If You Were Glock CEO....

[WrongHanded]

But if the Ruger takes Glock mags, what would be the market differentiator for someone to buy the Glock instead of the Ruger? I guess calibers if Glock would make PCCs in non-9mm calibers? But from a corporate strategy, not that compelling of an idea. Lots of PCCs on the market, lots of ARs. Glock needs to really dig around and offer products that are ground breaking for them, not just nudge into already massively saturated market segments.

Have you found a Ruger PCC in 10mm? I haven't even found one in .40S&W. Caliber conversions would be nice too.

And as far as "groundbreaking" goes. Any rifle would be groundbreaking for Glock.

 

[12Bravo20]

View attachment 1140166 View attachment 1140167
You are a lucky man. I'm a .22 handgun collector. When the G44 came out I wanted one. Then I had the opportunity to shoot three of them bought by Friends. Too many malfunctions. Turn the magazines upside down and shake? Really? Gun manufacturers have been making reliable 9 and 10 shot magazines for 60 years, Glock can't? Even working it's outclassed by Taurus, Sig, and FN. High capacity magazines, adjustable sights, and threaded barrels. Most importantly, they work. Just my opinion of course, but Glock misread the .22 market and should have tested the reliability before the G44 was released. My AA kit on a Glock 21 actually is more reliable.

In my personal experience, my G44 is way more reliable than ALL of the AA conversion kits I have used. And the G44 magazines work fine, You do have to make sure they are loaded correctly. They are a semi double stack design so it is easier to get rim lock if they are NOT loaded correctly. I bought my G44 in February of 2020 so it is one of the first ones released and still has the old style extractor. And I have not had any issues with it in well over 20,000 rounds fired through it. I have found the G44 to be less ammo sensitive than all of the AA kits I have used.

And with any semi auto pistol, if you feed it cheap/junk ammo, you will experience problems. And again, I haven't seen the barrel leading problems with the G44 that the Taurus TX22 and Sig P322 have had. The only real advantage of the Taurus TX22, Sig P9322 and FN 502 have over the Glock is the ability to mount an optic on them.

Normally I would never recommend ProMag magazines. But even a blind squirrel finds a juicy walnut now and then. The ProMag G44 magazines work just as well as the factory mags do.

 

[Styx]

I would stop the sales of Glocks to the U.S. market.

 

[ericuda]

I

And with any semi auto pistol, if you feed it cheap/junk ammo, you will experience problems. And again, I haven't seen the barrel leading problems with the G44 that the Taurus TX22 and Sig P322 have had. The only real advantage of the Taurus TX22, Sig P9322 and FN 502 have over the Glock is the ability to mount an optic on them.

22lr is cheap inexpensive ammo. That is why ditch 44 cause it can't handle any and all ammo you throw at it. Your next argument I bet is use mini mags and it'll work. Leading has been taken care of on others. You forget others have more capacity and far better triggers, the 44 is not even close to that. And mention optic ready.

Sorry but for those reasons as CEO I drop the 44 and cut the bad press.

 

[DeepSouth]

I would change the grip angle, significantly.

And I’d never make a front sight plastic again.

 

[JTQ]

And I’d never make a front sight plastic again.

The plastic sights used to bug me, but then I realized all Glock's (well, nearly all of them) have the same sight dovetails (heck, Walther's PDP even uses Glock dovetails), their sights are super easy to replace, and just about everybody that makes pistol sights makes Glock sights.

I now don't care, since replacing them with exactly what you want is so easy and you end up with sights that are better than what comes on most factory guns.

 

[WrongHanded]

Sounds like a lot of people just don't like Glocks. Which is fair.

But when asked what you would do as CEO, changing fundamental parts of the design such as the grip angle, is unlikely bring in more business than it would cost. There are certain things that make a Glock a Glock. Those things simply should not be changed, because to do so means the brand loses its identity completely.

 

[ericuda]

Sounds like a lot of people just don't like Glocks. Which is fair.

