Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-17-2009, 06:19   #1
bdc
Former Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: *****
Posts: 349
G20sf still .1" too wide.

It is unfortunate that Glock did not take the sf series a step further and branch the G20 and G21 frames away from each other. A tenth of an inch width is important to all marksmen, and a deal breaker for the majority of those who try the large frame grip.

In an era of computer assisted design and manufacturing, there is little cost advantage in maintaining a common frame with identical magazine well. Same can be said about the magazine body, follower, etc.

10mm magazines need be no wider than 40sw magazines, only more ample in the fore and aft dimension.

For those who like to barrel swap, the G21 could still shoot the 10mm with magazines available today.

For those only interested in 10mm to smaller base cartridge conversions, the G20 would still accommodate and provide for those who require or desire a smaller grip frame.

I have read that Glock will now manufacture 6" hunting barrels for the G20. They do not mention long slides, which seems an obvious product for a manufacturer that recognizes their customers are demanding longer barrels!

Last edited by bdc; 03-17-2009 at 06:32..
bdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 10:40   #2
bdc
Former Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: *****
Posts: 349
Slim G21 single stack.

Another thought on the above described smaller grip for a G20:

A California legal version of the G21 could be made by using the new G20 frame and magazine body using a single stack follower designed for 45acp. Think of this as a bigger brother to the G36, but considerably easier to hang on to than the double stack G21.

G20 and G21 parts again become as interchangeable as they are today.
bdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 12:10   #3
G33
CLM Number 296
Re-Assigned
 
G33's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: With G29
Posts: 57,963


SF = still fat.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


"I'd wager G would waterboard a salmon."--tous

"...those without swords can still die upon them." --Eowyn
G33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 12:40   #4
bdc
Former Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: *****
Posts: 349
Aftermarket frame makers take note

Well said! I wish I would have made that observation. A Freudian slip by Glock is my guess!

I wish that an aftermarket frame maker such as www.ccfraceframes.com would pick up on this idea. They already have an improved product over factory Glock medium frames. I can already hear the excuses however: "We don't make magazines", "We have enough business on our plate already", etc.

At least that is the type of stuff I heard from aftermarket barrel makers for years. Glad some of them have expanded their line of products, even though it was at a snails pace. The market for their current day products has been there for years!
bdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 15:16   #5
bfg1971
Senior Member
 
bfg1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ewa Beach, HI
Posts: 1,776
You do understand the the frame is the same width side to side but shorter front to back right. The back channel is smaller but the width is the same. I'm not sure that you could remove .1 inch in width from the grip and have anything left. A few guys have done frame melts and finger grove reductions to make their pistols fit better. You might search for those posts to see if that could help you.
__________________
10mm: The "why compromise?" answer to handgun caliber questions.


Capacity without capability is useless!
bfg1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 15:50   #6
bdc
Former Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: *****
Posts: 349
Here are the numbers

A .45 caliber handgun bullet is .451" diameter typically. A 10mm bullet is typically .401". Handgun brass is typically .010" thick at the neck, no matter the cartridge.

Both the G20 and G21 have a double stack magazine. So: .451 + .451 - .401 - .401 = .l".

Just with a dedicated magazine and frame for the G20, you could reduce the WIDTH of the frame .1" from what the G21 requires.

Further, Glock magazines are steel inside a plastic sheath. Most pistols do not employ the plastic sheath. I suggest that for Glock pistols that are commonly and justifiably criticized for non-ergonomic girth and width there exists even more opportunity to improve.

Although I like the plastic sheath on the magazines for durability, I think there may be more pressing issues that should be considered and may require re-engineering.

S&W M&P, XD, Taurus 24/7, etc. all make comfortable ergonomic grips on their double stack 45acp pistols.

Is the G20sf (or the G21sf for that matter) the best grip design Glock can engineer?
bdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-17-2009, 21:57   #7
tbonekilla
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29
Remember the G20 came first. So that extra width was designed for the 10MM. Probably so to help taming the recoil of that round.
tbonekilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 10:55   #8
bdc
Former Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: *****
Posts: 349
Pray for some competition

With the G20 as the only Tupperware Browning floating barrel 10mm design out there, they can produce almost anything they wish, stating "Good job Brownie" and patting themselves on the back no matter the actual outcome.

God knows that 10mm fans have tried everything short of having their hands surgically lengthened to deal with whatever brick Glock is offering at the time as a platform to launch their 10mm bullets.

My first G20 was a Gen2. It was so large and non-friendly in the grip are that my hand found a different grip each time grasping the frame. My current G21 Gen3 is a significant improvement from the Gen2. The Gen4 being thrust upon us is better than the Gen3 by just a whisker. Other manufacturers have better improved the ergonomics of their products during the same time period.

Other manufacturers have come out with completely different pistols, some several times, as the internals of the G20 have remained the same. That is a credit to the ORIGINAL design offered by Glock in their entire line of pistols. Unfortunately, they are married to old platforms with little real cause, and ideas for the future are stuck to the limitations of past platforms.

