[Col. Colt]

I carry a G17 Gen 5 at work (miss my gen 3 Model 22 a lot) and what really irritates me is the stupidly strong double recoil spring setup. I have a 1911 setup in 9MM with the factory 14 pound Colt spring and it is a delight to operate. The new Model 17 feels like a 10MM or something. Someone tell me why they would make a light caliber like the 9MM hard to operate when other 9MMs are just fine with half the poundage? CC

 

[Rocky7]

Soooo what weight spring does Glock suggest you have in the Gen 5? Have you tried to determine ( test spring weight) on what you have?

Do you feel the absence of a locking block may be the reason?

 

[indivi]

The stupidly strong double recoil spring setup has been standard for a number of years by now. Seems to be working just fine for millions of users with all it's stupidly strongness.

Recommend actually shooting it instead of toying with it using hand cycles.

 

[cciman]

Perhaps stick to 1911's.

Glocks are designed for stronger operators (stiffer trigger too).

 

[cowboy1964]

Perhaps stick to 1911's.

Sounds like he is mandated to use the G17.

 

[cowboy1964]

Do you feel the absence of a locking block may be the reason?

Sounds like the OP didn't have this issue with his old G22 so how could it be the locking block?

 

[Out West]

I haven't found these to be difficult.

 

[SlowBurn]

Oy. Sort of asking smart ass replies posting this.
Seriously though, are they that tough? My 19x has Gen 5 parts and doesn't seem bad. Maybe the new G17 is worse.
For me, new recoil springs in the Kahr P380 are the worst, but they help the little gun shoot comfortably and cycle reliably so worth putting up with.

 

[Rocky7]

Sounds like the OP didn't have this issue with his old G22 so how could it be the locking block?

Possibly, the gen 3 22 does have a locking block pin. The Gen 5 does not have a locking block pin.

 

[HAMMERHEAD]

No wonder why the Colonel doesn't post often.
Bucha vultures waiting to pounce.

 

[G21.4Me]

Perhaps the reason is to cut down on the Glock polymer frame's infamous front-end (dust cover) vibration. The standard recoil spring weight is 17 lb; and it's been 17 lb for many years, now, through both the non-captured type of spring; and the, present, captured type too.

By the way, other Glock 9x19mm's do not have 'half the poundage' as you say. A G19 is actually a pound heavier! I, also, suspect that your new Glock Model 17 just might turn out to be the most accurate and easy-to-shoot-straight Glock pistol that you've ever fired!

(That brand new Glock pistol ain't going to be 'fit for combat' until AFTER you've fired it at least 300 times, anyway. So why not get started!)

 

[fastbolt]

Glock ended up revising the double captive RSA they used after the fullsize Gen4's were released. The initial one was heavier, since the first Gen4 model was designed around the G22(according to what they told us in the armorer revert I attended for the the ones Gen4's). I'd think by now the engineers have got the RSA for the FS and Compact 9's down, since the M Project guns for the FBI were built around the 9.

 

[dcoots204088]

A few minutes a day, every day, until you become a strongman and become capable of pulling back a 17 pound or so spring.

 

[cciman]

Glock ended up revising the double captive RSA they used after the fullsize Gen4's were released. The initial one was heavier, since the first Gen4 model was designed around the G22(according to what they told us in the armorer revert I attended for the the ones Gen4's). I'd think by now the engineers have got the RSA for the FS and Compact 9's down, since the M Project guns for the FBI were built around the 9.

Don't believe everything they say at the armorers courses, since different instructors may have a different bend on what they understand, and not always absolute. And what you hear might be interpreted incorrectly from what they intended to project.

The compound spring RSA were already used quite extensively, and with good results, in the gen3 glock26/27 before the gen4 was formally introduced.

Since no one has stepped up to actually testing these compound springs assemblies with a simple designed spring dynometer (that I know of that is posted on the internet), it is all just hearsay and assumption.

 

[GAU-8]

The stupidly strong double recoil spring setup has been standard for a number of years by now. Seems to be working just fine for millions of users with all it's stupidly strongness.

Recommend actually shooting it instead of toying with it using hand cycles.

