Glock 19 Gen 3 vs Gen 4

[RustyJr]

I have been carrying Glocks for several years both on and off duty. My personal Glock is a G23 (40S&W) Gen 3 while my duty weapon is a G23 Gen 4. I am currently looking at picking up a G19 (9mm) to use as a competition/training gun. My question is, is there reason to go with one over the other from a mechanical/reliability aspect? I have read that some of the Gen 4's have had reliability issues (I can count on one hand the number of FTE/FTF I've had with either weapon). For me personally the Gen 4 feels a little better in the hand but I have had the most training/trigger time with the Gen 3.

Thanks in advance,
RustyJr

[7.62 Precision]

The Gen 4 Glocks have issues. Not so much that they are in the category of some unreliable pistols, but they have proven to be less reliable than Gen 3 Glocks.

Most of the changes were not changes that were necessary, they seem to be changes for marketing so they could fight back for market share against other pistols that were taking sales away from Glocks. The Gen 4 was driven by the US market where potential customers drool over things like interchangeable back straps and aftermarket parts. People have long complained about Glock's guide rod and spring, even though they worked, and other guide rod designs were marketing points for other pistol manufacturers, while shooters bought aftermarket guide rods. Also, bringing out a new generation Glock causes people who already own Glocks to go out and buy a new one.

The main issues I have seen and learned about from others (including people involved with the IDF, law enforcement, and one of the biggest Glock accessory outfits) include:
1. Frame flexes more and more easily than the frames on Gen 3 Glocks. This can cause malfunctions. A forward vertical grip on the rail of a Gen 4 Glock will cause it to jam.
2. Guide rod and recoil spring issues can cause malfunctions.

The IDF tested the Gen 4 Glocks and rejected them for reliability issues.

[Rusty]

I think I read somewhere that the IDF also likes the M19 over the M17. Do you know anything about that? The claim was that the M19 was more accurate.

[firefuzz]

The Gen 4 Glocks have issues. Not so much that they are in the category of some unreliable pistols, but they have proven to be less reliable than Gen 3 Glocks.

1. Frame flexes more and more easily than the frames on Gen 3 Glocks. This can cause malfunctions. A forward vertical grip on the rail of a Gen 4 Glock will cause it to jam.

So can a weapon mounted light, at least with the model 23's. A local PD here had that problem, they train and carry the lights mounted 24/7 for uniformed officers, and returned the guns for Model 17's. The problem, really bad frame flexing, didn't happen with the 9mm's.

I own several Glocks, all Gen 3 or older and all in 9mm, and have never had any real issues with good ammo. One of my guns hates steel cased ammo tho the others seem to handle it just fine. I see no need for me or anyone else to upgrade from Gen 3 to Gen 4 just to be upgrading. I do like the Gen 3 SF frames, Models 20 and 21 because I have smaller hands.

The one thing I DO like about the Gen 4 guns is that when Glock came out with them it put a lot of slightly used Gen 3 guns on the market at good prices.

Rob

[octagon]

Of three Glocks, two are gen four, one 9mil,one ten mil, no failures of any kind, both 100% so far. The 10 has most rounds through it both ball and HP, is very accurate and shoots as good at least as my Colt. the gen 3 in 10 mil is still in the box as the gen four seems to have a much better grip to my med/ large hands. Having been a revolver guy my whole life except for the 1911, i am a Glock lover now due to the ten mil cartridge and the excellent accuracy of the gen four Glock 20. Love it for carry at ranch due to light weight and don't care if it gets scratched up, it's already ugly.

[AJMD429]

Love it for carry at ranch due to light weight and don't care if it gets scratched up, it's already ugly.

THAT is enough to make me want one; I know it's silly but even my old stainless 'generic' AMT 1911 that is already dinged and scratched up makes me wince if I drop or scrape it. I don't think I'd feel that way even about a brand new Glock , I guess for the same reason.

Kind of like the difference in the ViceGrip in my tool box vs my Leatherman Wave tool; both well made and neither affected as to function if scratched up, but I do treat them differently.

[Malamute]

I'm not a fan of the gen 4 guns, but its just personal preference to me.

In reading, I've seen references to specific serial number ranges that had more problem guns than other time frames/serial ranges.

Often the ejecting to the face problems are fairly easily corrected by using either certain specific replacement factory parts or Apex parts. Sometimes they just dont improve though.

Accuracy seems so-so in most guns (regardless of gen) compared to old revolver standards, though some seem to shoot quite well. If a 3-4" gun @ 25 is good with you, you should be happy. Many of us miss the old Smith revolvers that would usually shoot into 1 1/2" with decent ammo.

Using high grade ammo (like expensive hollow point carry ammo) rather than the cheapest wal mart economy grade range ammo often improves accuracy. Imagine that.

