An interesting report. To date this is the first I have heard of a G22 having this problem but the G17 and G19 Gen4's are reportedly having the same issues at random. My original concern with these was that new spring assembly looking to solve a problem that didn't exist. I think Glock will get it sorted out but for a company with such a good reliability reputation this is bad. Not like the dual captivated spring assembly idea is revolutionary or new. Lot of competing brands work fine. The mystery is why doesn't Glock's version and why did they not think to test it out before release? Good thing they are still making the Gen3's concurrently. That would of been really bad.

I purchased a Glock 19 4th gen, and noticed something similar. I do not know if this is normal, but it concerned me. I put the recoil spring in the normal concave groove on the barrel assembly, but after rocking the slide back, the spring moved up to between the horizontal groove and the concave groove.

Is the spring supposed to always stay in the concave groove or should it moved slightly to straighten? I fired about 200 rounds out of it with no issues.

I know the spring issues with the 17 and 22, and I'm not sure if this is one and the same.

Thanks

The main function of the half moon groove is to hold the spring in place during assembly. The frame holds the back of the guide rod from moving back and forth during cycling. During disassembly you will notice the guide rod is rarely, if ever, seated fully in the half moon groove like it was when you assembled it. However, if the gen 4's are having guide rod/spring issues and you have any doubts about your gun, have it checked by a Glock armorer. Good luck.

What is the name of the gun shop and where is it located? Did the sales person place it back in the display for sale? I am in the market for a G22 and sure don't want to buy this one after the re-engineering phase it went through. Jim

Originally Posted by SMann

The main function of the half moon groove is to hold the spring in place during assembly. The frame holds the back of the guide rod from moving back and forth during cycling. During disassembly you will notice the guide rod is rarely, if ever, seated fully in the half moon groove like it was when you assembled it.
...

This ^.

The half-moon cutout groove is for temporarily holding the spring in place during re-assembly ONLY. The spring does NOT ride in this groove during cycling, and may or may not be found fully seated there during disassembly. This has been true of all Glock designs, moving from the original G17 to the Gen3s, and I assume the latest Gen4 continues it (I have very little experience with the Gen4 guns).

I can't really speak to the strange re-assembly problem (not being there), but if I was asked to guess, I'd say that the slide was re-mounted with the recoil spring NOT seated in the cutout (perhaps it was against the second groove/lug on the barrel), and it got wedged/bent when the slide was cycled.

I've had my Gen4 Glock22 since 10-11-2011. I have not had one iota of trouble with mine during disassembly or reassembly. I practice with WWB 165 grain FMJ since I load 165grain Federal HST for Self Defense. Very satisfied with my Gen4 up to this point.

I put up a review of the G17 Gen4 by Walt Rauch on my site last night. Here's his take on the new recoil spring system:

"I also wondered about the why and how of the recoil spring system. I strongly suspect this change resulted from Glock’s ongoing effort to build a G22 in .40 SW that won’t malfunction regardless of the ammunition used, with or without the addition of the now almost ubiquitous lights and lasers hung on the gun’s dust cover. As I see it, the problem is the frame flexes when the gun is fired, and this distortion is a large factor in how the gun operates. Changing ammunition and hanging a weight on the frame certainly can change this dynamic and can result in the worst possible malfunction—episodic and not repeatable on demand.

In short, Glock was forced into playing whack-a-mole. Changing the recoil spring system affects the interaction of slide and frame, so reverting to a version of the dual captive recoil spring used in the subcompact Glocks might just be the definitive cure.

The new system is heavier and for me does decrease felt recoil, even in 9mm. Also, contrary to Internet opinions, the heavier system did not interfere with shooting the low-power 9mm ammunition I had on hand, which included Federal American Eagle and Remington UMC 115-grain bullets, with velocities around 1,050 fps. (I didn’t have any frangible stuff.)

In my non-scientific opinion, I think Glock has really done its homework, although any final determination of success or failure can only come from multiple end users. One final thought: The new unit should double or triple the number of rounds you can fire before spring replacement is even recommended.

I did find one-and-a-half downsides to this change. The most obvious? You need more strength to manipulate the slide than before. (I wouldn’t bet against this being the next excuse for the aforementioned qualification failures.) Late-breaking news: A reliable source told me there’s a strong possibility the G17′s spring weight will be decreased based on reports of the slide failing to fully cycle with one or two brands of ammunition. No further details were available at press time.