Aftermarket manufacturers offer hundreds of items improving or expanding the function of Glock pistols. Leaders for the blind! Glock just sticks to the old plan and gives the aftermarket manufacturers their territory without any competition.

Glock has little regard for their customers. Other pistol manufacturers are at least trying to meet the desires of their customers by offering better ergonomics in each of their new offerings.
bdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 10:59   #9
outlaw1niner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: South of Canada&North of Mexico
Posts: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbonekilla View Post
Remember the G20 came first. So that extra width was designed for the 10MM. Probably so to help taming the recoil of that round.
Exactly! The G20 was designed around the 10mm cartridge. That is why the Glock 20 has none of the "battering" problems other 10mm's had/have, because it isn't simply a .45 with a 10mm barrel and magazine stuffed into it. That may be somewhat of a simplification, but it is not far off the mark. For example, the Colt Delta Elite is nothing more than the standard 1911 .45 design with a new magazine, barrel, and recoil spring. Notice how the Delta's have a reputation for cracked slides and frames, that is why.

Glock went the other direction and designed their large frame pistols around the 10mm, which just so happens to make it suitable for the .45 Auto as well.
The SF models are even better. The SF models fit my hands perfectly, but everyone is different. Just because you think the large frame Glocks are too wide doesn't mean everyone feels the same as you.

Last edited by outlaw1niner; 03-18-2009 at 11:05..
outlaw1niner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2009, 11:19   #10
bdc
Former Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: *****
Posts: 349
Good point

You will note that G20 and G21 are sequential numbers. They were developed at the same time, but were built sufficiently strong to handle the 10mm. The 10mm was the hot new cartridge of that era. (Thank you Jeff Cooper!)

Yet Glock large frame pistols have been nearly universally panned for two decades! Only a minority of the population of shooters interested in 45acp or 10mm have not found the Glock series of large frame pistols overly large in the grip. Still, it was the best design for the 10mm power at that time.

Other manufactures are taking the steps necessary to fix their deficiencies. The points you correctly make about other manufactures product back in the day are true, but no-one was complaining that they were non-ergonomic because of their grip size. So, grip size is a factor that CAN be fixed!

Look at all the posts on Glocktalk about sf frames. People are desperate for Glock to address the problems of their grip size and other hand fit problems.

Robar and LoneWolf do grip reductions and chops, ccfraceframes does quite a bit more. These are examples of well known problems with Glock grips that Glock owners are willing to SPEND BIG BUCKS on to fix! All of this aftermarket stuff works well with the original Glock internals.

Glock needs to get a clue. Customers and Glock competitors are telling Glock EXACTLY where the problem is! Blaming or ignoring their customers because the normal human hand does not well fit the most convenient contrivance Glock will mold as a grip on their frames has got the problem exactly backward.

Last edited by bdc; 03-18-2009 at 11:32..
bdc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2009, 05:29   #11
MSgt Dotson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,226
GLock 20/21SF frames could be further reduced....

There should be no airspace in the rear!
MSgt Dotson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 08:21   #12
bfg1971
Senior Member
 
bfg1971's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ewa Beach, HI
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdc View Post
A .45 caliber handgun bullet is .451" diameter typically. A 10mm bullet is typically .401". Handgun brass is typically .010" thick at the neck, no matter the cartridge.

Both the G20 and G21 have a double stack magazine. So: .451 + .451 - .401 - .401 = .l".

Just with a dedicated magazine and frame for the G20, you could reduce the WIDTH of the frame .1" from what the G21 requires.

Further, Glock magazines are steel inside a plastic sheath. Most pistols do not employ the plastic sheath. I suggest that for Glock pistols that are commonly and justifiably criticized for non-ergonomic girth and width there exists even more opportunity to improve.

Although I like the plastic sheath on the magazines for durability, I think there may be more pressing issues that should be considered and may require re-engineering.

S&W M&P, XD, Taurus 24/7, etc. all make comfortable ergonomic grips on their double stack 45acp pistols.

Is the G20sf (or the G21sf for that matter) the best grip design Glock can engineer?
I get what you are saying now. Yes if the frame was dedicated it could be smaller but then they would have to have a second production line for the 10mm only. I'm not sure if that would be economically justifiable as it would actually take two more lines for the 20 and 29.

As long as we are talking about factory improvements; I would like to see if a glock magazine could be made like the new barreta 92 mag in this months American Rifleman. They changed the spring design from a horizontal coil to a vertical coil and added 5 rounds to a stock size magazine.
__________________
10mm: The "why compromise?" answer to handgun caliber questions.