[OldWin]

Malamute,

Yes, there are extractor issues with late gen3 and gen4 9mm's.

My son's carry and IDPA pistol is a late gen3 19 and after some use it started acting up. Put in an Apex extractor and all was well for a while. Then it started the same thing again. It got so it wouldn't make it through a magazine.

I can't remeber the part numbers but there are two Glock part numbers for the ejector. We swapped to the other and put a factory extractor back in and its been 100 percent. ........so far.

Thought I may want one once but this kinda soured me.

I do have a gen3 21SF and that thing is as reliable as time, and very accurate. From what I've heard, the 45's are the best working ones now.

[piller]

There is a trigger pull difference in them. Gen 3 have a little metal piece that spins when the bar above the trigger moves on it. The gen 4 Glocks drag across it. Just take the slide off of one of each and you can see what I mean. It does make for a little better trigger on the older version.

[RKrodle]

I have a G17 Gen 4 that so far has a little over a 1000 rounds through without any problems, and it has never been cleaned. I also have the Gen 3 version but only maybe a 100 rnds through it, but also no problems so far.

[MrMurphy]

The early 4's had issues that seem to have been fixed. I was wary about it in the event I got a new 9mm for a duty gun.

Half a dozen guys I know who train hard and shoot regularly have put upwards of 3-5,000 each through their 9mm Gen 4s now without any gun related issues. Any Gen 4 made in the last 2 years or so should be good, it was the early batches (if any) that had problems.

[BrianSH]

I have a Gen 3 19, that has not been cleaned since before I took Andy Stafford's Surgical Speed Shooting in March of 2005. A drop of oil here and there, but not stripped and cleaned.

I do plan on doing a full tear-down in March of this year. - Brian

[Malamute]

I thought this was interesting, 71,260 rds through a gen 4 G-17 in 16 months.

http://pistol-training.com/archives/cat ... en4-friday

Thats not to say it is guaranteed that they all work like that, because we know it isnt like that in real life. There are some recognised problem guns or groups of guns.

As 7.62 said, the fix, somtimes, doesnt, or not how or when one expects them to. No gun, no machine, is perfect or always works no matter what. Even amongst the high average performers, there are odd ducks that keep people on their toes. I think the Indianna State Police ended up sending back an entire lot of 1100 guns that neither they, nor Glock, could get to run reliably.

[Streetstar]

. I think the Indianna State Police ended up sending back an entire lot of 1100 guns that neither they, nor Glock, could get to run reliably.

Probably back on the streets now in the hands of consumers through some of the fine purveyors of police trade ins out there (j&g, cdnn, etc)

[7.62 Precision]

I'm not saying that no one has a Gen 4 Glock that runs perfectly for 10s of thousands of rounds, or that the G4 Glock is not better than a lot of other pistols, but it has been demonstrated by those who have the resources to test a lot of pistols with a lot of ammo over a lot of time that the Gen 3 Glock is superior to the Gen 4. If we are comparing Glock to Glock, the Gen 3 is better. If I had a choice, I would take the Gen 3. I would still take the Gen 4 over a number of other pistols.

Also, I have run into issues between the frame and mainspring assembly on very late Gen 3 frames - frames that were built after the Gen 4 was introduced (Glock still builds Gen 3s for foreign military markets that rejected the Gen 4, or have not adopted it yet). These Gen 3 frames have a different internal dimensions, and the pistol will actually jam open on a standard Gen 3 recoil spring, and most aftermarket springs. Lone Wolf aftermarket springs fix this issue. You would run into this issue when Glock replaces your broken Gen 3 frame with a newly manufactured frame.

[Malamute]

Interesting. Do you have a link to the people shooting a lot and finding the gen 3's working better? I like the 3's.

This came up elsewhere recently (well, 17's instead of 19's). Most seem to like the 4's, but the late 3's seem to have some quirks.

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php? ... n-Glock-17

[7.62 Precision]

No links. The problem with forums and stuff is that first, you have groupies an fanboys who fall for every glossy ad they see in Guns and Ammo. Second, you have people who rabidly defend their favorite pistol, manufacturer, or investment.

Because I can find 50 guys posting on forums that they have run 50,000 rounds through a particular pistol with no malfunctions means little. The majority of shooters will never shoot 10,000 rounds in their lifetimes, or even 5,000.

On the other hand, the guy who has had nothing but problems with a particular pistol might have a pistol that is perfectly reliable if he were firing the correct ammo, didn't let it get rusty or full of dirt, or had not tried his hand at home gunsmithing. Or he just has an axe to grind with a particular manufacturer.

