Glock and Change (a different kind of article)


PDA






tarosean
August 17, 2012, 03:15 AM
Here is a blog/article of a different kind. Ive voiced my opinion on this same thing on this board before as I do agree with it.

http://militaryarms.blogspot.com/

I would love to see a single stack or a true redesign from them. There are only so many combinations of frame and slide that you can slap together and call it something else. Not everyone wants to lug around 30rds of ammo.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock and Change (a different kind of article)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wildehond
August 17, 2012, 03:55 AM
Aah nothing happening on the forum. Time to go wash the dishes....

I used to subscribe to the MAC youtube channel. But then I starting seeing trend. If it is not made in the USA it is not good enough. So I stopped taking anything he said seriously.

beatledog7
August 17, 2012, 08:00 AM
So, Glock is supposed to be called irrelevant because it doesn't create a firearm with "Glock" imprinted on it that's nothing like the Glocks we already have?

Absurd. One might as well write that a NY strip is irrelevant because it's the same old NY strip we've had for xx years. Come on, beef cattle--give us something new!

Sam1911
August 17, 2012, 09:01 AM
Glock hasn't introduced a totally new pistol or even a rifle in the last 30 years. They keep on rewarming the existing design hoping no one notices they've really done nothing notable since the 1980's.


Something we're seeing pretty clearly in the world of handgun training and competition is a strong and focusing trend toward a functional optimum or pinnacle of design. The best balance of ergonomics, capacity, accuracy, grip size, reliability, manual of arms, fit/finish/action, cost, weight, and so forth -- for the largest group of people.

What started out centuries ago as the dawn of the concept of a compact, easily carried firearm being able to be operated with one hand, has been developed and modified and improved through tens of thousands of iterations -- and hundreds of millions of test units -- until the idea has been distilled down to a set of fairly specific rules for making a handgun that works the "bestest" for the "mostest."

Considering the number of thousands of people getting into shooting sports every year, the tens of thousands of police recruits being instructed in handgun defensive tactics, and the hundreds of engineers and designers racing to get their company a new product that is even closer to the ultimate "PERFECT" sidearm, it is my belief that we're just about there, until and unless the next major revolution in small arms design offers something that truly changes the game.

The Glock is not THE pinnacle. But it is darned close. Maybe the true pinnacle is something a little bit like a cross between a Carcaral and an M&P. With a little bit of xD thrown in. Still a 1% change from the Glock design, in essence.

Complaining that they haven't come up with something NEW is absurd. They've made slight alterations to try to "update" the concept, of course, but few of those changes were necessary, and they tend to look like a meager attempt to cosmetically refresh the design to garner new interest. Why? Because the gun they build, and have built for decades now, WORKS. Not for every single person out there (some old gun guys with a fetish for wood and steel, or preconceived ideas about "grip angle," may turn up their noses until someone hammers the last nail into their final resting place) but for an ever-increasing population of new shooters with purely practical aims and no worn-in preferences, a Glock just flat out WORKS.

(As does an xD. As does an M&P. Because they're 99% the same thing.)

So, what was it Glock was SUPPOSED to introduce to the market? And why? How superficial and fickle are we? We demand something NEW? When what we have works better than we have the ability to capitalize on. If I'm a financier to Glock, yes I could make the argument that we need to put out new products to harvest as much cash as possible from the market always seeking for new ways to spend money -- but financiers don't care a whit about whether a product offers a functional improvement. They only care about stirring market "buzz" that sucks money into the accounts.

With all the endless barrage of "new" junk that shooters are pounded with every month in the gun rags, WE don't need to be upset that a company has an idea that really, really WORKS and they are willing to stick by it rather than paint it up, call it new, and charge us more for it.

JohnBT
August 17, 2012, 09:22 AM
"some old gun guys"

Yeah, they're obviously dumb and wrong because they're old and their experience and knowledge is worthless. Is that what you're getting at?

Sam1911
August 17, 2012, 10:10 AM
Yes John. That's exactly what I was saying. That's the sort of thing I'm LIKELY to say, isn't it? [Gentle Sarcasm]I do hope you were seriously offended and take my statements as a personal affront. While I'm at it, your dog stinks and your feet are ugly, too![/Gentle Sarcasm]


:D

Note the "1911" in my screen name? It's not there for the sake of irony. I love them as well. My point is that as we trend toward the "bestest for the mostest" Glock is pretty close to where I see that pinnacle of human-engineered design going.

To that end, in response to the writer's seemingly petulant gripe that Glock hasn't come out with something "new", I say they don't NEED to. A refinement here or there may be fine (after all, who would ever call them "PERFECTION?" That'd be a silly overstatement!) but a new design isn't really necessary at this point, until the next major paradigm shift comes (Caseless ammo? Energy weapons? Personal rail guns?) and truly change how we fight with handguns.

Shave the grip? Make incremental changes to the trigger? Modify the slide a tiny bit? All in the attempt to chisel the form into the absolute ultimate form -- (maybe my Carcaral/M&P hybrid?) -- ok, fine. But Glock builds something that really, really works for the vast majority of new shooters who are handed one and given training in defensive pistolcraft. Denigrating the company for not coming out with a shiny NEW gun just to get us to buy something novel is self-defeating!

