Model12Win
Moderator
Does anyone out there shoot a Glock 17? I am thinking of getting a Gen 3 model and switching the plastic iron sights for the metal Glock ones. Usage would be for the range and HD work.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Glock 17?
- Thread starter Model12Win
- Start date
The millions of people who've bought the flagship model that founded the company since the 1980s would undoubtedly tell you to avoid it, if they were here.
Since they're not, I still have my issued 17 from 1988.
Carried it & others on & off duty here & there since then.
Swapping the plastic throw-away sights for steel is always recommended.
Watch for brass to the face on Gen 3s.
Denis
Since they're not, I still have my issued 17 from 1988.
Carried it & others on & off duty here & there since then.
Swapping the plastic throw-away sights for steel is always recommended.
Watch for brass to the face on Gen 3s.
Denis
Model12Win
Moderator
Denis, I have been doing some thinking, and I have some "oddball" type guns like the Walther P99AS and the Beretta 92A1 that are both tricky to find holsters and accessories for.
I have a G19 but mmmm I dunno, I've held and fired 17s at the range and I just like the longer grips and slide a whole lot. The duty sized guns really appeal to me. You mentioned the Gen 3s might give brass to the face... interesting. I'd prefer to not get a Gen 4 as I prefer the Gen 3 stipple texture, it looks really classic looking and it is also a very established design.
My G19 is a Gen 4 that was a gift and I will NEVER sell it, but I have always always wanted the G17 as it is a classic gun and like I said I really like how it feels.
I always change out the front sight for a steel one. I've had them loosen up from holster work.
I don't usually change out the rear sights for a steel one unless I'm going to put night sights on the gun.
I've never had a plastic Glock rear sight loosen or come off, however if you are going to use it for HD or SD, it probably makes sense to change it out. If you plan to practice alternative methods for racking the slide by catching the rear sight on something and pushing on the grip then definitely change the rear sight to steel. I have heard of people popping the plastic sights off using that technique.
However, I would just put night sights on the gun if I were going to use a Glock for HD/SD.
Had some trouble with a 4 that would do that, but I've had good luck with the 3s so far.
I don't usually change out the rear sights for a steel one unless I'm going to put night sights on the gun.
I've never had a plastic Glock rear sight loosen or come off, however if you are going to use it for HD or SD, it probably makes sense to change it out. If you plan to practice alternative methods for racking the slide by catching the rear sight on something and pushing on the grip then definitely change the rear sight to steel. I have heard of people popping the plastic sights off using that technique.
However, I would just put night sights on the gun if I were going to use a Glock for HD/SD.
3s or 4s?
Had some trouble with a 4 that would do that, but I've had good luck with the 3s so far.
Model12Win
Moderator
Night sights are overrated. If it's so target you can't see your sight, you aren't going to likely positively identify the threat neither.
Night sights are great if you understand how to use them.
You are correct--it's a bad idea to use them to allow you to aim accurately at something you can't identify.
And it is also true that if a target is brightly illuminated, the sights will silhouette adequately on the target to allow proper aiming.
What I found during low light training/experimentation was that shining a light directly on the target while shooting resulted in back glare similar to what is encountered when shining a bright light into fog. The discharge smoke which is not at all obvious in normal lighting can become distracting when shining a bright light through it.
To avoid that, I illuminated the target indirectly by aiming the light at the ground in front of the target. But when that was done, there wasn't sufficient illumination on the target to silhouette the sights so night sights were required.
A side benefit of that technique is that if you encounter a mirror or other reflective object, you won't be blinded by your own light because you're not shining it directly at the mirror.
You can try it out on your own and see what you think.
You are correct--it's a bad idea to use them to allow you to aim accurately at something you can't identify.
And it is also true that if a target is brightly illuminated, the sights will silhouette adequately on the target to allow proper aiming.
What I found during low light training/experimentation was that shining a light directly on the target while shooting resulted in back glare similar to what is encountered when shining a bright light into fog. The discharge smoke which is not at all obvious in normal lighting can become distracting when shining a bright light through it.
To avoid that, I illuminated the target indirectly by aiming the light at the ground in front of the target. But when that was done, there wasn't sufficient illumination on the target to silhouette the sights so night sights were required.
A side benefit of that technique is that if you encounter a mirror or other reflective object, you won't be blinded by your own light because you're not shining it directly at the mirror.