My tried and true early to mid 90s Gen2 17 was my only glock in the lineup until I picked up a pair of new Gen5 17s. The difference racking the slide is very pronounced. So if the OP is comparing a much older Glock then yes there is a huge difference. Enough that you must be conscious of the additional force required when manipulating a gen5 IF you are used to a Gen2. It's not a problem for me as I have 1911's that are much heavier but I could see it causing some issues if you are used to a Gen2 or even guns like the Beretta 92. For the OP, I would just working on some strength exercises to make things easier.

 

[Col. Colt]

Now I remember that there was a reason I didn't come here often to post - although I do come and lurk occasionally, or look up information.

I have gotten more insults here in one post than in THOUSANDs of posts on more adult, civil firearm forums - feels just like Junior High. Fortunately, I have a thick hide, I know what I know and that appears likely to be a bit more than most people who are inclined to reply to strangers with an insult instead of reason. A bit Sensitive about "Glock Perfection", are we? After I personally changed out about 30 Model 22 frames for frame tab defects, (my agency changed out over 100 frames in total) I got over the slogan.... I do like my personal 20 and 22 Models, but I am under no illusion that anything build by the hand of Man is perfect.

As a Glock Armorer for over ten years (as well as a Remington Factory Trained LE Armorer and Colt AR Armorer), and an IPSC and Service Rifle competitor, and an FBI trained Firearms Instructor, let me point out a couple of things.

My question was sincere - I wondered if anyone here might actually know why the heavy spring - when nothing else in 9MM seems to need it. My point is that the heavy spring serves no necessary purpose and is thus a negative - the newer is less "user friendly" and more difficult to operate than the old. Seems counterintuitive.

I fired the original Glock Model 17 the very first month it came out in the US and it was easy and quick to manipulate and impressed me (though only a 9) - and I was a pretty good IPSC competitor with tuned 1911s in 10MM (also 20lb dual springs) and .45 at the time.

Secondly, Center fire Glocks (I am leaving out the new .22) ALL have LOCKING BLOCKS, children. I just pulled my new Gen 5 M17 out of my duty holster and looked at it while scratching my head from the posts above - even though I know that from cleaning it. At least I know how all my guns work and what the parts are called. And we are required to be well over 300 rounds (in our first day's range session) before we would ever be allowed to carry a brand new issued pistol.

The recoil spring's job is to return the slide, pickup a round from the magazine and lock the pistol - a locked breech pistol can be fired without the recoil spring (at least a 1911 can) without harm - it just won't cycle - the locked breech takes the pressure, and unlocks after the pressure drops. The recoil spring is not a substitute for a locked breech.

If the original Model 17 that made Glocks popular got by on half the poundage ( and most other 9MMs on the market do as well) I was merely commenting on the oddity of unnecessarily making the "newer and better" model noticeably harder to use - particularly when Glocks are frequently Department Issued to the "lowest common denominator" average new officer, whether 5'2"/90 lb. or 6'6"/220.

A light round like the 9MM does NOT need a dual recoil spring - while a Glock 20 or a Delta Elite in 10MM certainly should have one. An unnecessarily stiff spring does not make a pistol "better" in any way - except, perhaps, as a maintenance thing, you should not have to change it as often. We used to change our Model 22s spring assemblies at 3000 rounds. My understanding is that the double spring may go to 6,000 - and that could be Glock's reason. That is an accountant's reason - not a using street officer's.

Part of my training was to learn to reload and manipulate a handgun with only one hand (hands get hit in gunfights, or you may be holding a door, child, etc.), and a heavy slide makes that near impossible. Give it a try and you might see my point.

But from what I see here, if Gaston Glock did it, it should NEVER, EVER be Questioned....
Well, Cheers and best wishes to all, anyway.
CC

 

[Out West]

I apologize.

 

[Walter Bishop]

Back when they introduced the Gen 4 models with dual recoil springs Glock said the change was made to reduce felt recoil and increase the spring's lifespan. Is that needed for a Glock 17 or 19? Probably not, but uniformity reduces manufacturing costs.

 

[Rocky7]

Back when they introduced the Gen 4 models with dual recoil springs Glock said the change was made to reduce felt recoil and increase the spring's lifespan. Is that needed for a Glock 17 or 19? Probably not, but uniformity reduces manufacturing costs.

Actually it was the way to PAVE the way for eliminating the locking block for the Gen 5’s.

 

[dcoots204088]

Now I remember that there was a reason I didn't come here often to post - although I do come and lurk occasionally, or look up information.

