close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

If it's on the internet-----

Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by rdstrain49, Nov 9, 2012.


  1. rdstrain49

    rdstrain49
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    101
    5
    Location:
    South Central Iowa
    I've seen a bunch of complaints on the internet about the 4th Gen. I do not, however subscribe to the theory that "if it's on the internet it must be true". With that in mind, and with over 15 years experience with Glocks, most of that time carrying a Dept. mandated 40 cal., I decided to run my own test on the Gen 4. I've picked up a G34, and as soon as I do an Armorers inspection it's off to the range. Actually, it's off to the pasture. I'm anxious to find out if I have become another sucker for buying a Gen 4, or if in spite of the internet spewing forth pointless verbiage, I have made a good choice.

    Regardless of how good or bad the Gen 4 is, the bright side is it can't possibly be worse than the Sig P 226 that I recently acquired. (Sig for sale :whistling:)

    Range report to follow.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. dhgeyer

    dhgeyer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    493
    4
    Welcome to Glock Talk, since you are brand new here. Sorry to hear about your Sig. And I hope your Glock Gen4 works well. A lot of them do. Some of them even keep working well after a thousand rounds or two. Nobody knows what the percentages are. If you are not one of the lucky ones, you will find tons of help here with possible remedies. Lots of the Gen4's that have problems can be fixed with replacement or aftermarket parts.

    In the meantime, how will your range report be any different than any other "pointless verbiage" "spewed forth" on the Internet? In what way will it negate the bad experiences that many other people who post here (and have been posting here for years) have had?
     

  3. Bruce M

    Bruce M
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    38,563
    9,272
    Location:
    S FL
    Hopefully your G34 runs well. My unofficial non-scientific reading here suggests to me the the Glock 34s are not as frequently mentioned with problems. I sometimes wonder how much of that is that gun is better and how much is the shooter is better. (I certainly do not believe that all or even most of these reported issues are the shooter, but I think it is equally hard to suggest that none are.) The report will be interesting to me either way. Can Sig solve the issue with the P226? I have had responsive service from them in the past.
     
  4. rdstrain49

    rdstrain49
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    101
    5
    Location:
    South Central Iowa
    dhgeyer, in answer to your first question, very likely. In answer to your second question, quite possibly.

    Armorers inspection is done. This 34 seems to be well done. Bearing surfaces, with the exception of the sear, are well finished. All inside work is done. Tomorrow I'll find out how it runs.
     
  5. kodiakpb

    kodiakpb
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    2,185
    20
    What's wrong with the P226?
     
  6. dhgeyer

    dhgeyer
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2011
    493
    4
    He's an 8 Ball. I had one of those when I was a kid.
     
  7. rdstrain49

    rdstrain49
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    101
    5
    Location:
    South Central Iowa
    kodiakpb, the 226 functions flawlessly, however accuracy is not in it's vocabulary. Acceptable, perhaps, for a cqc weapon but those days are over for me. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I demand reliability and accuracy from my weapons.

    I'll admit I do like the Sig. Sooner or later I will figure it out and make it shoot respectably well. Right now 3" groups at 25 yards is just about all it can do. On the bright side, the transition from DA to SA is flawless. DA only groups are just as good as SA only groups.
     
  8. ca survivor

    ca survivor
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2011
    8,431
    55
    Location:
    Florida
    good luck with the G-34 been more accurate that the Sig.
     
  9. rdstrain49

    rdstrain49
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    101
    5
    Location:
    South Central Iowa
    Thanks ca.

    Range report postponed due to @#$%$## snow. Guess that will give me more time to reload. Wonderful:steamed:
     
  10. kodiakpb

    kodiakpb
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2012
    2,185
    20
    Interesting. I happen to be picking up a 226 this afternoon. Was that 3" group benched or standing unsupported?
     
  11. rdstrain49

    rdstrain49
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    101
    5
    Location:
    South Central Iowa
    3" groups from bench and sand bags, standing unsupported two hand hold single action only and standing etc etc double action only.

    If the 226 would shoot 1 1/2 to 2" it might well become a favorite. Considering that the groups initially were in the 8" range, I'm cautiously optimistic that the 226 will shoot with a bit more work.

    So far the biggest accuracy issue seems to have been a very rough bore. Who knows, maybe a bit more lapping will get the groups into the 2" range.
     
  12. SARDG

    SARDG
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    7,533
    2
    Location:
    Florida's Left Coast
    I have Gen4 G26 and a G17. When I received them, I didn't check the RSA or any other part - I simply replaced the connector with a (-) and polished the trigger group. Both are flawless with my 130PF bunny farts. I still don't know what RSAs are in there, or even the test-fired date - I simply took them out and shot them. If folks analyzed Glocks less and shot them more, it'd be a lot more fun.
     
  13. rdstrain49

    rdstrain49
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    101
    5
    Location:
    South Central Iowa
    too true :cool: