I have been searching for pictures of the inside forward frame rails of Gen 4 Glocks for the past year or so. Would people mind posting picture of their forward frame rails on their gen 4 guns for me to take a look at?
This area has been associated with some of the frame material wearing, cracking, or being smashed into a pulp, and peeling away from the rail insert in the frame. Also known to some as “frame battering.” I understand that this may be a fluke or flaw in some of the first run of the Gen 4 guns but I am curious to see actual photographs of multiple guns with, or without this issue, and the corresponding estimated round count through these guns. I am curious to see in all calibers but am more interested in specifically the .40 and .357.
The Gen 4 recoil system as I understood was designed to stop this type of wear that was sometimes seen on older generations. As it was also introduced to reduce the felt recoil and damage from recoil, or galling, on the underside of the slide. Often seen in .40 and .357 models. While the latter was fixed with an aftermarket spring and steel guide rod for me, in my older models, I think Glock has introduces a far greater problem that for serious shooters could render their guns becoming useless after several thousand rounds. (I don’t necessarily believe this, and is purely speculation.) Obviously the Gen 4 has been out for a while and this does not seem to be a major issue, but I know it is there, I’m just trying to figure out how big a deal it is. It is alarming to me that this type of wear might be deemed acceptable, as it is an eyesore and is a mark of poor planning and craftsmanship. All of the information I have found is that this type of wear is now considered normal on the Gen 4 and has no bearing on the performance of the gun besides being a pain to look at when you break your gun down.
I own several Glocks, 5, in all now. Two of which are Gen 4, both in .40, a 23 and 22. The 22 I have had for close to a year and is my primary duty weapon (just switched from Gen 3) with approximately 500 rnds through it in the last few months. The 23 belonged to my brother and I have not a clue how many rounds have been put through it but I would guess close to 1000.
The 23 is starting to show some serious signs of wear to the frame at the forward rails, the section that also holds the guide rod assembly. There is a small amount of frame material that covers the “tabs” inside the frame that are part of the forward frame rail section, that is smashing inward from the impact of the slide to the frame. As does the 22, just not to quite to this significant state yet. I measured the width of the frame material on both a gen 3 and gen 4 in this area and noted that there is .042” difference in between the two. The Gen 4 has a width of .120”, and the Gen 3 is .162”. quite a bit of difference in surface area for something that is moving that fast. I have wondered for some time how significant this is in the long run. I know there are pieces of metal embedded in the frame that the polymer material will eventually wear down to on both generations, but why does it do it so drastically and severely on the Gen 4?
I know that the so called “tabs” added on the second generation of guns was to decrease the amount of erosion to the plastic material that covers the frame rail insert. From the wear that is showing on some of the Gen4 guns I have seen it appears as though Glock has re-introduced the original frame wear problem from the first generation.
All in all I realize that as far as the function of the gun is concerned, this is probably irrevelent. However, none of my older Glocks show half of this type of wear with nearly 10x the amount of use.
I would also not mind seeing the same section of some sub compact guns even in 9mm and .45. I know this site is geared towards long guns but I thought you all would be a good source of information to tap into.
All of this is a side project I have been working on for a while now. Thank you all for your time in advance.
This area has been associated with some of the frame material wearing, cracking, or being smashed into a pulp, and peeling away from the rail insert in the frame. Also known to some as “frame battering.” I understand that this may be a fluke or flaw in some of the first run of the Gen 4 guns but I am curious to see actual photographs of multiple guns with, or without this issue, and the corresponding estimated round count through these guns. I am curious to see in all calibers but am more interested in specifically the .40 and .357.
The Gen 4 recoil system as I understood was designed to stop this type of wear that was sometimes seen on older generations. As it was also introduced to reduce the felt recoil and damage from recoil, or galling, on the underside of the slide. Often seen in .40 and .357 models. While the latter was fixed with an aftermarket spring and steel guide rod for me, in my older models, I think Glock has introduces a far greater problem that for serious shooters could render their guns becoming useless after several thousand rounds. (I don’t necessarily believe this, and is purely speculation.) Obviously the Gen 4 has been out for a while and this does not seem to be a major issue, but I know it is there, I’m just trying to figure out how big a deal it is. It is alarming to me that this type of wear might be deemed acceptable, as it is an eyesore and is a mark of poor planning and craftsmanship. All of the information I have found is that this type of wear is now considered normal on the Gen 4 and has no bearing on the performance of the gun besides being a pain to look at when you break your gun down.
I own several Glocks, 5, in all now. Two of which are Gen 4, both in .40, a 23 and 22. The 22 I have had for close to a year and is my primary duty weapon (just switched from Gen 3) with approximately 500 rnds through it in the last few months. The 23 belonged to my brother and I have not a clue how many rounds have been put through it but I would guess close to 1000.
The 23 is starting to show some serious signs of wear to the frame at the forward rails, the section that also holds the guide rod assembly. There is a small amount of frame material that covers the “tabs” inside the frame that are part of the forward frame rail section, that is smashing inward from the impact of the slide to the frame. As does the 22, just not to quite to this significant state yet. I measured the width of the frame material on both a gen 3 and gen 4 in this area and noted that there is .042” difference in between the two. The Gen 4 has a width of .120”, and the Gen 3 is .162”. quite a bit of difference in surface area for something that is moving that fast. I have wondered for some time how significant this is in the long run. I know there are pieces of metal embedded in the frame that the polymer material will eventually wear down to on both generations, but why does it do it so drastically and severely on the Gen 4?
I know that the so called “tabs” added on the second generation of guns was to decrease the amount of erosion to the plastic material that covers the frame rail insert. From the wear that is showing on some of the Gen4 guns I have seen it appears as though Glock has re-introduced the original frame wear problem from the first generation.
All in all I realize that as far as the function of the gun is concerned, this is probably irrevelent. However, none of my older Glocks show half of this type of wear with nearly 10x the amount of use.
I would also not mind seeing the same section of some sub compact guns even in 9mm and .45. I know this site is geared towards long guns but I thought you all would be a good source of information to tap into.
All of this is a side project I have been working on for a while now. Thank you all for your time in advance.
