Tag Archives: Glock

Voiding warranties and breaking Glock parts

Previously I wrote about my new Surefire light.  I didn’t like the sharp crenelation on the bezel so I threw it in a lathe and turned them off.  I really like how it turned out.

Pretty sure I voided my warranty doing that, but very worth it.

 

Recently I had someone ask me if I had a spare Glock 19 locking block.  Of course I did.  Turns out that they had a broken locking block in their Gen 3 G19.

The owner of that Glock has realized that their trigger pin had broken.  They continued to use the pistol with the broken trigger pin for at least several thousand rounds.  When they were going to replace the broken pin, they found that the 3rd pin had bent and the locking block was broken.  The pistol functioned fine during this time.

My guess is that the broken trigger pin allowed the locking block to flex a little until it failed.  The pins and locking block were replaced and the pistol is back in action.

On that note, when reassembling a 3rd gen Glock, the slide stop goes in after the third (top) pin.  The trigger pin is the last pin installed.  Failing to do so can leave the slide stop spring in the wrong place causing it to not function or to prematurely lock the slide open.

A rotating barrel in the Glock 46?

Pictures are floating about the web and gun forums or a Glock 46, a new design including a rotating barrel and the ability to disassemble the gun with out pulling the trigger.

Looks like it might have been made for a German police contract.  Pictures and information appear to be coming from the German DWJ magazine.

Here is a link to a  copy of the magazine.   Unfortunately it looks like this upload being shared online may have been uploaded in violation of copyright rules, so I don’t know how long this link will work.

A Brief History of FBI Semiauto Pistols

After the Miami/Dade Shootout of April 11, 1986, the FBI was not completely satisfied with the commercially available pistols in 9x19mm and .45. Until a suitable semi-auto service pistol could be selected for general issue, individual agents were would still be issued S&W Model 13 revolvers.

In August 1987, the FBI formed its Weapons Evaluation and Selection Advisory Group, composed of 13 firearms instructors and a gunsmith from the FBI Academy and eight Field Division. Their task was to evaluate samples of nine different pistols in 9x19mm and .45 Auto. These included the S&W 645 and SIG-Sauer P220 in .45, as well the Beretta 92F, Glock 17 and 19, ITM AT84 (a Swiss CZ75 clone), Ruger P85, S&W 459, and SIG-Sauer P226. The ITM AT84 was quickly rejected as it lacked a decocker for its conventional DA/SA lockwork. On a scale of 750 points, the evaluators rated the S&W 645 as the best overall (730), followed by the SIG-Sauer P226 (710). The remainder of the field scored as follows: S&W 459 (705), Beretta 92F (690), SIG-Sauer P220 (665), Glock 17 (620), Glock 19 (620), and Ruger P85 (575).

This was followed up in September 1987 by the FBI Firearms Training Unit’s (FTU) Wound Ballistics Seminar, which included Dr. Martin Fackler and other outside experts on wound ballistics. The workshop’s report established the importance of adequate penetration and the size of the permanent “crush” cavity in determining handgun cartridge effectiveness. This would ultimately kick-start the development of the FTU’s famous series of gelatin tests using various barrier media (light/heavy clothing, auto glass, sheet metal, wallboard, and plywood.) The seminar’s general recommendation was that there would be no significant difference between 9mm subsonic JHP loads like the 147gr Olin Super Match (OSM) and commercial .45 Auto JHP. However, the .45 Auto would be preferred over any lightweight/high velocity 9mm JHP load. In .45 Auto, preference was given to the Remington 185gr JHP load.

In May 1988, another weapons forum was held by the FBI to establish the ideal characteristics for a general issue semiauto pistol. This forum was not limited to the FBI, but also included representatives from Federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the US military.  Around August 1988, agents were authorized to carry personally-owned semi-auto pistols in 9x19mm, which was expanded later that year to .45 Auto pistols. In both calibers, these choices were limited primarily to models from S&W and SIG-Sauer. Even with personally-owned pistols, only FTU-approved ammunition could be carried.

