StoppingPower.net Forums
Home
Forums
Commentary
H&S
About
StoppingPower.net Forums

StoppingPower.net Forums - Problems with our G22s.......
StoppingPower.net Forums
StoppingPower.net Forums
Forums Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ | Invite a friend
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Shooting
 Glocks
 Problems with our G22s.......
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 13

John Hambrick
Moderator

1353 Posts

Posted - March 20 2006 :  3:00:22 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
When we started hanging M3s on our G22/35s we had the same problems. But when we replaced the magazine springs with "11 coil" mag springs the problems went away.

Keep us/me up to date on what you find.
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 21 2006 :  07:26:06 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yup, was aware of the 11 coil springs, they are what we got, guns are new in the box.

The problem was staring me in the face the whole time and it took me this long to see it. Had trouble figuring it out as my G22 and 35 are totally reliable with or wothout lights with anything from the 135 Cor Bon to 165 Gold Dot/Golden Saber, I'd never bothered with the 180s before as I like a little more speed out of my bullets.

So, anyway,,,, it's the guns. Herr Glock went and redesigned the dust cover area without consulting me about it.
They changed how the serial# plate is imbeded in the dust cover, the change makes the dust cover noticably less flexible. We know that these frames like to flex to be reliable, so the new ones, being less so, and you hang a light on the gun=instant stoppage.

What I have found out is that with the new guns that there appears to be NO way to make them work with the M3 or M3X lights staying with stock parts, no matter what ammo is used. I'm playing with ISMI recoil springs, but I'm not sure it's a solution yet.
Sigh......

Our local Glock rep, who is a good guy, will be down tomorrow to bring us some Glock lights for testing, he assures me that the guns WILL work with Glocks lights. My issue is that the Glock lights, well, leave alot to be desired as a tac pistol light.
I figure they made the change to make it far tougher to pry off the serial# plate from the frame.
It also takes conveniently out everyone else's light as a competitor, in one fell swoop as they say.

IMHO, Glock is failing to learn the lesson that the histories of Colt and S&W gives them ref how to lose the police market in the US.



Go to Top of Page

Skintop911
Advanced Member

USA
1219 Posts

Posted - March 21 2006 :  12:49:27 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We recently swapped some early FG/R G22s (~1999) for new G23s. No problems so far with M3/M3X/M6 lights, with standard 180gr (950+/-). I won't be getting any new G22s, but am curious if the problem will appear with the G23s.

The Glock OEM light is lackluster in performance, but on par with the original M3. When I contemplate the variables in the lights and mounts, I wonder how one would work and the other not. They don't seem to be sufficiently different for it to matter, but perhaps I'm missing something.

Keep us posted, Chuck.

Improvements/upgrades often aren't. Sad that such is the case with an otherwise favored arm.

"A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good." -Steven Wright
Go to Top of Page

Joe Maccarrone
Average Member

USA
462 Posts

Posted - March 22 2006 :  07:48:36 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Skintop911
Improvements/upgrades often aren't. Sad that such is the case with an otherwise favored arm.



Indeed. my personal G22 was made in '92, and my department issued G22 was made in '94. Neither has ever malfunctioned, and I've never wished I could hang a flashlight on 'em.
Go to Top of Page

rgrassi
Starting Member

USA
48 Posts

Posted - March 22 2006 :  09:03:33 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Chuck,

It was good to spend time with the troops last week during the AC/IW. I was unaware of the frame change, but my G22 was from the first batch we bought (Sept '03). I have a Bar-Sto 9mm barrel in it for the most part, making it an after-market G17.

My day to day is still the G19 I got in 2001; never saw a need to change.

Keep me posted on the ammo/light/stoppage issue and let me know if I can help. I still have some new artillery to be evaluated as well.