BSA1
August 17, 2012, 10:15 AM
Sam1911,

You present some strong arguments in support of your client , the GLOCK. Just as I have come to expect from a lawyer of your experience. :)

Imho the GLOCK is made for lowest common denominator. By this I mean departments/agencies save mucho bucks by adopting a gun that trains the officer to be proficient with it in the shortest amount of time.

Another brillant tactic was selling GLOCK handguns to law enforcement agencies at low prices knowing full well that administrators are aways looking for ways to stretch their budget and are not "gun guys". GLOCK also recognize that the Police carrying his guns automatically gave it creditability with the general public as a safe, powerful handgun.

GLOCK also knows that any money he loses by selling to LEO agencies he will more than make up with sales to civilians.

The GLOCK is far from perfect.

It has lackluster accuracy.

The trigger is prone to malfunctions. A LEO friend recently had the trigger on his gun totally lock up and refuse to fire during qualification. They disassembled the gun, could not find anything, reassembled it and it worked fine. Failure to work without a detectable cause is disturbing and has resulted a lose of confidence in his gun.

I find the lack of external safety a design fault. The need for a grip safety to prevent children from firing the gun was demonstrated over a century ago by Daniel Wesson. As the story goes Wesson thought he had designed a child proof revolver so he gave one to his children to test. A short time later there was bang so back to the drawing board. The result was the addition of the grip safety, the so-called lemon squeezer.

Sadly two tragic incidents recently involving three year old children shooting a adult after having gaining access to a loaded GLOCK have been reported.

GASTON GLOCK was a pioneer in use of polymers in a handgun design but it far from being the pinnacle of handgun design.

Respectfully.

p.s. Sam1911 I missed your last post as I was busy shooting my mouth off typing this post. I concur that the addition of a grip safety would be a refinement of the basic design and imho a much needed safety feature. This omission was corrected in the Springfield XD model.

Fishbed77
August 17, 2012, 10:20 AM
The Glock is not THE pinnacle. But it is darned close. Maybe the true pinnacle is something a little bit like a cross between a Carcaral and an M&P. With a little bit of xD thrown in.

By your definition, then, the Walther PPQ is the pinnacle.

I guess we all have our answer now. :D

floorit76
August 17, 2012, 10:35 AM
Just why exactly do we need "new" everything? This is just a flip of the coin from the 1911's suck thread. Now it's glocks that suck because of it's "old" design. Some people think a glock is the best there is, and some think 1911's are, and some folk wouldn't be happy if they laid gold eggs every morning. What doesn't the glock do that a polymer pistol should? What doesn't a 1911 do that it should? They're both accurate and reliable. If you want slimmer pistols, they make them. If you want more power, you can get that too. But the idea that someday soon we will have a pistol that is the size and weight of a P3at, that shoots 10mm with no recoil into 1/4" groups at 500 yards, with a 50 round internal mag and night vision is a pipe dream. These guys write this stuff to get clicks, the more <deleted> they stir, the more clicks they can get.

Sam1911
August 17, 2012, 11:01 AM
Imho the GLOCK is made for lowest common denominator. By this I mean departments/agencies save mucho bucks by adopting a gun that trains the officer to be proficient with it in the shortest amount of time.Precisely! A balencing act: a gun the most people can reach the highest level of proficiency with in the least amount of time. It is also relatively inexpensive.

Another brillant tactic was selling GLOCK handguns to law enforcement agencies at low prices knowing full well that administrators are aways looking for ways to stretch their budget and are not "gun guys". GLOCK also recognize that the Police carrying his guns automatically gave it creditability with the general public as a safe, powerful handgun.And, further, that most police OFFICERS are not "gun guys" and just want something they can rely on to work, not need a whole lot of dedicated practice in the manual of arms for, and if it isn't too awful heavy, that's great too.

GLOCK also knows that any money he loses by selling to LEO agencies he will more than make up with sales to civilians.Of course, like every manufacturer on the planet, except Colt, has discovered!

The GLOCK is far from perfect.Not perfect. But not too far from the pinnacle of that balance I mentioned.

It has lackluster accuracy.Ok. Let's accept that one as completely untrue and move on.

The trigger is prone to malfunctions. A LEO friend recently had the trigger on his gun totally lock up and refuse to fire during qualification. They disassembled the gun, could not find anything, reassembled it and it worked fine. Failure to work without a detectable cause is disturbing and has resulted a lose of confidence in his gun.It is a gun, a mass-produced mechanical device. Similar accounts abound by the thousands for every single gun design ever fielded in large numbers -- from H&Ks, to Sigs, to S&W Model 19s, etc., etc., etc., etc. Stuff happens occasionally. Every gun ever fails occasionally. Glocks do NOT -- absolutely do NOT -- fail at a rate any higher than any competitor on the market, at all, period.