The FTU’s unit chief John C. Hall introduced the 10mm cartridge into the FTU’s gelatin testing trials using his own Colt Delta Elite. However, the full power 10mm loads like the Norma 170gr JHP were quickly dismissed from consideration for adoption. The FTU had reportedly developed its mid-velocity 10mm load by December 1988. On the basis of the early testing of the mid-velocity 10mm load, FBI Director William Sessions approved the 10mm’s adoption for use in the Bureau’s future issue pistol in February 1989. Basically, the FBI and FTU had advocates for both the 9x19mm and .45 ACP, and the choice of 10mm had the political advantage of splitting the difference. It could potentially satisfy agents who blamed the failure in Miami on the 9mm cartridge, and would never trust it even with different ammunition. The mid-velocity 10mm’s ballistics were close enough to the .45 ACP, yet it was not burdened with the negative connotations of the .45’s mythology. There was talk that the Director Sessions and other FBI leaders feared that Congress would balk on funding new .45 Auto pistols for the FBI when the US Army had just dumped the .45 for new 9mm pistols. Again, the FBI never adopted the full power 10mm as general issue. I’m not even certain it was ever authorized for individual agents with their SAC’s sign-off. (Previously, a SAC could authorize an individual agent’s use of a FTU-approved .357 Magnum load instead of their general issue .38 Special load.)

The FBI’s solicitation for 10mm pistols was issued in May 1989, with the Request for Proposals released in June 1989. While 21 manufacturers had indicated interest, only two of these manufacturers actually submitted test pistols: Colt and S&W. Glock filed a GAO protest in August 1989, claiming that S&W already had an inside track on the contract, given their close relationship with the FTU. Indeed, S&W had begun fabricating prototype 10mm pistols in late 1988 at the FTU’s request, delivering them in February 1989 for the FTU’s gelatin testing. Glock also pointed to the short time between the release of the RFP and the deadline for submissions, which was originally one month. While the FTU pushed back the deadline by roughly 3 weeks, it was done at S&W’s request. In addition, Glock claimed that the requirements for a steel-frame DA/SA pistol were arbitrary. However, the GAO dismissed Glock’s protest on December 26, 1989.

With the GAO protest out of the way, the S&W 1076 was formally selected in January 1990. Field testing of production 1076 began in May 1990. The FBI Academy began issuing the 1076 to new agents in July 1990. However, general issue to field agents did not occur until December 1990. Alas, the issue was short lived. Due to serious malfunctions in the field and during range training, the S&W 1076 were recalled from service on May 31, 1991. The incident in the field had happened in all places, Miami FL. After an arrest, an agent attempted to unload his 1076, and could not rack the slide. Further examination noted that the trigger could not be pulled, nor could the hammer be cocked. As a result, the pistol would not have been able to fire if needed.

The issue tracked back to the FTU’s previous request that S&W to reduce the 1076’s initial takeup to suit the FTU “trigger-prepping” technique. (Ironically, Glock had pointed out in their 1989 GAO protest that this technique was flawed and unsafe.) S&W had modified the trigger hooks where they engaged the drawbar; however, the modified hooks could reportedly lock up the drawbar in such a way that would disable the pistol.

The FBI’s 1076 pistols were not returned from S&W until October 1992, as they required significant rework by the custom gunsmiths of the S&W Performance Center. However, by this point all official interest was lost in the 10mm pistol. While individual agents could keep their refurbished 1076 if they so desired, no additional purchases of the 1076 were ever made. In the interim, the FTU had already begun issuing 9mm SIG-Sauer P226 (2,000 in total) as a replacement, and later standardized the P228.

It is a myth that the FBI dropped the 10mm for the .40 S&W. For years, the FTU resisted approving a .40 S&W load for privately owned weapons.  Until a .40 load was approved, there would be no pistols allowed in that caliber.  The FTU ultimately selected a mid-velocity load using a 165gr JHP, instead of a clone of their mid-velocity 180gr 10mm load.   The earliest known gelatin tests of these mid-velocity loads were completed in August 1993.  However, it is unclear when it was actually approved for use.    The FBI finally issued a solicitation for .40 caliber Double-Action Only pistols in February 1996.  It would take until May 1997 for the FBI to announce the adoption of the Glock 22 and 23. The first Glocks would not be issued to new agents until October 1997.

As covered here at LooseRounds before, the FBI started justifying a return to 9x19mm as early as May 2014.  In July 2014, the FBI followed up with a presolicitation notice for 9x19mm semi-auto pistols.   The FBI issued the actual solicitation on October 7, 2015.   Glock was announced as the winner on June 29, 2016.

