Anything would be a change from their current line up. Glock has consistently fallen behind in market demand for niche firearms. Their pocket 380 and 9mms came years after the competition. And the only reason why they even sell is because of Glocks reputation.
If I remember correctly, the reason they did not have anything smaller than a Glock 26 for many years was due to import laws. I am not sure what happened to make that a non issue now but I think it has to do with them making the guns 100% in the US now. I believe this occurred around 2012 or 2013, and the Glock 42 came out in 2014. In other words, they made their little guns as soon as they could.
As for the reason they sell. Well um, if they sell because of their reputation, do you suppose that means they have a good reputation or a bad one? Isn't that a good thing that their reputation sells their guns? Maybe you should look up the video on the 4 ex-special forces guys doing a pocket dump of what they carry. Three pull out Glock 43's and the 4th has a Mossberg shotgun. Must be pretty crappy little guns.
Um, any of them. The only company I would say that is innovating less than Glock is SCYY. They have their 3 CPX models, and there isn't much difference between them. Ruger is probably the most innovative right now. Coming out with budget models of already well selling and economy priced handguns.
This is essentially a cop-out. You say any of them, yet you pretty much list zero innovations from those companies. You list Ruger as being the most innovative right now. Would you be talking about the Security 9, which oddly enough copies the dimensions of the Glock 19, because it is considered one of the very best conceal carry guns on the planet? Another in a long line of guns Ruger has produced that many believe is just an updated copy of another manufacturers guns. Very innovative indeed. No matter what Ruger does and how inexpensive its guns are made, they still have a very long way to go to equal the reputation Glock has with their handguns and when it is an object people are entrusting their lives to, reputation goes a long way.
How many companies made interchangeable backstraps before Glock picked it up? I could probably name off at least 4. How about the modular design of the Sig P250 and 320? That is pretty innovative for the plastic fantastic gun market. Glock could easily come up with something to rival that. That opportunity existed in the Army MHS trials. They decided to make a 17/19 hack job instead. Because they are a one trick pony. Glock could shock the entire world and come out with their own version of a 1911. But they won't do that, because they are a one trick pony,
The question here was about being innovative. Glock copying the chassis set-up of Sig to make their own version would not be innovative. It has already been done. Have you noticed all the other manufacturers immediately going to that set-up? The P250 came out in 2007! 11 years ago and to this day, I do not believe anyone else has gone that route. Innovating for the sake of innovation is not necessarily the best idea. Yes, Ruger has a removable chassis in their Ruger American Handgun but they apparently do not see a benefit to offering different frames to put it in. Beretta has also gone that way but only offer different color frames and ones with and without finger grooves. Not exactly game changing. In fact, I suspect that if handguns had always been made like the Sig's, where you have to switch the chassis into different size frames and slides, the next big innovation that came along would be a gun that is the perfect size to serve all purposes, no pesky chassis changing necessary! And it would be called a Glock 19.
Glock did not invent the changeable back straps, someone else did and everyone else jumped on the bandwagon, just like Glock did so I am not sure exactly why Glock is any less innovative for doing so. I kind of wish they had not. All they had to do was come out with the smaller grip that started with the Gen 4's and it would have fit most hands very well.
I actually laughed when you mentioned copying the design of a gun built originally in 1911 and then selling their version to the public JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE as being innovative. Personally, I think it is more innovative for them to resist that silliness.
Glock does not need to innovate as evidenced by the fact that their submission to the MHS contract made it into the top two, unlike the majority of the guns you think are innovative. Glock was the only company capable and INNOVATIVE enough to comply with the MHS contract while introducing only one handgun rather than two, like all the other companies. And it is a known fact that the reason Glock lost was due to cost alone. Had the Army actually done the testing, chances are, the Glock would have won that part,especially after proper testing would have revealed that Sig couldn't even build a gun safe enough to be dropped without it shooting someone.
Guess what? One thing about a one trick pony is that they know that trick very very well.
Just look at all the comments that others made about how Glock could have done this or that. With this pistol they did a little of this and that . Like they say. You can't please all the people all the time, but you can please some of the people some of the time.
