Glock Talk banner

Not All 33564 Connectors (G42/G43) Are The Same

13K views 93 replies 26 participants last post by  nraman 
#1 ·
We have three G42's and a G43. About two months ago, my local armorer was able to order the lighter 33564 for each gun and we installed them. All of the pulls got lighter, but some got much lighter than others.

(Pull weight measured at the very tip of the trigger with a calibrated recording gauge, average of 5 pulls. Each gun had about 200 dry fires and about the same number of live fires since the new connectors installed.)

The lightest was the G43 at 4.0 lbs and the heaviest was 4.7 lbs for one of the G42's. That doesn't sound like a big difference, but the larger grip/longer trigger reach/heavier gun of the G43 made it feel way lighter even at the same actual pull weight.

I was able to order a couple more 33564 connectors from Glockparts, and this evening I did some swapping around, trying to get all the triggers to feel the same. The G42's are now 4.1 and 4.2 and 4.3 lbs, and the G43 is 4.7 lbs. More importantly, they now feel about the same and switching from one gun to another no longer holds any surprises.

In this limited sample the newer 33564's just received from Glockparts produced a pull about 1/2 lb lighter than the 33564's received from Glock in July, despite the ones from Glock having at least several hundred rounds of live fire wear-in.
 
See less See more
#32 ·
I took an additional picture of my two (-) minus connectors, and the angle is less than 90 degrees, which falls in line with another image I found that shows the angle of a 5.5 lb vs dot vs 3.5 lb connector.






Product Metal
 
#33 ·
I took an additional picture of my two (-) minus connectors, and the angle is less than 90 degrees, which falls in line with another image I found that shows the angle of a 5.5 lb vs dot vs 3.5 lb connector.

View attachment 294931


View attachment 294932
Going off of some photos I took...
Glock 33564 (-): 82*
Ghost Edge: 77*
Ghost Edge Pro: 75*

Obviously these aren't fully accurate because I'm using a phone app as a protractor and taking the measurements on photos on my laptop screen.
 
#36 · (Edited)
Call them. I had a warranty issue with my trigger pull on a G43 and Glock required me to either send the gun to them (on my dime) or have an authorized Glock armorer check the serial number and order a new connector. This was such a fiasco it took two months for Glockmeister to get them. They did receive an order for 1000 units, but Glock sent them the previous edition and Glockmeister sent them back instead of trying to pawn them off on customers like so many others. Honest company. Now they are flying out the door. Maybe they are just slow to update their website. But make sure you specify the latest version of connector. They will know which one. Now the finish is going to hell on the same new gun, but Glock flatly refuses to cover it since it is a "cosmetic issue". I will never buy another new Glock again. I have several in the 20-year-old range that look perfect.
 
#41 ·
Same with me. The one I got through Glockmeister on warranty HAD the minus sign. Still the terrible trigger pull. When I went to Glockmeister they explained that they had received a huge shipment and soon realized it was the same old connector and were embarrassed that I had to come back another time. I just recently got a call from them that they have the latest in stock that does not have the minus sign, and my trigger pull dropped dramatically. They assured me it was the latest version. I wouldn't believe anyone that answers the phone at Glock. Unless you get up farther nobody else knows anything, and they are paid to try to keep you going up the chain of command.
 
#42 ·
Like any corporation, sometimes the left hand knoweth not what the right it doing. We went thru' some of the same shenanigans when the 42/43 connector issue first came to light.
I have a pair of fairly recent 42s, entirely stock and with roughly the same round count. One rolls thru' to a lighter break, the other 'stacks' and then breaks. I'd like them to be the same, as I carry them both. In any case, write it off to manufacturing differences and tolerance stacking.
Moon
 
#44 ·
Not sure I am going to help clear any confusion but I have a G42 ABZH9xx, that I picked up a few months ago.

The connector is marked 33564 and has the minus mark (-). The angle of the ledge most closely resembles the "3.5" in the picture above.

The trigger has been great from the get go, one of my favorite on a stock Glock. I have no trigger gauge, but it certainly is closer to 5 than 8.

FWIW.
 
#45 ·
Then why did Glock Customer Service tell me they should not be marked (-)? I had a lengthy conversation with them and they told me the current connectors do not have a (-) marking.
It seems like Glock customer service is always the last group to know about changes, or at least the last group to admit the changes have happened.
IIRC, we had a person post here after the 33564 came out, Glock CS was denying that such a part existed, even after he emailed them a picture of his new connector with the part number visible.
Similar FUBAR with the different versions of the G42 mag and slide stop.

Even the aftermarket people are effected, I bought three sets of night sights from a well known maker and they were way off in elevation, like more than 7" high at 25 yds. (Other Glock sights are pretty close for me). They gave me my money back and said that Glock had announced one set of sight heights when the gun first came out, then changed the numbers later and this company hadn't yet made the correct heights, they weren't even sure what the correct height should be. I bought Trijicons and they were about 4" low at 25 yds, I had to stone down the front sights until there was no metal left above the white painted circle, an expensive PITA but finally completed.