Going back to the 1986 and the Miami/Dade Shootout, the FBI’s HRT and SWAT had already been issued 9mm semi-auto pistols for several years. HRT kept their Wayne Novak-customized 9mm Browning Hi-Powers until  they were replaced by the .45 Les Baer SRP.  Awarded the contract in September 1994, Baer’s gunsmiths custom built the pistols using high capacity Para-Ordnance P14.45 frames.

In 1988, FBI SWAT switched from the S&W Model 459 to the SIG-Sauer P226.  With the HRT’s switch to .45 in the mid-1990s, SWAT expressed  interest in procuring a similar pistol, yet not a double-stack like the SRP.  The FBI released a solicitation for a single-stack, single-action .45 semi-auto pistol in July 1996, with the RFP issued a few months later in October.   Early in 1998, SWAT selected the Springfield Armory Bureau Model, now commercially known as the Professional Model.  Sources indicate that the HRT ultimately transitioned to the Professional Model as well as their limited supply of the Baer SRP began to wear out. There is word that even the Professional Model is on the way out as the Bureau transitions back to 9mm.

Glock G43 Stripped Vs. G42 Internals

Last year with the release of Glock 42, Loose Rounds was one of the first to get out a completely stripped down look at it. We have had to wait a little while to get the new single stack 9mm G43, as it is probably the most awaited single stack 9mm in history. Now that we have it, let’s strip it all the way down and compare the parts.

The new G43 has several unique, redesigned, internal components that are very different from all other Glock’s.  You can see it is a 2 pin design, like the old Gen2 Glock’s, with a Gen4 magazine release and stippling identical to the G42.  I have completely stripped this G43 to give you an idea of what the new internal parts are. The Slide and Frame are obviously different between the two fireams ,but when completely stripping the G43, you will notice some of the parts are similar to the G42.  In-fact some of the internal parts are the same as the G42, but not all.  While I will not go into a complete tutorial on how to strip your Glock down, it is not extremely difficult and you can learn how to properly do it with some quality research.

G43 Disassembled

When stripping the G43 completely down, pay close attention to the parts that are significantly different in their design and placement in the G43, compared to the traditional larger Glock Models. Also if you have a G42 make sure you are very familiar with what parts are compatible with the G43 and which ones are not. Below are several pictures of a completely stripped G43, the new internal parts and parts that are shared with the G42.

LOWER RECEIVER PARTS

G43 Lower Parts

Frame Pins:

The front Trigger Pin is slightly larger, as the frame is wider, and is marked differently in the G43. The G42 pin has two circle cuts where the Slide Stop Lever engages the pin. The rear Trigger Housing Pin, interestingly, appears to be the same as the G42 pin.

Frame Pins (G42 right), (G43 left)

Locking Block:

The Locking Block appears to be the same as in the G42. They fit in both of the firearms.

Locking Block (G42 right), (G43 left)

Slide Stop Lever:

The Slide Stop Lever looks almost identical as in the G42, but you can see the spring tabs on the G43 Slide Stop are different. Also, The shape of the them is slightly different on the angle bars above the spring and they do have different part numbers. I found they worked in both firearms even though they have differences. I also have a G42 Vickers Slide Stop Lever and it works in both firearms but the Vickers is very loose in the G43. Im not sure I would bet my life on it working, so I would wait for the Vickers to come out in a G43 specific configuration.

Slide Stop Lever (G42 top), (G43 bottom)

Trigger Mechanism Housing w/ Ejector & Connector:

The Trigger Mechanism Housing (TMH) with Ejector and Connector, are identical to that of the G42. All the part numbers on the TMH and the Ejector are the same.

Trigger Mechanism Housing G42/G43
Trigger Mechanism Housing G42/G43

Trigger Spring:

The Trigger Spring parts, from what I can tell they appear to be the same part as in the G42.

Trigger Spring (G42 right), (G43 left)

Magazine Release:

The Magazine Release is slightly larger in the G43. The frame is just a little wider and the Magazine Release has a different part number.  These parts are not compatible between the two firearms.

Magazine Release (G43 top), (G42 bottom)

Trigger Bar:

The Tigger Bar is longer in the G43 and the part numbers are different.  Unfortunately it is not compatible with the G42. I was hoping they would be the same as I absolutely hate Glock serrated triggers and I was hoping to swap it out to the G42 smooth trigger.