I find the lack of external safety a design fault.You do. Most do not. People die when the screw up with guns, period, and sometimes that's very sad. The NEED for various safeties is hotly debated and cannot be considered a DESIGN flaw. Leaving it out was deliberate, and desired by those that purchase them. As I see the trend, they are a passing phenomenon. We shall see.

GASTON GLOCK was a pioneer in use of polymers in a handgun design but it far from being the pinnacle of handgun design.And if all he got right was the use of polymers, H&K's VP70 kicked his butt.

Except that that WASN'T all he got right, and the VP70 is a forgotten footnote of history while the Glock is really the standard-bearer of the current wave of handgun design. There's more to it than plastic.

Ahhh, the Glock. Someday ... just maybe ... perhaps ... I'll even own one.

Kind of doubt it though as they aren't really my thing, you know?

Sam1911
August 17, 2012, 11:16 AM
By your definition, then, the Walther PPQ is the pinnacle.


It could indeed be! I don't know as I've never even seen one in person. (I kind of doubt it though. There's something "not quite THERE yet" about the design. To busy, too top heavy, and there's something odd about the proportions. But the proof is in the shooting, and I haven't shot one.)

The only way we'll ever know is for enough people to get out there and pound the rounds through them in training and competition. When the 'market' chooses them over the other options (a process that really does take decades, at least) then we'll know.

tarosean
August 17, 2012, 11:52 AM
while the Glock is really the standard-bearer of the current wave of handgun design. There's more to it than plastic.


Wasn't that the point of the article? They were at one time número uno. Now it seems they are playing catch up and losing market share in both LEO and civilian markets to the very companies it forced to scramble and redesign. No one is denying they work and that alone sells millions.. (although I did own a bonified lemon).

Surely the top brass is noticing the small chinks in the armor. Maybe they are already working on a redesign. Who knows?

powder
August 17, 2012, 12:06 PM
I would love to see a single stack or a true redesign from them. There are only so many combinations of frame and slide that you can slap together and call it something else.


I did not read the link.


Glock already has successfully produced a single-stack pistol: G36.

The new 2 stage RSA, backstrap interchange, is pretty nice stuff for changes.

Glock is in their 4th gen. of change, in roughly 25 years.

When somebody asks a pertinent and valid question, which requires major re-design work, I'm sure they'll be on it. (I'm not saying your point is invalid-no disrespect meant.)

Coltdriver
August 17, 2012, 12:09 PM
Well the Glock is a certain kind of perfection or as close to it as I have seen in pistols. The Gen 3 is my favorite as the grip of the previous versions just was not for me.

That said there is still room for Glock to apply their approach to compete with some other also popular configurations.

And a purpose built redesign to compete in some of the military trials could be interesting.

But if you are as successful as Glock is then risky or high risk redesigns may have more risk than return.

I would love to see a Glock single stack .45 1911 clone in plastic. Maybe not quite a clone (interchangeable parts are not a big deal) but with all of the appeal of the look of a 1911 but half the weight.

The biggest advantage I see Glocks having is reliability in some of the lightest caliber offerings out there.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 12:13 PM
The Walther PPQ might be nice and all, but I absolutely cannot stand the paddle mag release. I have a "P99" airsoft pistol (got it because it seemed somewhat close to my XD, and it's something I can do with reusable ammo inside my home), and I can't hit that release with my thumb. My belief is that all controls except the trigger should be thumb-operated.

If I had to piece together the different subtle designs in the polymer-frame, striker-fired world to come up with my perfect gun (much like a teenager combining different models/actresses into their perfect girl), and yes my focus is entirely on ergos and controls, because the innards can be as good or bad as price makes em:
-A glock-style trigger mechanism
-M&P style backstraps and slide serrations (with forward slide serrations)
-FNS style ambidextrous magazine release
-PPQ style ambidextrous slide stop
-Full-length rail
-Pre-milled slide for RDS (don't have to put a RDS on there, saves time and money if you do want one)
-75% cocked (compared with Glock half-cocked, S&W 99%, and XD full)

Hey, guess what, my "perfect" pistol is still 99% Glock!

mdauben
August 17, 2012, 01:39 PM
Imho the GLOCK is made for lowest common denominator. By this I mean departments/agencies save mucho bucks by adopting a gun that trains the officer to be proficient with it in the shortest amount of time.
I'm having a hard time figuring out how ease of use/training is a bad thing? :confused:

GLOCK also knows that any money he loses by selling to LEO agencies he will more than make up with sales to civilians.
Which is just good buisness marketing, and has nothing to do with the design of the gun, good or bad.
It has lackluster accuracy.
Mine are not bullseye target pistols, but I find them to be more than accurate enough for SD purposes.

The trigger is prone to malfunctions.
Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I've never heard this one before, which leads me think this is an isolated occurance (possible with any manufactured item) rather than a systemic flaw.

I find the lack of external safety a design fault.
I, and a lot of other people, find the lack of external safety a positive design feature. In particularly, I myself would never buy a SD weapon with a grip safety.