I have just spent a couple years testing customer-returned magazines for a particular manufacturer. I tested piles of magazines that came from customers who posted all over forums about their horrible function issues with the magazines (most posts mirrored posts from other users, often word for word). I requested detailed explanations of the problems from each customer, and then I inspected and tested the magazines. Out of boxes of returned magazines, I found two that had a manufacturing defect that did not affect function, and most had never been in a rifle - there were no marks in the finish or brass marks on the follower, which show up the first time the magazine is loaded or inserted into a rifle. Every magazine I tested ran flawlessly. I received stacks of unused magazines from shooters who claimed to have run hundreds of rounds through them with constant malfunctions.

In courses, we have people, even people who shoot a lot, show up with pistols that they claim never malfunction. Once we start shooting, they have malfunction after malfunction.

I have dealt with people who own a pile of firearms, a stack of ammo, have tens of thousands of posts on firearms forums, offering their advice and knowledge on a myriad of different subjects, and then when I speak with them, they admit they have never fired ANY of their firearms.

I know of people who carry daily, and are vocal about it, who have NEVER fired their pistols.

People forget the malfunctions they have, they exaggerate the reliability of one firearms and exaggerate the unreliability of another. They flat out lie to defend their favorite manufacturer or firearm, and to tear down the ones they don't like.

The most poorly-built firearm might have representatives that will go for thousands of rounds without a hiccup, and there are sometimes examples of the best ones that are pieces of junk. I have seen Glocks and nice 1911s malfunction badly or come apart, and I have seen photos of Hi-Points that ran for thousands of rounds, but I'm not running out to buy a Hi-Point.

On the other hand, the people I have spoken with have first-hand knowledge of ongoing testing, and the results that have come back over the years show that the Gen 4 is a little less reliable than the Gen 3s, and that there are known issues, like the frame flexing. As far as the newest Gen 3s, it seems a lot of the issues are the result of mixing older ten three parts with the new frames.

[7.62 Precision]

I got a kick out of the guy who posts that the reason he likes Gen 4 Glocks is because they have interchangeable backstraps, so he can choose the one that gives him the same frame size as a Gen 3 Glock.

I like the Gen 4 better than the Gen 3 'cause I can choose the grip frame size that is the same as a Gen 3!

[Malamute]

Good comments, thanks!

I dont quite get where many are coming from, especially those that would be vociferous proponents of something, yet have little or no firsthand knowledge or reliable sources for their info. Its astounding to me that someone would carry a gun for defense and never shoot it.

The magazine thing you mentioned sounds ludicrous. Claiming the parts are malfunctioning and theyve never been used. Thats like bordering on psycho.

[7.62 Precision]

Sold an optic to a guy. He started posting on a forum about the problems he had with the optic, how it was defective, a poor design, etc. Then he went to another forum and posted the same. He was very loud about warning people never to buy that optic or buy anything from us.

We tracked the optic and it had not yet arrived when he started posting that stuff. Then he ran a chargeback against us. The optic can't be too bad, though, since he refuses to return it.

[1894c]

The Gen 4 Glocks have issues. Not so much that they are in the category of some unreliable pistols, but they have proven to be less reliable than Gen 3 Glocks.

Most of the changes were not changes that were necessary, they seem to be changes for marketing so they could fight back for market share against other pistols that were taking sales away from Glocks. The Gen 4 was driven by the US market where potential customers drool over things like interchangeable back straps and aftermarket parts. People have long complained about Glock's guide rod and spring, even though they worked, and other guide rod designs were marketing points for other pistol manufacturers, while shooters bought aftermarket guide rods. Also, bringing out a new generation Glock causes people who already own Glocks to go out and buy a new one.

The main issues I have seen and learned about from others (including people involved with the IDF, law enforcement, and one of the biggest Glock accessory outfits) include:
1. Frame flexes more and more easily than the frames on Gen 3 Glocks. This can cause malfunctions. A forward vertical grip on the rail of a Gen 4 Glock will cause it to jam.
2. Guide rod and recoil spring issues can cause malfunctions.

The IDF tested the Gen 4 Glocks and rejected them for reliability issues.

7.62 Precision -- I respectfully and kindly disagree with you...my LE Agency is transitioning over to the Gen4, because we had issues with the Gen-3's (a well known source for malfunctions was attaching a light to a Gen-3 Glock 22, the issue is frame flex)...for me personally I carry a G-26 Gen4 as my EDC/BUG (own two, plus two M&P Shields in 9mm), I have found the Gen4 to be reliable, accurate, and as good as any Gen-3 I owned...just my experience... :)

[vancelw]

(a well known source for malfunctions was attaching a light to a Gen-3 Glock 22, issue frame flex)...

