Glock gen 4 slide finish

Georgezilla · Post by **Georgezilla** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:01 am

I recently purchased a gen 4 Glock 22, after inspecting the slide I have to say I am very disappointed with the finish. The finish appears to not have been applied evenly which makes it look blotchy and to appear to be scratched up if light is shined on it at the right angle. The finish also appears to be coming off around the slide cocking serrations and lettering, and I have not even fired it yet...

I know that the tennifer treatment under the finish is really what counts, but I am still very disappointed. Is this type of poor finish the norm for the Glock gen 4s, or is there perhaps a quality control issue with my pistol?

bgreenea3 · Post by **bgreenea3** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:16 am

The finish on mine is well applied and even. it looks lighter (more grey?) than older glocks I've seen.

bgreenea3 · Post by **bgreenea3** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 2:18 am

How does it shoot? The gen 4's seem tighter fit than previous models to me and shoot very well.

Post by **Bullseye** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 12:51 pm

My Gen 4 has a nice finish to it. For me appearance takes one more of a utility aspect than eye appeal so I don't often pay much attention to the look of a service weapon.

R,
Bullseye

Georgezilla · Post by **Georgezilla** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 4:46 pm

Bgreenea, I just shot it today. It shot pretty well. It will take awhile for me to get used to the Glock trigger pull though. I am used to a nice 1911 trigger pull, which the Glock is nothing right.

Bullseye, I agree with you, but if I spend a significant amount of money on a new pistol I expect to have to impart the wear on the finish myself.

From what I understand, the tenifer is a chemical treatment that Glock does to the bare metal, and then they apply their black coating under that, is this correct? If this is the case the black finish is more aesthetic and I wouldn't mind as much.

bgreenea3 · Post by **bgreenea3** » Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:49 pm

Georgezilla,
I like a bad 1911 trigger better than the glock, too. I like the gen 4 over the older model as it feel less spongy and the overall fit seems better. Maybe my gen 3 was just wore out....

HEADKNOCKER · Post by **HEADKNOCKER** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 3:26 am

The Generation 4 Glocks Trigger Assembly has a 5 degree less angle than the previous models & their triggers are a little heavier because of that..
You can buy a - Minus connector & get the pull down by one pound..
I have also heard of a .- connector that Glock is making for some LEO agencies but haven't seen one yet..

Georgezilla · Post by **Georgezilla** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 12:26 pm

Something also new on the Gen 4 trigger system is that little bump on the trigger bar. It does not really matter to me because I didn't get my Gen 4 for a target pistol, but I think that little bump affects the Gen 4s' zero.

The bump pushes to the right on the inside of the frame, thus pushing the whole back side of the slide to the right. When one pushes the rear of the slide to the left, it naturally returns to the right side due to the new trigger bar. I think this will translate in the Gen 4 pistols' zero to be to the left for most shooters.

Georgezilla wrote: From what I understand, the tenifer is a chemical treatment that Glock does to the bare metal, and then they apply their black coating under that, is this correct?

Sorry to quote myself, but I just want to make sure my understanding that the tenifer is not the black coating is correct. If anyone can confirm/deny this, I'd much appreciate it.

Post by **Bullseye** » Sat Jul 30, 2011 7:10 pm

Correct, Tenifier is a brand name for the nitriding metal hardening treatment process that Glock uses on their pistols to help protect them from corrosion. The actual term is liquid nitrocarburizing. Glocks are then finished with a phosphate parkerizing finish, which is why they appear black or grey. Different phosphate mixtures give variations on the final coloring of the pistol.

R,
Bullseye

Georgezilla · Post by **Georgezilla** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 10:56 am

Thanks for confirming. I have seen similar finish imperfections on other new Glocks, and since the outside park coat is more for aesthetics, I'm not gonna worry about it. I plan on participating in some local steel matches with it anyway, I am sure the finish is going going to take some abuse from that anyway.

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 1:08 pm

Swipe on a very light coating of oil with a cloth and your park finish may appear a little more even. An oil bath after parkerizing is an important part of the process to seal up the finish. I spray on a heavy coating of WD-40 then wipe it off as much as possible. Then I follow up with a light coating of Light Weapons oil.

R,
Bullseye

Georgezilla · Post by **Georgezilla** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:09 pm

Thanks for the tip, Bullseye. I noticed that after coating it with regular Hoppes oil, the finish looked perfect for a couple of days. I will apply some WD-40 as you suggest.

Is Light Weapons Oil the same as regular Hoppes oil?

Post by **Bullseye** » Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:48 pm

Hoppes Oil or Rem Oil are basically the same thing. Light weapons oil is the military equivalent. I still use general purpose light weapons oil on a lot of firearms - old habits are hard to break.

R,
Bullseye

jimjc · Post by **jimjc** » Sun Dec 25, 2011 9:16 pm

The Gen 4`s do not have the Tennifer finish, Glock has changed the finish to another which the name escapes me at the moment. The new finish is said to be a bit blotchy by some, I have Gen 4 17 and mine is even so I don`t have what some are experiencing. The new finish is said to be as good as the old, it`s just a different process that's more environmentally friendly.

Hakaman · Post by **Hakaman** » Wed Dec 28, 2011 11:40 am

A friend of mine has about 5 different glocks. His last purchase just about drove him crazy due to his scrutinizing personality. His slide was a little blotchy in a couple areas causing him to be dissatisfied. Through time, he has accepted it, but I know I can get under his skin by pointing it out to him. (not that I would, though

)
Haka