Glock Carbine


PDA






marb4
April 23, 2012, 09:52 AM
The other day a couple of guys at my range were talking about a possible new offering from Glock that I had never heard about. They were claiming that Glock would soon be offering pistol caliber carbines. I did some searching online over the weekend and the only thing I can find are some carbine conversion kits that basically use the Glock pistol frame and the carbine conversion "upper". There's also the Kel-Tec Sub2000 that uses Glock mags. Maybe one of those was what they were referring to. Anyway, I was curious if anyone had heard of this. Fact, fiction, or misunderstanding? I like the idea of an actual Glock carbine and hope there's some truth to it. I own a Hi Point 9mm carbine (yes, I know its a hi point) but its been very reliable and a lot of fun to shoot.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock Carbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
loadedround
April 23, 2012, 10:05 AM
An all plastic Glock carbine....great!

eng30312
April 23, 2012, 11:08 AM
There have been rumors about a Glock carbine for decades. Over the years, people “in the know” have claimed to have seen a prototype. My guess (no, I have no inside info) is that they tested a prototype years ago, and simply decided that while it was a neat little product, for them, it wouldn’t be profitable. For example (and these are only examples), maybe the molding equipment they own isn’t large enough to mold frames for a carbine, or their rifling tooling isn’t setup for longer barrels, and the massive cost of retooling for one product just doesn’t make sense.

As cool and fun as pistol caliber carbines are, and yes I own one myself, how many do they really sell? Marlin, Beretta, KelTec, Ruger, Vector, Kriss and others have tried it, and most have given up because pistol caliber carbines just don’t sell in volume. If you make a sub machinegun or SBR, everyone wants one, but the market of people who can or will go to the trouble to actually own one, is very small. If you make an inexpensive carbine (same cost as a pistol), no one is happy with the performance. If you make a carbine on par with the performance of a military carbine then the price is too high. Or you could manufacture an inexpensive carbine with sub-par performance and price it like a military carbine (not mentioning any names ;)).

Try as they have, police departments just don’t seem interested in issuing companion carbines with the officer’s pistols. You can make all sorts of great arguments for it, but it just doesn’t seem to drive sales. Don’t know why, but it simply doesn’t.

Any one care to guess who I'm referring to with the "sub-par performance and price it like a military carbine"?

RustHunter87
April 23, 2012, 12:44 PM
the rumor I heard made it sound like a carbine that just excepted glock clips?

like this thing (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/daniel-zimmerman/preview-jr-carbines-9mm-glock-mag-carbine/)

Quiet
April 25, 2012, 01:26 AM
In 01-2011, the US Army submitted a RFP (W15QKN-11-R-F003) for an Individual Carbine as a possible replacement for the M-4 Carbine series and Glock is listed as an interested vendor for the program.

Kiln
April 25, 2012, 02:11 AM
Any one care to guess who I'm referring to with the "sub-par performance and price it like a military carbine"?
Beretta CX4?

That is my guess because their carbine looks and feels extremely cheaply made (looks as ugly as the Hi Point carbine and feels like one too) but costs $700.

R.W.Dale
April 25, 2012, 02:56 AM
I can't confirm this but scuzzlebutt has it that glock recently extended their range to 100m at the smyrna facility

Sonuds like something may be in the works

RON in PA
April 25, 2012, 04:20 AM
Any body want to buy a bridge? I'll throw in a few flying elephants.

This rumor has been going around the internet forever.

skt239
April 25, 2012, 06:45 AM
I think it's due to be released on the same day as the Glock 1911 and revolver.

http://img.tapatalk.com/425755ea-d5a3-bc02.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/425755ea-d5ae-7d0c.jpg

alaskanativeson
April 25, 2012, 07:10 AM
...the Glock 1911 ...
Boy, you better say that softly. Around here (Cowboy Country) a fella could get tied to a bumper and dragged through sagebrush for saying such things! ;-)

MachIVshooter
April 25, 2012, 11:06 AM
Any one care to guess who I'm referring to with the "sub-par performance and price it like a military carbine"?

The same people who build a $500 handgun and sell it for a grand because we suck and they hate us.

smalls
April 25, 2012, 12:22 PM
People at the range talking about things they know nothing about?

Impossible!