On the contrary lots of people like glocks but also evaluate all makes fairly no matter with the brand. Some work some don't so like you said don't loose your identity and do what brought you here.

 

[DeepSouth]

The plastic sights used to bug me, but then I realized all Glock's (well, nearly all of them) have the same sight dovetails (heck, Walther's PDP even uses Glock dovetails), their sights are super easy to replace, and just about everybody that makes pistol sights makes Glock sights.

I now don't care, since replacing them with exactly what you want is so easy and you end up with sights that are better than what comes on most factory guns.

That’s a fair point. I suppose it’s a pet peeve of mine, plastic trigger guards on rifles are the same way. They can do better, it just makes me what other pointless cost cutting has been done. I suppose I just see it as a symbol of low quality, even if that’s not necessarily reality. It is how I perceive it.

 

[Capybara]

Have you found a Ruger PCC in 10mm? I haven't even found one in .40S&W. Caliber conversions would be nice too.

And as far as "groundbreaking" goes. Any rifle would be groundbreaking for Glock.

As far as I know, I think Ruger only is making it in 9mm. I know for a fact that the owners manual for the new Smith & Wesson FPC mentions a .40 S&W version of the FPC, it mentions the barrel thread pitch for both 9mm and .40 S&W, so we know the FPC will be available in .40, eventually.

IMHO, 10mm popularity is a fad that has came and gone for decades, I am not sure if Ruger and Smith see big demand. It strikes me as one of those calibers that if you go on the boards, everyone says they want and would buy but when the rubber hits the road and people who say that who don't reload price out the ammo, it's not a cheap plinking round like 9mm. 10mm is hard to find in stock and when you do, it's expensive. Kind of the opposite of why people buy guns like the FPC and PC9.

Plus straight blowback recoil with 10mm would suck for staying on target and follow ups for people who want these for HD.

 

[WrongHanded]

On the contrary lots of people like glocks but also evaluate all makes fairly no matter with the brand. Some work some don't so like you said don't loose your identity and do what brought you here.

And apparently, as I said, a lot of people don't. If the grip angle doesn't work for you, the trigger doesn't work for you, the aesthetics don't work for you, the lack of manual safety doesn't work for you, the striker design doesn't work for you, the plastic sights don't work for you, or whatever else ..... there's another brand out there that will suit you better.

Glock's market share has decreased because of the variety of options now available. It's not that one company makes a pistol that is simply "better" than a Glock. If that were the case, there wouldn't be so much competition in the market, just a new front runner, and everyone else failing terribly.

 

[WrongHanded]

As far as I know, I think Ruger only is making it in 9mm. I know for a fact that the owners manual for the new Smith & Wesson FPC mentions a .40 S&W version of the FPC, it mentions the barrel thread pitch for both 9mm and .40 S&W, so we know the FPC will be available in .40, eventually.

IMHO, 10mm popularity is a fad that has came and gone for decades, I am not sure if Ruger and Smith see big demand. It strikes me as one of those calibers that if you go on the boards, everyone says they want and would buy but when the rubber hits the road and people who say that who don't reload price out the ammo, it's not a cheap plinking round like 9mm. 10mm is hard to find in stock and when you do, it's expensive. Kind of the opposite of why people buy guns like the FPC and PC9.

Plus straight blowback recoil with 10mm would suck for staying on target and follow ups for people who want these for HD.

Maybe a blowback, maybe not. The point is a Glock PCC that was adaptable, versatile, modular, used pistol parts where possible, and certainly Glock magazines, would sell to people who already own Glock pistols.

And yes, a 10mm version (or even a .357 Sig version) would sell, if the design was sound. Because people who own a G20 would be quite happy to have a PCC to go with it. 10mm is already on the rise again. As it becomes more popular, ammo costs will go down.

The problem with current PCCs is that they typically shoot 9mm or .40S&W. The 9mm basically produces .357SIG ballistics in a rifle size package, and the .40S&W shapes up to a 10mm. So neither really offer enough oomph. But 10mm through a 16" barrel, produces ballistics pistols simply don't. That is a big selling point.

