate what was the ammo (make, manufacture, grain)? and were you running a light and what brand or brands?
Our were H serial numer Glocks.
Your guns were made before the frame change/redesign in the winter of 2005.
I would expect that if you guys kept up with the PMCS, such as getting new recoil springs installed every 2000 rounds, that your guns should be GTG.
My personal Glock .40s were in the C, F and G range, no issues to speak of.
shootmovecomm
05-31-09, 09:34
tpd223,
Weve been running these guns regularly, not as much as some organizations but more than alot. We have not performed any recoil spring/guide rod change outs. I am on my second M22 and I have run at least 5000 rounds through it and have had this gun about 1.5 years. We have experienced locking block pin breaks, two in my immediate organization that I know of. One was mine and the other on another gun. Let me know what Glock does to remedy the issues that your people have been experiencing.
Not changing out the recoil spring every 2000 rounds is what leads to damage to the locking block and trigger pins, also beats up the frame, can damage the pin holes in the frame, and adds to the slide peaning issue.
Recoil spring assemblies are $3 the last I bought a bunch, very cheap insurance.
I am constantly at ranges were someone's G22 goes tits up. When I look at the gun typically the trigger pin is broken (often into three pieces) and the locking block pin is bent.
I ask "When's the last time you put a new recoil spring in this gun?" The typical answer is "What?" or "Never" with an occasional "You gotta change those?".
Even Glock now tells people in the armorer schools to change out the springs, I'm glad that they listened to at least that feedback from the field.
If you have 5000 rounds on your recoil spring then change it, as Chief Chudwin says in his drill Sgt. mode "This is not optional, do it now".
Glock did not fix the issues with the G22, and still has not, which is why Milwaukee is dumping the G22.
When we had our issue we ended up trading out our guns for G17s to get guns that worked. At the same time Indianan State Police also traded their brand new G22s for G17s.
Do some searching here, on Lightfighter and on 10-8, this is neither new nor rare.
shootmovecomm
05-31-09, 13:12
I appreciate the heads up we are about to enter into the 3rd quarter fiscal year money that must be obligated (designated to be spent) by July. Weapons are HUGE in this spending priority and I will contact Glock on Monday about the recoil guide assemblies and these issues. Every 2000 rounds equates to SEVERAL recoil guide assemblies a year.
Some of the E series Glock are subject to recall due to the rear frame rails not being cut correctly, they can snap off during the firing cycle.
I don't have the serial number series information at home, so I can't tell you right now which series it is.
I'd call Glock tomorrow and check on your serial numbers to see if they are on the list.
shootmovecomm
05-31-09, 15:26
Yea, we had to send off a couple of them several years back. I'm not sure how many are left over. I recently had a 19 police trade being refurbished by Glock and they replaced an E series frame so I assume there are quiet a few out there.
Are there any reported reliability issues if no light is mounted on the G23? I know that some of you have reported problems with the G22 even without a mounted light.
I'm curious as well, the FBI has been running G22's and 23's since the early 1990's correct? Have they had any problems with them? However I'm guessing that the regular field agents don't use mounted lights.
Lastly, was it only the E series frame Glocks that had the frame rail defects?
Thanks guys.
Derek_Connor
05-31-09, 20:41
Has there been any *whisper* of the units who run .40cal glocks w/lights over seas having problems?
I'd venture a guess their direct action guys shoot more pistol than most agencies here in the U.S.?
It'd be great to get some feedback...if possible.
Stretz Tactical Inc
05-31-09, 20:41
I had numerous fail to feeds with my 22 and 23 with a surefire X200. I had several coworkers, all with 22's and the streamlight light (one had and x200)attached that had no or few malfunctions. All the guns had the latest generation mags and springs. I dont think it's worth your life to put one on a duty/defensive glock .40 at least untill the problem is solved. I also read that a particular miltary unit that went to glock 22's was having malf. with a light attached.
I have three glocks. G21 w/X300, G34 w/ M3 and G19, no light. None have had a problem with or without a light.
I would really hope they don't have any problems if I ever have to defend myself in my office its going to be with my G21 and X300.
shootmovecomm
05-31-09, 21:42
Are there any reported reliability issues if no light is mounted on the G23? I know that some of you have reported problems with the G22 even without a mounted light.
I'm curious as well, the FBI has been running G22's and 23's since the early 1990's correct? Have they had any problems with them? However I'm guessing that the regular field agents don't use mounted lights.
Lastly, was it only the E series frame Glocks that had the frame rail defects?
Thanks guys.
Field agents do use and are carrying M22's and M23's with lights. My first hint of such failures taking place was back in Oct. of 2004 from an agent/instructor assigned to the FBI academy in Quantico. Several individuals that I work with run that combination and have not so much as said a word about the light on the 23 creating problems. You may want to call Glock Tech Services in Smyrna about the issue.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.