Sadly two tragic incidents recently involving three year old children shooting a adult after having gaining access to a loaded GLOCK have been reported.
Both of which are entirely due to human error on the part of the adult(s) involved, not a design flaw in the gun. Tragic incedents involving guns and minors are hardly limited to Glocks. :(

After almost 20 years of use (1st Gen Glock 17), I love my Glocks and they remain my first choice for SD. I would not trade them for any other guns I am familar with for that use. Despite all this, Glocks certainly are not for everyone. Thats why we have more than one manufacture producing more than one design of SD handgun.

coalman
August 17, 2012, 01:50 PM
"Glock is one of the most successful handgun companies in modern history."

I stopped reading right there. Felt that statement would pretty much covers the bias shown in the rest of the article and I could fill in the blanks. Come on, like Glock or hate 'em, but what other company has been more successful in the US from the 1980s on? Give props where props are do, haters or not.

BSA1
August 17, 2012, 07:02 PM
I'm having a hard time figuring out how ease of use/training is a bad thing?

Cops generally are poor shots and need all the training time they can get on the range. Since the Glock is simplier to shoot training time is cut at the expense of having officers spend more time on the range. Ask any police rangemaster if his officers get enough training on the range. Most cops will never use their gun anyway so why throw money on range time and spend it on more important issues like search and seizure laws and arrest procedures.

Quote:
GLOCK also knows that any money he loses by selling to LEO agencies he will more than make up with sales to civilians.

Which is just good buisness marketing, and has nothing to do with the design of the gun, good or bad.

I agree. It is all about saving bucks.

Quote:
It has lackluster accuracy.

Mine are not bullseye target pistols, but I find them to be more than accurate enough for SD purposes.

I want the most accurate gun possible but I am pretty demanding about not getting shot first. :D

Quote:
The trigger is prone to malfunctions.

Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I've never heard this one before, which leads me think this is an isolated occurance (possible with any manufactured item) rather than a systemic flaw.

You are out of loop. ;) Just spend time on a police firing range. Cops have a talent for screwing up good guns.

Quote:
I find the lack of external safety a design fault.

I, and a lot of other people, find the lack of external safety a positive design feature. In particularly, I myself would never buy a SD weapon with a grip safety.

There is a company advertising in The American Handgunner that installs a thumb safety on existing Glocks. I don't know how well it actually works but it would a mod I would consider if I owned a Glock.

Quote:
Sadly two tragic incidents recently involving three year old children shooting a adult after having gaining access to a loaded GLOCK have been reported.

Both of which are entirely due to human error on the part of the adult(s) involved, not a design flaw in the gun. Tragic incedents involving guns and minors are hardly limited to Glocks.

I am not aware of any reported incidents of three year old children firing any other make of handgun. The revolver lacks a grip safety but makes up for it to a certain extent by a heavy double action trigger pull.

After almost 20 years of use (1st Gen Glock 17), I love my Glocks and they remain my first choice for SD. I would not trade them for any other guns I am familar with for that use. Despite all this, Glocks certainly are not for everyone. Thats why we have more than one manufacture producing more than one design of SD handgun.

I would not try to change your mind. I have a 65 Ford Mustang in my garage that my son and I love but we both drive modern cars. :rolleyes:

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 07:07 PM
I am not aware of any reported incidents of three year old children firing any other make of handgun.

I'm not aware of specifics, but I'm sure it has happened. Keep flipping switches and see if it does stuff, they'll eventually fire that 1911, too. And "eventually" is probably seconds, not minutes.

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 07:28 PM
I'm of a different opinion. I feel some things were right to start with and should be changed back by Glock. The current RTF does not enhance grip and those little dots are easily damaged. I have shot Glocks in the pouring rain and had not trouble holding on to them either without RTF. Finger grooves need to be eliminated. How does Glock know exactly where my fingers need to go? I want the grenade style checkering on the front and nothing else. Reverisble mag releases I want gone. I'm a left handed shooter and have gotten by fine for decades with guns having the release on the left side of the frame. I honestly find it harder to release a mag when shooting right handed.

The changes I would want? Not many. Put indents on the left and right hand side of the magazines. They may be "drop free" but don't drop out before I'm ready with a new mag so I have learned to shake them free while I'm getting my spare out of it's holder. A few times I've just ripped them loose because of grit they weren't coming out fast enough and that is fine but indents on each side wouldn't cost them anything other than some new molds. Enlarge the holes in the rear of the magazine for round count. Start putting more C models out in the marketplace and educate the public about them. Glock actually has a superior comp with these but most people just don't have a clue especially how they take away flash effecting night vision of the shooter being an issue. One last thing. Switch to Trijicon for the night sites. Those Glock night sites are bright and last but I find the white rings on the Trijicon brand to be more distinct and they last every bit as long.

Skribs
August 17, 2012, 07:33 PM
Noname, I'm with you on the finger grooves, but take the reversible mag release and make it ambi. I don't see the issue with reversible - leave it RH if you like it on the left side. I want ambi, so I can hit it with my left thumb, hand it to my friend, and he can hit it with his right thumb (without breaking it down between those events).

