Glock 26, Gen4 v. Gen5

Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by BDM71, Apr 16, 2018.

  1. BDM71

    BDM71

    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    274
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    I'm one of those who had a problem with my Gen 3 & 4 Glock 19's finger grooves; however, for some strange reason, my Glock Gen 4 26 and Gen 4 Glock 33 finger grooves never bothered me despite being dimensionally identical.

    Maybe there is something about what happens to my pinky, and the bottom of my hand generally, that makes some kind of difference (I don't know); but I am curious about what people think about the finger-grooveless Gen5 G26 compared with the Gen4.

    Having a full grip on a G17 or G19 probably doesn't matter much, but when you only have two fingers on the grip, I assume they feel different when shooting. After all, the G26 was introduced as a Gen2.1. While the other models of Gen1 and Gen2 pistols were devoid of finger grooves, they thought it was important to add them to their then new offering in 1994 (probably due to the fact that for the first time you had to dangle a pinky to shoot it).

    Glock must have thought it was an improvement because 4 years later they introduced the finger grooves across the entire lineup, and 12 years later, when they introduced the Gen4's, they kept the finger grooves despite more than a decade of people complaining.

    Anyway, besides the finger grooves, I'm also interested if anyone has any strong opinions about the other changes.
     
  2. Mike-M

    Mike-M

    Messages:
    6,836
    Likes Received:
    8,422
    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2012
    It was first imported in July 1995, but not as "Gen2.1". Glock did not start using Generation terminology until their 2010 Gen4.

    The customer-designated Gen3 models arrived in 1998, so customers also designated the early G26 and G27 as Gen2.5.
    The design and production of the G26 and G27 was motivated by the 09/13/1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban and its 10-round magazine limit. The first G26 and G27 pistols arrived in the USA in July 1995, not 1994.
    That was in 1998...what Glock called FGR (Finger Grooves and Rail) and everyone else called Gen3.
    Only *some* people complained. I guess they were the customers who did not bother to grip the pistol before purchase... the grooves were not hidden. :)
    All that seems to get ANY attention is the stuff that is visible outside the pistol...no finger grooves, flared magazine well, beveled slide and frame, etc. All of that is superficial and cosmetic. The REAL Gen5 changes are internal and mechanical... changes so significant that almost 70 percent of Gen5 parts differ and are incompatible with Gen4 equivalents. Just talking about springs alone, here's a presentation on differences between Gen4 and Gen5:

    Leaf and wire springs, plus the hooks on the Trigger Spring, have been the most unreliable and troublesome parts ever since the very first Glock pistol was made. The history of spring breakage and related problems in pre-Gen5 Glocks is THE reason for Gen5's new coil spring designs. Gen5 spring designs finally provide the solutions to problems that have been needed for 35 years.

    1. The Gen5 coil Slide Lock Spring improves one of Glock's troublesome parts. The pre-Gen5 leaf SLS on a compact or larger model has its foot embedded into the frame's polymer. A break there will likely require frame replacement to correct. In addition, the Gen5 coil spring flexes with the movement of many small spring surfaces over short distances. The pre-Gen5 leaf spring has only the one surface that must flex fully over a greater range during spring movement. The leaf spring is therefore much more likely to break than is the coil spring. The leaf spring also readily deforms permanently. Just compare a leaf SLS that's been in place for a few years to a new leaf SLS...especially on subcompact models.

    2. The Gen5 coil Slide Stop Lever spring likewise has many small coil surfaces moving a short distance during flex rather than one wire surface in the pre-Gen5 design that must flex a much greater distance. The pre-Gen5 design is also subject to mechanical loosening at the SSL, and mis-positioning of the end of the wire spring end.

    3. The Gen5 trigger spring is a coil, as is the pre-Gen5 Trigger Spring which is the part that breaks most often on pre-Gen5 pistols. The Gen5 Trigger Spring now compresses rather than stretches, and no longer has the spring hooks which break frequently. Gen5 coil Trigger Springs should have very long life.

    The above springs were changed specifically to eliminate significant faults that historically caused pistol failure. Gen5 pistol functional reliability should be the best ever experienced in Glock history compared to previous generations.

    There are other Gen5 changes besides springs, such as the round point on the Gen5 firing pin, the use of G19-type barrel lock-up on the G17 and G34, plus the longer RSA that change requires, etc. etc. etc. In particular, the Firing In Safety has been greatly improved and no longer requires an alignment bump on the Trigger Bar.

    But none of these really important Gen5 changes get much discussion. I guess that's just too hard for many cosmetic-oriented types to understand and appreciate. :)

    So...let's talk about that Gen5 flared mag well and the frame bevel some more.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
    Jaywmustang, 2740dmx, L-2 and 7 others like this.

