Glock Firearms banner
1 - 20 of 206 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I really was excited about this release. But with the recent problems does anyone know what Glock is doing to correct this? Or is it an isolated few? Thanks in advance. - Don
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
Hey Don! I am convinced they were isolated issues. I am on a few forums including a rimfire forum and the vast majority of people are having zero issues. On the rimfire forum they were even joking that the only thing said in new posts about the Glock 44 from new owners was that the gun went bang when it was supposed to. Most of the problem reports seem to come from just two or three high profile videos.

I only have 220 rounds of 4 different types of ammo through mine but it was 100 percent reliable, even with low quality ammo that included the occasional weak round and it all fed, fired and the slide locked open when empty. None of my other 4 .22LR guns would likely do that well.

My accuracy sucked but that was a combination of shooting in a hurried manner, lack of skill, light gun and a Glock trigger on a very light handgun. Absolutley fun to shoot, reliable, easy to load, I almost want a second one!

I have a thread in the Range Reports Forum about my initial experience if your bored and want to read something.

https://www.glockforum.com/threads/glock-44-first-220-kabooms.58491/
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,677 Posts
I really was excited about this release. But with the recent problems does anyone know what Glock is doing to correct this? Or is it an isolated few? Thanks in advance. - Don
The following posts may be of interest.

Glock's new G44, post #197
https://www.glockforum.com/threads/glocks-new-g44.58125/page-10#post-1746613

Glock's new G44, post #229
https://www.glockforum.com/threads/glocks-new-g44.58125/page-12#post-1748769

Glock's new G44, post #249

https://www.glockforum.com/threads/glocks-new-g44.58125/page-13#post-1751525

Glock's new G44, post #253

https://www.glockforum.com/threads/glocks-new-g44.58125/page-13#post-1751599

Glock's new G44, post #255

https://www.glockforum.com/threads/glocks-new-g44.58125/page-13#post-1752623

Glock's new G44, post #262

https://www.glockforum.com/threads/glocks-new-g44.58125/page-14#post-1752931

Best regards,

Bob

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,677 Posts
Or, you could just read all the posts and watch the videos from the vast majority that have zero problems whatsoever from the magazines.
"The vast majority" is the issue.

My point is that there's absolutely no reason for the magazine to be an issue at all.

Widen the internal rear guide channel from its current 0.380" to 0.430" or cut the slots as shown in my posts and the 'the vast majority' becomes 'everyone'... the problem simply no longer exists.

To those who haven't read the posts referenced in post #3 (above): Please understand that I'm not simply 'bitching' about the magazine problem. In fact, I'm actively communicating with Glock USA, expressing my concerns, observations, and recommendations, and politely urging them to 'improve' the magazine.

Best regards,

Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
"The vast majority" is the issue.

My point is that there's absolutely no reason for the magazine to be an issue at all.

Widen the internal rear guide channel from its current 0.380" to 0.430" or cut the slots as shown in my posts and the 'the vast majority' becomes 'everyone'... the problem simply no longer exists.

To those who haven't read the posts referenced in post #3 (above): Please understand that I'm not simply 'bitching' about the magazine problem. In fact, I'm actively communicating with Glock USA, expressing my concerns, observations, and recommendations, and politely urging them to 'improve' the magazine.

Best regards,

Bob
In measuring the channel inside my magazines, I have found that it is actually .470, which is wider than you recommend widening it to! For reference, that means a Ruger Mk III magazine measured at .361 outside could actually fit inside the channel in the Glock magazine, and the Ruger magazine has no slots. Nor do many other magazines, which makes me think that adding slots is not a necessity or cure all for .22lr magazine issues.

Now, if indeed the channel in your problematic magazines are that much smaller than mine, it would indicate that Glock has realized the mistake and quietly fixed the issue, as the usually do. It would explain why some have the issue but the vast majority do not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,677 Posts
In measuring the channel inside my magazines, I have found that it is actually .470...
I'll double-check tomorrow, but as I recall, that dimension is at the bottom of the magazine and not the width of the channel where the cartridges ride... 0.470" is actually too wide for the rear guide channel.

... adding slots is not a necessity or cure all for .22lr magazine issues.
You're correct if the channel width is approximately 0.430".