Trigger Bar (G42 top), (G43 bottom)
Trigger Shoe (G42 top), (G43 bottom)

Slide Lock:

The Slide Lock is slightly larger in the G43. The frame is just a little wider and the Slide Lock has a different part number.  The Slide Lock Spring appears to be the same part.

Slide Lock (G42 top), (G43 bottom)

SLIDE UPPER PARTS

G43 Slide/Upper Parts

Barrel & Recoil Spring Assembly:

Obviously the Barrel and Recoil Spring are larger on the G43.

Barrel (G42 top), (G43 bottom)
Barrel (G42 left), (G43 right)
Recoil spring (G42 top), (G43 bottom)

Slide Cover Plate:

The Slide Cover Plate is slightly larger on the G43. The plates will fit in each slide, but the G43 Plate is taller and does not match up with the inside of the slide on the G42, making reassembly of the slide and frame impossible.

Slide Cover Plate (G42 left ), (G43 right)

Firing Pin Safety:

The Firing Pin Safety is completely different on the G43 vs G42, it is larger. Again it can only go in one way. The smaller notch on the left side of Firing Pin Safety faces the Firing Pin.  The Firing Pin Safety Spring  appears to be the same part.

Firing Pin Safety (G42 left), (G43 right)

Firing Pin Assembly:

The Firing Pin assembly is very interesting. Some parts are the same as the G42 and others are not. The Spring Cups and Firing Pin Spring appear to be identical to the G42. The Firing Pin and the Channel Liner are clearly larger.

Firing Pin Assembly (G43 top), (G42 bottom)
Firing Pin / Channel Liner
Firing Pin Springs
Spring Cups

Extractor Depressor Plunger:

The Extractor Depressor Plunger Rod is larger on the G43, but the Depressor Plunger Spring and the Spring Loaded Bearing appear to be identical as the G42s.

Extractor:

The Extractor is slightly larger and has a different part number on the G43. It is extremely hard to tell the size difference visually, but the G43 Extractor is wider than the G42s.

Extractor (G42 top) (G43 bottom)

Final Note:

If you are not a Glock Armorer, Gunsmith or you are very unfamiliar with stripping your Glock down; I would not recommend any disassembly past regular field strip maintenance. Most people will have no need to break the firearm down to this level. A few of the G43 parts look identical or are the same parts in the G42, but several are also newly designed/beefed up for the larger 9mm G43.  Hopefully this answered some of the questions out there about compatibility of parts with the G42 and G43.

Duncan.

For more information on how the parts fit in the single stack Glocks, see the link below. 

Link: Glock G42 Stripped / New Internals

RMR Glock first impressions

I recently had a Trijicon RMR mounted on a Glock 19c.  A full review will be posted later, so here are a few first impressions.

 

It will take some practice to get used to having an optic on a pistol.  If I bring the Glock up looking for the red dot I don’t see it.  If I bring it up looking for the sights, the dot is quickly visable.

The dot shows any errors in your trigger pull while your pulling the trigger.  This will make this setup an excellent practice gun, and might make it a good trainer pistol when teaching people how to shoot.

The Glock with RMR will still fit in some holsters with out modification.

I do not like having threaded holes in my Glock slide.  I think I would prefer is some sort of helicoil or similar insert was used to prevent possible damage to the threads in the slide.  Also one of the holes extends into the channel that the extractor spring/plunger runs though.

 

Having a red dot on a pistol is interesting, and I will be posting more about it after I get more trigger time with this setup.

On ported Glocks

Every so often people ask about the ported Glocks.  As an owner of a Glock 19c, a ported 9mm compact, I can answer those question.

Q:  Does the porting reduce recoil?

A:  Yes, by a small amount.

Q:  Will the porting make the firearm louder?

A:  Yes, it is very noticeable firing indoors.

Q:  Does the ported 9mm Glocks shoot jets of flame from the ports?

A:  Only if you use really poor quality ammunition with no flash suppressant.  Even then, the blast from the muzzle will far surpass the blast from the porting.

Q:  Are there problems from shooting in a retention position with a ported Glock.

A:  Not if you cant the pistol slightly away from you.

Q:  Will carbon build up on the front of my front night sight?

A:  Yes, but not enough to prevent its use.(Under normal firing conditions)

Q:  Will the carbon buildup on the barrel and slide be hard to clean?

A:  No harder or longer then cleaning a standard Glock.

Q:  Is it worth getting a ported 9mm.

A:  No, however other calibers might benefit more from porting.