Rich
Go to Top of Page

Martindog
Junior Member

196 Posts

Posted - March 22 2006 :  10:15:50 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A year or so ago there were a number of frames that started cracking through the cross slots in the dust cover. Not sure if they were defective from production or if the design was inadequate and Glock subsequently beefed them up. Yours is not the first report I've heard of unreliability when using a rail mounted light.
Go to Top of Page

GLV
Moderator

USA
8866 Posts

Posted - March 22 2006 :  11:18:45 AM  Show Profile  Send GLV an ICQ Message  Send GLV a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
Rich, welcome and enjoy the site!

'the world is round everywhere'

'The meek will inherit the earth, but only after the last soldier has left it to them in his will'
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 22 2006 :  10:03:21 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
OK, so this is getting weirder.

I met our Glock rep at the range today, ran many rounds from 135gr to 180gr throught my new issue G22, which had been having problems, and also my bud's G22, which wouldn't work at all on Friday.
The guns wouldn't jam, at all, even with the ammo that was jamming them every other round the other night. I've never seen anything like it.
The Glock rep thinks the guns need to be broken in, apparently with up to 500 rounds, and that they need to be broken in with the light on the rail before they will be reliable with the light mounted,,, it's as good a theory as any at this point, at least it makes sense.

I thought that the frame flex could be monkeyed with so I put my gun and my bud's guns in the freezer for a couple of hours and then shot them with the offending 165gr ammo and the M3X lights mounted, my gun ran but my bud's gun choked a couple of times just as it did before. Ran fine with the 180gr after a couple more hours in the freezer.

We also pulled a couple of new guns from my armory and shot them with the M3X lights to test our break in theory, since all of the other five guns which were jamming has been brand new and not broken in. Strangely the new guns ran 100% from the get go.

IMO, This does show the importance of running your carry ammo through your serious guns, especially semi-autos. The plan had been, before I walked in the door, to just shoot the FMJ qual ammo and then send the guns out with the good stuff, that could have led to a tragedy.
I'm fairly obsessive about getting at least 200 rounds of my carry ammo through any new gun I get so that it proves itself.

CCI is sending us enough 180gr Gold Dot to run a qual with duty ammo for each gun which will have a light mounted, after we shoot a bunch of FMJ in training. We are doing the transition for our K9 and SWAT guys next Tuesday, with another 28 guns and lights I get a better picture of what's up with this deal.

Howdy Rich, good to see you here.
Go to Top of Page

BobM77
Advanced Member

USA
1457 Posts

Posted - March 23 2006 :  12:27:09 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Chuck, a couple of years agowe got in a 5906TSW for the K-9 guy. It didn't run very well with the light mounted until it had about 200 rds through it; it's been fine since.
Go to Top of Page

E4E
Moderator

USA
6451 Posts

Posted - March 23 2006 :  01:28:05 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Rich,

Good ta have ya!!!

Welcome to the here!

E4E

Keep the Rifle handy!
Go to Top of Page

n/a
deleted

3224 Posts

Posted - March 23 2006 :  06:45:29 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Chuck,
I just reread your first and last post. I wonder if your problem could be ammo not gun ?

The illogical course of failures doesn't sound like a Glock problem. Maybe the M3x's added to it but if the new batch of CCI stuff works I'd be inclined to blame the lot of CCI and Gold Dot that you used first.
If that's the problem I'd sure test every lot you purchase before deployment.
Jim
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 23 2006 :  07:35:03 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Jim,
My thoughts have gone that way as well. The two guns shot the most/with the most problems also had problems with the 180gr, but it was only one or two per mag instead of every other rounds or so. This went away it seems from how they ran yesterday. We'll get more rounds down range on Tuesday.
My hope is that the break in and 180gr ammo are the cure. CCI is working with me on this one.
I had thought it was an overcycling the slide issue, which I believe it partially or mostly is, but would have expected that the 155gr ammo would only make it worse.
The 155gr Hydrashock and Remington ran great yesterday in our limited testing, I'm investigating the 155gr Gold Dot now.