The magazines with slots typically have narrower channels... about 0.380". The slots then allow the rims of the cases to 'stick out' of the channel about 0.025" on each side. So, the effective channel width (at the slots) is approximately 0.430" (0.380" + 0.025" + 0.025").

I've also noted that some very narrow single stack 22LR magazines have followers with more extreme pitches, which starts the stack a bit more 'nose up' than the Glock 44 or Walther P22 magazines. This would allow gaps between the cartridges (like we see in the G44 stack) and the top cartridge would still be properly positioned.

Indeed, 'slots' are not necessary for all 22LR magazine designs... but certain designs require them.

Best regards,

Bob
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,677 Posts
Here ya' go...

At the bottom of the magazine, the rear channel is about 0.470" (shown below).

G44 magazine dimension 1b.jpg


However, the channel 'bottlenecks' and, approximately 0.400" into the magazine, the channel width is about 0.387"(shown below).

G44 magazine dimension 2a.jpg


Determining the channel width at the slots (at the top of the magazine) requires multiple measurements and math. But, the width seems to be close to 0.383".

(The slight taper of the channel from bottom to top is consistent with the requirements of the molding equipment.)

Best regards,

Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
I'll double-check tomorrow, but as I recall, that dimension is at the bottom of the magazine and not the width of the channel where the cartridges ride... 0.470" is actually too wide for the rear guide channel.



You're correct if the channel width is approximately 0.430".

The magazines with slots typically have narrower channels... about 0.380". The slots then allow the rims of the cases to 'stick out' of the channel about 0.025" on each side. So, the effective channel width (at the slots) is approximately 0.430" (0.380" + 0.025" + 0.025").

I've also noted that some very narrow single stack 22LR magazines have followers with more extreme pitches, which starts the stack a bit more 'nose up' than the Glock 44 or Walther P22 magazines. This would allow gaps between the cartridges (like we see in the G44 stack) and the top cartridge would still be properly positioned.

Indeed, 'slots' are not necessary for all 22LR magazine designs... but certain designs require them.

Best regards,

Bob
I was in error in stating that the G44 mag channel is .470. It is indeed around .380.
To me, this looks like a lot of stagger.
IMG_4942.PNG


That being said, my issue isn't so much with your logic, my issue is with the implication that there is a significant enough body of evidence out there to conclude that the Glock 44 magazine is inherently flawed. In this thread your response to a guy asking about the reliability of the Glock 44 was to link to an endless stream of links to stuff about magazine issues as though this is a wide spread problem and that the gun should be avoided. As I mentioned before, the only place I have seen anyone really mention the feeding issues was in two high profile YouTube videos. And that is where it seemed to stop. The only issues I am seeing day after day revolve around weak or inadequate ammo not fully cycling a slide or like the new guy Fred who has a problem gun. Literally no one I can find so far is saying they are having nose up or nose down issues with the Glock 44 mags.

I read through Glock forums, gun forums and rimfire forums and there is no widespread issue showing up and as we know, if people have problems, especially with a Glock the first thing they do is head to the interwebs to complain. There are stories of ranges going through thousands of rounds without issues and presumably they don't give each renter a crash course on properly loading the G44 mag. There is even a video of a guy shooting many different types of ammo and having his 11 year old daughter load each magazine and still no issues.

In my own shooting I went through 220 rounds of various ammo, including poor quality Remington stuff and zero malfunctions. Now, I have owned 5 Colt Woodsmans, a Walther P22 (worst gun ever), Ruger SR-22, Ruger MK III and now a Glock 44 and the Glock is the only one of the bunch that has gone through 220 rounds in a row without at least one issue and this was the very first 220 rounds through a new gun, that is rather exceptional for a new .22.

