No 4" seems gen update proof in the immediate future...

[TunnelRat]

Besides, a lot of MP owners think the M 2.0 was a downgrade.

I’ve owned probably a dozen M&Ps, equally split among 1.0 and 2.0. To me the 2.0 is an improvement in any way I can think of. Before this I’ve never met an M&P owner that thinks the 2.0 was a downgrade. That doesn’t mean the 1.0 is a bad pistol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TunnelRat]

I’ve owned Glocks from Gens 3-5, at least a half dozen from each generation. I shoot the Gen 5 Glocks noticeably better than Gens 3 and 4, at distances closer than 25 yd as well. Now is this solely due to the Marksman barrel? There are other mechanical differences between Gens 3/4 and Gen 5, notably in the trigger. Practically speaking the Gen 5 has more of a rolling break that I tend to prefer (the trigger return spring is different as is the shape of the striker block). I’m not sure if the differences I see while shooting are due solely to the new barrel, the trigger, or some combination.

There have been some people that did ransom rest testing with Glock barrels from different generations (I think Omaha Outdoors is one). However, I don’t know of anyone that has tested say a half dozen barrels from each generation at the same time. I’m not sure one sample of each barrel is particularly conclusive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sevt_chevelle]

The loss of beaver tail and loss of auto close slide.

 

[TunnelRat]

I’ve never suffered from slide bite from an M&P and I don’t find I was able to get my hand higher on the grip with the beaver tail than without it, so it didn’t offer me any noticeable advantage. I did find the beaver tail made the pistol print a bit more depending on where on my body I was carrying.

I also don’t consider the slide closing automatically a feature. If I want to release the slide I’ll use the slide release or retract the slide. My concern is that the the slide closing automatically might induce a malfunction. Another possibility is the slide might get bumped forward inadvertently and not actually chamber a round, but because I assumed the pistol worked when the slide went forward without my input I wouldn’t recognize a problem and would end up with a pistol with an empty chamber. I have talked with one shooter that did have a handful of failures to feed with a pistol that would auto forward. Now in fairness he was a competition shooter and was putting in very high round counts (and he may have been using larger bullets for his loading), but it seemed like a chance I didn’t want to take with a defensive firearm.

All of this goes to a point, however, that many people have made by now. Successive generations may not be considered improvements by one shooter or another, or the changes aren’t dramatic enough to warrant replacing the pistol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TunnelRat]

I'm also not sure I buy the argument that a G48 with an S15 magazine is a better gun. First you have the reports of failures on the S15 magazines, while I've encountered (within the last 2 years) Glock magazines that still had MIL/LEO only language on them from the '94 AWB and had been in use for training continually and still worked, occasionally needing a new spring or baseplate. Then you have no accessory rail, limited RDS mounting capabilities, your magazines aren't compatible with many PCCs/subguns if you're somebody who likes that redundancy, fewer holster options, thinner grip (more recoil).

In my opinion, if Glock is smart, the next generation will finally do away with non-MOS slides and every factory gun will be cut for an optic mount and use a decent mounting plate which is not cast. But, innovation hasn't exactly been their game for a few decades now.

I debated going with a Glock 48 and Shield Arms magazines a few times. If you look at the reviews on Brownells for the Shield Arms magazines you see people that are very happy with their purchase as well as a number of people that have terrible experiences with them. The reviews are still mostly favorable. I suppose one positive note is in the cases where the magazines don’t work that seems to be the case early on, so as long as you test the magazines before using them for carry you should be okay (as in the magazines don’t start off working and then stop working many rounds later). However, I don’t think you can say the Shield Arms magazines are as reliable as standard Glock magazines. I think that to an extent many of us, myself included, have been spoiled by reliable factory magazines for many pistols for decades. A semiautomatic with unreliable magazines is a bad day. I think a factory solution for higher capacity like with the SIG P365, Springfield Hellcat, etc is a better option. As a note Glock does have Glock 43X and 48 models that have a rail, but you need nonstandard lights to mount on that rail.

While I agree with you to an extent about the optics cuts becoming standard, it’s still about a $70 additional cost with a Glock. Now I’ll pay it because I am going to use it, but if I’ve learned anything in recent years it’s that people don’t like to spend money if they can avoid it, even if I think the added cost is small in terms of “future proofing”. I think that’s why you will still see non optic cut options with Glocks. I think Walther went all optic cuts with the PDP to reduce production line variations. Given Walther isn’t on the same scale as Glock in terms of pure production numbers I think this makes sense for them.

