Glock 17 Gen 4 Consumer Study *Unofficial*

Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by WilliamHenry434, Jul 27, 2020.

  1. WilliamHenry434

    WilliamHenry434

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    To improve communication between consumer and manufacturer, a study may be useful in correcting issues of reliability within the Glock model 17 generation 4 semi-automatic pistols, and quality control adjustments could be made in future manufacturing processes. I would like to conduct a research study on general customer satisfaction with Glock quality, in reference to several commonly replaced Glock components. This topic stems from my marksmanship hobby and recent operation malfunctions that I have experienced.



    History of Manufacturing Scrutiny

    Many Glock parts are commonly replaced by consumers for various reasons, including improved reliability. My objective is to find how many consumers feel about Glock quality in these particular parts and to raise awareness from the manufacturer.

    Collection of Data

    Conducting a survey that allows Glock firearms consumers to weigh in on critical part features could lead to vital improvements in quality assurance. I have created a survey (Appendix A) to explore consumer opinion, and its formal documentation will be at no cost to GLOCK Inc. The survey I plan to conduct will evaluate the following parts for quality and reliability:

    1. The Glock 17 generation 4 Extractor:

    Many consumers have expressed issues with this component after firing approximately the first 1000 rounds of ammunition [1]. Due to mold markings that remain from the manufacturing process on this component, as seen in Image 1 below, grit works its way into the relief between the firearm slide and extractor top and or bottom face. This causes repeated mechanical seizing during normal operation of the action between the two components, especially with 115 grain 9mm ammunition. A typical result of this malfunction is hot spent brass ejected into the handgun operator’s face.



    Image 1
    [​IMG] [2]​



    2. The Glock 17 generation 4 Ejector:

    Some consumers have noted that the design of the ejector in the Glock 17 ejector geometry from generation 4 to generation 5 has changed significantly, as seen below in Image 2. Some claim that the newest design of the ejector works better than the original generation 4 design when used in generation 4 models [3]. It is to my knowledge that Glock has not released an official notice of the original part being recalled or that the new part is a suitable or correct replacement for Glock 17 generation 4 consumers.



    Image 2
    [​IMG] [3]​



    Communication between Manufacturer and Consumer

    By first collecting data from the consumer base, GLOCK Inc could devise a few new strategies to address these well-documented issues.

    One option could be to inform the public about the flaw in the manufacturing process of the extractor and offer a rebate or discount with inexpensive shipping of new, more refined parts for current verified Glock owners.

    A second option could be to inform the public of the engineering process behind the creation of the newest design of ejector, and similarly offer a rebate or discount with inexpensive shipping of the latest part design for current verified Glock owners.

    As a Glock pistol consumer, I would respectfully prefer both issues addressed. I believe that sometimes admitting our flaws can allow us to achieve a higher level of perfection.

    Utilizing the Glock Talk online forum beginning on July 27, 2020, and concluding July 31st, 2020, I will collect the results of the survey to measure consumer response known issues on parts leading to consumer “Brass to Face.”

    To address consumer demand for company product support, the consumer must be willing and able to contribute useful feedback. I believe the short public survey I have devised will simplify this process (Appendix A,) and the results of this survey may lead to improved quality control points for Glock manufacturing that save the company from preventable and costly service work.

    The results of this consumer study may also be used to better tailor marketing messages to Glock consumers. I will record and communicate my findings to Glock Customer Service August 1st, 2020, and expect significant participation from Glock Talk forum users with no less than 30 complete responses, and retain the survey open for informally gauging future public opinion. I am currently an engineering student attending Arizona State University and this study will be incorporated in a class assignment.



    Appendix A



    July 26, 2020 – July 31st, 2020 Consumer Survey:

    Glock 17 Gen 4 Reliability Issue Parts

    1. When utilizing only Glock Factory parts in your Glock 17 Gen 4, have you as a consumer experienced erratic ejection patterns on or about firing the first 1000 rounds?

    Yes / No

    2. Upon a detailed strip of your Glock 17 Gen 4 slide, how difficult is the Glock factory extractor to remove from the slide with the extractor plunger removed and safety plunger fully depressed?

    a. The extractor drops out freely.

    b. The extractor can be easily removed by hand.

    c. Special effort is required to remove the extractor.

    d. I have never attempted to remove the extractor.

    3. If you have removed your extractor in your Glock 17 Gen 4, upon inspection, are there visible mold markings on the part that indicate uneven wear surfaces?

    a. The extractor shows no mold marks.

    b. The extractor shows faint mold marks.

    c. The extractor shows heavy mold marks.

    d. I have never attempted to remove the extractor.