Another thing you mentioned was how the Glock manual says to load the magazine. Well, they have to say something about how to do it because it is an instruction manual. It just so happens that they describe the easiest way to load these magazines! I have loaded the magazines both on a hard surface as well as in my hand and I get the same stagger pattern that has worked well so far in the gun. Just for the fun of it, I even laid the magazine on it's side and loaded it and that was not optimal. However, after doing that, a quick pull down and release of the loading knobs made them line up in a useful manner, but who in their right mind is going to load a mag like that? In the manual for my Walther P22 it said that after loading you needed to rap the back of the loaded magazine on your hand before placing in the firearm and I wouldn't doubt that many other manufacturers mention such things.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,677 Posts
To me, this looks like a lot of stagger.
Yes, it is... but it's simply not enough to ensure that the top cartridge is consistently pressed firmly against the feed lips. Given that it's preferred that all the other relative design features of the magazine and pistol remain the same, the channel needs to be widened to 0.430" or slots need to be added at the top of the current 0.380" channel. In the short term, cutting the slots is the cheapest fix. In the longer term, widening the channel is cheaper.

That being said, my issue isn't so much with your logic, my issue is with the implication that there is a significant enough body of evidence out there to conclude that the Glock 44 magazine is inherently flawed.
I disagree.

As I mentioned before, the only place I have seen anyone really mention the feeding issues was in two high profile YouTube videos. And that is where it seemed to stop.
To start, check out the G44 threads at Glocktalk.com. (Other popular forums have similar threads as well.)

To be clear, in none of my posts have I stated that the Glock 44 should be avoided. I have stated... and have illustrated why... the Glock magazine fails to represent 'Glock Perfection'. That said, I didn't say the magazine wasn't 'usable'... it is.

I visit the same indoor range at least 3 days a week. Since the introduction of the G44, there have been several 'in-house' instances of failure to feed (due to the magazine or, as some would insist, 'failure to load the magazine properly') and failure to fire (typically, cheap cartridges). While some of these failures occurred with different shooters using the (same) range rental pistol and magazine, many of these malfunctions occurred with new pistols.

For example, last week, two lanes from me, the proud owner of a brand new G44 experienced a misfeed, then two misfires in his first magazine. Understandably, he was quite upset until I explained what was happening, why, and how to best operate his new pistol. At the end of his session, he smiled and gave me 'two thumbs up' as he left.

Glock has lost several G44 sales at this one range in one month because of these issues... so how many have they lost globally? Many of these lost sales could have been prevented with a 'better' magazine. (Which is why I contacted Glock.)

Simply stated, Glock can eliminate the magazine-induced feed failures by 'tweaking' the magazine design... or shooters can eliminate them by cutting the slots themselves... or shooters can 'put up with' an occasional misfeed.

No more... no less.

In any case, the G44 is a real blast to shoot! (Pun intended.) :D

As a footnote, it seems that, in all this consternation, my closing sentiments of the very first post listed in post #3 above have been lost.

"Hopefully, Glock will address the magazine issue to make them more user friendly very quickly as well. But, until that time, shooters need only ensure that the magazines are loaded properly to enjoy their new Glock 44."

Best regards,

Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,134 Posts
In measuring the channel inside my magazines, I have found that it is actually .470, which is wider than you recommend widening it to! For reference, that means a Ruger Mk III magazine measured at .361 outside could actually fit inside the channel in the Glock magazine, and the Ruger magazine has no slots. Nor do many other magazines, which makes me think that adding slots is not a necessity or cure all for .22lr magazine issues.

Now, if indeed the channel in your problematic magazines are that much smaller than mine, it would indicate that Glock has realized the mistake and quietly fixed the issue, as the usually do. It would explain why some have the issue but the vast majority do not.
Ruger does not stagger the rounds like Glock does. The narrow channel keeps them in line.
 

·
Very Cool Member
Joined
·
3,395 Posts
I don't own a G44 yet but I can say this about my Ruger SR22, it shoots anything I feed it. :)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
556 Posts
In a large scale production the first shipping products are willing to have bugs, this is a common behavior in the informatic products as example, in a smartphone a bug is accepted by the average user but I think that in a gun it shouldn't be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Or, you could just read all the posts and watch the videos from the vast majority that have zero problems whatsoever from the magazines.
I don't care about the vast majority that have zero problems. At over 2500 rounds, My G44 will only work with CCI Mini Mags and won't even slide lock with them. Glock tells me to keep shooting the gun and it will loosen up. I did not buy the gun so I could shoot ammo that costs 8 cents per round. I can reload 9mm for 9 cents a round.
 