Of course, while they're at it, they should make the slide stop ambi as well...and make a 9mm version of the slimline. Just a suggestion...

JohnBiltz
August 17, 2012, 08:14 PM
The Glock when it came out was way ahead of its time. I don't think using the term radical design and manufacturing techniques would be out of place having lived through their introduction into the gun world. The fact that its poly is only part of that story the method of producing that poly is genius. HK may have made poly first but the words HK and inexpensive do not belong in the same sentence.

Has Glock been sitting on laurels? Yeah probably. I don't love Glocks despite the fact that all the handguns I own are Glocks. They are ugly, no denying that. I'm really not concerned much about that, they are more accurate than I am, they run though. The last Glock I bought was an early model G26. I deliberately went old and used though. I trust an old Glock more than a new one. So my choice as my spare carry gun was a fifteen year old gun. So no, I don't agree with the article.

I think Glock got more right than anyone else did back in the 80s. I think everyone else has been playing catch up for the last 30 years. During that times a lot of guns have been made and run at them that failed. I think S&W is really close. I still think though Glock did some great things since then. The G26/27 for example was more than just chopping an inch at each end and is in IMHO the best concealed handgun ever made. Anything near it either has a manual safety or is bigger.

Sam1911
August 17, 2012, 08:57 PM
Cops generally are poor shots and need all the training time they can get on the range. Since the Glock is simplier to shoot training time is cut at the expense of having officers spend more time on the range.
Cops are generally no poorer shots than any other new shooter. I'd like to see what source you're drawing on to support that Glocks have lead to LESS training time. There's a difference a gun being a gun being easier to train shooters on and therefore we provide LESS training time, and guns being easier train shooters on and therefore whatever allotted training time there is providing a more effective shooter.

There may have been cuts in training time provided. I have no sources that verify this.

I certainly have none whatsoever which point to the adoption of the Glock as THE REASON any such change has been made.

A gun that is easier to train on is just ... well ... easier to train on!

Ask any police rangemaster if his officers get enough training on the range. Of course they don't. But you're confusing commonality with causality. This isn't the fault of the glock. Back when cops were carrying Police Positive Specials in .32, I'm pretty sure they were getting even less (and less effective) formal training.

Most cops will never use their gun anyway so why throw money on range time and spend it on more important issues like search and seizure laws and arrest procedures.This is 100% true. And has nothing to do with Glocks.


Which is just good buisness marketing, and has nothing to do with the design of the gun, good or bad.
I agree. It is all about saving bucks.That's too simplistic. It is a balance. The Glock is a fine and effective choice, at a good price.

Mine are not bullseye target pistols, but I find them to be more than accurate enough for SD purposes.
I want the most accurate gun possible but I am pretty demanding about not getting shot first. There is absolutely nothing that needs done in a self-defense encounter that a Glock cannot do as well as any other common sidearm -- and they're proving WEEKLY in competition and training that a good shooter can run one more accurately, faster, than many other common choices.

Fretting that they aren't accurized to be competitive on the bullseye pistol range -- like majority of 1911s, SIGs, H&Ks, etc, etc, are not EITHER -- is the antithesis of what you need in a practical defensive sidearm. That 1-1/2" group at 50 yards that Les Baer will promise you for $3,000 (or whatever)? Utterly irrelevant.

Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I've never heard this one before, which leads me think this is an isolated occurance (possible with any manufactured item) rather than a systemic flaw.
You are out of loop. Just spend time on a police firing range. Cops have a talent for screwing up good guns. Sure. But you're defeating your own argument. The same can be said of M9 Berettas, old school S&W autos, revolvers, and certainly 1911s. Heck, we have a current thread about a Border Patrol agent who broke an H&K ... IN HALF. It happens. Fairly uncommon examples of breakage at the hands of folks talented in such things are to be found, more or less equally, with every design that's ever been issued.

There is a company advertising in The American Handgunner that installs a thumb safety on existing Glocks. I don't know how well it actually works but it would a mod I would consider if I owned a Glock. Sure. Further proof that some folks will buy anything. The fact that 0.0001% of all Glocks ever made will be retrofit with these things doesn't prove a design fault any more than the fact that 0.0001% of Marlin lever guns will be retrofit with a bayonet lug (http://www.marlinowners.com/forum/444-marlin/34931-well-i-got-myself-444-bayonet-finished-page-3-a.html) means that Marlins have a design flaw.

Both of which are entirely due to human error on the part of the adult(s) involved, not a design flaw in the gun. Tragic incedents involving guns and minors are hardly limited to Glocks.
I am not aware of any reported incidents of three year old children firing any other make of handgun.Really? It certainly happens when adults are irresponsible. Heck, a kid in my pre-kindergarten class managed to kill his older brother with a double-barreled shotgun. How they got it loaded, I don't know. Maybe it was left that way. Whatever happened, it was very tragic and proved the point that nothing is kid proof if adults are irresponsible. That's STILL not a design flaw.

