Glock sights. Why the hate?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Actually there is, it is the largest selling pistol on the planet!

If we take a look at the BATFE Report for 2017 PISTOLS only (Last official release of Import #'s)

Austria imported 656912 Pistols (Steyr makes up a portion of that number, albeit a small portion I would bet)
Glock produced 175696 Pistols at their GA facility.
Total of 832,608.

S&W Produced 1,032,450 Pistols at their MA facility.

Other notables:
Ruger = 781623 from various facilities.
Sig = 536774

We should be due for a new Import Report but that's all we have to go on at this time.

2018 Manufactures report:
Glock = 247546
S&W = 886917
Ruger = 704588
Sig = 632781

All data can be found on BATFE website.
 
If we take a look at the BATFE Report for 2017 PISTOLS only (Last official release of Import #'s)

Austria imported 656912 Pistols (Steyr makes up a portion of that number, albeit a small portion I would bet)
Glock produced 175696 Pistols at their GA facility.
Total of 832,608.

S&W Produced 1,032,450 Pistols at their MA facility.

Other notables:
Ruger = 781623 from various facilities.
Sig = 536774

We should be due for a new Import Report but that's all we have to go on at this time.

2018 Manufactures report:
Glock = 247546
S&W = 886917
Ruger = 704588
Sig = 632781

All data can be found on BATFE website.
I have no clue about their global numbers, but whenever I point out the S&W sell more than Glock in the U.S., people find it hard to believe. When you delete what's manufactured or L E. from the equation, it's even more clear that S&W is more popular among civilians aka people who get to choose what they carry. Some still have it in their heads that the G19 is the most owned and carried pistol I the U.S., and Gock out sells the competition by far.. Times have changed and Glock is slowly but surely becoming less popular even though I know it's hard for some to accept.
 
I have no clue about their global numbers,

Best guess it does in fact push them into #1 in the world as they are issued to countless militaries. However, we have no way of proving the claim. They are a privately held company and do not release numbers.

The ATF numbers are our only verifiable picture into the business. esp. since the USA is the #1 buyer of guns.







.
 
No hate here.

I just prefer a sight setup that is easier for my crappy eyes to see.
The cup and ball setup draws my eyes to the rear sight. I can use them. I just prefer something better.
And with a gun that’s as cheap as a Glock, I feel like I can afford an upgrade.
 
I have no clue about their global numbers, but whenever I point out the S&W sell more than Glock in the U.S., people find it hard to believe. When you delete what's manufactured or L E. from the equation, it's even more clear that S&W is more popular among civilians aka people who get to choose what they carry. Some still have it in their heads that the G19 is the most owned and carried pistol I the U.S., and Gock out sells the competition by far.. Times have changed and Glock is slowly but surely becoming less popular even though I know it's hard for some to accept.
You have failed to take into account that Glock doesn’t offer a budget gun such as the S&W SD series.
There are a lot of people that don’t have a lot of money to spend on guns and S&W has capitalized on that. Glock does not cater to the lower end market.
I would bet that if you compared the sales of the M&P line to Glock, Glocks would be the winner.
 
I find the standard Glock sight picture works well for me. When I’m at my rifle club, shooting at the steel plates we have at various distances, the standard plastic sights work great when rapid firing and moving from plate to plate.
I’ve carried this pistol for years, and keep thinking of putting different sights on...never got around to it. My sights don’t move, and they show no wear.
 
I've got a good budget gun (Ruger Security9) that I see wear on parts after 500 rounds. I still like the gun and it still functions but it's wear rate is probably ten time faster than Glock. Magazine cost is high. Sights are similar to Glock btw.

I regularly clean a Ruger American for a family member and that is a high quality gun! But the price is getting real close to a Glock and magazine cost is high.

All manufacturers have their problems but most of Glock's models have silly reliability right out of the box. It's easy to get 17 round magazines for less than $20 each which brings cost of ownership pretty near budget guns. $30+ magazines literally has kept me from buying other makes of guns.

Some reason I like the Glock grip angle and sights. I really like the magazine cost, reliability, customer service, parts interchangeability, etc.
At retail of $499, it will be a long time before they lose popularity and that's with cheap plastic sights.
 
Has anyone ever actually broke off a stock Glock sight during normal use?
I haven’t broken their sights myself, but I’ve had had it happen to several customers over the years. I’ve even seen a couple brand new Glocks with messed up sights right out of the box. The issue usually isn’t them outright breaking off, it’s the plastic getting smushed from an impact.
 
I like the Glock OEM sights.

My G19.4 still sports its OEM plastic sights because I only use it in the daylight under optimum conditions. I really like the OEMs for regular range use.

My carry G30S, G43 and G42s sport replacement tritium sights because I am often carrying them in low-light areas.

TFOs are my hands-down favorites for both day & night use ... but, under normal well-lit conditions, I probably fire a bit more accurately with the OEM sights.
 
I said adjusted not adjustable. Which means choosing the right height of the sights and set the correct windage at the factory . They do it with plastic sights, they can do it with steel sights.

The question is still: when you buy a stock Glock, would you rather have plastic sights or steel sights?
Id prefer they came with the factory three dot night sights, like they did offer as an option at one time. But that also increased the price by about $50 too.

Not that that bothers me, but people already bitch about what the guns cost, and if you dont like three dots, youre still going to be spending more changing them out for what you want.

The first thing I do when I pick up a new Glock, if it didnt come with night sights, is order a set of Meprolights for it.