Everything I've seen says that was the early Gen 3s. (But I don't own a Glock .40 cal partially for that reason) I have 2 Gen3s and 2 Gen 4s and like them all. My only real beef is with the mag release on the Gen 4s. I preferred the others where I could install an extended one. I never have had an issue with accidental magazine release as others say they have.

[7.62 Precision]

7.62 Precision -- I respectfully and kindly disagree with you...my LE Agency is transitioning over the the Gen4, because we had issues with the Gen-3's

Well, my Gen 3 Glock's two rear frame rails broke off while I was shooting, and the back end of the slide came off of the frame. It did't feed so well after that.
So I would say just about any good Gen 4 is better than that one.

We have to look at pistol models in two different ways. First, by the cumulative experiences of shooters and the cumulative testing of the pistol model to establish the reliability of the design, and second, as individual weapons.

We can find individual examples of poor designs that work very well. A good example, because there are so many that have been in use for so long, are the older metal-frame S&W auto pistols. That family of pistols improved over the years but never truly were a good design, and their popularity was largely due to the fact that many LE agencies had always bought S&W revolvers, and many even had written policies that only S&W pistols could be carried, on the books from the days when they were trying to differentiate between double and single-action revolvers.

Still, while the design and construction were never really good, there are plenty of individual examples that have run flawlessly for thousands of rounds.

So while people who have really tested the new Glocks have found them to be less reliable on average than the Gen 3, that does not mean that there are not plenty of individual examples (probably most of the pistols they build) that will never have any real issues.

If you have a Glock Gen 4 and it runs fine, there is no need to run out and replace it - there are a LOT of worse pistols out there.

Also, though Glock refuses to ever issue a recall, and Glock fans don't want to admit it, Glock has had issues in pretty much every generation. The issue that caused my Gen 3 Glock to break was a known issue that affected all of their production over three years, and Glock never issued a recall. One out of every three frame rails was bent incorrectly for three years, and if a Glock has one of those rails (mine had two) it is just a matter of time before it breaks, according to Glock. They will give you a "free upgrade" once it breaks . . .

[vancelw]

and Glock fans don't want to admit it, Glock has had issues in pretty much every generation. . . .

That's a pretty broad statement!

But mention ONE TIME that the one Sig I ever owned was a lemon and the factory couldn't (not wouldn't...they tried but were incapable) of fixing it....suddenly I'm a pariah!

I'll take my chances with Glock until one lets me down...then I'm done. If you gave me a Sig I'd tie a 5 dollar bill to it an throw it in the river.

[7.62 Precision]

It is, and it is a true statement.

Also, my point is that there is no pistol model that is going to be 100% reliable, nor any that will be 100% unreliable. If you are done with Glocks if you ever have one let you down, then you are looking at it wrong.

I had a Glock that disassembled while I was shooting it. Yet I would trust another Glock, because they have a proven record. They have their problems, they do malfunction, just like any pistol model will malfunction from time to time, but they have been proven. Glocks aren't perfect, they have had their share of manufacturing defects, they won't admit to their problems and won't issue recalls, but they are, overall, reliable tools. I shoot them well.

As long as I can shoot it enough to establish that it is reasonably reliable, what happens with another Glock will not change how I feel about using it. But if there is a pattern of problems with a certain pistol model, I would stay away from that model. The problems Glock has had in the past are mostly problems of the past. The issue that mine had, I now know the serial number range that will have that problem.

And not just Glock - how many recalls has S&W had lately? SIG? Remington? Springfield Armory? Beretta? Manufacturers are constantly discovering issues, finding improvements, and fixing problems. Any manufacturer can put out a lemon - you just want to stick with the ones that put out fewer lemons.

[vancelw]

and Glock fans don't want to admit it

It is, and it is a true statement.
.

it's not a true statement. I'm a Glock fan and I'd be the first to admit if my Glock had a problem.

I've owned and shot a lot of guns in my life and career. Sig is the only one I've ever had that has had a non-field correctable malfunction. (I won't count the Mini-14 that the firing pin broke, because I didn't own and maintain it , nor would I. The range officer unstuck the bolt on several by jamming against the tailgate of his truck before the festivities began. Pretty sure it had never been cleaned in it's entire life)

You don't believe it? I'm very particular about what I trust to start with, so my failure rate in service weapons is low.

The malfunction is not what soured me on Sigs. It was the companies failure to understand and correct it. They simply could not figure out what was wrong with the gun, even though the Sig custom shop had it for 2 months (No, I'm not worried about being sued...it is all well-documented) That soured me on the company and I won't trust my life to their product.

If I have the same experience with Glock, I'll be done with them. It's doubtful since I've fired tens of thousand (if not hundreds of thousands) more rounds through Glocks that I did that Sig.