I have two MOS Glocks. I’ve used both the factory plates and aftermarket options from Forward Controls Design. I put about 1300 rd through one MOS Glock with the factory plate and 400 rd through the other MOS Glock with its factory plate. The factory cast plates were fine. Now while it’s true you can end up with casting issues that will affect fitment, that wasn’t the case with me (I know people like Aaron Cowan of Sage Dynamics have mentioned seeing it). I do think some of the aftermarket solutions are more solid and that’s why I now use FCD plates (in the case of the FCD plates the fencing built into the plate requires a press fit of the optic onto the plate and theoretically reduces the load on the fasteners).

To me the bigger issue is needing the correct length fasteners. The fasteners that come with the MOS plates are short for say an RMR with a sealing plate, but the factory RMR fasteners are too long. You can get the sealing plate kit from Trijicon that includes the proper length screws or call Trijicon and order the screws directly , but not everyone does this. People also don’t always torque the screws properly or use Loctite. All of this combines to create a mess for a person that doesn’t do some research ahead of time. I think the fasteners may be a bigger problem than the plates themselves.

CZ and Walther don’t include any plates with their “optics ready” pistols, nor does HK IIRC. That’s not optics ready to me. To CZ’s credit their mounting system is tolerant of screws that are slightly too long and when you do order the plate you get screws to mount both the plate and the optic. Walther let’s you get one plate for free after filling out a request form online. However, they leave you to source the screws to secure the optic to the plate and in the case of the RMR this means calling or emailing Trijicon and asking for screws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sevt_chevelle]

CZ screwed the pooch big time with that. I had to source my plates from France and Czech since none are available here in the states.

Dont' know on the P10 series but the shadow 2, one could darn near have screws 1/4 inch too long

The guys that prefer the 1st gen MP are competition guys.
Both are great

 

[TunnelRat]

No 4" seems gen update proof in the immediate future...

I was able to get my plate and sights for my P10-C in a kit through CZ USA’s web store. I was on the notification list for 4-6 months I think? I was on travel a lot at the time and periodically I would land, check my email to see a notification that the plates were in stock, quickly open a browser, and then find them out of stock when I went to the page or have them run out of stock while I was checking out. Drove me nuts. I finally did get them. They do seem to be in stock on their web store these days at least. When I heard HK was going to do the same “buy the plate later” routine I knew they were going to have the same problem, and lo and behold they did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wild cat mccane]

Glock also says on their website a tighter action and trigger along with a better barrel improve gen5 accuracy. This is straight from the Glock website I posted.

I haven't heard someone say their Gen5 is less accurate than the Gen4.

The point being, if there is an agreement on a 500 dollar gun being better with a new generation, it's kinda silly not to get the improvement (let's assume it's a mechanical improvement.

 

[eflyguy]

Nobody is arguing against the fact that all manufacturers make incremental improvements. Some people might notice a difference.

Just saying if you need something now, choose from what's available. If you don't need it now, or are determined to get a specific feature, then sure, wait until you're happy.

 

[JDBerg]

Glock also says on their website a tighter action and trigger along with a better barrel improve gen5 accuracy. This is straight from the Glock website I posted.

I haven't heard someone say their Gen5 is less accurate than the Gen4.

The point being, if there is an agreement on a 500 dollar gun being better with a new generation, it's kinda silly not to get the improvement (let's assume it's a mechanical improvement.

My 19X has a smooth rolling break trigger that is almost as good as the APEX Action Enhancement Trigger package that I have on my Gen3 17. I do think that this APEX package is a bit light for my Gen3 19, but I do have the APEX firing pin block and connector, and a polished trigger bar on the 19. But I like the Wilson Combat Vickers Elite F.O. Front & Blind Battlesight Rear on the 17 and 19 better than the luminescent sights I had Glock install on the 19X a while back.

My take is that my Gen3 17 & 19 with sight & trigger mods that I like and have good shooting experience with works better for me than replacing these with Gen5 versions.

 

[Lima Oscar 7]

I have been fooling with Glocks since 1992. My first was what would be technically considered a Gen. 2 Glock 22. IMHO, the Gen. 3 is the 9mm Generation to own and the Gen. 4 is the .45 ACP Generation to own (A future Gen. 5 might be better.) and the Gen. 5 is the .40 Generation to own.

The Gen. 5 is the first generation that is an actual .40 caliber instead of a 9mm converted to .40. To get a better understanding of what I mean, go shoot an H&K .40. They are actual .40 caliber pistols versus 9mm conversions.

I too am experiencing better accuracy with the Gen. 5 and the trigger is better. The finish is also better while we are on the subject of 5th generation Glocks.

