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 11-09-2012, 15:11   #1
rdstrain49
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Black Hills - South Dakota
Posts: 89
If it's on the internet-----

I've seen a bunch of complaints on the internet about the 4th Gen. I do not, however subscribe to the theory that "if it's on the internet it must be true". With that in mind, and with over 15 years experience with Glocks, most of that time carrying a Dept. mandated 40 cal., I decided to run my own test on the Gen 4. I've picked up a G34, and as soon as I do an Armorers inspection it's off to the range. Actually, it's off to the pasture. I'm anxious to find out if I have become another sucker for buying a Gen 4, or if in spite of the internet spewing forth pointless verbiage, I have made a good choice.

Regardless of how good or bad the Gen 4 is, the bright side is it can't possibly be worse than the Sig P 226 that I recently acquired. (Sig for sale )

Range report to follow.
rdstrain49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:21   #2
dhgeyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 423
Welcome to Glock Talk, since you are brand new here. Sorry to hear about your Sig. And I hope your Glock Gen4 works well. A lot of them do. Some of them even keep working well after a thousand rounds or two. Nobody knows what the percentages are. If you are not one of the lucky ones, you will find tons of help here with possible remedies. Lots of the Gen4's that have problems can be fixed with replacement or aftermarket parts.

In the meantime, how will your range report be any different than any other "pointless verbiage" "spewed forth" on the Internet? In what way will it negate the bad experiences that many other people who post here (and have been posting here for years) have had?
dhgeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 16:52   #3
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 22,602
Hopefully your G34 runs well. My unofficial non-scientific reading here suggests to me the the Glock 34s are not as frequently mentioned with problems. I sometimes wonder how much of that is that gun is better and how much is the shooter is better. (I certainly do not believe that all or even most of these reported issues are the shooter, but I think it is equally hard to suggest that none are.) The report will be interesting to me either way. Can Sig solve the issue with the P226? I have had responsive service from them in the past.
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 18:20   #4
rdstrain49
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Black Hills - South Dakota
Posts: 89
dhgeyer, in answer to your first question, very likely. In answer to your second question, quite possibly.

Armorers inspection is done. This 34 seems to be well done. Bearing surfaces, with the exception of the sear, are well finished. All inside work is done. Tomorrow I'll find out how it runs.
rdstrain49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 19:07   #5
kodiakpb
Senior Member
 
kodiakpb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,083
What's wrong with the P226?
kodiakpb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 19:15   #6
dhgeyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdstrain49 View Post
dhgeyer, in answer to your first question, very likely. In answer to your second question, quite possibly.
He's an 8 Ball. I had one of those when I was a kid.
dhgeyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2012, 22:31   #7
rdstrain49
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Black Hills - South Dakota
Posts: 89
kodiakpb, the 226 functions flawlessly, however accuracy is not in it's vocabulary. Acceptable, perhaps, for a cqc weapon but those days are over for me. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I demand reliability and accuracy from my weapons.

I'll admit I do like the Sig. Sooner or later I will figure it out and make it shoot respectably well. Right now 3" groups at 25 yards is just about all it can do. On the bright side, the transition from DA to SA is flawless. DA only groups are just as good as SA only groups.
rdstrain49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 08:28   #8
ca survivor
Senior Member
 
ca survivor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 7,567
good luck with the G-34 been more accurate that the Sig.
ca survivor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 10:51   #9
rdstrain49
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Black Hills - South Dakota
Posts: 89
Thanks ca.

Range report postponed due to @#$%$## snow. Guess that will give me more time to reload. Wonderful
rdstrain49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 10:54   #10
kodiakpb
Senior Member
 
kodiakpb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdstrain49 View Post
kodiakpb, the 226 functions flawlessly, however accuracy is not in it's vocabulary. Acceptable, perhaps, for a cqc weapon but those days are over for me. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I demand reliability and accuracy from my weapons.

I'll admit I do like the Sig. Sooner or later I will figure it out and make it shoot respectably well. Right now 3" groups at 25 yards is just about all it can do. On the bright side, the transition from DA to SA is flawless. DA only groups are just as good as SA only groups.
Interesting. I happen to be picking up a 226 this afternoon. Was that 3" group benched or standing unsupported?
kodiakpb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 11:21   #11
rdstrain49
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Black Hills - South Dakota
Posts: 89
3" groups from bench and sand bags, standing unsupported two hand hold single action only and standing etc etc double action only.

If the 226 would shoot 1 1/2 to 2" it might well become a favorite. Considering that the groups initially were in the 8" range, I'm cautiously optimistic that the 226 will shoot with a bit more work.

So far the biggest accuracy issue seems to have been a very rough bore. Who knows, maybe a bit more lapping will get the groups into the 2" range.
rdstrain49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 12:58   #12
SARDG
Senior Member
 
SARDG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Florida's Left Coast
Posts: 7,654
I have Gen4 G26 and a G17. When I received them, I didn't check the RSA or any other part - I simply replaced the connector with a (-) and polished the trigger group. Both are flawless with my 130PF bunny farts. I still don't know what RSAs are in there, or even the test-fired date - I simply took them out and shot them. If folks analyzed Glocks less and shot them more, it'd be a lot more fun.
SARDG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2012, 15:46   #13
rdstrain49
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Black Hills - South Dakota
Posts: 89
too true
rdstrain49 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 02:39.




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


Users Currently Online: 590
134 Members
456 Guests

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