The “half” problem? The gun is now slightly more difficult to reassemble, with more care needed to ensure the recoil spring unit is exactly centered against the barrel abutment when re-installing the slide."

Full article is here: Glock 17 Gen4 Review | GunGunsGuns.net

YouTube - hickok45's Channel

Enjoy,

T&R

Originally Posted by Jed Henson

I put up a review of the G17 Gen4 by Walt Rauch on my site last night. Here's his take on the new recoil spring system:

"I also wondered about the why and how of the recoil spring system. I strongly suspect this change resulted from Glock’s ongoing effort to build a G22 in .40 SW that won’t malfunction regardless of the ammunition used, with or without the addition of the now almost ubiquitous lights and lasers hung on the gun’s dust cover. As I see it, the problem is the frame flexes when the gun is fired, and this distortion is a large factor in how the gun operates. Changing ammunition and hanging a weight on the frame certainly can change this dynamic and can result in the worst possible malfunction—episodic and not repeatable on demand.

In short, Glock was forced into playing whack-a-mole. Changing the recoil spring system affects the interaction of slide and frame, so reverting to a version of the dual captive recoil spring used in the subcompact Glocks might just be the definitive cure.

The new system is heavier and for me does decrease felt recoil, even in 9mm. Also, contrary to Internet opinions, the heavier system did not interfere with shooting the low-power 9mm ammunition I had on hand, which included Federal American Eagle and Remington UMC 115-grain bullets, with velocities around 1,050 fps. (I didn’t have any frangible stuff.)

In my non-scientific opinion, I think Glock has really done its homework, although any final determination of success or failure can only come from multiple end users. One final thought: The new unit should double or triple the number of rounds you can fire before spring replacement is even recommended.

I did find one-and-a-half downsides to this change. The most obvious? You need more strength to manipulate the slide than before. (I wouldn’t bet against this being the next excuse for the aforementioned qualification failures.) Late-breaking news: A reliable source told me there’s a strong possibility the G17′s spring weight will be decreased based on reports of the slide failing to fully cycle with one or two brands of ammunition. No further details were available at press time.

The “half” problem? The gun is now slightly more difficult to reassemble, with more care needed to ensure the recoil spring unit is exactly centered against the barrel abutment when re-installing the slide."

Full article is here: Glock 17 Gen4 Review | GunGunsGuns.net

Excellent assessement.

Are the only benefits of the new double spring reduced felt recoil and a longer life expectancy? How does this exactly work and does it actually work? I don't have any experience with a gun like this.

Originally Posted by rccola712

Are the only benefits of the new double spring reduced felt recoil and a longer life expectancy? How does this exactly work and does it actually work? I don't have any experience with a gun like this.

All conjecture my friend. I hate when the manufacturers "test" their guns on the shooting public. I also don't care much for engineering that calls for meticulous reassembly of little slots and such or else you get a malfunction. I got enuff stuff to worry bout.
PS...maybe someone can answer your question(s), just don't call Glock right now.

I'm teetering on buying a Gen 4 19. I just can't make up my mind if I want one or not. I've never been a Glock fan, but I really like the feel of the Gen 4's, and think it might just be time to give Glocks another shot.

I just put up another Gen4 review. This one is on the G22 Gen4, by Nick Jacobellis. He says it functioned flawlessly, even after a torture test involving a mud puddle. And his son, a city cop and certified firearms instructor, says his dept is running G22 Gen4s and has seen zero problems.

Here's the related excerpt:

"I found Glock 22 Gen4 flawlessly reliable, and as accurate as any law enforcement service pistol needs to be as long as the operator holds up their end and uses the right amount of sight alignment and trigger control. I had no problem making head shots, center-mass chest shots or plinking at pieces of debris at an outdoor range in the desert at various close-quarter-battle distances

I also conducted a torture test by completely submerging the test pistol in a muddy, sand filled pond. Even though the Glock 22 Gen4 was soaking wet and filled with particles of muddy sand and desert grit, I was able to fire the contents of not one but two magazines into a nearby mound of dirt without experiencing any problems whatsoever.

My son the police officer is now a certified firearms instructor for his department, and he says their newly issued Glock 22 Gen4s have been incredibly reliable as far as he knows. Members of the department recently qualified, and when I asked my son if he observed or heard of any stoppages or malfunctions with any of the Glock 22 Gen4s he said, “No.”"

The full article is here: Glock 22 Gen4 Review | GunGunsGuns.net