Gen 4 Glock Frames.. Changed?

[NHT3]

Just saw a torture test on Glocks on TV.. I had heard (although Glock doesn't seem to advertise it) that the Gen 4 frame is made from a different polymer than the Gen 3 and doesn't soak up recoil quite as well. One of their tests consisted of shooting both pistols with a 12GA with OO buck. The Gen 3 had pronounced pock marks on the frame and the Gen 4 showed no signs of the marks. Obviously there is a difference in material.. I'm curious if anyone has the REAL scoop on this and why they changed the material that is such a closely guarded secret for something new.. My money is on cost savings but I could very well be wrong?? Comments

 

[TLHelmer]

That is the first I have heard of a polymer change, but intersting topic. I only have one 4th generation Glock pistol in G-23 with RTF.

 

[dom1104]

Uh.... anything more scientific than shooting it with a shotgun?

Seriously.

 

[Fordtough25]

I saw that Tac TV episode as well, but I don't think Glock changed the polymer on the Gen 4 models. I was impressed with both pistols though!

 

[NHT3]

I saw that Tac TV episode as well, but I don't think Glock changed the polymer on the Gen 4 models. I was impressed with both pistols though!

Then you saw the fact that the Gen 3 was dimpled and the Gen 4 wasn't? I was also very impressed that both pistols still functioned flawlessly after that beating. I heard a year ago from what I considered a questionable source that the polymer was different on the Gen 4 but at the time I just blew it off. From what I saw in that episode it appears to be true..
As for "more scientific".. I wasn't there but it seems an obvious conclusion. Same shotgun, same distance, same ammo..Both pistols shot on both sides. Gen 4 appears to escape without a scratch and the Gen 3 is obviously disfigured with what appears to be dents 1 1/16" deep on both sides.. Good OL common sense tells me something is not the same. To quote an unnamed source "in police work, we would call that a CLUE"

 

[mwg]

I have not heard anything about it.I have both 3rd and 4th and can't see or feel a difference.

 

[Jeremy1066]

If they did in fact change the polymer, which it sounds like they did, a harder polymer that would deflect more damage will probably not absorb as much recoil. Another reason I would still choose Gen 3 over Gen 4.

 

[GBuck]

If they did in fact change the polymer, which it sounds like they did, a harder polymer that would deflect more damage will probably not absorb as much recoil. Another reason I would still choose Gen 3 over Gen 4.

God, I can't tell you how many times a day my Glocks get shot with a shotgun. It is borderlining on being ridiculous.

 

[85t5mcss]

Both pistols shot on both sides. Gen 4 appears to escape without a scratch and the Gen 3 is obviously disfigured with what appears to be dents 1 1/16" deep on both sides..

1 1/16" dents? That's rather deep and would prevent function. I didn't see it, but don't see this as being possible.

 

[WebSnyper]

I saw that Tac TV episode as well, but I don't think Glock changed the polymer on the Gen 4 models. I was impressed with both pistols though!

I saw it as well. Didn't see episode part 2 with the freezer test yet, but did see this one.

They stated on the show that the RTF deflected it differently (?)

Since it was only 1 shot on each (although it was reported as same distance, same ammo, etc, and Larry Vickers was the shooter), I wrote the specific differences regarding the dimpling of the frame off as not really being a scientific sampling under controlled enough circumstances repeated enough times to be conclusive. I suspect even Larry may not hit something exactly the same every time.

 

[Fordtough25]

I saw it as well. Didn't see episode part 2 with the freezer test yet, but did see this one.

They stated on the show that the RTF deflected it differently (?)

Since it was only 1 shot on each (although it was reported as same distance, same ammo, etc, and Larry Vickers was the shooter), I wrote the specific differences regarding the dimpling of the frame off as not really being a scientific sampling under controlled enough circumstances repeated enough times to be conclusive. I suspect even Larry may not hit something exactly the same every time.

True enough, I would agree with your thoughts as well. If the weapons aren't set in something for the identical reaction they who knows.

 

[Jeremy1066]

I did not see any of these tests, but I'm still wondering what they are trying to prove? If the handgun were to get shot in a real life situation, the hand holding it would be so mutilated that it would not be able to fire the gun anyway so what's the point? Is it just me that thinks this test is fairly pointless?

 

[WebSnyper]

I did not see any of these tests, but I'm still wondering what they are trying to prove? If the handgun were to get shot in a real life situation, the hand holding it would be so mutilated that it would not be able to fire the gun anyway so what's the point? Is it just me that thinks this test is fairly pointless?

You do have another hand, correct? If I'm still breathing, I'm gonna fight. Which reminds me, I need to do some offhand/weak side practice... although my Glock 27 is a bit of a beast in the old left mitt. Also, might be the guy next to you who gets shot and the gun hit... never know, may need to grab that gun and return fire.

But yes, flesh is going to be the weakest link.