It has to be true! The guys at the gunshop said so!

JustinJ
April 25, 2012, 12:35 PM
The same people who build a $500 handgun and sell it for a grand because we suck and they hate us.

Exactly. Because all their R&D is apparently done by engineers who work for free and such a high level of QC certainly woudln't have additional costs.

kevin7769
April 25, 2012, 06:11 PM
Just Right Carbine makes a M-4 looking carbine that takes Glock mags. Not a AR platform, just a lookalike. Possible that could be what you heard about? http://www.justrightcarbines.com/Home_Page.html

MachIVshooter
April 25, 2012, 08:02 PM
Exactly. Because all their R&D is apparently done by engineers who work for free and such a high level of QC certainly woudln't have additional costs.

Do you really expect us believe that their R&D and QC justifies a $400+ increase per pistol over the other premier plastic guns?

When you show me what a USP, P30, P2000, etc. can do that a Glock, M&P, FNP or XD can't, we'll revisit the cost/benefit ratio. So far, no one has been able to. And apparently, most of the shooting public isn't easily hoodwinked, either, as evidenced by the low percentage of HK handguns as compared to the others mentioned.

And bear in mind that I own/have owned all of the above except the FNP (have used them, though) before spouting off about the virtues of an H und K.

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 25, 2012, 10:29 PM
Exactly. Because all their R&D is apparently done by engineers who work for free and such a high level of QC certainly woudln't have additional costs.

I guess Glocks, M&Ps, XDs, CZs, FNH FNP/FNX, etc, all appeared out of thin air and apparently don't have the same level of QC.

wlewisiii
April 25, 2012, 10:41 PM
I think it's due to be released on the same day as the Glock 1911 and revolver.

http://img.tapatalk.com/425755ea-d5a3-bc02.jpg

http://img.tapatalk.com/425755ea-d5ae-7d0c.jpg

Sad part is, I'd buy that revolver in a heartbeat. :evil:

Manny
April 25, 2012, 11:04 PM
I've been hoping for a Glock pistol carbine for years. Owned a Beretta CX4 in .40 S&W for awhile but it was just poorly done and went down the road. They were more concerned about style than functionality, and a promising concept was done a great disservice. If Glock does it right I bet they'd find a heck of a strong demand.

I'm gonna cross my fingers that this rumor comes true.....

Wildbillz
April 26, 2012, 09:24 AM
When I took a Glock armors course years back they talked about it coming out in a couple of years. But Ruger beat them to it with the PC models and they were not real big sellers. I think glock saw that and decided a Police Carbine while neet was not profitable.

But thats just me
WB

JustinJ
April 26, 2012, 10:26 AM
I guess Glocks, M&Ps, XDs, CZs, FNH FNP/FNX, etc, all appeared out of thin air and apparently don't have the same level of QC.

Glock has essentially offered one design since it has existed. Adding a rail here or bigger mag release there doesn't cost quite as much as designing a completely new weapon like HK does on a regular basis. Lets also not forget that Glock did not do sufficient RD before issuing the Gen IV's as the recalls never should have been needed.

The SW M&Ps also have had a number of fairly common issues ecspecially when the gun was first introduced.

HK isn't perfect but there guns have a solid reputation for high reliability and durability from the get go. More so than any other gun maker of comparable size.

Springfield didn't even design the XD to begin with. I had an XD, Glock, MP, HKP2000sk and XD all in .40 at one time. All still remain but the XD. As far as i know they haven't had any major issues but i've never researched it either. I just don't care for the design.

I've never owned a CZ or FNP either but i have fired both and did not find their quality to be comparable with HK.

Do you really expect us believe that their R&D and QC justifies a $400+ increase per pistol over the other premier plastic guns?

When you show me what a USP, P30, P2000, etc. can do that a Glock, M&P, FNP or XD can't, we'll revisit the cost/benefit ratio. So far, no one has been able to. And apparently, most of the shooting public isn't easily hoodwinked, either, as evidenced by the low percentage of HK handguns as compared to the others mentioned.

First, HKs aren't $400 over all the guns you listed. Second, if all these guns do the same thing why do you not own just one? I've heard the same arguement made about Hipoints and other cheap guns so why don't you carry one of those? Its not a matter of just doing something the other guns cant. Its a matter of doing it better.

