new glocks
are the new glocks as good as the first generation glocks??
0
-
I think so.
In fact, new ones are arguably better, since Glock has since worked out some production issues related to early models, plus newer plastic won't be subject to degradation (like 30 year old plastic might). Original plastic Glock sights also weren't very strong.
I think the internal parts will still all interchange.
Obviously, if you like the fingergroove grips and or rail, those are nice to have.
Edit:
quote:If the Gen4 is better, why are everybody trying to sell or trade for Gen3,s Have heard about feeding problems with them
To be clear, I took the OP's question to refer to Gen 2s, 3s, and 4s, not just 4s.
I don't think its fair to say that "everyone" is swapping their Gen 4 Glocks. . .if you don't like the new design, why would you buy one to begin with? If you go on the interwebs, you can find lots of reports of people who love theirs and claim zero issues with them.
But to address this, yes, there were problems with the new Gen 4 guns, when those first came out. Glock has acknowledged that their original new dual-capture recoil springs were no good, they recalled these, and have subsequently fixed the problem. There may (or may not) also be issues with some of the extractors.
In any case, with a tiny bit of work the Gen 4 Glock still takes the older springs and extractors, so if you do have a problem and don't want to send your gun back to Glock to fix, these are pretty easy to fix yourself.
Personally, I've never been a huge fan of Glocks, and have always though the "Glock perfection" line was a bunch of marketing BS. EG, if the Glocks are "perfect", then why have they been upgraded three separate times, and why have there been multiple gun recalls over the years? I've also personally seen a number of individual guns that had issues out of the box.
Still, assuming a proper build, I don't think you're going to see any reduction in durability, accuracy, or performance with the newer ones vs the originals.
From my perspective, the biggest reasons to look for an older (Gen 1) Glock are because a. You don't like the fingergrooves on the newer ones, or b. you're in a fascist State like MA that bans importation of new Glocks, and that's all you can get. If you can get a good price on an old one, I think you'll do fine. . .these things basically last forever, and generally speaking spare parts are cheap and easy to install.0 -
Not from what I read [xx(]
If the Gen4 is better, why are everybody trying to sell or trade for Gen3,s [?][?]
Have heard about feeding problems with them [B)]
EDIT, just have go to glock talk or glock forum to see how many are for sale or trade for G2or3,s [:0]0 -
quote:Originally posted by dcs shooters
Not from what I read [xx(]
If the Gen4 is better, why are everybody trying to sell or trade for Gen3,s [?][?]
Have heard about feeding problems with them [B)]
EDIT, just have go to glock talk or glock forum to see how many are for sale or trade for G2or3,s [:0]
It is not so much the feeding trouble(I have had 0 issues with my G27 Gen 4) as the parts issue. Parts and upgrades for the Gen 4 Glock pistols are not as prevalent and are more expensive at this point. That combined with the finish they chose for the grip is what turns some of us Glock guys off.
I prefer the grip finish of the Gen 3 Glock pistols. The reliability shouldn't really change much. Not much was changed besides the grip and adding the interchangeable grips for different sized hands. You also get the dual recoil spring, which costs more though. You can actually buy an adapter to allow use of the single recoil springs from the Gen 1-3 Glocks in a Gen 4 Glock.
beantownshootah,
I get what you are saying, but it really is not any different then Ruger going from a P89 to a P95(with others in between), and then to an SR9. Every company does it, Glock just stays with the same basic concept that sells and calls them by Generation, instead of model.
Jon0 -
quote:Originally posted by Sig220_Ruger77
I get what you are saying, but it really is not any different then Ruger going from a P89 to a P95(with others in between), and then to an SR9. Every company does it, Glock just stays with the same basic concept that sells and calls them by Generation, instead of model.
I don't begrudge Glock improving their guns (or at least trying to do that). I wouldn't have an issue with them completely redesigning their gun, nor introducing something entirely different, if they chose to.
The difference here is that Ruger has never claimed its guns were "perfect", let alone engaged in a decades long marketing campaign literally the most expensive in the history of firearms manufacture, proclaiming this the way Glock has. Again, Glocks are good, but IMO they're sure as heck not "perfect".
Its off topic now, but the reason Glock could do this is because the gun itself is a simple design made out of polymer and stamped metal. Allegedly, the actual pistols only cost $75 each to manufacture. Selling these plastic cheapies at full price gave Glock the highest profit margins in the gun industry, in turn allowing them to plow unprecedented amounts of money into marketing (including providing guns at low cost to law enforcement). At the same time, Glock has managed to convince quite a few that a gun with no heavy trigger pull or external safety (ie a gun analogous to a cocked and UNLOCKED 1911 MINUS grip safety) is effectively "safe".
My point is, in my opinion, the genius of Glocks' marketing exceeds that of the actual gun design!
Anyway, back on topic, as already mentioned, almost all of the differences between the various Glock "generations" are ergonomic and cosmetic. There may be reasons why you may want one version vs another, having to do with availability, cost, or personal preference, but in terms of actual function, not so much.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
4 comments