 

[12Bravo20]

I


22lr is cheap inexpensive ammo. That is why ditch 44 cause it can't handle any and all ammo you throw at it. Your next argument I bet is use mini mags and it'll work. Leading has been taken care of on others. You forget others have more capacity and far better triggers, the 44 is not even close to that. And mention optic ready.

Sorry but for those reasons as CEO I drop the 44 and cut the bad press.

Plenty of people run Federal Auto-Match, Remington Thunderbolt, Golden Bullet and bulk Winchester ammo in their G44's without issue.

And I can't argue about triggers since pretty much ALL OEM Glock triggers are far from the best available.

 

[ericuda]

All good fun. As CEO I would have a 44 but may plink with a Taurus.

The one thing that is true is brand royalty for sure and I would keep that. Heck I'd throw in a couple more mags with all to entice new folks and ask the folks at maglula if they'd sell me a million of their loaders to include too. Throw all in economical cardboard box instead of plastic. Can make them for nothing.

 

[Terry G]

Sounds like a lot of people just don't like Glocks. Which is fair.

But when asked what you would do as CEO, changing fundamental parts of the design such as the grip angle, is unlikely bring in more business than it would cost. There are certain things that make a Glock a Glock. Those things simply should not be changed, because to do so means the brand loses its identity completely.

I have a G21 on my nightstand, so it’s not a matter of not liking Glocks, just that the G44 is not in the same class as the high capacity .22’s named. Except for the magazine holding one more round and the gun being polymer, it’s your basic Ruger Standard from 1949.

 

[Mike OTDP]

I'd offer a "Performance Line". Factory upgraded triggers, barrels, and so forth.

 

[WrongHanded]

I have a G21 on my nightstand, so it’s not a matter of not liking Glocks, just that the G44 is not in the same class as the high capacity .22’s named. Except for the magazine holding one more round and the gun being polymer, it’s your basic Ruger Standard from 1949.

Now, if I had been the CEO at the time the G44 was conjured up, I would only have released it as a low recoil and low cost training version of the center-fire pistols. I would never have intended it as a .22 target pistol for shooting tiny little groups. It would have been for drilling defensive strings of fire.

That's the thing about Glock pistols, they're all business. Even the gun games some models are geared towards, are just competitive ways to train for combat/defensive shooting.

Or perhaps I should say, that is the only way Glock makes any real sense, to me. They're not pretty, they don't have target triggers or target sights, and they're not designed as safe queens or fancy range toys. Everything about the design screams utility to me. Maybe others see the brand differently.

 

[daniel craig]

It is obvious the influence the Glock handguns have had on the pistol market. They are timeless, plain, work every dang time designs.

Well with their success came a lot of competitors. S&W, Springfield, Sig, HK, and countless others all have polymer pistols that are as simple, as reliable, etc. In several cases, for even less money. And competition like this has to be eating into their market share.

So let's put you in the CEO seat. What would you do to get Glock back on top? I know there were rumors of a Glock AR pattern rifle back in the day, but maybe that was just wishful thinking.

So what should Glock do? A complete redesign? Expand their company into making long guns, revolvers, ray guns? I would say make a line of "retro" guns, but they really haven't changed in their lifetime besides size and grip shape. Focus on commercial sales, the market they once had with most police and federal agents carrying them?

Or should they just get used to being the Model T of polymer guns?

Thoughts?

Sell the company, cash out and retire

For real though, I would increase the...idk the term...height of the slide over the hand. My thumb webbing meat is so thick that the slide gets really really closeaand overall makes for an uncomfortable grip.

I'd also change the shape of the trigger safety so that it is less narrow, the current design is uncomfortable for me.

Lastly I'd change the back sight and remove the bottom part of the U

 

[12Bravo20]

Now, if I had been the CEO at the time the G44 was conjured up, I would only have released it as a low recoil and low cost training version of the center-fire pistols. I would never have intended it as a .22 target pistol for shooting tiny little groups. It would have been for drilling defensive strings of fire.