  3. RKLOMP

    RKLOMP

    Messages:
    360
    Likes Received:
    297
    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    I like my Gen 5's over any of my Gen 4's
     
  4. skyboss_4evr

    skyboss_4evr

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    706
    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Location:
    Iowa
    Excellent write up.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  5. Dribear

    Dribear

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    188
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Location:
    SLO, CA
    As far as finger grooves, I prefer without.
    However, it is my understanding that the gap between the groove is different in compact, and that full-size and sub-compact share the same spacing.
    I currently do not own enough between full, compact and SC to compare.
     
  6. Nagoya10

    Nagoya10

    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    912
    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Location:
    Illinois
    While Mike M covered most everything real well he didn’t address the new barrel design. The Marksman barrel with improved rifling and crown along with tighter fit does improve accuracy. It did for me at least as I went from a Gen4 to a Gen5 and noticed accuracy improvement. My Gen4 always shot to the left regardless of sight alignment but the Gen5 is right on and tighter.
     
    BDM71 likes this.
  7. snowbird.40

    snowbird.40

    Messages:
    2,026
    Likes Received:
    1,290
    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Location:
    North coast and the desert
    Mike-M ... excellent examination of the internals. I currently own two G43s. How do their internals compared to the different generations? (I leave my internals stock and have no desire to disassemble the guns, plus those two are the ONLY Glocks I currently own, so I couldn't do a comparison even if I wanted to.)
     
  8. phixion

    phixion

    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    163
    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    I believe that aside from the barrel and slide stop lever (coil spring, but non-ambi), the Glock 43 and Generation 5 pistols are mechanically/internally the same.
     
  9. BDM71

    BDM71

    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    274
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    First, off, thank you for putting a lot of effort into answering my post.

    Second, I said "as a Gen2.1" and not "as the Gen2.1" because I was referring to the generic use of version numbers where .1 comes before .5. I have read people refer to it as the 2.5, but I'm not a very good follower and always thought it was not in keeping with a normal number convention.

    I've read the same thing about the G26 being motivated by the Clinton ban, but I wasn't talking about the pistol as a whole, I was referring to the motivation behind the finger grooves. As far as the year is concerned, however, I've heard both 1994 and 1995, but I err on Glock's website which states 1994 (https://us.glock.com/products/model/g26gen4).

    Or perhaps they didn't discover it was an issue until they shot it, or they just assumed they'd get used to it (but didn't). Nonetheless, I think my point was in line with yours that only some people complained, but not enough to remove it in the Gen4's (which was my point).

    I don't agree they're superficial and merely cosmetic. I carried both Gen3 and Gen4 Glock 19's for years, and in my opinion, on my body, the way I carry, the flared magwell is less concealable and unnecessary. Some people are also complaining that the cutaway is uncomfortable. That said, my post is about the Glock 26 which doesn't have either of these issues anyway.

    Again, I think they're all real changes, inside and out, but I appreciated this section, it had a lot of good information I hadn't heard. I knew about all the changes, and I guessed that they were to make them more reliable, but I think most people aren't going to notice things that they can't feel or experience (like the trigger, the grooves, the cutout in front of the grip etc.).

    Although I think the internals are certainly a worthwhile discussion, and as I alluded to, most Glock owners will never change these parts (they don't shoot their pistols enough). Everyone has an opinion on the exterior of the gun, and the trigger (which I'm surprised you didn't mention), as well as the frame bevel (which, again, is not G26-related, but I understand why the G19/17 had to be that way); but getting back to my point, the finger grooves are not just a cosmetic thing in my opinion, and my biggest point here was trying to find out if anyone has shot the G26 with AND without the finger grooves. The grooves were created to provide leverage when the pistol rises upon firing. I'm assuming Glock believes the more aggressive grip texturing of the gens 4 & 5 helps mitigate the loss of the finger grooves, but that's what I'm trying to discern with this post. I also like the addition of the ambi slide stop.
     
    snowbird.40 likes this.
  10. Dr_fast

    Dr_fast

    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    1,242
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2017
    If you’re concerned with the loss of finger grooves versus control it might be helpful to consider the lack of them on the lighter 43 and I don’t hear of complaints. Just a thought.
     
    skyboss_4evr likes this.
  11. BDM71

    BDM71

    Messages:
    374
    Likes Received:
    274
    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    I owned a G43, and I agree with most people who have the same opinion (the G26 shoots better). How much of that is the weight/thickness vs. the finger grooves I don't know.