MachIVshooter
April 26, 2012, 12:07 PM
First, HKs aren't $400 over all the guns you listed.

Median Price for standard, no-frills models in 9mm (Google shopping results):

M&P 9mm: $482
XD 9mm: $470
FNP9: $517
G17 Gen III: $492
HK USP9: $797
HK P2000: $868
HK P30: $897

M&P, XD, FNP, G17 average: $490
HK average: $854
Average difference: $364


MSRP:

M&P 9mm: $569
XD 9mm: $489
FNP9: $629
G17 Gen III: $599
HK USP9: $902
HK P2000: $941
HK P30: $1,054

M&P, XD, FNP, G17 average: $572
HK average: $966
Average difference: $394

Second, if all these guns do the same thing why do you not own just one?

Presently, I do only own one of the above: A G20

I've heard the same arguement made about Hipoints and other cheap guns so why don't you carry one of those?

Heavy, low capacity, poor ergonomics, don't like SA enclosed hammer guns for carry.

Its not a matter of just doing something the other guns cant. Its a matter of doing it better.

So what is it that they do better (aside from empty your wallet)? Please, enlighten us...

kevin7769
April 26, 2012, 12:43 PM
IMO as to why buy a HK over the rest, its a feel thing, a P30 or HK45 just feel better in my hand then the other Poly framed guns. To me, again IMO, when making a gun purchase you combine what you can afford with what feels best in your hand. Glock's and XD's don't feel the best in mine, M&P's, XDM's and HK's do feel better with the HK winning that contest until it came to price. For now I'll stick with my Glock 21, if and when I can afford it I'd love to move up to a HK. Working at a gun shop I have the chance to see what people want to buy and help them with their decision. Recently had a woman go thru all our rental Poly frame 9's trying to decide what she liked so could make her purchase, she hated the Glock(both the 3&4), loved the HK except the price, it finally came down to the SR9 and the FN..she bought the FN. I get lots of people who buy a Glock because they think they should regardless of how it feels because thats what they were told to get, wrong reason for sure. If Glock comes out with a Carbine priced decently to go with my 21, I might give it a look.. I like the JRC's and like the price of the KelTec with Glock mags, just haven't been able to justify the purchase yet.. If there is a legitimate reason other then price to not buy HK's or any other brand thats great, but if only justification is the price..to each their own, get what you want/afford, let the other guy get what he wants/afford..

MachIVshooter
April 26, 2012, 02:30 PM
If there is a legitimate reason other then price to not buy HK's

That's what I'm saying; Price is the reason they don't sell near as many, because the guns themselves are not measureably better than the competition.

but if only justification is the price..to each their own, get what you want/afford, let the other guy get what he wants/afford..

I don't try to talk people out of HK guns if that's what they really want. Heck, when I was 19, nobody could have talked me out of the USP stainless .45 I bought. It was only after owning many other pistols that I discovered there was no reason I had to spend $850 on the USP to get a high-quality, durable, reliable and accurate polymer handgun.

If someone feels the HK they bought was worth the price they paid, more power to 'em. I just grow very tired of fanboys trying to convince me and everyone else that the gun is better for reasons they either cannot articulate or are just plain false. I said in another thread recently, and I'll say it again: I have no problem paying top dollar for a handgun, and own more than one that exceed the pricepoint of the USP/P2000/P30. The difference is, these guns do perform in a way that similar guns at a lower price point do not. They are also far from the least expensive offering from their respective manufacturers; They're higher end models. The $850 USP is HK's cheap gun.

W.E.G.
April 26, 2012, 02:50 PM
A pistol caliber carbine for law enforcement or military sales makes no sense without full-auto features.

Is there really a demand for such a thing in police and military these days?

How many semi-auto models would civilians buy?
My bet is that civilian curiosity vastly exceeds civilian willingness to pay for such a thing.

Pistol-caliber carbines with suppressors make dandy entry weapons.
The market for that sort of thing is slim as a razor.

JustinJ
April 26, 2012, 03:44 PM
Median Price for standard, no-frills models in 9mm (Google shopping results):

Don't know about median or MSRP but LGS sells P2000s for under $800. My SK came with a .40 and .357 barrel for $800.