The G44 is definitely not a target pistol but is is a good trainer type pistol. Yes I do shoot clay birds out to 80 yards with mine but I have never expected it to shoot as accurate as my Ruger MkII, S&W 22A or Kel-Tec CP33. My G44 is mostly used for training purposes while I shoot at farther distances for fun and practice with hold overs.

 

[jmohme]

None of this really matters. Nobody is going to assume CEO duties at Glock while Gaston is still above ground.

I would also consider betting money that when he does kick the bucket and a new leader is appointed, there will be a significant chance that the new guy will sink the ship that Gaston built.

 

[tomrkba]

1) Evaluate current market conditions
Small, doublestack 9mm pistols are all the rage. Glock could widen the grip of the 43 and get it to 10 rounds. They'd probably have to drop the plastic lining on the magazine.

2) Look at current market trends
I would check out guns that are coming out. For example, the Laugo Alien is an interesting concept, but I think it is not original.

I am not sure PCC carbines are still popular. Maybe they still are. Glock should know what's up and coming/coming back around.

Nothing says Glock cannot release a second line of pistols. Maybe they can make an Alien 17.

3) Focus upon getting another few military contracts.
I'd be bidding on everything and creating a modular system. The key would be to be able to add features easily to meet the requirements, such as adding or subtracting a thumb safety, various safety features, etc. Maybe this will be the Glock 50 series of guns.

 

[Capybara]

Glock could widen the grip of the 43 and get it to 10 rounds. They'd probably have to drop the plastic lining on the magazine.

Isn't that what a 43x is? https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g43x-us

 

[Capybara]

Maybe a blowback, maybe not. The point is a Glock PCC that was adaptable, versatile, modular, used pistol parts where possible, and certainly Glock magazines, would sell to people who already own Glock pistols.

And yes, a 10mm version (or even a .357 Sig version) would sell, if the design was sound. Because people who own a G20 would be quite happy to have a PCC to go with it. 10mm is already on the rise again. As it becomes more popular, ammo costs will go down.

The problem with current PCCs is that they typically shoot 9mm or .40S&W. The 9mm basically produces .357SIG ballistics in a rifle size package, and the .40S&W shapes up to a 10mm. So neither really offer enough oomph. But 10mm through a 16" barrel, produces ballistics pistols simply don't. That is a big selling point.

I can only speak for myself but I think a lot of people might feel the same. If factory 10mm costs basically the same per round as .223, why not just shoot .223 out of an AR? At that point, I don't see much reason for a PCC, but that's just me. A PCC that shoots factory .22 per round 9mm or 9mm ammo I can reload for .10-.12 per round is appealing. Up that to 10mm and it loses all of it's appeal for me personally.

I think the whole, "My PCC must take the exact same mags as one of my handguns and shoot the same round" isn't as big of a feature as many people think it is. Most of us aren't cowboys on the Plains with our Peacemaker and Winchester 1873 lever gun needing to both be chambered in
the same caliber because we only make it to Virginia City to pick up ammo in between cattle drives. Sure, it's handy, but that factor is way down the list for me. On a typical range trip, I'm bringing 4-10 guns and typically 3-5 calibers anyway so what do I care if my PCC and handgun use the same mags and ammo? But I don't claim to have done market studies like the gun companies I'm sure have.

 

[.308 Norma]

The G44 is definitely not a target pistol but is is a good trainer type pistol.

Out to about 20 yards, mine's an excellent ground squirrel pistol too.
I was going to say there's a lot of ground squirrels that can attest to how good of a 20-yard ground squirrel pistol my G44 is, but they can't because they're dead.

 

[giggitygiggity]

10mm pistol caliber carbine. Plenty of 9mm PCCs, but the 10mm PCCs are far and few between and expensive (Kriss Vector, B&T APC, etc). 10mm is the new hotness. If Glock made a 10mm PCC under the $1k price mark, I think it would sell well, especially if it used its existing 10mm Glock mags.