Glock Gen 5 Differences

[BISCUT]

I'll start off with I am a HUGE fan of the Glock 45 (G17 grip with G19 Slide). I truly appreciate the full size grip. My hands are a 2XL. I do not like the front serrations but I get it in a pure combat gun.

What fascinates me, and I want to hear thoughts on is the move from 2 pin to 1 pin. The 1 pin is also being used on the 40 and 357 calibers; not simply the 9mm. The 40 and 357 are in the area of 40k PSI. I realize the slide has been beefed up on the Gen 5 40 cal but it seems to me more would need to be done to move to a single pin. Can someone explain the engineering differences between the Gen 3 and Gen 5?

Frankly I'm not wrapping my noodle around what Glock has done with the 40 cal G5. Was it simply a beef up of the locking block? Can't be that simple.........

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

I want to hear thoughts on is the move from 2 pin to 1 pin. The 1 pin is also being used on the 40 and 357 calibers; not simply the 9mm. The 40 and 357 are in the area of 40k PSI. I realize the slide has been beefed up on the Gen 5 40 cal but it seems to me more would need to be done to move to a single pin. Can someone explain the engineering differences between the Gen 3 and Gen 5?

Sure, but only to a point in general- would need to see the physical locations between the two side by side then I could tell you exactly ( and possibly extrapolate the driver for the modification because no significant change is done "just because")

In mechanical design terms, the firing assembly is nothing more than a series of cams and levers.

Fasteners hold against stress ( load bearing)- pins hold LOCATION ( the center of that pin is the axis the tangent is calculated from along a line or radius)

So we can deduce they changed the entire geometry and timing for a reason ( yet to be determined)

If I were going to back engineer it to answer and "explain the engineering differences"- I would need a 3D CAD of each part in the assembly to review the specifics and answer that in exacting detail once we back work the changes in terms of geometry and dimension ( which they are almost certainly never going to release)

Or do it the old fashioned traditional way ( just like we do to tune or repair then today)

Get both pistols and field strip them

Get the bench block and set the pins in locations on the frame- reassemble and start mic' ing and study the movements. ( and look for any metallurgy or hardness changes- those are often snuck in)

I'm 99% sure once that's done- the "what" will be immediately obvious and from that point, the "why" shouldn't be hard to deduce

 

[BISCUT]

ABN_CBT_ENGR,

Correct that the "change" was for a to be determined reason. Added too the pin change was also a minute width of the slide, apparently enough so new leather is needed AND a heavier slide. Slide weight is a no brainer but I'd love to know the reasoning for the added width. I'm chomping at the bit so to speak to get a Gen 5 locking block in my hands to mic and weigh it. I also wonder if the metallurgy makeup of the locking block has changed. This info is not exactly readily available.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

This info is not exactly readily available.

Thus is the primary justification for all things reverse engineered LOL

mic and weigh it

minute width of the slide, apparently enough so new leather is needed AND a heavier slide.

Without that readily available information- we can go back to design engineering material standards and best practices for clues. ( for when you do mic it)

Dimensional changes of a housing ( which by definition the slide mainly is) are almost always the result of a discovered need ( something you didn't catch in the initial design) for additional mass with the purpose of additional rigidity against a discovered stress riser possibly indicating a flexing/looseness or transfer of energy to another part not designed for it. ( not unlike the stressed deformation of a housing caused shaft deflection which resulted in bearing damage)

I would look there first and compare what you find against known complaints/failures or possibly some new goal such as meeting a proposed requirement.

I also wonder if the metallurgy makeup of the locking block has changed.

I would say unlikely with modern alloying and heat treatment capability (metallurgy being the composition)- however there may be a hardness change depending on is that additional mass was added to absorb energy or to transfer it. ( one of those educated guesses)

 

[ZeeOSix]

How long has Glock been designing guns ... ?

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

How long has Glock been designing guns

Not that long and the head guy was in plastics with no history whatsoever in weapons prior to founding the company

 

[BISCUT]

How long has Glock been designing guns ... ?

Gaston did not have a lengthy history in designing guns by anyone's definition. I don't see the connection either. His concept of minimalist parts and simplistic functioning was a winner for sure. Just me and my theory but I don't think a basic gun design is anything difficult for someone with a mechanical engineering background to develop. I see the difficulties lay in scale and the barriers to bring the product to an already flooded market.

 

[ZeeOSix]

If this is the 5th generation iteration, then when was the 1st gen put on the shelves for sale? Typically product "generations" are developed to incorpaorate improvments if it's mainly engineering driven, but if for some reason it's bean counter driven then newer generations can flop.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

His concept of minimalist parts and simplistic functioning was a winner for sure.

Let me address that from experience going back to when they first came out and I had the oppostunity to dissect a few.

Not exactly, ( he cloned several variants of Browning designs in terms of operating principles) His "super power" was using plastics, coatings and modern high speed CNC.