Quote:
I've heard the same arguement made about Hipoints and other cheap guns so why don't you carry one of those?

Heavy, low capacity, poor ergonomics, don't like SA enclosed hammer guns for carry.

Okay, Sigmas, Keltek P11s, Ruger P85s, etc. All are significantly less than a new Glock.

Superior QC means that with a given number of HK guns there will be fewer incidents of issues than a company with lower QC. Therefor the chance of your new gun having an issue is simply lower.

Large investments in RD means the company is innovative and offers new designs, modifications and accessories to their guns. It also means that new guns won't need to have their recoil springs replaced out of the box to run reliably. They have been thouroughly tested instead of letting the customers play guinea pig.

So what is it that they do better (aside from empty your wallet)? Please, enlighten us...

I don't know who your "us" is supposed to be but there are plenty others who recognize the quality of HK weapons. HK has earned a reputation for to hell and back reliability and durability. The only other pistol company with such a reputation is Glock and some Sigs. That's not to say others don't have the ability to perform under adverse conditions but the reputations have not been earned. Does this matter for a range gun, civilian CC gun or even LE gun? No, probably not. Its highly unlikely a civilian will carry his gun through mud and salt water just before needing it to fire. Some of us simply like having top of the line and the assurance that comes with it. I can understand why some believe the cost of an HK is not justified for their use. That is however different from "HK is no better than guns X, Y and Z."

The other thing i find interesting is that people who love to complain about HKs pricing never object to prices of the more expensive 1911s which will never be as reliable as quite a few modern designs.

MachIVshooter
April 26, 2012, 04:08 PM
Okay, Sigmas, Keltek P11s, Ruger P85s, etc. All are significantly less than a new Glock.

Well, the P-11 isn't in the same class anyway, so let's omit that one.

P85 is a good gun, but I don't care for them. So-so ergoniomics, uglier than the Glock.

Nothing wrong with the Sigma, except it doesn't come in 10mm or .45 Auto.

That said, the Sigma is S&W's ecomonmy line, and they omit some features that are found on the XD or M&P to keep the cost down. They're plenty reliable, acceptably accurate, and actually fit the hand pretty well. If I wanted a 9mm poly gun, I wouldn't overlook the Sigma as a potential. But I'd still more likely buy the M&P, as I feel the extra features it offers at the +$200 price point are worth it.

If I were presently shopping for a plastic fantastic, the guns I'd look to would be the M&P, XD, FNP, HK45 and G21. Right off the bat, I'd omit the XD because I don't care for the high bore axis or the LCI. Then I'd nix the G21 because I prefer the grip angle of the others. Next off the list would be the HK45, because it doesn't do anything the others don't except cost more. So I'd be down to the FNP45 and M&P 45, and then just deciding whether I wanted a hammer or not.

Hopefully you can see through that example why HK's don't proliferate more. They price themselves right out of the market. Nothing wrong with the guns, it's jus that most folks aren't willing to pay that much for a name.

HK has earned a reputation for to hell and back reliability and durability. The only other pistol company with such a reputation is Glock and some Sigs. That's not to say others don't have the ability to perform under adverse conditions but the reputations have not been earned. Does this matter for a range gun, civilian CC gun or even LE gun? No, probably not. Its highly unlikely a civilian will carry his gun through mud and salt water just before needing it to fire. Some of us simply like having top of the line and the assurance that comes with it.

That's the same circular argument I always hear, but it's just not quantifiable. In point of fact, I seem to remember a G21 torture test that an HK USP was included in and failed miserably:

http://theprepared.com/content/view/90//administrator/

By the way, I'm no Glock fanboy. I only own the G20 so I can have a 10mm in the woods that I don't care about scratching up. My 1006 is a better gun, but it's a very clean specimen of an out of production gun, so I'd rather not trash it.

The other thing i find interesting is that people who love to complain about HKs pricing never object to prices of the more expensive 1911s which will never be as reliable as quite a few modern designs.

