Glock Talk banner

Round striker hole for Glock slide?

3482 Views 16 Replies 10 Participants Last post by  cciman
Hello everyone,

We machine Glock slides (from billet) and I wanted to get a general Glock user consensus on what you think as a consumer about an aftermarket Glock slide with a round striker hole instead of the factory rectangular hole? The factory striker tip would be able to pass through it normally and (as far as our testing has shown, the pistol fires as good as factory).

Reason for this is quicker manufacturing lead times and eliminating add costs--since we can CNC drill the round striker hole in-house instead of sending it out to EDM the rectangular striker hole.

Your opinions would greatly help us decide on whether to pursue this route.

Thank you in advance!

-N
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

· MacGyver
Joined
·
10,832 Posts
You should be aware that the Gen5 models ALL have a modified SLIDE and FIRING PIN that use the conventional round FIRING PIN tip.

Almost everyone else has used the round point for the last 140 years. Mechanically it's stronger than the flat Glock FIRING PIN point.
Gen 5 Saves on production costs for round holes and pins.

Just because it was done for 140 years.... Back then making precision rectangular holes/pins in large quantities would have been a challenge. The spring loaded striker concept also did not exist 140 years ago- most hammer fired pins impact with much more force than needed in ammo of modern society (simple pencil launching tests I've done on multiple pistols prove this). Apparently the lighter spring loaded striker impacts with rectangular pin heads are good and reliable enough.

Yes mechanically stronger, but functionally, how strong does it have to be? -- obviously the massive statistical ownership and usage of Glock fp's indicates that it is strong enough.
 

· MacGyver
Joined
·
10,832 Posts
I have a Gen3 G35 that started to have failures to fire. Good indent on primers. I blamed it on my reloads having high primers as most would fire on second attempt. Not the problem. Replaced firing pin spring. Nope. After several thousand more rounds with the failures happening almost every mag I was at and end.
Removed all internals and sent the pistol to Glock for refurbish with letter explaining my problems. Received the Glock and went to the range. Not a single failure in several hundred rounds.
I got to thinking that maybe Glock had fixed a problem with the gun. Removed all the new parts and reinstalled the old. The problem returned. This Glock had been fired about 35,000 rds. with most being reloads with CCI primers. And yes I tried different primers before sending it to Glock.
Detailed stripped and started comparing the old with the new. Fortunately I started with the firing pin. It was only then that I could see the very fine point on the firing pin was rounded. Primer strikes had looked good but comparing those with the rounds fired with new rounds with a 10X jewelers lupe you could see that there was a definite deeper, sharper imprint. So Glock firing pins can wear out. A round firing pin should be even more robust.
I have not wanted a Gen 5 but when they make G27 in black I will have one.

Anecdotes are great....but lets be not so accepting here...just to throw some questions into the mix. How do you know that 35k rounds of your reload 40SW ammo won't do the same to a round FP, or even sooner...and if so will you update this thread? What if some other individual posted that he/she competes and has fired over 100K round through his/her gun and has never had a problem? Whose story has more power? Other factors too?

Very few Glock owners even see 10k rounds. My Honda Tranny gave out at 159K miles, is that bad design?
35k rounds at $0.15/round (conservative) = $5250 spent or close to 10x the cost of the gun. Just some bits to add to the perspective salad.
 

· MacGyver
Joined
·
10,832 Posts
So with so many round fired, is that not the expected norm rather than the exception? You are just assuming round FP points won't wear out at the same at that volume in your hands, I don't know, nor do you (also we are assuming all other variables are equal-- like material and processes to make FP, and using the same ammo for comparison).

My work is in ***** so the size of the population (denominator) is what makes DATA either strong or weak. Since there is limited internet groundswell on Glocktalk on worn FP's (compared to complaints about cosmetics), I suspect (assumption) the true prevalence of worn out FP in the Glock owner population is very, very low...But if you are training for a marathon and running 15 miles a day, you do need to (and expect to) buy more shoes-- finding the right rubber sole combination that will last longer for you is going to take some intensive study....(very few in the population run marathons, another assumption).

Back to the OP: maybe, maybe not. But if you intention is only to save manufacturing costs, sure...but make sure the pin matches the hole, and your users are aware of the diff. I personally do not want to put a square pin through a round hole, unless you can point to the advantages.
 

· MacGyver
Joined
·
10,832 Posts
Unfortunately, the OP does not have the resources that Glock does, nor the nec data to help him with his question. (Asking here, only gets opinionated responses from idiots like me).

You, nor I, do either.

If I were making a product to compete with the OE, those are the concerns. Liability would be my own personal concern.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top