Gen 5 Glocks

I have loads of pistols with front slide serrations. I don't use them. I get that others do and it may well make sense to include them by default given the current market trends, I just don't find the inclusion or exclusion of them to be that critical.
 
I belong to a local LGS/Range. This morning for 2 hrs. Before they opened they let members come in and handle, shoot, and get Gen 5 hats and targets. I went down to check out the model 19 but still nothing I need to get me to buy one. Now if they would make a model 43 with the height and length of the model 19 I would be all over that. The current 19's grip will not allow me to operate the mag release without compermizing control of the weapon.
 
Now that have the hat I may have to get a Gen 5 Glock 19. I enjoyed shooting it and thought it was a sweet shooter. Wish I could have tried a larger back strap though.

nuAZ0gn.jpg
 
VoodooMountain said:
I'll probably wait for the gen 5 10mm's to come out. Standard rifling, no finger grooves, reinforced slide rails, and a better trigger should make for a better rig.

I'm not sure I like how they replaced their simple trigger spring with some dohicky though.
Click to expand...
This is what I may do as well, depending on how well the new Gen 5 is performing. 10mm Glock with standard rifling means the heaviest cast lead bullets are okay to shoot through a stock Glock without having to spend extra on an aftermarket barrel.
 
This Gen 5 torture test was a epic fail. I am sure the P320 owners are getting a little payback from all the shots they have been getting from the Glock crowd. Not sure I have ever seen a Glock do so bad in a debris test.

Just a horrible Gen 5 test.
https://youtu.be/ZR0Ss3yVV5I
 
Right, but that's one review on YouTube. Maybe there are issues, certainly possible. But if one bad YouTube report was enough to convince me to not own a certain pistol, I literally wouldn't be able to own any pistols. Glock claims they notably increased their Mean Rounds Between Failure. Maybe they're full of it. Time will tell.

For the record, I also don't see this as vindicating SIG's potentially problematic drop issues (and I own a P320 and have owned two others before this one). To make a comparison the same person has to do the same test with both pistols. And then what if a given pistol is a lemon? That's why when the military actually does these tests they use multiple samples. The Omaha Outdoors test had meaning because they showed the failure with multiple samples and different configurations (X5 and standard).

I'm not trying to give Glock a break, though no doubt many will interpret it as that. Maybe the Gen 5 is a steaming pile, but that video isn't "proof" really of anything. It's one data point.
 
Last edited:
Yea, one review only draws attention to do more testing. I am sure there will be. This only give the P320 owners a little return smack talk. You got one gun that fires too much and one that needs to be in a "clean room" enviorment to fire.:D. Let the games begin.;)
 
ROFL, Ok Im sorry but I gotta say this.
Look the die hard Glock guys kinda bring this on them selves.
We're use to seeing those stupid torture tests where the glock comes out smelling like a rose, How long have fanboys rubbed everyone elses face it in?

Now we have a new glock coming out that looks like a pig on what is a relatively minor test by comparison to some of the ones I've seen.

And now we'll just dismiss it as an Outlier.

Live by the torture test, Die by the torture test.
 
This only give the P320 owners a little return smack talk.
Click to expand...

As a P320 owner, I again disagree. Weirdly enough both a pistol discharging when not intended and a pistol failing an environment test can be bad and neither excuses or should really bring "relief" to the other. Two wrongs don't make a right.

one that needs to be in a "clean room" enviorment to fire.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit of exaggeration, which I think you know. Again as much as I like my P320 I'm not sure burying it in dirt as is done here would go that well either. This was a pretty tough test rather than the gently pressing it into sand routine that's become the internet rage. I'm not saying being tough is wrong either. I think once the dirt was well in the mags that was the end of it.

We're use to seeing those stupid torture tests where the glock comes out smelling like a rose, How long have fanboys rubbed everyone elses face it in?

Now we have a new glock coming out that looks like a pig on what is a relatively minor test by comparison to some of the ones I've seen.

And now we'll just dismiss it as an Outlier.