Ah, yes, the 1911 comparison. This one is nothing more than a failure to understand what people are paying for with the 1911. For starters, the way they're built dictates higher material and labor costs. But more importantly, you have your choice from $400 up with 1911s. Sometimes you're paying extra for enhancement and sometimes, like with HK, you're paying for a name. I'd no sooner buy a Nighthawk over a Colt than I would an HK over an M&P. There's plenty of elitism in the 1911 world, no argument there. But comparing 1911 pricing to HK pricing is apples to softballs. Only HK makes HK, while 1911's are made by more than 50 different companies and the pricing runs all the way up and down the spectrum.

tech30528
April 26, 2012, 04:32 PM
The SUB2000 in Glock 9mm is an interesting option, and relatively cheap. What I like about it is it is only 4 pounds, and with the 16" barrel muzzle velocities put that 9mm round in the .357 mag neighborhood. But it seems the SUB2000 was really built more as a readily "customizable" (you know, like buying a Harley and bolting all the same crap on it everybody else does :D) platform that is more of a toy than a servicible weapon. But if you already have a Glock, this is interesting. Unfortunately it will not work with subcompacts (which means mine :banghead:)

http://www.mechtechsys.com/glock.php

Motownfire
April 26, 2012, 04:54 PM
I think it's due to be released on the same day as the Glock 1911 and revolver.

http://img.tapatalk.com/425755ea-d5a3-bc02.jpg



When is the Glock 1911 due to be released ??? I would love to purchase one.

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 26, 2012, 05:43 PM
Glock has essentially offered one design since it has existed. Adding a rail here or bigger mag release there doesn't cost quite as much as designing a completely new weapon like HK does on a regular basis.

Must be why the MK23 cost near 2 grand for the lifetime that it was made and it wasn't changed one bit! What about the USP? Why does that cost around $900 still despite being unchanged and been around since 1994? Why did it cost and still cost more then many other guns that are in the same level that came out at around the same time?

greenlion
April 26, 2012, 06:02 PM
Glock carbines, Mermaids, Unicorns... Extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence..

JustinJ
April 26, 2012, 06:27 PM
Next off the list would be the HK45, because it doesn't do anything the others don't except cost more. So I'd be down to the FNP45 and M&P 45, and then just deciding whether I wanted a hammer or not.

Again, for the way you will probably use it won't likely do much different but that doesn't mean its not superior. If this doesn't clear up for you what sets HK apart then there ain't much more to say: http://pistol-training.com/archives/category/range-reports/hk45

Ah, yes, the 1911 comparison. This one is nothing more than a failure to understand what people are paying for with the 1911. For starters, the way they're built dictates higher material and labor costs.

DING DING DING! Now if you can only realize that principle applies to other guns as well.

Only HK makes HK, while 1911's are made by more than 50 different companies and the pricing runs all the way up and down the spectrum.

Thats backwards logic. Because there are competing makers of the same model the prices are higher? No, it doesnt work that way. And unlike companies making a 1911, HK actually designs guns instead of repeating a design over 100 years old. Not to mention your original, but misguided, arguement was the HK does nothing gun X doesnt. Ironic you fail to apply that to 1911 pricing given the expensive 1911s tend to be just as finicky and not durable as the cheaper ones if not more so.



Quote:
HK has earned a reputation for to hell and back reliability and durability. The only other pistol company with such a reputation is Glock and some Sigs. That's not to say others don't have the ability to perform under adverse conditions but the reputations have not been earned. Does this matter for a range gun, civilian CC gun or even LE gun? No, probably not. Its highly unlikely a civilian will carry his gun through mud and salt water just before needing it to fire. Some of us simply like having top of the line and the assurance that comes with it.

That's the same circular argument I always hear, but it's just not quantifiable. In point of fact, I seem to remember a G21 torture test that an HK USP was included in and failed miserably:

How exactly do my statements qualify as a circular arguement?

Must be why the MK23 cost near 2 grand for the lifetime that it was made and it wasn't changed one bit! What about the USP? Why does that cost around $900 still despite being unchanged and been around since 1994? Why did it cost and still cost more then many other guns that are in the same level that came out at around the same time?

Price is ultimately a function of demand so either they sell better than you realize or cost too much to make for them to lower the price to sell more.

I hate to dissapoint but all gun makers are out to make as much profit as possible. Given the reputation the USP has earned and its long history of useage by special forces around the world it commands a high price. However, the gun must have been doing something right to be selected by so many in the first place. Its a proven design.