I have gotten more insults here in one post than in THOUSANDs of posts on more adult, civil firearm forums - feels just like Junior High. Fortunately, I have a thick hide, I know what I know and that appears likely to be a bit more than most people who are inclined to reply to strangers with an insult instead of reason. A bit Sensitive about "Glock Perfection", are we? After I personally changed out about 30 Model 22 frames for frame tab defects, (my agency changed out over 100 frames in total) I got over the slogan.... I do like my personal 20 and 22 Models, but I am under no illusion that anything build by the hand of Man is perfect.

As a Glock Armorer for over ten years (as well as a Remington Factory Trained LE Armorer and Colt AR Armorer), and an IPSC and Service Rifle competitor, and an FBI trained Firearms Instructor, let me point out a couple of things.

My question was sincere - I wondered if anyone here might actually know why the heavy spring - when nothing else in 9MM seems to need it. My point is that the heavy spring serves no necessary purpose and is thus a negative - the newer is less "user friendly" and more difficult to operate than the old. Seems counterintuitive.

I fired the original Glock Model 17 the very first month it came out in the US and it was easy and quick to manipulate and impressed me (though only a 9) - and I was a pretty good IPSC competitor with tuned 1911s in 10MM (also 20lb dual springs) and .45 at the time.

Secondly, Center fire Glocks (I am leaving out the new .22) ALL have LOCKING BLOCKS, children. I just pulled my new Gen 5 M17 out of my duty holster and looked at it while scratching my head from the posts above - even though I know that from cleaning it. At least I know how all my guns work and what the parts are called. And we are required to be well over 300 rounds (in our first day's range session) before we would ever be allowed to carry a brand new issued pistol.

The recoil spring's job is to return the slide, pickup a round from the magazine and lock the pistol - a locked breech pistol can be fired without the recoil spring (at least a 1911 can) without harm - it just won't cycle - the locked breech takes the pressure, and unlocks after the pressure drops. The recoil spring is not a substitute for a locked breech.

If the original Model 17 that made Glocks popular got by on half the poundage ( and most other 9MMs on the market do as well) I was merely commenting on the oddity of unnecessarily making the "newer and better" model noticeably harder to use - particularly when Glocks are frequently Department Issued to the "lowest common denominator" average new officer, whether 5'2"/90 lb. or 6'6"/220.

A light round like the 9MM does NOT need a dual recoil spring - while a Glock 20 or a Delta Elite in 10MM certainly should have one. An unnecessarily stiff spring does not make a pistol "better" in any way - except, perhaps, as a maintenance thing, you should not have to change it as often. We used to change our Model 22s spring assemblies at 3000 rounds. My understanding is that the double spring may go to 6,000 - and that could be Glock's reason. That is an accountant's reason - not a using street officer's.

Part of my training was to learn to reload and manipulate a handgun with only one hand (hands get hit in gunfights, or you may be holding a door, child, etc.), and a heavy slide makes that near impossible. Give it a try and you might see my point.

But from what I see here, if Gaston Glock did it, it should NEVER, EVER be Questioned....
Well, Cheers and best wishes to all, anyway.
CC

When you make a nonsensical post and refer to the recoil spring assembly as, despite being an armorer for 10 years as claim, a stupid strong spring setup rather than using the correct nomenclature of dual recoil spring assembly, then people may be more inclined to take you seriously.

Also seriously doubt the armorer claim, as any armorer and almost anyone in general knows the Gen 5 certainly does lack a locking block pin in addition to also knowing that a Gen 5 incorporates some internal changes that gives it more resistance when you hand cycle a loaded weapon. The original Glock 17 recoil spring had half the poundage? Now I know you are full of it. So does the Gen 5 now use a 34 pound recoil spring? You are the expert here afterall and we know nothing, your highness. We desperately seek your tutelage on all things Glock here.

Let's also review your claim that a 9mm Glock does not need a dual recoil spring assembly because it is too heavy to cycle, even though nobody on planet Earth is experiencing these kinds of issues. The spring increases the lifespan of the assembly, reduces overall wear and those are Glock's own words. When technology advances, things so tend to be upgraded. Many other manufacturer's are now using this design in a striker fire. Glock is still manufacturing the Gen 3 so if the 34 pound dual spring makes it exceedingly difficult to manipulate the slide, why are you still using it? It would make more sense to go with a Gen 3, which has 50% less weight behind the spring.