·
Remove me..Security sucks.
Joined
·
2,472 Posts
@Fredkali ...5k rounds @ target sports is $280...free shipping...but if you're in kali, not sure how this works..
Think I'm buying a .22 pistol.Wanted a conversion kit but illegal in ct fercripesakes. Counted my .22 and around 9k rounds still. Not sure on the glock, probably skipping it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,677 Posts
I don't care about the vast majority that have zero problems. At over 2500 rounds, My G44 will only work with CCI Mini Mags and won't even slide lock with them. Glock tells me to keep shooting the gun and it will loosen up. I did not buy the gun so I could shoot ammo that costs 8 cents per round. I can reload 9mm for 9 cents a round.
As I mentioned in the Glock's new G44 thread, I addressed your comments here...

Glock 44, first 220 kabooms.
https://www.glockforum.com/threads/glock-44-first-220-kabooms.58491/page-2#post-1753749

Best regards,

Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
469 Posts
I don't care about the vast majority that have zero problems. At over 2500 rounds, My G44 will only work with CCI Mini Mags and won't even slide lock with them. Glock tells me to keep shooting the gun and it will loosen up. I did not buy the gun so I could shoot ammo that costs 8 cents per round. I can reload 9mm for 9 cents a round.
Fred, you are quoting me, responding to someone else who was simply asking if the issues are widespread or few and far between and I was also responding to the implication by another poster that magazines are a huge issue. This is completely different than your situation, which seems to be a bad gun that should go back to Glock. In other words, you are taking me out of context.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,319 Posts
Yes, it is... but it's simply not enough to ensure that the top cartridge is consistently pressed firmly against the feed lips. Given that it's preferred that all the other relative design features of the magazine and pistol remain the same, the channel needs to be widened to 0.430" or slots need to be added at the top of the current 0.380" channel. In the short term, cutting the slots is the cheapest fix. In the longer term, widening the channel is cheaper.



I disagree.



To start, check out the G44 threads at Glocktalk.com. (Other popular forums have similar threads as well.)

To be clear, in none of my posts have I stated that the Glock 44 should be avoided. I have stated... and have illustrated why... the Glock magazine fails to represent 'Glock Perfection'. That said, I didn't say the magazine wasn't 'usable'... it is.

I visit the same indoor range at least 3 days a week. Since the introduction of the G44, there have been several 'in-house' instances of failure to feed (due to the magazine or, as some would insist, 'failure to load the magazine properly') and failure to fire (typically, cheap cartridges). While some of these failures occurred with different shooters using the (same) range rental pistol and magazine, many of these malfunctions occurred with new pistols.

For example, last week, two lanes from me, the proud owner of a brand new G44 experienced a misfeed, then two misfires in his first magazine. Understandably, he was quite upset until I explained what was happening, why, and how to best operate his new pistol. At the end of his session, he smiled and gave me 'two thumbs up' as he left.

Glock has lost several G44 sales at this one range in one month because of these issues... so how many have they lost globally? Many of these lost sales could have been prevented with a 'better' magazine. (Which is why I contacted Glock.)

Simply stated, Glock can eliminate the magazine-induced feed failures by 'tweaking' the magazine design... or shooters can eliminate them by cutting the slots themselves... or shooters can 'put up with' an occasional misfeed.

No more... no less.

In any case, the G44 is a real blast to shoot! (Pun intended.) :D

As a footnote, it seems that, in all this consternation, my closing sentiments of the very first post listed in post #3 above have been lost.

"Hopefully, Glock will address the magazine issue to make them more user friendly very quickly as well. But, until that time, shooters need only ensure that the magazines are loaded properly to enjoy their new Glock 44."

Best regards,

Bob
I gotta say, I've been lookin a long time for a nice .22 pistol for lotsa cheap shootin fun and the other brands that have been out for some time now I've avoided because of the cleaning nightmares(too complex for me), so when Glock came out with the 44 my anticipation peaked until the obvious mag issues blossomed. The slot YOU invented seems to be the trick for Glock to mold in and to retain it's reputation of 'perfection'. I will wait until this happens to grab me a G44! ;)
 
1 - 20 of 206 Posts
Top