451 Detonics
April 26, 2012, 07:43 PM
Considering how tough the Keltecs are to find right now I would say there must be a market. I have a Mech Tech with a dedicated Glock lower and it serves very well as a house/car carbine. In an urban environment the PCCs do very well and especially for civilians they make a lot of sense.

Would I consider buying a Glock Carbine? I am sure I would but sadly the decision makers in Austria do not understand the US market or the US shooter. That is what I was told by 2 of Glocks reps at a GSSF match. The guys in Austria just don't understand how much the American recreational shooter loves to play at the range. The told me many have asked for a 38 Super or 9X23 Glock for competition but the bosses don't believe it would sell. Same for the carbine for civilians.

nipprdog
April 26, 2012, 07:44 PM
the rumor I heard made it sound like a carbine that just excepted glock clips?


Happy with mine;

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/nippr/web/DHH_0810Pw.jpg

Added Troy fixed sights, and Magpul VFG.

They now come with threaded barells. I recently added an A2 flash hider, mostly for looks.

:D

greenlion
April 26, 2012, 09:32 PM
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/attachments/new-shooters/40263d1303506722-magazine-vs-clip-pelosi_stretch.jpg

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 26, 2012, 10:04 PM
Going back to the original topic. I would imagine that any carbine made by Glock as this point would be a 5.56 chambered rifle using STANAG magazines.

Price is ultimately a function of demand so either they sell better than you realize or cost too much to make for them to lower the price to sell more.

It costs Glock $80 in materials to make a handgun, parts in the USP I'm assuming all drop in like a Glock so it's just assembly. Where do they get the extra $400? It doesn't cost that much for QC compared to a Glock. Up until the Gen 4 which just had teething problems but is fine now, Glocks haven't had issues.

I hate to dissapoint but all gun makers are out to make as much profit as possible.

They must be doing something wrong if I rarely see an HK in gunshops that are well stocked or even at the range. Can't be making too much profit if they rarely sell.

Given the reputation the USP has earned and its long history of useage by special forces around the world it commands a high price. However, the gun must have been doing something right to be selected by so many in the first place. Its a proven design.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_USP#Users
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock#Users

Not as much as the less expensive Glock.

dubya450
April 27, 2012, 02:08 AM
+1 machIVshooter

Anyone who hasnt shot a FN fnp-45 oughtta do so. I have 7 glocks, an m&p, and the fnp45, IMHO, is the best pistol of all tupperware I've owned and listed
Just thought I'd throw that out there since I seen someone refer to it. Try it out, I bet you'll like it!

Kiln
April 27, 2012, 06:02 AM
Yeah I've shot and examined H&K pistols before and I don't see enough of a quality difference over other polymer guns on the market to justify a $400 price hike. Other companies deliver an equal product for less so I don't personally see why anyone would buy one.

The reason they sell for so much? It is kind of like the Volkswagon, fancy German engineering just costs more...nobody knows why but it just does.

JustinJ
April 27, 2012, 03:09 PM
It costs Glock $80 in materials to make a handgun, parts in the USP I'm assuming all drop in like a Glock so it's just assembly. Where do they get the extra $400? It doesn't cost that much for QC compared to a Glock. Up until the Gen 4 which just had teething problems but is fine now, Glocks haven't had issues.

Do you have a reference for the $80 dollar price point? I would have thought i much less for both guns. The cost of making any product entails far more than metal and plastic. There is facilities fees, utilities, machine bits, parts and maintenance, operators, QC, sells, taxes, patent attorneys, QC, RD, etc, etc, etc.

HK, like any manufacturer that makes more than one gun, uses the revenue from each product to run their entire business. So as i've explained, HK does extensive RD and funds for such come from sells of all their products. Regardless of how long the USP has been on the market those costs remain. If a company, like Glock, makes essentially one thing with minimal RD they need only to recoup the costs of the next so called generation. Also, QC can vary widely. The more different models a company has the more it will cost. Doing a HP/MIP test on each AR bolt and barrel is obviously far more expensive than doing one sample per batch.

They must be doing something wrong if I rarely see an HK in gunshops that are well stocked or even at the range. Can't be making too much profit if they rarely sell.


