I'm looking for a glock 19/23 size gun and a came across a lightly used gen 2 glock 23. In 9mm you have the gen 5 but for .40 it's the only glock you can get that doesn't have finger grooves.
I've heard mixed things about the gen 2's in .40. Criticisms are that they weren't as durable as later .40 glocks. The grips are slippery compared to later glocks(which is why most people used some aftermarket grips or grip tape). Then theres the kaboom thing, although that's a non issue to me since I don't reload. Then theres' the lack of a light rail, which isn't a big deal to me. Plus theres the half moon cut out at the bottom of the grip which I see as a slight negative.
Percieved positives are that they are free of the later extraction/ejection issues that have sometimes plagued later glocks, the parts are all non mim, and glock manufacturing and quality control was better around this time.
I'm wondering what other people here think about the gen 2 glock 23's. The gun im looking at would cost about the same as a new glock, so I wouldn't be saving any money.
I've heard mixed things about the gen 2's in .40. Criticisms are that they weren't as durable as later .40 glocks. The grips are slippery compared to later glocks(which is why most people used some aftermarket grips or grip tape). Then theres the kaboom thing, although that's a non issue to me since I don't reload. Then theres' the lack of a light rail, which isn't a big deal to me. Plus theres the half moon cut out at the bottom of the grip which I see as a slight negative.
Percieved positives are that they are free of the later extraction/ejection issues that have sometimes plagued later glocks, the parts are all non mim, and glock manufacturing and quality control was better around this time.
I'm wondering what other people here think about the gen 2 glock 23's. The gun im looking at would cost about the same as a new glock, so I wouldn't be saving any money.