Live by the torture test, Die by the torture test.
Click to expand...

Glock comes out better than some, but in a number of cases I think other designs do just as well and in some cases better. I'm not "dismissing" this test. What I said applies to literally every pistol, not just Glock. One video of a specific pistol failing is not "proof", whether the brand name begins with G or not (which is why I didn't give the story from LEO in CT much credence when it came to the P320). It's at best a data point. Now multiple data points that indicate a trend are interesting, and we'll probably see that.

I'm well aware that Glock fanboys are obnoxious. But Glock haters can be equally obnoxious.
 
Fair enough. But you'd be surprised, or wouldn't be, at the number of people that think that honestly from watching one video on the internet.

I know you've owned a ton of pistols (I remember the longer reviews you used to do), as have I. I honestly think that in the end the majority are generally reliable. If the Gen 5 does turn out to be a failure pile in a sadness bowl I don't doubt it will get its fair share of memes too.
 
I didn't watch all of the test... But I noticed something.

I have seen similar tests, copying the MAC formula... This guy did not follow it from what I seen.

He did not have the gun in a ready to fire state, and had the mag out of the gun completely, then put it in the dirt... That could affect the test. It certainly makes it invalid to compare it against other tests of the MAC method.

Not saying the pistol would do better, but consistent testing is important.

I'm not a huge fan of Glocks either, so no reason to blindly try to make excuses, I'm just pointing out something I noticed.
 
TunnelRat said:
I'm well aware that Glock fanboys are obnoxious. But Glock haters can be equally obnoxious.
Click to expand...
HA,HA

Im not a hater of Glock, If anything Im a hater of Glock fanboyz.
I personally don't own or want a Glock, But I like to keep up on what they're doing.
And I've given Glock credit many times for different design aspects.
10 years ago I was singing the praises of glock Tennifer process and how more manufactures should do this.. not many was at the time.
In the p320 thread I spoke about the abuse I've seen a glock go thru and how I thought it was an exceedingly drop safe gun.

There are some things they do very right.

But if the gun ran like a champ in that video no one would be saying.. "oh well that's one gun maybe it was hand picked."

Nah it would be "wow, another home run, go Glock!"
.. "ya ya I've seen all I need to see im getting one", ETC, ETC.
 
But if the gun ran like a champ in that video no one would be saying.. "oh well that's one gun maybe it was hand picked."

Nah it would be "wow, another home run, go Glock!"
.. "ya ya I've seen all I need to see im getting one", ETC, ETC.
Click to expand...

And IMO those people would be wrong. Whether it's a positive data point or a negative data point, it's just one data point. My whole point in this entire line of comments has been that people put way too much emphasis on single reviews of products. As I said before, show me a number of videos showing the same thing and then I'll start believing in a trend.
 
Whether it's a positive data point or a negative data point, it's just one data point. My whole point in this entire line of comments has been that people put way too much emphasis on single reviews of products. As I said before, show me a number of videos showing the same thing and then I'll start believing in a trend.
Click to expand...

Yep. A sample size of one tells me nothing. Does that result mean 1% or 99% of pistols will perform the same way? There is no way to know. Every test, every review, is a one-off.

I don't care much, either, about the reliability of a pistol after being mistreated in unreasonable ways. (That is not a comment about the posted link - I didn't watch it, to be honest. But lots of those "torture tests" create foolish conditions.)

My concern with the generation 5 is that I have read that few internal parts interchange. With that in mind, I have to ask how extensive was the re-design of internals, and does it need to be proven? For that question, the ideal would be to run large numbers of rounds through several pistols (the more the better) with reasonable maintenance and report the number of failures. That would generate usable data, but it isn't done. Anecdotes aren't the same thing.
 
I'm the furthest thing from a Glock fan as can be found on TFL. That video is idiotic. You have to immerse the pistol sealed up with a seated and loaded mag, the way you'd carry it. A fouled magwell makes the inserted mag act as a piston, bringing excess crap right into the action. No pistol is going to look good doing a media test azz backwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top