I've been trying to simply get a pair of G42's that are reliable, have night sights zeroed for 25 yds, and a trigger pull feels similar to my other stock Glocks with standard connectors.
Two and a half years of steady effort and I'm almost there!
:ack:
 
#46 ·
I get more angry at their customer service with every post I read on several forums. First of all, once a problem comes to their attention they should make it public. Second, the person that answers the phone is usually some low-paid person with a canned set of answers. You cannot get true honest answers from them.
 
#47 ·
Well to be fair, I was transferred to someone who seemed to have more knowledge of the Glock 42/43 issue. This person seemed to know more about the issue than the first person I spoke to. It was the second person who told me that the latest 33564 connectors being shipped out were not marked with the (-).

To make a long story short, I connacted the place where I got the connector, and they are supposedly sending out two of the latest connectors. I'll keep everyone updated.
 
#52 ·
I'm sorry, but this looks like a mark left by the fixture that is used to hold the part when the bend is applied. This is probably an air operated vise and depending on who did the set-up it will leave this mark.
Someone show me a definite picture of the ANGLE being different and I will rethink my opinion.
 
#53 · (Edited)
Which picture are you referring to?

Are you questioning that there is an angle difference between the original 33215 G42 connector and the current 33564 G42 connector, or between one 33564 connector to another 33564 and that's causing them to produce different pulls?

The difference in angles between the various connectors that go in the bigger Glocks is well established, but the G42/G43 connectors are pretty new and not examined a lot yet.
 
#54 ·
I'm sorry, but this looks like a mark left by the fixture that is used to hold the part when the bend is applied. This is probably an air operated vise and depending on who did the set-up it will leave this mark.
Someone show me a definite picture of the ANGLE being different and I will rethink my opinion.
I've had the opportunity to examine two sets up close and personal. I can assure you the minus sign wasn't just a tool mark. It looked just like all the minus marks stamped on Glock OEM (-) connectors. Furthermore, I can attest to the acute angle of the (-) marked 33564 part. Also I can tell you that the original 33215 part had a 90 degree angle. Maybe my pictures didn't do the parts justice, but I had the chance to examine the parts in person and up close.
 
#55 ·
I'm not questioning the difference in the angle between the 33215 connector and the newer 33564 connector. I'm questioning whether there are more than one 33564 connectors.
 
#58 ·
I have my own Lyman, that's why I was able to document the problems to Glock. But most gunsmiths will do you a favor and measure it, hoping you will be a return customer. Always offer them payment, but bet most will way "don't worry about it, just come back if you have a problem".
 
#59 ·
FWIW I received two 33564 connectors from Glockparts this week, both have the minus symbol. I put one in my 42 and the pull was awful. I returned the Ghost connector to the pistol. Thought I'd do a 25 cent polish on the part and try again later.
 
#60 ·
In my experience the new connector did NOT make my G42 better, in fact it made the trigger feel worse like it was dragging. The old stock connector was near 5.5# last time I checked so that's good enough for me. Funnily enough the new connector in my G43 worked great and improved the pull. Go figure.
 
#61 ·
The problem I'm seeing from other posters is what I said earlier. Glock knew very well that the early G43 connectors were defective, causing terrible trigger pulls. But they chose to ignore it, hoping people wouldn't notice or simply live with it. Two post above is exactly what happened to me with two G43's that averaged 11 pound pulls when the box clearly said 5.5 pounds. I went through Glockmeister (local to me), who would correct them under warranty, but Glock sent them 1000 of the same defective units for replacements! Of course Glockmeister returned them, but it took two months to correct the issues. They are fine now, but Glock's new models are not properly tested. Never buy a new Glock under three years old so the public can raise enough stink that they finally work the bugs out.
 
#62 ·
I hope this update helps. To recap, my original order for the connectors was from Glockparts. They sent me Part No. 33564 (-). I told them I did not want the (-) connector, and then they sent me a set of 33215. I advised them that "33215" was the old connector. I sent back both to Glockparts for a refund. I then placed an order from Glockmeister and they sent me Part No. 33564 with no (-) markings. I've posted images of both the Glockparts.com and Glockmeister connectors.

Hope this helps.


Text Bookmark


 
#64 ·
Now I almost wish I'd kept the (-) parts from Glockparts for a direct comparison, but I've already returned them for a refund. However, I took more pictures, and I may be able to find one that I can do a direct overlay layer onto the Glockmeister image.

Regardless, I can verify that there is both a (-) and non-marked part, both stamped "33564."
 
#65 ·
So I did an image overlay in Photoshop, matching the two connectors one on top of the other. The shelf angle appears to be the same, but the arm the sticks out to the upper right is a bit different.

This is as close as I could get. You can see the "ghost" image of the other connector in the background.
 
#74 ·
Absolutely!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top