Joined
·
11 Posts
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.
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.
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: http://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: http://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]
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
![]()
[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
![]()
[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: http://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: http://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]