    4. As a GLOCK Inc. consumer, are you satisfied with the overall quality of Glock’s internal slide parts, or would you prefer improved quality?

    Yes, I am satisfied with Glock’s internal slide parts. / No, I am not satisfied with Glock’s internal slide parts and would prefer improvements to quality.

    5. On a scale from 1 to 10, with one being least satisfied and ten being most satisfied, how satisfied are you with the quality of your factory-installed Glock 17 Gen 4 extractor?

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    6. What is the part number stamped on the ejector in the trigger housing of your Glock 17 Gen 4?

    a. 336

    b. 30274

    c. 28926

    d. Other

    7. As a GLOCK Inc. consumer, does it concern you that the design of the Glock 17 ejector has been improved for Generation 5 models, but factory Generation 4 models still incorporate an older part design?

    Yes / No



    Works Cited

    [1] 3/4Flap. “Want Your Ejection Problems Solved? Listen to Dave.” Glock Talk, Feb. 22, 2012, Post #81. Available: https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/want-your-ejection-problems-solved-listen-to-dave.1402990/page-5. [Accessed July 18, 2020]

    [2] ViperGlock. “Gen4 G19 experiment -- Lone Wolf extractor” Glock Talk, Jun. 8, 2020, Post #169. Available: https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/gen4-g19-experiment-lone-wolf-extractor.1346797/page-9. [Accessed July 18, 2020]

    [3] BuckeyeRifleman. “Glock 9mm ejector differences and performance comparison (with video) 336 vs 30274 vs 47021.” Glock Talk, Jun. 24, 2018, Technical Review. Available: https://www.glocktalk.com/a/glock-9...mparison-with-video-336-vs-30274-vs-47021.76/. [Accessed Jul. 18, 2020]
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2020
  2. Mike-M

    Mike-M

    Messages:
    6,836
    Likes Received:
    8,422
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012

  3. WilliamHenry434

    WilliamHenry434

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Hi Mike-M,
    Would you mind completing my survey at your earliest convenience?
    Very respectfully,
    Will
     
  4. John_AZ

    John_AZ

    Messages:
    4,337
    Likes Received:
    13,293
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2017
    Location:
    The Desert
    I thought people only cared about Gen 5 now?
     
  5. 9mmdude

    9mmdude

    Messages:
    1,922
    Likes Received:
    165
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2001
    Location:
    USA
    The first question needs to be expanded. My Gen4 17 didn't experience issues until after 1500 rounds. Glock fixed it and then the problem happened again at 1800 rounds. Glock ended up replacing my Gen4 17 when they could not fix it the second time.

    As usual Glock customer service is top notch. They way you are wording your survey makes it appear you are slanted toward Glock not taking care of the consumer.

    Many shooters who have under 1000 rounds in a Gen4 17 or 19 won't experience problems until they get above that number.
     
    Chris8111 and WilliamHenry434 like this.
  6. L-2

    L-2

    Messages:
    3,813
    Likes Received:
    778
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2001
    Location:
    Nevada
    Just an FYI to everyone, I read somewhere, the G17Gen4 is ceasing/has ceased production on 7/1/2020. The G17Gen3 and G17Gen5 will still be available to the commercial market. There will still be "support" to G17Gen4 customers, particularly LE/Mil customers. I'll hope G17Gen4 parts will still be available for future years (unknown how long).

    Any other Gen4 Glocks will be available unless/until replaced with Gen5 versions (i.e., G26, G19, G34 Gen4 models should also have ceased production, too; this survey is "moot").

    1. No erratic ejection noted in the issued G17Gen4 when I had it. I still have a personally-owned G34Gen4.
    2. b
    3. b (the question was had vague definitions, ill-defined, imo; "faint" was misspelled)
    4. satisfied/ok with slide parts
    5. 7 ok w/extractor
    6. b
    7. No. My G17gen5 and G19gen5 originally came with the 30274 ejectors, too. I changed to the newer 47021 ejectors with little to no difference in ejection noticed.
     
    WilliamHenry434 likes this.
  7. WilliamHenry434

    WilliamHenry434

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Gen 5 talk may be popular now, but I believe there are still many Gen 4 owners that are less likely return customers after having to iron out factory part shortcomings.
     
  8. WilliamHenry434

    WilliamHenry434

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Happy Monday, and thank you for your input! Please answer survey questions as best as you see fit. I would hope you reconsider the posture of my study after thoroughly reviewing the content of my post, but again, I appreciate your data contribution, thankyou!
     
