Just came to say, I also had slide bind on full compression with the MD frame using a OEM Glock 43 complete upper assembly. I have sent it in to be inspected. From my testing, the issue was, the frame rails was positioned too low in relation to the trigger pack and locking block. This caused excessive drag on the safety plunger (accounting for about half of the resistance on full compression) and not enough room for the barrel during full tilt. There was absolutely no play in the barrel on full compression. Vs my OEM Glock lower, where there is an obvious amount of play on slide lock. It is hard to get a firm measurement but something around 0.02" too low the best I can figure. This was a recent purchase, to add to the post from the last week also having issues.
I found this odd, because many of the video review I have watched complained about slide rattle vs my example that was extremely tight.
My Safariland als (no wml) holster fit and functioned fined with the frame.
They should receive the frame and upper assembly tomorrow for inspection.
I’m having this same issue. 43 slide on micro frame. My 48 slide works just fine on the micro frame. The 43 slide hangs up. I was told to just shoot it to break it in, but I’m going to hold off on that for now.
Can anyone tell me is there an extended slide release lever available to fit the micro? I have trouble releasing the slide from locked position with my thumb.
Yes there is! The Micro is cut out on the inside to take either the Gen3 style safety that it comes with, or it will also fit a standard 43x/48 slide release. So any slide release for the 43x/48 (and I think there’s half a dozen different extended ones for those) will also fit a Micro.
I received mine back from PSA. They included a micro dagger barrel on return and it is now buttery smooth. I haven’t pulled out the calibers to nerd out on the differences between the two, but the barrel hood is obviously, slightly, different. Danny’s words was “tolerance stacking issue” from my repair email. I would stress that any Glock barrel works in any frame, so I would have to translate that to “our frames have far too wide of a tolerance window”.
They did make the whole process painless and I received outstanding customer service every step of the way. I did buy the frame with the intent to run all OEM Glock parts, and I know I can with some very minor barrel fitment. I think I’ll just stick with the PSA barrel tho. So, somewhat disappointed, but still a very happy customer.
I just want to see PSA do better. You can be a great company, with great people, but you NEED to be able to do GREAT manufacturing to back that up. And it always boils down to tolerances.
Tolerance stacking is real. Although there are many glock clones, none are true glocks and have to be a hair different due to Glocks trademarks, patents,.etc.
There’s a reason most parts you find including “drop-in” ones usually say gunsmith install recommended. Cause hint hint, they can still require fitting. Every gun and part is an individual. Even AR’s have tolerance stacking problems. ESPECIALLY AR’s. Most may not encounter it but you lose the lottery on your part selection and you get issues.
If they went through the process of getting acceptable tolerances super low, and checking every pieces fitment together, that would shoot the price way up.
It’s why I stress people always test their guns before carrying them. Even OEM Glock is not perfect, I’ve seen some DOA.
Best I can do until I can get my hands on one of the FDE frames. I like FDE for my CCW because of it does peak out for whatever reason, it’s at least skin color and blends in slightly.
You can’t call it tolerance stacking when it is only one part that is the issue. Regardless of what locking block, OEM Glock upper assembly I tried, none of them worked. It’s just poor tolerances of the micro frame.
My example has low frame rails in relation to the trigger housing and the locking block. I don’t personally care, but it is information that people should be aware of.
PSA has great designs, great employees, and is very affordable. The micro is a new product, and I’m sure they are still refining their tolerance windows as they receive new information. Hopefully they received good data from my example and do better going forward.
Not working with Glock parts is very different than combining several aftermarket parts that don’t play well together. (A Brownells slide, PSA frame, apex trigger, zafari barrel, ect I wouldn’t expect to work).
I’ve never seen a Glock part, not work in a Glock across models. Blue label pricing is in the 400 range, not expensive.
But the important thing is the PSA frame worked with the PSA barrel. So their tolerances work for them. But it isn’t necessary Glock compatible
Daggers are not made or advertised to be 100% Glock compatible. That’s an assumption you’re making because of something you wished to do and are turned off that it’s not a possibility, but that doesn’t make it a tolerance/quality issue on PSA’s part, it’s an expectation issue on yours.
All PSA needs to guarantee is that their pistol works in factory form and with their own parts that they advertise and market for said pistol. There’s no actual (or even implied) guarantee of Glock part compatibility. All they say is that their slides will work on Glock frames, not the other way around.
Even AR-15s, which are built to a standard, are not advertised and marketed as fully compatible and guaranteed with aftermarket or other brand parts. It’s suggested it all will work together, but it’s not guaranteed and if it doesn’t, you can’t just boil it down to machine tolerances of one company’s work.
How do you know that it’s just that one part? Tolerance stacking can result in one part alone seeming to cause the issue. Replace that one bit and it all works fine again. If you kept that barrel they could have found a slide that made it work properly too. Barrel is just the easier part to change out and test.
Enough parts at the low or high end and you have issues. Fix just one and the problem can go away.
If you have an AR with an out of spec bolt head and sealing ring on that, bad bolt carrier dimensions, cam pin stretching, and a bad gas key, it could have issues. You can replace the whole thing but depending on the stacking, you could replace say, just the gas key and that could get it working well enough you’d have no idea the other stuff was bad.
In fact, many AR’s do have parts that are not the ideal spec, and they still work because there’s just enough right. It also helps that a lot of companies just overgas the guns so bad sealing surface dimensions don’t matter as much.
And blue label pricing is great and all except for people that aren’t LEO or military. Not sure where the pricing came in though. I mentioned I’ve seen factory Glocks with issues. Out of spec connector can actually make your gun entirely unusable.
Across 3 other examples of Glock parts including locking block, barrel, frames, and slide interjecting the PSA locking block into those combinations all work fine. No Glock barrel would work with the PSA frame regardless of what locking block was used.
The frame was the only constant of issue, and was consistent.
The PSA barrel works in all the Glocks. The PSA barrel fits the slides slightly less tight, but is still fine. The PSA barrel hood is different. For all I know the PSA slides have a different spec for height, idk because I don’t have a PSA slide.
If the frame rails was slightly taller, the issue wouldn’t occur. The frame rails are lower on the PSA frame in relation to the locking block compared to 3 Glock frames. I can not measure a difference between the three Glock frames.
Because of the the difficulty of points to measure the best I can do is filler gauges, so it isn’t exact measurements. But the difference is enough to observe with that rudimentary method
To your point, I am saying the PSA tolerance for frame rail height is not the same as Glocks. And in relation to Glocks is just ever so slightly too low in relation to the locking block. I don’t have a PSA slide to compare the slide rail dimensions.
If the PSA slide uses the same rail specs as Glock, than I can say the PSA position is objectively worse. It is objectively worse if you are using a Glock upper assembly when compared to a Glock frame.