When it comes to Glocks and my needs for a defensive handgun, any generation will suit me. They’re not infallible as I have a Gen. 3, 23 that will soon head off to Smyrna to be re-built but they come close.

As far as the original posters premise, find a solid gun that fits you and be content. There will always be that latest and greatest generation around the block a.k.a. marketing.

 

[Desmosedici]

My older brother bought a brand new Glock 19X a few months back and I was stunned how accurate and smooth the trigger was compared to my G19 which is gen4. Many, many articles I've read have stated that the Gen5 is more accurate, although not by leaps and bounds, than the other generations. I'm sure there are folks with earlier generations that have tuned their pistols with triggers/sights and such to make them very accurate for them. I have shot the beans out of my 19 and with the loads it does best with, 10-15 feet I can hit very accurately with. The longest shot I'd ever have to take in my house is right around 15 feet, so I'm comfortable if I'd ever need it in that scenario. 20-25 feet I'm not as good with it, which is a little frustrating but that's more of a reflection me than the gun.

I realize some gun writers have bias so I don't take it that every Gen 5 is better due to the marksman's barrel. My only experience is with the 19x. And that particular copy my brother owns is very accurate with (for a stock Glock) a nice trigger.

I am pleased overall with my gen 4 19, though, and at the moment have no interest in upgrading to a 5. Luckily, I think I'm one of the few people that don't dislike the grooves on the grip, they actually work with my fingers without issue.

 

[Lima Oscar 7]

The grooves don’t bother me either way. I like both the Gen. 1/2/5 grips as well as the Gen. 2.5/3/4 grips.

 

[JustJake]

The Gen. 5 is the first generation that is an actual .40 caliber instead of a 9mm converted to .40. To get a better understanding of what I mean, go shoot an H&K .40. They are actual .40 caliber pistols versus 9mm conversions.

That's an important point.

Sig did that early on with their .40 P229 series. The P228, almost identical in size, was a 9mm. The 229s were beefer in comparison, built from the ground up as .40 pistols, not merely re-barreled 9mms.

It also appeared to me that 229s were the most accurate 40 pistols I ever shot.

 

[Moonglum]

I don't think it's even a question that the Gen5 is more accurate than the Gen4 Glock.

So why would anyone stick with the Gen4 given this non question upgrade?

As mentioned that I didn't, the Shield 2.0 had a better trigger than the M&P 2.0. So M&P 2.0 owners, year or two away. Just seems a little like we're being fleeced for upgrades.

Meh. I just would be surprised if in one year, all current guns don't have a new generation out except for the P320 and the Gen5 Glock. Kinda lame.

Because I'm satisfied with my fourth generation Glock 19?

I went from third generation S&Ws to 1911s to CZs back to third generation S&Ws to S&W M&Ps (first generation, none of the "improvements" interest me in the slightest) and finally to fourth generation Glocks. That's where I stopped chasing the latest, greatest, whizz bang, new thing.

At some point you have to stop chasing the pot of gold and start learning to master the gun you have.

 

[Lima Oscar 7]

I owned a P220 .45ACP West German in the 1990’s it is the handgun I most regret parting with. Like the circa 2000 P239 I carried for a while, they were highly accurate with buttery smooth triggers. Thanks for reminding me about the classic Sigs.

 

[armoredman]

I don't think CZ is going to be "updating" the P-10C any time in the near future - they are just fine the way they are. So that is a "safe buy". I carry my first gen P-10C from 2017 every single day.

 

[Carl the Floor Walker]

Glock also says on their website a tighter action and trigger along with a better barrel improve gen5 accuracy. This is straight from the Glock website I posted.

I haven't heard someone say their Gen5 is less accurate than the Gen4.

The point being, if there is an agreement on a 500 dollar gun being better with a new generation, it's kinda silly not to get the improvement (let's assume it's a mechanical improvement.

So Glock says "on their website a tighter action and trigger along with a better barrel improve gen5 accuracy."

Ok, how much greater accuracy? 1" at 15 yds? .001" at 15 yards? You say you never heard anyone say my Gen 4 is more accurate than my Gen 5?. I never hear it either way. Most of the Glock Shooters at the range I know simply are just shooting and concentrating on their game. Fast shooting at steel targets etc. Not sure they could even tell you the difference between the two.
Will a shooter that has thousands of rounds through a Gen 4, all of a sudden be a better shooter with a Gen 5? Are thousands of Gen 4 shooters that do not shoot very often all of a sudden going to say, dang, this gun is so much more accurate?
What is you goal when training? Will a new model make you shoot better because you have reached the pinnacle of total proficiency with your present skills and must have something new to reach a small percentage more to that Proficiency?

