Glock Pro Forums banner

21 - 40 of 58 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
The actual prototype G17 was originally referred to as the P80, but as Vol said, it was officially named the Glock 17 due to being the 17th patent by the Glock company. Prior to making pistols, they made entrenching tools and plastic training grenades for the Austrian military. They also made shower curtains and other items.

The P80/G17 was designed and produced in response to the Austrian military holding trials for a new pistol.
Gaston Glock originally called it the G17 after its patent. The P80 designation was given to the pistol by the Austrian Military.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Thanks again for the comments guys. I need to ad the pictures back to my photobucket account. I didnt realize that I had deleted them off the post when removed them to my account.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
Just thought I'd let everyone know who might be interested that I got the pictures put back up. And again, thanks for enjoying my thread.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,921 Posts
Thanks for getting them back up!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,959 Posts
Thanks, Boomer... great reference!

And a nice shot of the 3rd Gen Glock 17L... I recognize them right away since I got mine... :D
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
608 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 ·
Alright, the pictures are now updated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
Excellant info, and history for a Glock newbie......like me!

Thanks!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
I first heard of a Glock plastic pistol form a Luger collector in Florida in 1975. I asked him what the best pistol ever made was and his reply was a German plastic pistol called a Glock. He said they were not available yet but would be coming to the United States soon. I just bought a glock and have been re-reading the history on sites in the U.S. and Germany and have not found anyone else who dates the first pistol back this far. If I am right this early history of Gaston Glock's work might be of interest years from now as when all the people that were part of making the prototypes are passed away there will be no way to correct the history. There is an excellent video about Glock on AOL Germany but my german isn't good enough to do numbers. They interview an oldAustrian man who tells about going into the basement at all hours and finding Gaston working on the first pistol.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,959 Posts
Boomer hasn't posted since March of this year... He's a good guy and a wealth of knowledge... He had a few of life's issues surprise him... Hopefully he will wander back into the fold some day...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Damn great posting, I learned something!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,959 Posts
Boomer is one of Glock.pro's distinguished, long time members... He fell on some hard times a while back and hasn't posted in quite a while... Hopefully he'll pop back in again some day...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
There were a few other changes along the way, although I couldn't tell you when they appeared and or changed. One that comes to mind is the locking block. The old orginal used to be a shorter block, horizontally speaking. The old blocks did not have the forward projecting fingers which added horizontal length to the block and eliminated a 90 degree shoulder seen on the stumpy old blocks which caused the galling on the underside of the slide when the underlug of the barrel contacted the ramp of the locking block and pulled it ever so slightly upward just before the barrel hood chamber unlocked from the ejection port. These shoulders cut into the underside of the slide during this portion of cycling and thus created the then mysterious carvings into the underside of the slide. So Glock eliminated the 90 degree angle and insured little galling would occure by lengthening the forward upward projections of the locking block, which cause a more gentle rub instead of a carve. Unfortunately, early on these fingers were on the thin side and sometimes broke and so Glock thickened them up, extending the width of the blocks so that no plastic covered the outside of the raised portion of the locking block which you can see above the main portion of the frame.

And now for better or for worse, the blocks are MIM, just like a lot of other parts, including the troublesome older "drooping" Gen 4 extractors. For purists, this is a good reason to hold onto your older Glocks: no MIM parts!

There were also changes in the frame rails for various reasons. Hopefully someone can pick up on that one before I come back, although it is doubtful one change will be mentioned as it is not well known. Maybe though. Then there were changes in the barrel chamber six o'clock, beefing up of the larger caliber frames and a few other things. If you know of some of these changes, please write them up. If not, I'll elaborate later on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Another evolution actually came full circle. That would be the frame rails. I'm not talking about the time when the rear frame rails were breaking due to faulty bending at the factory. Rather I am talking about the changing length of the rear frame rails. When Glocks first came out, they had short rear frame rails which were ahead of the rear-most portion of the frame, i.e. they could have been located even further back but weren't as far back as they could have been...and they were not much longer than the front rails. Well along the way in the early 2nd gen phase, the rails were lengthened and actually further back -- as far as they could go. The reason for this was (if I remember correctly) due to failures during the so-called frisbee tests performed by the FBI where samples were flicked like frisbees to test for tolerance to like stress. The examples apparently suffered slide separation from the frame rails, due to limited contact and stability of the slide on the frame rails. The solution was to lengthen the rear slide rails and to move them rearward...this increased rail contact between the slide and frame and increased the geometry of the contact points.

Problems arose with this new design with the rear-most portion of the rear frame rails actually tearing downward. This mostly occurred with full size .40 on up calibers (non-compacts). The reason this occurred was due to frame flex during firing where as the slide reached its rear-most position, the frame kind of bows upward. It does this due to the power of the cartridge, the long length between the two fulcrum points, and lack of frame rigidity due to a lack of a stiff metal subframe and or chassis as is found on newer competitor polymer designs (Steyr, Caracal, to name two Bubit's offsprings). As the frame bows, the stiff and far thicker and stronger slide does not give up any of its shape and therefore forces down on the rear-most portion of the frame rails which do give way by tearing (the best way I can describe it). The irony is that it is the long length and far-rear position of the frame rails that sets up this scenario. It is not as prevalent on the compacts and subcompacts as the front and back rails are closer together and therefore geometrically not as dramatically affected by frame flex (if you bend something, the further two points are on the object you are bending, the more drastic the angle). So Glock very quietly returned to the old style of rear frame rails (shorter and not set as far back). Seemingly this has decreased the incidence of this problem, yet perhaps not completely solved it.

Personally, as much as I like the feel of my G22, I personally hesitate to get another full size .40 or .357Sig Glock until they introduce a more rigid subframe in another generation. The compacts and subcompacts are fine (due to what was just explained) as is probably the G20 and G21, due to their thicker, more beefy frames which help to decrease frame flex. It is possible that the new dual recoil rod assembly may help, but I have no way of knowing and also the physics may not bear this out in terms of such an arrangement having any advantage over a single spring set-up with the same strength rating.
 
21 - 40 of 58 Posts
Top