BSA1
August 17, 2012, 09:52 PM
Counselor for defense,

I will submit that the need for a grip safety to prevent unauthorized small children from accidently firing a handgun was proven by Daniel Wesson almost 100 years which he corrected when he designed and added it to his revolver.

While the issue of holding someone responsible for their actions is well established it is also equally well established that the individual must be capable of forming intent which is not possible in a three year child.

The history of many tragic shooting accidents in the last 100 years makes it foreseeable that unauthorized users without the ability to form criminal intent may gain access to a firearm and cause it to discharge. Without a examination of the facts in each case this does not automatically that the owner was neglectent.

The need of a grip safety and a thumb operated safety to lock the slide in place to prevent unauthorized users was recognized by the great John Browning with the 1911. Design features that have been kept on the gun for 100 years!

The Prosecution rests its case.

Sam1911
August 17, 2012, 10:09 PM
I will submit that the need for a grip safety to prevent unauthorized small children from accidently firing a handgun was proven by Daniel Wesson almost 100 years which he corrected when he designed and added it to his revolver.Do you have some proof that this is why the old "Lemon Squeezer" was fitted with a grip safety? I've seen some old ads that touted it, but they were goofy and unconvincing at best. (And, of course, that oddball was, I think, the last revolver ever to have such a thing.)

And it is hard to "PROVE" the need for something when as the development of firearms has progressed for well over 100 years since then with far more designs NOT being offered with that feature than with it. FAR more.

That's kind of like saying Henry Ford PROVED the need for running boards on cars. Sure, some have them. Most don't. Some folks like them, some don't. There are arguments for them. There are arguments against them.

While the issue of holding someone responsible for their actions is well established it is also equally well established that the individual must be capable of forming intent which is not possible in a three year child.
Ok. But the "it's for the children" argument really holds no water. For the best safety of the children, shouldn't we toss all our guns into the ocean? ;) For the safety of the children, shouldn't my gun be fitted with a safety lever that I might forget to use, or another that I might not be able to activate because of odd hand position or injury in my moment of dire need, and/or which is another feature that might malfunction at the worst possible moment?

You say yes. Others say no. It isn't in any possible way a DESIGN FLAW.

The need of a grip safety and a thumb operated safety to lock the slide in place to prevent unauthorized users was recognized by the great John Browning with the 1911. Design features that have been kept on the gun for 100 years!No it wasn't. John Browning did not in any way have "unauthorized users" on his mind when he designed the grip safety. And he wasn't going to install a thumb safety AT ALL until the ARMY -- also a group not in any way concerned with "unauthorized users" -- made him add one.

You can make the emotional appeal "for the children" if you want, but don't appeal to history and get it all wrong. :scrutiny:

The Man With No Name
August 17, 2012, 11:05 PM
Wow! I see alot of interesting things I want to address but I just can't get past the silly one. Children have been accidentally shooting people with guns for a long time. To think a child could not disengage a thumb safety or depress a grip safety is not reasonable thinking. Three year old or not. A healthy 3 year old has no problem overcoming even a heavy double action trigger pull. The real tragedy is the loaded firearms carelessly being left where a children can access them. This has nothing to do with the design of the Glock. If the Glock had been secured in the presence of a minor these shooting would have never occured. Is their one 1911 owner present that leaves his gun loaded with the safety engaged where his minor child can access it? Even one?

BSA1
August 18, 2012, 09:51 AM
Sam1911,

As a budding debater thank you for the conversation.:)

TimboKhan
August 18, 2012, 10:48 AM
Dudes, this s how a flock discussion should be!

Snag
August 18, 2012, 11:25 AM
I completely agree with the writer of that article about how Glock is one of the most successful handgun companies in modern history. No doubt, it's a household name to people that don't even own a gun. Whether or not Glock is milking their design I don't know. Porsche gets accused of the same thing since every car they make still looks like a VW Beetle. They do however, like Glock, keep selling.

Adding a external safety, a grip safety, or both would be bad idea for Glock for obvious reasons.

WinThePennant
August 18, 2012, 11:35 AM
Glocks are simply fabulous guns that were ahead of their time. It took the others 25 years to catch up, and they still aren't as good in a number of important ways.

Tom Fury
August 19, 2012, 11:52 AM
Real change would be if he could make it pretty...
Cheers, TF
Glock 20&21
Not the first ones either...

The Man With No Name
August 19, 2012, 01:15 PM
Sam1911,

You present some strong arguments in support of your client , the GLOCK. Just as I have come to expect from a lawyer of your experience. :)

Imho the GLOCK is made for lowest common denominator. By this I mean departments/agencies save mucho bucks by adopting a gun that trains the officer to be proficient with it in the shortest amount of time.

Another brillant tactic was selling GLOCK handguns to law enforcement agencies at low prices knowing full well that administrators are aways looking for ways to stretch their budget and are not "gun guys". GLOCK also recognize that the Police carrying his guns automatically gave it creditability with the general public as a safe, powerful handgun.

GLOCK also knows that any money he loses by selling to LEO agencies he will more than make up with sales to civilians.

The GLOCK is far from perfect.

It has lackluster accuracy.

The trigger is prone to malfunctions. A LEO friend recently had the trigger on his gun totally lock up and refuse to fire during qualification. They disassembled the gun, could not find anything, reassembled it and it worked fine. Failure to work without a detectable cause is disturbing and has resulted a lose of confidence in his gun.

I find the lack of external safety a design fault. The need for a grip safety to prevent children from firing the gun was demonstrated over a century ago by Daniel Wesson. As the story goes Wesson thought he had designed a child proof revolver so he gave one to his children to test. A short time later there was bang so back to the drawing board. The result was the addition of the grip safety, the so-called lemon squeezer.

Sadly two tragic incidents recently involving three year old children shooting a adult after having gaining access to a loaded GLOCK have been reported.

GASTON GLOCK was a pioneer in use of polymers in a handgun design but it far from being the pinnacle of handgun design.

Respectfully.

p.s. Sam1911 I missed your last post as I was busy shooting my mouth off typing this post. I concur that the addition of a grip safety would be a refinement of the basic design and imho a much needed safety feature. This omission was corrected in the Springfield XD model.
1. Training. Other than what they receive in BLET and small corrections made during qualifications yearly the majority of officers in this country receive no training ever with their handguns. Those that do shoot them more than once per year (100 round qualification/50 day course plus 50 night course) do so usually at their own expense. A Glock has no more or no less incurred training expense than anything else regardless. The rules of basic safety are the same no matter what you have in your holster. Basic retention only varies by holster and pretty much any level retention holster is available for any modern choice from any major holster maker targeting the le community.
2. Selling Glocks to agencies at low prices. Yes that is a brilliant marketing strategy. I guess Glock should be held to account for employing a stratery that Colt, Smith and Wesson, and every other major maker targeting the US LE market have always used and still use?
3. Lackluster accuracy. Really? I think this has proven NOT to be the case on ranges in civilian and leo hands for decades now. In my own department average scores went up with the transition from Smith and Wesson .357's to Beretta 92's, and went up again with the transition to Glock 17's. Does that mean the average Glock 17 is inherently more accurate than the other guns I mentioned? Of course not. It certainly doesn't mean it is inherently less accurate either.
4. A trigger prone to malfunctions? So you had one LEO friend that had his malfunction? I seriously doubt that happened. If it is so then why are officers all across this nation still carrying them? Well past 20million Glocks have been produced now. Where are all these reports of the mass malfunctions in triggers? I just didn't start carrying one. I've been playing with them in competition since the first 17 came out to now where a 17 rides in my holster for duty and a 23C is my off duty carry piece. I've seen modifications done that can make the gun unsafe but the same could be said of any gun.
5. Children shooting adults. I've already addressed this once but will once again ask you personally. Would you leave a 1911 pattern gun fully loaded, with a round in the chamber, with a fully functional grip safet, and with the manual safety engaged in the presence of a minor just sitting around while you did yard work, worked on your car, watched TV in another room, ect.? I have had a loaded Glock around my children for well over a decade and no one has gotten shot yet. When my children are around my loaded Glock is in my holster. When my children are around and I am not the only other loaded gun is in my wife's holster. I have a child old enough to be at home while I run to the store. I don't leave loaded guns sitting around while no adult is supervising him. What do these tragedies have to do with the specific design of any striker fired pistol other than the supposition that a grip safety "may have" prevented them? I can tell you with 100% certainty what would have prevented these tragedies. Responsible adults owning these guns vs. careless adults. Do your really believe a grip safety makes a loaded gun child proof?

Coop45
August 19, 2012, 01:48 PM
What really angers me about that ugly piece of plastic junk, is that after I was duped into shooting one I had to eat my words except for the ugly part. LOL!! Oh yeah, I ordered one that day and have been enjoying it ever since.

PabloJ
August 19, 2012, 02:07 PM
Here is a blog/article of a different kind. Ive voiced my opinion on this same thing on this board before as I do agree with it.

http://militaryarms.blogspot.com/

I would love to see a single stack or a true redesign from them. There are only so many combinations of frame and slide that you can slap together and call it something else. Not everyone wants to lug around 30rds of ammo.
Unlike plastic Crocs Clogs Glocks are still selling very well. Just because product has not undergone major change in long time does not mean it will become unsuccessful look at Swiss watch with little crown on the dial and mechanical movement inside. These watches are frighteningly expensive and in age of sophisticated cell phones are still selling well.

Fishslayer
August 19, 2012, 02:23 PM
While I'm at it, your dog stinks ...


Hey! Hey! HEY! Well, now you've simply gone TOO far, sir!;)

Besides, everybody knows the pinnacle of handgun engineering was achieved with the 3rd Gen S&Ws.
A proper handgun is made of metal & has a hammer.:evil:

I wonder if we'd have even heard of St. Gaston of Polymer if they hadn't received a free nationwide publicity blitz from an hysterical media about an "undetectable plastic pistol!":what: when they were introduced? No substitute for brand recognition and even non gun people knew what a Glock was.