So what is your contention? That HK could make more money by selling their products for less money but they just choose not to out of spite? Or that you know more about their business model than they do? There area lot of high end ARs i've never seen at the range yet their makers somehow manage to make money. HK has tremendous international and LE sales which is what their primary focus is on.

nipprdog
April 27, 2012, 07:39 PM
It costs Glock $80 in materials to make a handgun

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ClickClickD'oh
April 27, 2012, 08:25 PM
Going back to the original topic. I would imagine that any carbine made by Glock as this point would be a 5.56 chambered rifle using STANAG magazines.

Finally. Thank You!

The reason why pistol caliber carbines aren't generating law enforcement sales is because law enforcement has gone to 5.56/.223

Carl N. Brown
April 27, 2012, 08:25 PM
The pistol caliber semi-auto carbines I have seen selling have either been Hi-Points or semi-auto replicas of historically interesting SMGs (Thompsons and Sterlings mainly).

Pistol caliber semi-auto carbines a just a small niche market.

M1key
April 27, 2012, 08:37 PM
Y'all realize how many puppies are being killed while you discuss this topic? Strictly verboten on Glocktalk. Shame, shame...:neener:

repent

M

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 27, 2012, 11:31 PM
nipprdog, how about expanding on what I said in how it's wrong instead of excessively using emoticons? Materials don't cost a whole lot to buy when they are raw. Labor to turn those material into parts and assemble them into guns is what adds extra cost.

greyling22
April 28, 2012, 09:58 AM
I would have figured it cost glock more like $15 in actual materials to make a gun. Add to that that the R&D, factory and machinery costs should be long since paid for (I mean, they haven't really changed the gun in 25 years) and they don't really advertise, and I'm left with a $400+ markup on the gun. ok, so they probably have legal fees and operating costs etc, but the glock cost could easily be cut in half and still sell at a large profit. I guess they just sell it for what people will pay for it.
At that point, I guess ya'll should just be glad they haven't slashed prices and that there is room in the market for other pistols. I just can't see the XD or M&P coming to market freshly designed and high priced if they were competing with a $250 glock.

Boomie
April 28, 2012, 02:13 PM
Isn't this thread supposed to be about PCC carbines? Is it cool to go off on this tangent then?

Anyhoo, the largest cost for almost any company is people. Why the USP (which is just another short recoil Browning action style pistol) costs as much as the P7 it replaced (which required massive hand fitting and special machining) - I'll never know. Personally, since I'm not a super secret Navy SEAL I prefer the P7.

R&D isn't only for cutting edge designs. Every new Glock model would require R&D to make sure the tolerances were safe and to do testing and evaluation. Even for things as simple as a new caliber people are needed to set up the CNC machines and what-not.

So one reason HKs are so expensive is because German workers cost more than American ones. There are also importation costs. There is also the exchange rate (what finally killed the P7). The fact Glock hits the price point they do is pretty impressive.

Personally I get why people liked the P7. It is a fantastic pistol. I had a USP and was not sad to see it go. It was top heavy (even compared to my polymer SIG) with a mediocre trigger and an overly large grip. It was no more reliable or accurate than my Glock or Sig. It was clunky and a PITA to carry.

Sebastian the Ibis
April 28, 2012, 08:59 PM
HK's cost more because you have to pay for their product placement in video games so teenagers can think owning a HK makes you a special ninja seal operator.

As to the OP's comment there are a couple SBR stock kits out there which will let you put a stock on your g17. If I could find one with a good check weld I'd go for it.

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 29, 2012, 01:08 AM
As to the OP's comment there are a couple SBR stock kits out there which will let you put a stock on your g17. If I could find one with a good check weld I'd go for it.


Get a Long slide Glock like a G34 or G35. Maybe even a G17L.

So one reason HKs are so expensive is because German workers cost more than American ones.

The HK45 is made 200 yards from where I work in good ole America yet costs around a grand. Their American made AR rifles cost around 3 grand and are also made in New Hampshire.

JustinJ
April 30, 2012, 12:43 PM
R&D isn't only for cutting edge designs. Every new Glock model would require R&D to make sure the tolerances were safe and to do testing and evaluation. Even for things as simple as a new caliber people are needed to set up the CNC machines and what-not.