Capacity without capability is useless!
bfg1971 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 15:52   #13
gatorboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,074
The frame, slide and mags could be identical in width to the 22. The mags would be the same length front to back as now obviously. The grip would feel similar to a 36 but a tiny bit wider. Don't fool yourselves that because the 20 comes before 21 it was designed floor up for 10mm. They came out at the same time. They were designed floor up (kind of) around both calibers to make more money. The 22 slide could weigh more than it does. It would weigh more with a 1/4" longer ejection port. By adding more steel on the inside of the slide like rounding the sides of the slide into the top instead of using 90 degree angles etc.
gatorboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 15:54   #14
gatorboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSgt Dotson View Post
GLock 20/21SF frames could be further reduced....

There should be no airspace in the rear!
They're saving that for the 2014 shot show. After all the suckers go out and buy SF's, they'll be introducing the SSF (super short frame).
gatorboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 17:45   #15
agtman
10mm Spartiate
 
agtman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Midwest
Posts: 3,598
Supposedly it's a "3mm" circumference reduction on the SF frames, achieved by a slightly reduced girth front-to-back, not side-to-side.

In my opinion, those 3mms aren't worth the cost of a new G20SF/G29SF when there exist cheaper custom alternatives for the standard G20/G29 you already own. Such custom work will result in a more substantial grip reduction - especially those giving a 360-degree reduction and stippling for the cost .. e.g.:

G21 by Bowie Tactical Concepts.
The 10 Ring

G29 by BTC.
The 10 Ring

www.bowietacticalconcepts.com/pictures.html

__________________
The 10mm AUTO: when you're finally serious about stopping power.
More great 10mm sites:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
agtman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-24-2009, 18:50   #16
Jason607
Senior Member
 
Jason607's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dallas, GA
Posts: 2,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdc View Post
everything short of having their hands surgically lengthened
They can do that? Hmmm... *calls doc and makes appt*

Quote:
Originally Posted by agtman View Post
Supposedly it's a "3mm" circumference reduction on the SF frames, achieved by a slightly reduced girth front-to-back, not side-to-side.

In my opinion, those 3mms aren't worth the cost of a new G20SF/G29SF when there exist cheaper custom alternatives for the standard G20/G29 you already own. Such custom work will result in a more substantial grip reduction - especially those giving a 360-degree reduction and stippling for the cost .. e.g.:

G21 by Bowie Tactical Concepts.
The 10 Ring

G29 by BTC.
The 10 Ring

www.bowietacticalconcepts.com/pictures.html

Might be a better option. *calls doc and cancles appt* That looks awesome! Might have to do that to a Glock or two. $70 for all that is not bad at all. Cheaper and better than a SF. Might get the grip chopped too for a real mean CCW piece! Imagine a G20 with the G29 grip and thinner than a G19!!! (well the grip at least)

I agree. I do not think the "SF" is all that. Some say they could not handle the large grip but then when Glock introduced the SF suddenly it's thier favorite gun. They barely reduced the backstrap a little and people went nuts. I handled the SF and I do say it is an improvement, but "still fat" is so true. They could have made the magazine thinnner, no doubt and therefor made the entire grip thinner, but I guess they had the .45ACP in mind so that screwed that up. In fact I bet they could have made the whole gun "regular" size as the round is only 1/8th of an inch longer than the .40S&W. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.
__________________
G19, G20, G21, G27, G29,
Jason607 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 15:47   #17
gatorboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbonekilla View Post
Remember the G20 came first. So that extra width was designed for the 10MM. Probably so to help taming the recoil of that round.
They came out the same freaking day. The 20 is not the same width as the 22 (or the 17 which was out when the 20 and 21 were introduced unlike any of the .40 Glocks, 10mm came first!) because Glock saved a lot of money by making the parts the same for the 20 and 21. The story behind the 20 being designed ground up for 10mm is BS. If it was, the 21 would be a 10+1 like the M+P and have a staggered mag, not a true double stack.
gatorboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2010, 16:46   #18
527varmint
Senior Member
 
527varmint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 263
Do you guys have the hands of a little girl or small child? I find the sf too small. The g20 fits like a glove.
__________________
OD Green G-20 10mm/40sw

I sleep better in bear country with a 10mm under my pillow!
527varmint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010, 13:38   #19
DaGroaner
Anti-Socialist
 
DaGroaner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Firmly planted under Statist skin
Posts: 30,999


Quote:
Originally Posted by 527varmint View Post
Do you guys have the hands of a little girl or small child? I find the sf too small. The g20 fits like a glove.
+1. I can't palm a basketball but the G20 fits my hand perfectly.
DaGroaner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010, 14:04   #20
badkarmaiii
Still Evolving
 
badkarmaiii's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 73
Glock Mag History

Don't forget that the G22 mag is sized to match the outside dimensions of the G17 mag. The .40 rounds don't stack as tightly as the 9mms do. Same goes with the 10mms & .45s. The G20 mag is the correct width for 10mm & .40 and the .45s do not stagger completely.
How about reducing the polymer thickness on the non-catch side of the mag and using and angled feedramp?
__________________
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
-Maslow
badkarmaiii is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:15.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,036
299 Members
737 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31