  9. WilliamHenry434

    WilliamHenry434

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Thank you so much for completing my survey and sharing your valuable insight for others here! *I'll fix my spelling error
     
  10. cciman

    cciman MacGyver

    Messages:
    6,940
    Likes Received:
    2,544
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
  11. shadowlands

    shadowlands

    Messages:
    2,505
    Likes Received:
    5,402
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    My Glock 17 Gen4 USA is new. Recent purchase.
    I do have the current 30274 Ejector and 0,4,2 current Recoil Spring Assembly.

    Glock17Gen4.JPG
     
    WilliamHenry434 likes this.
  12. Brain_C

    Brain_C

    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    20
    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    I have well over 3000 rounds through my Gen4 17
    1. When utilizing only Glock Factory parts in your Glock 17 Gen 4, have you as a consumer experienced erratic ejection patterns on or about firing the first 1000 rounds?
    No
    2. d. I have never attempted to remove the extractor.
    3. d. I have never attempted to remove the extractor.
    4. Yes, I am satisfied with Glock’s internal slide parts.
    5. 10 satisfied
    6. other
    7. no
     
    WilliamHenry434 likes this.
  13. WilliamHenry434

    WilliamHenry434

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Thank you for completing my survey!
     
  14. Fatboy2001

    Fatboy2001

    Messages:
    4,629
    Likes Received:
    9,790
    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Location:
    Tucson AZ
    1. No
    2. A
    3. see pics
    4. very satisfied
    5. 10
    6. 30274
    7. no

    I bought it new Jan.'15 (have fired 1000's of rounds through it). Never one malfunction. I carried it until I bought a G48. The G17 is just range/home pistol now. Great pistol!

    Ejc 2.JPG Ejc 3.JPG
    G17.JPG
     
    WilliamHenry434 likes this.
  15. WilliamHenry434

    WilliamHenry434

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Thank you for completing my survey and including pictures from your detailed strip!
     
    Fatboy2001 likes this.
  16. shadowlands

    shadowlands

    Messages:
    2,505
    Likes Received:
    5,402
    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    1) No
    2) D
    3) D
    4) Yes, I am satisfied
    5) 10
    6) 30274
    7) No
     
    WilliamHenry434 likes this.
  17. ithaca_deerslayer

    ithaca_deerslayer

    Messages:
    32,745
    Likes Received:
    29,730
    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2000
    Location:
    Upstate NY, USA
    I assume this survey is for a college paper. But my response is ditto :)
     
  18. RPMSTL

    RPMSTL

    Messages:
    787
    Likes Received:
    799
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2015
    yes
    a
    a
    yes
    5
    b
    no

    I have had less than stellar ejection (erratic) with all my 9mm Glocks until the Gen 5 breech face cut was introduced. Some much worse than others.

    Based on my own extensive testing over the years, the quality of the produced extractor itself was not the problem. This was evidenced by the aftermarket designs that do not 100% solve the issue.
    The overall design is to blame. The spent casing is barely held against the breech face and starts to drop as the slide moves rearward. This dropping, or drooping, uses the next round in the mag to stop it from falling and when it ultimately hits the ejector, there is not enough force to get it out of the frame as perfectly as many would like. Sometimes the spent round gets flipped up, forward or into your brand new red dot and many do not appreciate that.

    The cut into the breech face really helps but obviously not for the previously manufactured pistols.

    I have tried all the various tricks and replacement parts to get my Gen 3/4 9mm Glocks to eject pretty good. I've never been 100% satisfied, but fairly close.
     
    WilliamHenry434 likes this.
  19. WilliamHenry434

    WilliamHenry434

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2020
    Thank you, and everyone else who has participated. That is correct; this research study is part of an assignment for a technical writing class in my engineering program at Arizona State University, Go Sun Devils!
     
    ithaca_deerslayer likes this.
  20. Bradd D

    Bradd D

    Messages:
    4,602
    Likes Received:
    6,531
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2000
    Location:
    St Cloud, FL USA
    1. No

    2. A, when clean

    3. I do not see any correlation between the mold marks and the wear

    4. Yes, I am satisfied with Glock’s internal slide parts

    5. 10

    6. B

    7. The Gen 4 and Gen 5 17's use the same ejector

    I have two 2015 test fire date Gen 4 17's. Both have 9000 rounds on them and I have experienced no erratic ejection or stoppages.
     
    WilliamHenry434 likes this.