Glock Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
GrassHopper
Joined
·
8,185 Posts
The older Glocks do not have rails for a reason, they were not designed to handle the added weight on the frame. I do not suggest you use any of these products to put a rail on a glock gen 1/2...

My suggestion is you want a glock with a rail, sell it and buy a newer glock.

My 2¢
 

·
GrassHopper
Joined
·
8,185 Posts
Please explain how a few ounces of weight could possibly cause a problem on a combat tested weapon system like the Gen 1 & 2 Glocks. I'm having a hard time swallowing this. I'm not an expert so if I understand the physics I can bite. So please elaborate.
Thanks
I am not physicist and cannot provide "proof" except that it is not designed with a rail in which to attach a light, what makes you think it will operate properly with a light on it? Heck, even Glocks with rails have been known to have problems with lights on them…

http://www.streamlight.com/documents/issues/GlockIssues.pdf

The point, that it is my opinion that you shouldn't do it, I wouldn't recommend it to my friends or customers. Wether or not its fact, tested and proven, is not the point.

If Glocks with rails have had issues, then I would expect the ones without rails to have issues, possibly worse issues.

JMHO
 

·
GrassHopper
Joined
·
8,185 Posts
Black Wolf, that makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm not an expert, however I fail to see how adding a few ounces to a combat vetted weapon system is going to make any difference whatsoever. Am I missing something here? If so you better tell those infantry guys to quit hangin all that stuff off there weapons!
Mr. tacticalshooter52,

I cannot explain it any more than I have already. If you do not understand then you do not understand and I apologize if I may be confusing.

As far as the infantry… they are using firearms that have been designed and battle proven with attachments on their weapons. I have helped outfit several with attachments that are designed and approved for military use for military members. Also keep in mind that the dynamics, and physics, of rifle shooting and pistol shooting are completely different.

The simple fact of attaching anything to a weapon is not the point, the point is that the Gen 1 and Gen 2 Glock pistols were not designed with a rail, and consequently not designed to handle the weight of a light on the frame. Even the Glocks with rails, Gen 3 and 4 have had issues operating with lights attached…

If simply squeezing grip too much or not enough can alter how a pistol functions (limpwristing) then it is definitely possible for a "few ounces" placed on a critical point on the frame of the gun to cause issues.

If you have issues with the test conducted by Streamlight, complain to them, not me.
http://www.streamlight.com/documents/issues/GlockIssues.pdf
You can contact them here:
http://www.streamlight.com/about/contact.aspx

I also Welcome you to the forum. You are fully able to participate in many of the other threads hear as well!
 

·
GrassHopper
Joined
·
8,185 Posts
buzznrose said:
He cannot explain it further because he's guessing here.

So I'll guess too. The reason the older generation Glocks don't come with light rails is because there wasn't a demand for them back in the day.

If you used a bench vice to hold the bottom of the trigger guard, would it fire? It better. So why should anything added to the frame make a difference if it doesn't touch the slide? It shouldn't.

All the frame should have to do is provide a stabile platform for the slide to operate upon. If weight distribution made a difference, wouldn't the change in weight from a full to an empty magazine be much greater than a plastic light? What about shooting. 33 rd mag?

I don't have actual experience with these, but I would infer, not guess, that it could, not an absolute, cause issues.

Weight distribution does matter, magazines are close to the fulcrum. The tac lights are not and thus exert more stress on the gun.

Personally, I would not stretch an item to a firearm that was not designed to utilize said item...

Just my personal opinion.
 

·
GrassHopper
Joined
·
8,185 Posts
tacticalshooter52 said:
Blackwolf,
I apologize if I aggitated you. That absolutely wasn't my intention. I simply wanted to understand why one would not do this. You have answered that question and I thank you.
Not agitated, just got a little frustrated as to why I have to reword the same thing again... Wonderful world of communication... Especially on the Internet.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top