I love marketing. In most cases it is so full of BS. The terms they use. Like "As Low as" etc. Like cereal "Now with more almonds". Could mean they threw in two more almonds.
When a person purchases a Glock for example, many do because they want a solid gun that will last a life time, or thousands of rounds. What is the point of a gun that will do this, when in a few years it is worthless because the gun you thought was so great is now obsolete because a new model came out.
Maybe Glock should Advertise like this. Get a Glock now, great shooting, (until the next model comes out).
I do not own a Glock, I do own guns that I know will most likely last me a lifetime. I cannot see getting a new gun that I am so familiar with, that has done so much for me until I wear it out. Even then might just get a new barrel and parts.
How many rounds is a Glock designed to shoot? Or does that even matter now as you are going to upgrade to a new one in a few years?

 

[TunnelRat]

No 4" seems gen update proof in the immediate future...

So Glock says "on their website a tighter action and trigger along with a better barrel improve gen5 accuracy."

Ok, how much greater accuracy? 1" at 15 yds? .001" at 15 yards? You say you never heard anyone say my Gen 4 is more accurate than my Gen 5?. I never hear it either way. Most of the Glock Shooters at the range I know simply are just shooting and concentrating on their game. Fast shooting at steel targets etc. Not sure they could even tell you the difference between the two.
Will a shooter that has thousands of rounds through a Gen 4, all of a sudden be a better shooter with a Gen 5? Are thousands of Gen 4 shooters that do not shoot very often all of a sudden going to say, dang, this gun is so much more accurate?
What is you goal when training? Will a new model make you shoot better because you have reached the pinnacle of total proficiency with your present skills and must have something new to reach a small percentage more to that Proficiency?

I love marketing. In most cases it is so full of BS. The terms they use. Like "As Low as" etc. Like cereal "Now with more almonds". Could mean they threw in two more almonds.
When a person purchases a Glock for example, many do because they want a solid gun that will last a life time, or thousands of rounds. What is the point of a gun that will do this, when in a few years it is worthless because the gun you thought was so great is now obsolete because a new model came out.
Maybe Glock should Advertise like this. Get a Glock now, great shooting, (until the next model comes out).
I do not own a Glock, I do own guns that I know will most likely last me a lifetime. I cannot see getting a new gun that I am so familiar with, that has done so much for me until I wear it out. Even then might just get a new barrel and parts.
How many rounds is a Glock designed to shoot? Or does that even matter now as you are going to upgrade to a new one in a few years?

As someone that has owned Gen 3, 4, and 5 Glocks I personally saw a noticeable improvement in shooting Gen 5 Glocks when it came to group sizes (and I had many thousands of rounds through the Glocks I had previously). I didn’t find it was marketing bs.

Now should someone sell their Gen 3/4 just to upgrade? I don’t think it’s required, but if they want to and they have the money I don’t see a problem with it. Glocks generally have good resale value and you could probably trade out of a Gen 3/4 for not much money.

We all have differing levels of disposable income and goals. I don’t think shooting development and new firearm purchases have to be mutually exclusive. You should be honest with yourself as to whether or not you’re making a decision for something tangible, but even then if someone just likes something more that’s their call.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Carl the Floor Walker]

As someone that has owned Gen 3, 4, and 5 Glocks I personally saw a noticeable improvement in shooting Gen 5 Glocks when it came to group sizes (and I had many thousands of rounds through the Glocks I had previously). I didn’t find it was marketing bs.

Now should someone sell their Gen 3/4 just to upgrade? I don’t think it’s required, but if they want to and they have the money I don’t see a problem with it. Glocks generally have good resale value and you could probably trade out of a Gen 3/4 for not much money.

We all have differing levels of disposable income and goals. I don’t think shooting development and new firearm purchases have to be mutually exclusive. You should be honest with yourself as to whether or not you’re making a decision for something tangible, but even then if someone just likes something more that’s their call.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am not a Glock fan, however that does not mean they are not great guns. I believe they are. So I have not put thousands of rounds out of one to say that each new model keeps getting better groups.
But I have had upgrades on other guns that IMO that did not shoot any better. Perhaps it is the fact that I become so familiar with a gun because of spending so much time with it etc.
But as you say, and I agree with, purchasing a new model, or more guns is a individual choice and thanks to the fact that we Live in a Great Country we can make those choices.
So in that regard, I would say that someone with disposable income should go ahead and get a new model. Even if he or she does not like it as well as the previously model they can just keep it or sell it. Each to his own.