Yes, altering a model to accept different calibers involves RD and associated expesnes. However, the cost of altering an existing gun to take a different caliber or to shorten the slide and barrel length is minimal compared to designing an entirely new weapon or something like caseless ammo.

There is a glock conversion to make it fire the same round, 7.92, as the VBR PDW. The VBR also takes the same mags as the Glock 17. The VBR is however a PDW as opposed to a carbine.

MachIVshooter
April 30, 2012, 03:45 PM
minimal compared to designing an entirely new weapon or something like caseless ammo.

So you're OK with paying for the development of weapons & ammunition you can never own?

Don't you feel that pinch enough when you pay your taxes?

Why don't they generate the funds for development of military and LE weapons from military and LE sales, instead of fleecing the citizen buyer by convincing him their gun is worth more than any other in it's class?

JustinJ
April 30, 2012, 04:08 PM
Why don't they generate the funds for development of military and LE weapons from military and LE sales, instead of fleecing the citizen buyer by convincing him their gun is worth more than any other in it's class?

If they're fleecing the american consumer then they've been fleecing militiaries all over the world for a long time. The expenses they pay in RD result in high quality weapons which is why those of us who can are willing to will pay a higher cost for them. Not to mention the RD HK did to design the UMP benefited me as i now own a near identical copy in semi auto form.

Really though it just cracks me up to hear people who defend exorbitant fees for 1911s , a 101 year old design, complain about the cost of an HK firearm.

MachIVshooter
April 30, 2012, 04:23 PM
Really though it just cracks me up to hear people who defend exorbitant fees for 1911s , a 101 year old design, complain about the cost of an HK firearm.

Well, you're thinking of someone else. I cartainly wouldn't drop $2,500 on a Nighthawk or Les Baer, even though I understand that you're paying for dozens of hours of hand-fitting parts.

FIVETWOSEVEN
April 30, 2012, 10:58 PM
Really though it just cracks me up to hear people who defend exorbitant fees for 1911s , a 101 year old design, complain about the cost of an HK firearm.

A production firearm and a custom firearm are kinda different but I wouldn't want to pay for a 1911 over $2,000. Only firearm I know that I would want to pay over $2,000 for is an original SIG P210.

kozak6
May 1, 2012, 07:05 AM
I doubt there is any truth at all to the rumor.

There are two things.

First, Glock is primarily a supplier for military and law enforcement sidearms.

Second, the pistol caliber carbine has fallen out of favor with law enforcement, and is likely to be unpopular with military forces, select fire or not.

It doesn't appear to make sense for Glock to release such a firearm, so why would they?

All the complaints about HK's high prices are off topic, are tiresome, and are derailing the thread. Start another thread if you want to whine about it.

Considering how tough the Keltecs are to find right now I would say there must be a market.

Or Keltec has extreme production difficulties, which is actually the case.

fatcat4620
May 1, 2012, 07:46 AM
If they do it would not be sold in this country as I am sure it would be NFA short. Just think of a MP5K in 10mm.

JustinJ
May 1, 2012, 08:52 AM
Well, you're thinking of someone else. I cartainly wouldn't drop $2,500 on a Nighthawk or Les Baer, even though I understand that you're paying for dozens of hours of hand-fitting parts.

There are quite a few production 1911s selling for more than a new USP so why not go inject criticisms of those companies in threads? Not to mention $2K plus ARs.


All the complaints about HK's high prices are off topic, are tiresome, and are derailing the thread. Start another thread if you want to whine about it.


Quote:
Considering how tough the Keltecs are to find right now I would say there must be a market.

Or Keltec has extreme production difficulties, which is actually the case.

But Keltek production rates are germane?

Yeah, the thread is derailed but it has been established here and threads before that there is no evidence of a glock carbine on the way.

In regards to a glock carbine i'd certainly be interested. I think pistol calibers make a better choice for HD than 5.56 or other rifle calibers, unless a can is attached, due to much less noise and flash. .45 out of a 16" barrel is incredibly quiet so one could use it for HD without the fear of substantial hearing damage or lighting something on fire indoors. Yes, a 5.56 is more devestating round but well placed .45 to the upper chest is extremely effective. The effectiveness of HG rounds is much more subject to shot placement than rifle rounds and a pistol caliber carbine allows for greater accuracy and quicker follow up shots than a pistol.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock Carbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!