Strangely one of my guys who has a G35 and a G23 came out to test fire his gun, which was the older frame/plate style and it didn't like the 165gr either, and that was without a light on it. The G23 worked, but not with the light on it, and again it's an older gun.

Go to Top of Page

Derori
Senior Member

USA
550 Posts

Posted - March 26 2006 :  1:17:31 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I was just wondering if anyone could possibly explain something to me. I understand how a little flex in the grip of a gun can help to soak up a little of the recoil impulse and make it seem to shoot "softer."

What I don't understand is how it can be good for functional reliability to have the part of the frame that the slide is moving back and forth on be flexible. I always just assumed that you would want that part of the weapon to be rigid. How does flex in this area actually have a beneficial effect? I keep trying to figure that out, and I can't.
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 26 2006 :  2:50:43 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It just goes with having a polymer framed gun, the nature of the beast. The fact that the G17s are, in my experience, the AK47 of handguns, shows that it works. The USPs ain't bad either.
Go to Top of Page

Mr.T
Senior Member

726 Posts

Posted - March 26 2006 :  7:52:07 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I've seen many more stoppages in .40 Glocks than in the 9mm. version. Given that the HK and the SIG won the DHS competition and the Glock did not, that should give some indication that there are more reliable .40s out there.
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 26 2006 :  9:11:30 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Actually Glock had the contract, then it was pulled and Sig and HK got the nod, I think it may have had to do with those guns being at least partially made in the USA now, Glock then started to build a facility in the US shortly after all this.
My take is it was politics, but I could be wrong, it's been known to happen.
Go to Top of Page

Terry
Moderator

USA
5481 Posts

Posted - March 26 2006 :  11:26:05 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Derori

What I don't understand is how it can be good for functional reliability to have the part of the frame that the slide is moving back and forth on be flexible.



A structural engineer or metallurgist (or any other in related fields) could/should correct me but all materials flex to some degree, even steel. the more rigid a platform the more brittle it is and thus subject to breaking.

Flex in and of itself, as I understand it, is not a problem. The degree of flex, along with getting the proper springs and parts to deal with the natural movement, can be. Reliability, as well as accuracy, is dependent on parts moving in the same way everytime and returning to the same place every time.

If those variables go outside the norm, one can expect stoppages if not outright jams. I would imagine that hanging a flashlight(which is more rigid) on a frame that is already rather flexible could set the variables off.

"Simplicity is the last step of art, and the beginning of nature" Bruce Lee
von hier an blind

Edited by - Terry on March 26 2006 11:27:13 PM
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 27 2006 :  04:01:29 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Yup, was just noting that while going over one of our local bridges earlier today, if several hundred thousand tons of steel and concrete can flex then......

....and the light obviously does throw the system off, hence the issue. A case of tolerance stack-up it seems.
It appears so far that using 180gr ammo and breaking in the gun with the light on it brings things back into harmony.
I'll let ya'll know more about that Wednesday night when we will be done shooting the guns with lights on them. (...and ref an earlier comment/question, we don't say ya'll in KS, but I spent time growing up in Alabama...)

We are trying to get the guns to work with the lights as the guys being issued the lights could obviously use them. We only issue pistol lights to K9 and SWAT guys. I'd give up the light in a minute to make my gun reliable as it falls into the nice to have catagory for me, nice to have while doing secondary seraches under beds, in closets, etc.
For the K9 guys they are about manditory since they almost always have a leash with 90lbs of muscle on the end of it in the other hand.

Updates when I see more of what we got going on.
Go to Top of Page

Mr.T
Senior Member

726 Posts

Posted - March 28 2006 :  6:51:15 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I've heard of no political interference in the DHS contract. Please don't make such statements unless you can produce corroborated evidence that will stand up in court. It's just not fair to the fellows who do everything they can to set up a fair contracting process.
Go to Top of Page

Evan
Administrator

34735 Posts

Posted - March 28 2006 :  9:43:29 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I've seen no evidence of political interference either during the 4 yrs I was a contract instructor for DOE and have a friend who does much of their bid and contract work and they've fought hard to avoid any hint of favortism and influence.