You can try it out on your own and see what you think.
I bought a Gen 4 17 made here in the state as my first handgun. It has been through many classes and to my estimate 10k rounds with only 1 malfunction being ammo related. It was my only handgun at one point and I would feed rounds through it like crazy. Haven't replaced a part (but probably should replace some springs soon). I can say it is one of my favorite guns to shoot and now is mostly a safe queen. I can honestly say I will never get rid of it either. It has served my side well over the years especially when unwanted guest show up in the night.
Have a gen 2 from back in the old Swat days. Had a choice between it and a p226 or a 92fs but always chose the 17. Liked the power and capacity to weight ratio as it shaved a few oz. as compared to the other two. With all the gear every oz saved was nice. Also learned to love the constant safe action trigger. I was always able to put pairs on targets slightly better than the sig or the beretta without sacrificing accuracy. And was always quicker with it than the other two. Only thing I did to it was trig sites and a hogue hand all. Sites have long since died and replaced them with HDs and it now wears a talon grip. But for the most part the old 17 is retired like me. The times I needed it I was really glad I had it and it never let me down.
Model12Win
Moderator
Do you own a 2 or 1?
I'd LOVE to own a 1st gen, my GOD how I'd love one of those... but they are collector's items and priced accordingly, and as such would not make a good gun for my purposes since I'd be afraid to put wear and tear on it.
I currently have a Gen 2, a bunch of 3's, and a couple of 4's. Had three Gen 1's back in the late 80's, early 90's. It was actually on going trouble with a Gen 1 17, that pushed me away from Glocks and back to my 1911's, up into the 2000's.
Never had BTF with any of them, that was "gun" related. Not saying I havent had occasional BTF with any of them though, but that goes for any auto pistol Ive owned. it happens.
These days, that issue seems to be more "brass" a related issue than it is gun related. For me, worn brass seems to be the big contributor there, as it is for most malfunctions I encounter feeding related. Great for intermittent/unexpected malfunction practice though.
I have a number of 17's and they are my favorites, followed by my 26's. I have a couple of 19's, but their grips have never felt right to me, and they really arent that much smaller than a 17 to make a difference.
Everyone should have at least one 17, if only one is possible.
Never had BTF with any of them, that was "gun" related. Not saying I havent had occasional BTF with any of them though, but that goes for any auto pistol Ive owned. it happens.
These days, that issue seems to be more "brass" a related issue than it is gun related. For me, worn brass seems to be the big contributor there, as it is for most malfunctions I encounter feeding related. Great for intermittent/unexpected malfunction practice though.
I have a number of 17's and they are my favorites, followed by my 26's. I have a couple of 19's, but their grips have never felt right to me, and they really arent that much smaller than a 17 to make a difference.
Everyone should have at least one 17, if only one is possible.
There were plenty of good Gen 3s. There are whole threads on what to look for if you are looking for older Gen 3s specifically. I owned both Gen 3s and Gen 4s during the period following the Gen 4 release. I experienced my share of brass to the face. My experience with recent production Gen 4s and Gen 5s seems to indicate many of those issues have been notably mitigated. If it does seem a problem, in my experience swapping the ejector for one from a Gen 4 made a big difference. This is an easy and relatively cheap fix.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Model12Win
Moderator
No thank you. I do not want fragile fiber optics, I've had them on different guns and was not impressed with the durability.
Model12Win
Moderator
Are the new Gen 3s good to go, or are the older Gen 3s superior?
Actually, are they even still making Gen 3 17s?
Actually, are they even still making Gen 3 17s?
FWIW I've put thousands of rounds and done hundreds of presentations from kydex holsters with fiber optic sights. I've never had an issue with durability. Of course if you prefer something else fair enough.
Some people like the surface finish on the older Gen 3s better, and some parts were cast as opposed to MIM and that appeals to some folks. I've shared this link in the past as it's pretty helpful if you do look at used Glocks.
http://looserounds.com/2014/09/30/buying-le-trade-in-used-glocks-what-to-look-for/
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Some people like the surface finish on the older Gen 3s better, and some parts were cast as opposed to MIM and that appeals to some folks. I've shared this link in the past as it's pretty helpful if you do look at used Glocks.
http://looserounds.com/2014/09/30/buying-le-trade-in-used-glocks-what-to-look-for/
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk