Originally Posted By: j_mac
Just to warn everyone...
Glock has fallen off a cliff. The Gen 4 is a new design with one thing in mind. Making more money. The Gen 4 is a cheapened version of the Glock pistol.
I spoke at length with one of the Nation's top Glock armorers, and he told me of all the new modifications that they've made and how he doesn't like ANY of the changes. He said he has seen a myriad of problems. But in particular he was upset with the fact that glock no longer treats the slide and barrel with nitrocarburizing.
In the end I asked him, "so the Gen 4's are junk?" he paused, looked at me with a very odd face and said "....YES!" He went on to say "Glock is my business, but I feel like I need to tell the truth."
I'm going to have to disagree, and I don't know what national "top Glock armorer" you spoke with, but I've been a factory certified armorer for Glocks for 15 years, which means I've been to many separate training sessions. I've had several different Glock instructors, and none of them have ever said any changes were made to save money. Further, as a quality engineer in a different industry, I can recognize "cheap" changes when I see them. I know when a product is "decontented" (Pablo would remind me this isn't a real word ...). I know when a company goes after savings, and when they go after quality; I recognize the difference.
Let's review the major changes made in the Gen 4:
* double recoil springs; certainly costs more than the single spring arrangement due to complexity and components.
* interchangeable backstraps; again, complexity and components. It cost money to design the interchangeable straps, to provide them in the package, and to make the changes to the dies of the frame, and to produce the straps themselve. No money "saved" here.
* trigger spring nest at the trigger bar; rounded and chamfered with a new multi-angle profile, which is more expensive than a simple punched hole. Also a bump/dimple added for alignment of the extention to better engage the firing pin safety. Engingeering time, upgraded and more complicated processes. No "cheap savings" there.
*mag release button; now made to be ambidextrious via reversibility. While not a cost adder, it's not any cheaper to make, overall. They did have to change the frame for the button to be reversible, so there is cost in engineering and in die/milling changes. No savings there.
In all, none of these changes were made to save money. Most of them cost additional money. These changes were made to address problems (whether percieved or real) that help the Gen 4 perform better. The backstrap in particular was a customer focused move that will help sales, as competitors offers such items; but it surely wasn't done to "save money". Some people have liked the function of the Glocks, but not the feel. Now they have the ability to select a user-desired grip. It costs more money to produce, but it makes more money in sales. That is not being "cheap".
The slides have always been, and to the best of my knowledge continue to be, treated by a chemical process they call "Tenifer". That treatment is NOT the dark surface treatment; that is just cosmetic. The Tenifer process is the treatment that chemically alters the surface for corrosion resistance and abrasion resistance hardening. If they have stopped it in the Gen 4 series, that would be news to me. Further, it is still on their website:
http://www.glock.com/english/index_pistols.htm
If they had stopped doing the treatment, I'd think they would have to remove that as an advertisement claim ... but they haven't, so I'm presuming they still do it.
I don't know what national Glock expert told you that line of poo, and I don't want to know. But you need to better familiarize yourself with the changes, use some common sense, and go back and ask him how ANY of these changes "saved money" for Glock. If increasing sales and improving customer perception is a "savings" then I'd agree. But they certainly were not moves to cheapen the guns. That guy you talked to is entitled to his opinion, and maybe he does not like the changes. But his statement about making the gun cheaper to save money is totally, stupidly, patently wrong. And you're welcome to tell him I said so, and I would like to hear his explanations otherwise. I'd like to know how he thinks adding component content, expending engineering hours, making changes to the frame, adding detailed contouring for reliability improvements, etc, are efforts to "cheapen" the gun by "saving money".
And now I feel like I've told the "truth".