"The greatest thing a Father can do for his children is to love their Mother."

Harold B. Lee

Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 28 2006 :  11:24:20 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Very much my bad, I shouldn't pass on things that I've just heard without some sort of confirmation, and FWIW I don't think there is anything wrong with the Sigs or HKs.

At this point I tend to think that the whole deal with Glock losing the contract could be due to the same issues that we are currently having with our Glocks, I've had a very long and frustrating day at the range, broken only by Rich stopping by so we could shoot one of the S&W AR15s over the lunch hour. Nice gun, I hear it's pricey though.

We are having serious issues with our G22s, and now it's not just the guns with lights on them. Back at it tomorrow. At this point I'm very glad to have my S&W that works.
Go to Top of Page

Terry
Moderator

USA
5481 Posts

Posted - March 29 2006 :  01:51:59 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Keep us updated.

"Simplicity is the last step of art, and the beginning of nature" Bruce Lee
von hier an blind
Go to Top of Page

Gossamer
Average Member

USA
283 Posts

Posted - March 29 2006 :  10:43:19 AM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
All this talk is making me wonder about Glocks. I shot a 37 this past weekend and between me and three other people we put about 550 rounds through it without a hitch. I shot a 17 and 23 in the past and never had a problem. Perhaps it is just a lack of quality control? I don't know?
Go to Top of Page

Mr.T
Senior Member

726 Posts

Posted - March 29 2006 :  8:06:19 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As far as I can see, it's not an issue of quality control, although I'm concerned about Evan's report on the M-36. But mostly, it just seems that the basic Glock design works much more reliably in 9mm, and the platform just is not well-suited to being adapted to larger calibers.
Go to Top of Page

Chuck
Advanced Member

USA
3285 Posts

Posted - March 30 2006 :  9:17:09 PM  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
OK, so we can't get the guns to run with Gold Dot at all, even the 180gr which seemed the fix to the issue. I also started to get guns not working with the Gold Dot that didn't have lights mounted, also having some problems with the Blazer 165gr FMJ strangely enough.

I was about to pull my hair out but remembered that I didn't have any

Me and the other gun nut on the team got ahold of all of the locally available .40 ammo that we could find, including our own stashes of weird stuff we've collected over the years.
The guns started running, shot limited amounts of Cor Bon 135gr JHP and Powerball, 165 JHP, some Remington 165gr Golden Saber and 100rounds of Wal Mart value pack 180gr JHP.
We were able to get a bunch of Winchester 180gr value pack JHP through the guns and they perked along, light or no light.

Made some calls, found five cases of Ranger-T 180gr, a bunch of rounds downrange later the guns work well, clean of dirty, lights or no lights, driving the gun or limp-wristing (breaking them in with the lights seems to have helped those guns a bunch).
So, Winchester 180gr Ranger-T it is for our duty load.

I know that it's hard to find bad .40 ammo, wound ballistics wise, but the only 'Talon' type round I have any experience with is the 9mm 127+p+.
Anyone have experience with this round? I know LAPD uses it for their issue .40 ammo.

FYI, I also learned from the Insight folks that they have two different rails on the M3X lights, one for Glocks (which is very tight) and another for the 1913 rail. After they overnighted me the 1913 rail model I found seems to work much better than the model made for the Glocks

OK, so I just re-read the above posts and noted ISP's post again, anyone else out there using the 180gr T ammo?

Edited by - Chuck on March 30 2006 9:33:28 PM
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 13 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
StoppingPower.net Forums © 2002-16 StoppingPower.net, Inc. Go To Top Of Page
Thispagewasgeneratedin0.78seconds. Snitz Forums 2000