Posted: 9/11/2010 2:46:56 PM EDT
|
I understand why Glock did this for .40 S&W.
Why did they do it on the G19? Wasn't it already "perfect"? Hes anyone replaced the dual spring/rod combo with one for Gen. 1/2/3 G19? |
|
Ease of manufacturing. The Gen 4 frame dustcover is the same on both 9mm and .40 guns. The Gen 4 slide recoil guide hole is needed to match the Gen 4 frame dustcover. An identical recoil spring set-up is used to keep manufacturing streamlined. Why would you machine the slide recoil holes to take a different recoil rod assembly on the 9mm guns? If anything, install a lighter spring of the same physical design (they did) into the 9mm guns.
This is the same reason the Gen 3 guns in 9mm got the extra locking block pin that they never needed. Why have a .40/.357 production line seperate from the 9mm production line when the only difference is a $2 pin? |
|
Quoted:
I understand why Glock did this for .40 S&W. Why did they do it on the G19? Wasn't it already "perfect"? Hes anyone replaced the dual spring/rod combo with one for Gen. 1/2/3 G19? Part commonality. The previous Gen 3 rods will not fit in a Gen 4 frame. I believe someone is selling an aftermarket single spring rod assembly though.... IIRC the replacement interval on the Gen 3 recoil spring was 5000 rounds. The new design is supposed to extend that a fair amount. The new setup also has noticeably less recoil. If the new design proves to be as reliable in practice as the Gen 3 pistols it will be a very nice upgrade. |
| I have a Gen4 17. About 1000 rounds shot and only one failure to eject. That was from the first loaded mag using handloads. From that point on, everything I have tried has been just as one would expect from a Glock. Recoil is mild. Not too crazy about the accuracy when compaired to my P99 though. I may need to practice more. |