Dunno where people get the idea that Glocks are not accurate. When I had a couple sips of the Austrian Kool Ade the thing that surprised me most was how accurate the thing was.

If my product was as successful commercially as Glock I would be very loathe to make any drastic changes.

tarosean
August 19, 2012, 02:31 PM
Well past 20million Glocks have been produced now.

I think your numbers are off.. While extremely popular, in 1999 they marked their 2 millionth gun with a special edition. It took 17yrs to reach that number. I seriously doubt they ramped up production to 1.5m per year since then.

Tinker
August 19, 2012, 03:58 PM
Sam1911,

You basically summed things up nicely with your first reply. I totally agree.

The author of that article was working from a "want".....

"I'm bored with this....I want something else from you guys to shoot."

Glock produces pistols to supply a "need". And they do that well......

Police department bean counter: "We need 400 new reliable pistols for the best price by January 1st."

I love watching most of the MAC guy's videos on YT and I would dearly love to see Glock make a slim, tiny 9mm single stack (like the SW Shield), but that is a just a "want", too.

I also "want" Gaston Glock to adopt and include me in his will. :D That'll happen about the time they come out with the slim 9mm. :fire:

The Man With No Name
August 19, 2012, 04:04 PM
I think your numbers are off.. While extremely popular, in 1999 they marked their 2 millionth gun with a special edition. It took 17yrs to reach that number. I seriously doubt they ramped up production to 1.5m per year since then.
My mistake. Don't know where that number came out of my mind from. The 2009 Glock Annual cover states that 4 million Glocks are "on duty". As of 8/17/2012 Glock advises they are still 600,000 behind on pistol orders. Wait times are up to 150 days. I'm guessing they are safely past 5 million but will ask the next time I call them.

mdauben
August 28, 2012, 04:49 PM
Cops generally are poor shots and need all the training time they can get on the range. Since the Glock is simplier to shoot training time is cut at the expense of having officers spend more time on the range.
If true (and I might tend to agree), this sounds like a flaw in police policy and practice, rather than a design flaw in the Glock.

I want the most accurate gun possible but I am pretty demanding about not getting shot first.
Since extreme "bullseye" target accuracty is often accompanied by problems with reliability, I'll happily accept the "combat" accuracy and near flawless operation of my Glocks.

I am not aware of any reported incidents of three year old children firing any other make of handgun. The revolver lacks a grip safety but makes up for it to a certain extent by a heavy double action trigger pull.

So, no child has ever fired a loaded gun before these two incidents? A few minutes with google fround this story (http://articles.herald-mail.com/2012-08-10/news/33143225_1_hagerstown-police-department-child-shot-detective-shane-blankenship), about a 3 year old who shot himself with a .22 Beretta earlier this month. AFAIK, all Beretta .22 pistols have thumb safeties yet he still managed to fire the weapon.

Admittedly, your examples may be two of the more high profile recent occurances but accidental discharges by children getting their hands on loaded guns have probably occured as long as guns have existed, certainly they were happening well before the Glock 17 was a gleam in Anton Glock's eye. In every single case fault can be traced back to human error on the part of the responsible adults involved.

ugaarguy
August 28, 2012, 06:25 PM
a Glock just flat out WORKS.

(As does an xD. As does an M&P. Because they're 99% the same thing.)
Sam, by your reasoning a Glock is 99% the same as a 1911.

Sam1911
August 28, 2012, 07:59 PM
Sam, by your reasoning a Glock is 99% the same as a 1911. ;)

Could be.

But it isn't polymer-framed, striker fired, thumb-safety-less. So let's call it 88% the same.

GlackAttack
August 28, 2012, 08:07 PM
Glocks are space-age lead slinging devices. I too would like to see more single stack designs. The G36 has great ergonomics..

Old Fuff
August 28, 2012, 09:30 PM
For someone that knew next to nothing about the handgun business when he started out, Gaston Glock has done pretty well.

Today he is a major manufacturer of service pistols, and like any good businessman he looks at it like a business.

Development of new products costs money – and a lot of it. In his perfect world the idea is to make a large number of models (within reason) using existing tooling. By doing this he is able to reap the maximum amount of profit with the least additional investment.

But this only works so long as the demand for product equals production resources. If his machines aren’t running he won’t be making money.

From the Old Fuff’s outside-looking-in point of view it would seem that the Glock Works aren’t seeing much, if any downtime. If competition cuts into his market share to a serious degree I suspect he will do something about it.

Potential buyers look at the company and wonder why they don’t come out with whatever new version, or changes to older ones they would like to see. The answer is because of the way things are now, he doesn’t need to.

Concerning the little S&W Safety Hammerless revolver with a grip safety. The safety was part of the original design from the beginning, and was an added precaution to prevent an accidental discharge. However it wasn’t long before someone noticed that it made shooting the gun more difficult – if not impossible – for a small child. Without hesitation they added this to their advertising.

If you enjoyed reading about "Glock and Change (a different kind of article)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!