FBI Glocks

B

Brownstone322

New member
Back in 2016, the FBI first began to adopt the Glock 17M/19M which, as best I can tell, had all the features that would later appear on the Gen 5 family (albeit with slightly different sights).

So Question 1: Does the FBI still use special "M" models now, or were those just Gen 5 prototypes?

Then Question 2: If the FBI just uses standard Gen 5 Glocks now, what about the cutout at the bottom of the grip, which (again, to my understanding) was an FBI requirement? It would appear that current-production Gen 5s feature forward serrations and no cutout.

https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g17-gen5-fs-us

I have a Gen 5 G17, by the way, and that cutout, combined with the extended baseplate on Gen 5 mags, is actually pretty handy for yanking out a mag when you have a nasty jam.

Thanks.
 
Don't take anything the FBI says or does as being gospel. They are not the arbiter of anything. They buy firearms the same way any PD does. Who's the cheapest and gives the best service contract. Glocks have the advantage of being light weight and fitting small hands better too.
 
^ Yes we've heard you say that many times before. Though it's odd you'd say they fit small hands better too. If anything I'd argue the opposite. Glocks fit my wife's hands terribly.

I don't know if the FBI still use models marked with M. I know we're starting to see those models show up used on places like Gunbroker and elsewhere. As you say, they're basically early Gen 5s.

As to the cutout, to me the cutout is a solution to a problem Glock introduced. I've had Glocks for a number of years and used them in a number of defensive oriented courses. I never had issues with the Gen 3 and Gen 4 Glocks when it came to stripping a stuck magazine. And this was even when deliberately setting up a failure to extract. All I did was pinch the baseplates on the sides and because the baseplates extended below the grip it wasn't an issue to get purchase. However, on the Gen 5 Glock decided to flare the magwell. This makes pinching the magazines on the sides not nearly as easy. Adding back in the front cutout (which existed at least on the Gen 2 Glock 19) gave you a means to do exactly what you describe.

To me you didn't need the flaring. Seemingly other polymer framed striker fired pistols get by without the flaring and when I compared seating magazines on my Gen 3s to my Gen 5s the flaring really didn't seem to make a difference. The interior of the magwell was already beveled and they used double stack magazines with a taper.

There were also a number of people that vehemently hated the way the cutout felt and found it lead to pinching their hands when seating magazines. These people were very happy when Glock removed the cutout.

I recently picked up a Gen 5 MOS that doesn't have the cutout. I find I can still strip the magazines, as long as I'm using magazines with the extended baseplate (they jut far enough forward to get purchase there and up the back of the grip on the rear of the magazine). If you were using non Gen 5 magazines in a Gen 5 without the cutout you might have an issue.
 
I fired my friend's last year. It's the same thing as a regular Gen5 to me. He said it had maritime cups and the internals were coated or made stronger to hold up better. As if the regular ones don't hold up well. I'm guessing the M was just originated due to a contract that specified some improvements and glock delivered.
 
The frontstrap cutout on my Gen3 G17 doesn’t bother me, because the grip is longer. There is no such cutout on my Gen3 G19, and who would want it anyway. And there is an extended lip on the bottom of the frontstrap on my 19X, which I don’t need because the grip is longer. But I’d really like to see that extended lip on the regular Glock 19. There is no rhyme or reason for the inconsistent approach that Glock takes on this design feature and I’d tell them about it if I thought they would listen.
 
Thanks for the replies.

I'm gonna conclude that we don't really know exactly what the FBI carries now (17M vs. 17 Gen 5) or if there's really any difference 'tween the two. I'm assuming the Bureau buys a certain number of new pistols every year, though, and I still wonder exactly what they get these days.

That said, I didn't even realize that you could buy a new 17M off Gunbroker, but you certainly can, complete with the "Agent" sights.
 
Brownstone322 said:
Thanks for the replies.

I'm gonna conclude that we don't really know exactly what the FBI carries now (17M vs. 17 Gen 5) or if there's really any difference 'tween the two. I'm assuming the Bureau buys a certain number of new pistols every year, though, and I still wonder exactly what they get these days.

That said, I didn't even realize that you could buy a new 17M off Gunbroker, but you certainly can, complete with the "Agent" sights.
Click to expand...
The Agent sights have been available commercially for some time on Brownells.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Brownstone322 said:
I am well aware of that part, thanks.
Click to expand...
:-). Now everyone else is too!

