Glock's other patents.

Okay, we know GLOCK got into the firearms biz with the G17 the number 17 being the 17th thing Glock patented.

So what were patents 1-16?

And we have all heard the GLOCK 7 line from DH2 so no need to repeat here eh?

I know Glock started with curtain rods and moved on to knives and shovels and plastic training grenades but what is the order they came out?

I would like to own a G7 and if it turns out to be curtain rods, so be it.

For a long time, Glock made kitchen utensils - spatulas, and stuff like that. I think their first military contract was for plastic machine gun links.

Okay, we know GLOCK got into the firearms biz with the G17 the number 17 being the 17th thing Glock patented.

IIRC, the Glock 17 was so named because it holds 17 rounds, not because they had 16 models of something before it.

No, the number 17 was chosen because it was Glock's 17th patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_17

No, the number 17 was chosen because it was Glock's 17th patent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_17

Ok, I know this is off topic but PLEASE someone tell me why "wikipedia" is so frequently quoted as an "authoritative" source?

Do I have it wrong? Isn't that the place where everybody enters and corrects anything they want? What makes it authoritative?

Originally posted by Sinsaba:

Ok, I know this is off topic but PLEASE someone tell me why "wikipedia" is so frequently quoted as an "authoritative" source?

Do I have it wrong? Isn't that the place where everybody enters and corrects anything they want? What makes it authoritative?

Granted, because of it's nature "wikipedia" cannot be considered an authoritative source. However... that doesn't mean they always get it wrong either. From what I've read from a number of different sources, this is one time they got it right ;)

reading Wikipedia's entry for the GLOCK 17, it sure looks like they are darned accurate on this subject. I guess there is the possibility that the one sentence saying the origins of the 17 nomenclature is incorrect, but the fact that everything else seems to be correct leads me to believe this as well, up until Glaston Glock tells me otherwise.

btw, a quick search on Gaston Glock in the US PAtent office turns up 12 patents. This is not to say he may have the patents registered in Austria differently and have more patents there.

It makes sense. Glock numbers all of their pistols in order.

Glock 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38.

Never heard of the Glock 25? (http://www.glock.com/g25.htm) It's a .380 that you don't see in the US very often. Same goes for the Glock 28 (http://www.glock.com/g28.htm).

Ok, I know this is off topic but PLEASE someone tell me why "wikipedia" is so frequently quoted as an "authoritative" source?

Do I have it wrong? Isn't that the place where everybody enters and corrects anything they want? What makes it authoritative?

You don't need to trust wikipedia, but generally each article has sources listed below, and some sources are known to be reliable. For example, it may link to the glock official website with the details.

Also because anybody can edit it, to sort out conflicts sources need to be provided.

Studies of wikipedia have shown that the error rate is about the same as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I have used Wikipedia and then gone on to their sources. They are very accurate when it comes to historical and technical subjects.

If you see their coverage of a subject which is a football of current politics or news, I get a bit skeptical. Also, political staffs love to fluff up their guy or gals resume on Wikipedia. Just as you would use any reference, take it with a grain of salt.

I do what Mongo does. Wikipedia is the easiest place to find info, I find it there, then find a 'credible' source to quote, and ridicule anyone who lists wikipedia as a source. (My professors would shred me if I actually sourced wikipedia in a paper.)

Do I have it wrong? Isn't that the place where everybody enters and corrects anything they want? What makes it authoritative?

They generally tend to know more about the world than I do. Not saying inaccuracies can't exist there but I've never seen one relating to guns in any of their numerous articles on the topic. Their credibility is really a non-issue.

Studies of wikipedia have shown that the error rate is about the same as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

True, but that isn't saying much.

It's 17 because that was item 17. 17 rnd cap. is a coincidence. Wasn't this all resolved in one of Glocks catazines?

Wikipedia is not an absolutely authoritative source, and I would never list it as a reference on a term paper. It is, however, a good point from which to launch your own research into the matter based on the number of sources frequently cited at the bottom of most articles--which is why I will often refer to it in informal settings such as this board.

I use it, but when I argue with Europeans in other forums about whether or not we should be allowed to have guns, and the use wikipedia as a source, I FLAME them every time. :neener:

Hey guys,

Enough about wikipedia, any ideas as to the order of Glock patents?

Why Wikipedia cannot be trusted:
http://img284.imageshack.us/img284/7871/pennyarcadecomic20051216hpd2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:neener:
Seriously, for casual research (like when I hear about something on TV) and surfing, Wikipedia is a great place to start. Once I start reading an article, I keep clicking on the various links throughout and before I know it, an hour has passed.

As for Gaston's previous 16 patents, I have no clue.
Maybe someone should email Glock?