Glock 17 mag won't chamber rounds

[BlueEagle]

If it isn't stamped 9mm on it, that's.....odd.

 

[canav844]

The one that works is stamped 9mm towards the top and the other doesn't have anything in the same spot. All the numbers are slighty lower. Yet the number on the baseplate is the same, 3206. I think it is a poorly made cheap knock off made out of spec.

Yeah it's sounding more and more like this is the case. Now you've got an excuse to go to one of the upcoming gun shows. If they look real close, I bet it's not too hard to mix up the original and the knock offs, just look at the LTCH copies people make and get to where they can't tell the original from the copy.

 

[Greatestsin]

I wish I could figure out how to post the pics from my iPhone. Is anyone willing to PM me there email and I could send you them to post?

 

[XtremeVel]

Also, I bought it from a member here instead of a shop.

Maybe dropping the member a quick PM might shed a little light on the one mag...

 

[Greatestsin]

The seller says he has no idea, that he never even cycled a round through it. He said it came with the gun so to call Glock and see if they will replace it. I will be taking that advise and see what they say about it.

 

[STEEL CORE]

Wished you lived in the Indy area, we could get your problem straightened out pronto, oh well, getting another G-17 mag should be no problem, and getting rid of the troublesome mag either.

 

[Rookie]

I wish I could figure out how to post the pics from my iPhone. Is anyone willing to PM me there email and I could send you them to post?

Assuming your phone has a gmail account, email them to photobucket. If that doesn't work, rookietjx2@ gmail

 

[Greatestsin]

The loaded one is the good one. Thanks to Rookie for helping me figure it out

 

[esrice]

Excellent pics!

And interesting!

I'm no Glock magazine identification wizard, but it either looks 1) like a copy, or 2) intended for a different caliber. 18-rounds?

We need shooter521 in here. . . .

 

[Greatestsin]

It's not 18 rounds, the 16 is after the 17.

 

[esrice]

It's not 18 rounds, the 16 is after the 17.

Ahh now I see.

 

[BlueEagle]

Definitely looks shorter; possible more "worn down?" I'm also not seeing the metal lining in there, either, like you do on the "good" mag.

 

[Greatestsin]

I also think it's weird how the numbers are on the sides of the view holes instead of above them, but didn't really notice it until I uploaded the pictures.

 

[Greatestsin]

Definitely looks shorter; possible more "worn down?" I'm also not seeing the metal lining in there, either, like you do on the "good" mag.

I dont think it's worn down, everything on the magazine seems to be set lower

 

[turnerdye1]

My guess is a cheap knock off. Ive never seen a factory Glock mag that doesnt have metal feed lips to begin with. Plus the shorter one looks worse then the ''good'' one. The plastic looks differant and the number engravings looks cheap if that makes sense. The missing metal lips and liner is the big give away if you ask me. Thats just my guess though

 

[shooter521]

My guess is a cheap knock off. Ive never seen a factory Glock mag that doesnt have metal feed lips to begin with. The missing metal lips and liner is the big give away

The mag in question appears to be an older, non-fully metal lined (NFML) Glock factory magazine. It does have the metal liner (only on 3 sides) and feed lips, although they are darker and less prominent than on a new mag. They can clearly be seen in this pic:

As to why the height difference and the corresponding feed problems, I'm at a loss. I've never seen a "knock-off" Glock mag that has the Glock logo on it. All generations of Glock factory mags should be compatible, assuming the gun is set up for right-handed operation (ambis and Gen4 lefties being the exception).

 

[Greatestsin]

Wow! Thanks shooter. I'm going to just send it to Glock and let them figure out what to do with it.

 

[esrice]

I'm going to just send it to Glock and let them figure out what to do with it.

Keep us updated!

 

[Greatestsin]

I will, because based on what shooter said the magazine doesn't quite make sense.

 

[the1kidd03]

I believe it's a well made "knock off"....or possibly one which didn't get QC inspected and slipped out of the Glock factory.....

tell tale signs: Pic 1; the bases are even but when look at the mag catch they are at obviously different distances from the base, BUT the feed end is also obviously a different shape entirely...notice the two sided slant vs one illongated slant

pic 2; the feed end is stamped on the good one 9mm and the bad one is not (a tell tale sign of a knock off, because while duplicating engraving is relatively easy for people it is still difficult enough to consume a lot of time)...also, the "well" where the top round is fed from is squared in shape on the good one and the other is obviously rounded...and there is not a longer space between the first set of two round markings and the next set..plus Glock mags are stamped above and not to the side

pic 3; the good mag...you can very distinctly see the MOLD lines in the plastic near the base of the mag..one vertical under the Glock label and a square one surrounding the label....the bad mag does not have these distinct lines...and a mass producer would have the same lines in all of it's same parts...different molds would cost too much and cause to many problems in mass production facilities.......

you should send it to Glock...however I think you will find that it is a good knock off and will just spend money on shipping for nothing....not to bad mouth an INGO member...but I would have a feeling that there is more to its history than you think from what I can easily make out in these pictures alone