That's an important distinction because traditionally most gun makers used traditional manual machining in batches with final finishing/assembly done by hand OR they used stampings ( lower hardness materials prone to faster wear and malfunction)

So, per making a quality gun ( the design is functional and robust)- on a "gun to gun" basis- he could turn them out faster and cheaper ( more margin per gun) He basically did to the gun industry what Toyota, Honda and Nissan did to the automotive industry.

It was a hard sell being a polymer ( even to me back then) but he proved his case.

I don't think a basic gun design is anything difficult for someone with a mechanical engineering background to develop.

Exactly, even back in school designing cams we did the regular cam shaft, a Geneva cam ( everybody has to do one of those) and a revolver mechanism. Basic linear logic.

Any master machinist, millwright or ME should be able to design a functional one from scratch. ( and around here, many have, and its not illegal. LOL)

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

when was the 1st gen put on the shelves for sale?

Early 80's

 

[BISCUT]

Makes sense Gaston studied the various Browning designs (who didn't!). I didn't realize it though. Thanks for the information. Very much interested in the plastics as well. I've wondered about the Glock frame flexing and under what rate with different calibers. Was it intended in the design? The Gen 5 is the plastic lower the same makeup of Gen 1, Gen 2, and Gen 3? What made me think of this was a previous S&W M&P class when we went over the metal in plastic chassis.

No way S&W would add the cost of this to the M&P if there weren't what they felt was an added benefit. In application the benefit is indiscernible but I have no way of knowing the differences in the plastics used by Glock and S&W. Proprietary formulations.

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

I've wondered about the Glock frame flexing and under what rate with different calibers.

Its a given it must flex just by virtue its a polymer and cannot be hardened to the point where it can resist the shock forces against it without deformation leading to deflection. In reality, the bullet is long gone before this action even starts so from an accuracy standpoint its not a factor.

That said, cycling, long term wear, work hardening/fatigue and long term tolerances can be a different story.

Was it intended in the design?

Personally ( just my opinion with zero data to support it) he had to know this would happen so I think he designed around it.

I do know ( based on best practices in mechanical design and statics) that he would have developed a mix with "X" properties in terms of hardness ( resistance to distortion) and elastic properties (ability to deflect without set or damage) and did both a FEA and stress modeling and who knows how many custom tests.

Then that data was used to develop the geometry and stress risers that needed reinforcement and which ones didn't matter.

Anything beyond that without IP on the actual mixture and their stress analysis is conjecture.

No way S&W would add the cost of this to the M&P if there weren't what they felt was an added benefit.

Theres that $100 word. We know theres a reason.

Personally I think it was either to save on materials over a production run (incremental but cumulative savings on material and tooling- polymers will always be cheaper than machining) OR

They needed to "look" like a modern firearm ( evolve the "look" in order to sell the idea) Don't laugh, gun designs change just like fashions- just slower

 

[ABN_CBT_ENGR]

Glock frame flexing

I would personally like to see a properly conducted stress analysis with video in all degrees of freedom to see just how much overall susceptibility to deflection at firing force it really has ( and where).

I know they had to have done these ( probably numerous iterations and configurations) and I'm sure they are very secure.

It doesn't affect the performance or life of the weapon but would still be good to know

 

[ZeeOSix]

What fascinates me, and I want to hear thoughts on is the move from 2 pin to 1 pin. The 1 pin is also being used on the 40 and 357 calibers; not simply the 9mm. The 40 and 357 are in the area of 40k PSI. I realize the slide has been beefed up on the Gen 5 40 cal but it seems to me more would need to be done to move to a single pin. Can someone explain the engineering differences between the Gen 3 and Gen 5?

Have you come across any articles or YouTube videos showing the design differences in detail?

 

[BISCUT]

Have you come across any articles or YouTube videos showing the design differences in detail?

I haven't seen anything on Youtube. I have read about the G22 Gen 5 online and have seen images of the G22 models that the Brazilian police are using. What is out there is that the slide had more weight to it and slightly wider than then Gen 3 model (there was no Gen 4 commercially available). Also is reported to be single pin and a beefed up locking block.

They are out there for sale to the public now and listed on the website. I found the changes interesting when I learned there were beta G22's in the hands of the Brazilian police.

 

[wpod]

The difference between a Glock gen. 4 . and a Glock gen 5 is one. I have a gen 3. the daughter has a Glock sired horse . That is all I know. I like the pistol though.

 

[BISCUT]

The difference between a Glock gen. 4 . and a Glock gen 5 is one. I have a gen 3. the daughter has a Glock sired horse . That is all I know. I like the pistol though.

Show me a Gen 4 G22 or 23.

 

[Astro14]

I had a Gen 4 Glock 23. .40S&W, Ambi mag release, extra back straps. Gave it to my son. Don’t have a picture.

 

[sw99]

I have a gen 4 G22