Also, if you don't like the round notch in the rear but want a square notch you can get Ameriglo Bold sights direct from Glock. Or Ameriglo's newer Trooper series too.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
RE: the OP's question 2, when did that change occur? I bought a G19 gen 5 back in May and it has the cutout but no forward serrations. Do we call the pistols with no cutout and forward grasping cuts gen 5 1/2? Enough people complained about the cutout and enough like forward grooves that Glock probably changed due to public pressure.

And does the FBI know what they carry? ;)
 
MikeG said:
RE: the OP's question 2, when did that change occur? I bought a G19 gen 5 back in May and it has the cutout but no forward serrations. Do we call the pistols with no cutout and forward grasping cuts gen 5 1/2? Enough people complained about the cutout and enough like forward grooves that Glock probably changed due to public pressure.
Click to expand...

Good question about the change. At first I thought the model with front serrations and without the cutout was some kinda limited run, but Glock's web site suggests that these are the mainstream models now for the Gen 5 G17 and G19.

https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g17-gen5-fs-us

https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g19-gen5-fs-us

If you look closely, you'll also see that the bevel on the slide near the muzzle carries over to the frame, which was not originally so on Gen 5s. I just think of them as "earlier production" and "later production."

For what it's worth, I looked at a Gen 5 G17 in my local shop just last week, and it was still an "early" model, same as my G17. So I dunno what's really out there.
 
I have a Gen 5 with the slide bevel and no frame bevel and one with bevels on both. Both of those have the cutout. Then I have the MOS versions with the front serrations and no cutout. You can really get into the weeds on this Gen. Of course, previous generations had their intricacies too.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Glock 19M and the FBI (2017)

Bob Pilgrim wrote an article on the FBIs contract with Glock back in 2017.

"Glock has 65% of the police market and now may have the biggest share of the military market, currently producing 70,000 pistols per week with three shifts. Like McDonald’s, they have sold millions and millions of them. To keep up with new demand, Glock may have to open another plant."

You can see the full FBI Glock 19M article here on S.W.A.T. Magazine
 
The 19M and 17M are the contract guns… meaning Glock was paid to build those for the FBI, similar to any other government agency.

Unless there is a necessary change, like a safety issue or something that the FBI goes to Glock and asks to change… they are likely still getting 17/19M pistols. Good example of a safety change… look at the P320 trigger upgrade and the M18; SIG upgraded all of the military guns to that without charge (I’m sure it had to be approved on the government side… but nobody is going to say, “no, don’t institute that safety upgrade”).

Looking at current Gen 5 production and the frame cutout really doesn’t apply, since it is a contract. I work for CBP, and other than being marked DHS in the serial number prefix… our duty guns are 19 Gen 5 MOS. That was how the contract was written/signed. Magazine base is slightly different, but there has been internal agency talks about going to the standard base after what happened with the larger models in BP.

For the 19/17Ms that were put out to the civilian market… do realize that was a Lipsey run and not a government overrun. Lipsey went to Glock, and had them produce pistols identical to the FBI contract. It was similar to that retro P80. There might be small differences between government guns and the Lipsey pistols… but it works for most buyers as a 17/19M.

The reverse of that… who here owns a 47? While there are places that are putting out what they view as a 47… it pretty much is a 45 frame and a 17 slide that has an extension on it to cover the gap between it and the dust cover. Why? Because the CBP solicitation stated X percentage of parts from the full size must fit the compact (not to mix/match, but to make repair parts easy to stock). It is strictly a government contract gun, first to DHS/CBP, and now I believe USSS also jumped on it (want to say FAMS, too). But you likely won’t see Glock putting it out as a production gun anytime soon… and unsure if Lipsey is trying to do a run of them (I’d be surprised if they weren’t… since it is a gun that would be more appealing to Glock guys than the 17M or P80).

I’m not that familiar with FBI sidearm policy, but if it is like other Federal L/E… they carry what they are given (might be able to request 19 over 17… but still a government gun). The Gen 5 cut out, or lack there of, isn’t the requirement… the 17/19M is.

Also, no disrespect meant with this post. Just trying to explain the process of government contracts a little easier.

-And just noticed it was a 2 year old thread being bumped. [emoji106]
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top