Not that you would actually lose money taking the other sights off either if it came supplied that way and you didnt like them. Ive paid for and/or helped finance a lot of new night sights and a couple of good sight tools, by taking the old, "dead" night sights, and a few other fancy sights Ive taken off guns and replaced, selling them on eBay. Ive also seen little "bags" of the factory plastic take-offs sold there too, so somebody must like them.
 
Glock does not cater to the lower end market.
I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

I realize this is 2020, but back in the 1980's, Glock essentially created the "lower end market". Colt, S&W, Beretta, SIG, etc., spent a whole bunch of years scrambling to join this "lower end market" to avoid getting put out of business.
 
Glock does not cater to the lower end market.

Nor to the upper-mid market or the upper market. They have a very specific market segment they target - service-type pistols for government users and private users who want the same things. They deliver an extremely consistent product in that market, and they market themselves extremely effectively to that market segment. Their "on-brand" time, effort, messaging, etc., is about 100%. They don't deviate.

Whether they are numerically the market leader in any year in that segment, I think they really have been the effective market leader for many years. They have shaped the tastes of that market so extensively that the other players in that space are still basically building things that are working off their basic format.

I'm saying this as someone who has ZERO interest in Glocks (if someone gave me one, I'd just turn around and sell it). Theirs is a remarkable business case/strategy. It obviously works very, very well for them.
 
I think Glock prices have been holding up due to three factors.
1. Perception of higher quality.
2. Perception of better customer service.
3. Investment by customers in the platform.

I'm not going to comment on 1 or 2 as people can and will make up their own minds. 3 though means if you already have holsters, magazines and will change sights regardless you are not really saving much by buying a $200 cheaper pistol.

#3 is clearly true for me. I've tried all the competitors and, since I already and loaded up with Glock holsters, mags and small parts a new offering would really have to "blow my skirt up" to make me want to replace what I already have invested.

So far, nothing shoots any better in my hands, let alone considerably better, to justify the additional costs.

I do remain open for the possibility of a real Glock killer coming along, but plastic carry/duty guns are a secondary for me now so it's doubtful.

Actually considering reducing my plastic collection to one Glock 19 and one Glock 21.
 
As I think I may have mentioned already, I’ve got two Glocks—a 43X for CC, and a Gen 4 20 for bear-country hiking/camping—and a bit of fun at the range! I’ve also got the Colt Gold Cup NM that I think everyone should have, a Beretta or two, a Browning Buckmark Target .22, a couple Rugers, and an old S&W K-frame .38. (The last is a VERY sweet shooter, btw.) I like the Glocks for what they are—simple, reliable, parts always available, and some ready resale value should I wish to do so (as I recently did)—and did I mention simple and reliable? I swapped the sights on both of my Glocks for my personal preference in such matters, and kinda liked that I wasn’t removing expensive (but unwanted) sights.

I see no reason to heap disapprobation atop someone else’s choice of firearm. If it’s a make/model with which I’m completely unfamiliar, well, that means, obviously, that I don’t really know anything about it. Thus, any opinion I offer is probably worse than useless.

I have a friend that says I should have to turn in my “man card” because I’ve got a couple Glocks that I actually like/carry. He favors CZ and Walther. Which are fine choices. My dad doesn’t much care for Glocks and never will. (He’s far too old to be changing his mind on such matters now!) He’s a forever-and-ever revolver guy. Bottom line, AFAIAC: if the gun does well the job for which it was selected, and the user likes it—I’m done. Maybe I’d never make the same choice in a million years. But that’s the beauty of it all—I don’t have to.
 
I said adjusted not adjustable. Which means choosing the right height of the sights and set the correct windage at the factory . They do it with plastic sights, they can do it with steel sights.

The question is still: when you buy a stock Glock, would you rather have plastic sights or steel sights?

i really dont care, as long as they are set correctly.
The plastic sights on my 8 year old G19 have held up just fine and it was my EDC for 4 years.

My range guns are a different story..
 
I suppose it's a matter of perspective.

I realize this is 2020, but back in the 1980's, Glock essentially created the "lower end market". Colt, S&W, Beretta, SIG, etc., spent a whole bunch of years scrambling to join this "lower end market" to avoid getting put out of business.
I wouldn’t say they create the low end market. The lower end has always been there. But Glock did change the market. All the major players were saying that the new Glock plastic guns were just a fad and would not stand the test of time. But they were wrong.
All the players went to scrambling to get their own plastic gun to market. Some did good and others, like Colt, failed.
Show me one polymer frame gun that has been in production for as long as Glock.
Now I’m not saying that Glocks are the best, but they are good.
My favorite polymer frame gun is the M&P. My next full size gun will be a M&P M2.0 9mm in FDE. And I will most likely replace the sights.
 
I haven’t broken their sights myself, but I’ve had had it happen to several customers over the years. I’ve even seen a couple brand new Glocks with messed up sights right out of the box. The issue usually isn’t them outright breaking off, it’s the plastic getting smushed from an impact.
Blasphemy!
 
My G17L came with a little “tail” of plastic that was on the right side of the front sight that drove me crazy until I took a box cutter and trimmed it down. I bought it for target use rather than for duty/carry.

This is the only Glock of my three (19,34,17L) that has factory sights, the others have aftermarket night sights for duty use. The 17L has an adjustable rear rather than the fixed rear, but it has the same U outline. They’re ok, but I prefer a bit more of a Bo-Mar flat rear/Patridge front for serious target work. Someday I’ll swap them to something I like more, but for now they’re working fine.

Stay safe.
 
I wouldn’t say they create the low end market.

I don't either. I think they were able to knock about $100 off retail and about $200 of contract/bulk pricing without any perceived loss of quality/capability. They moved the market (downwards) on the cost of a "good gun." They didn't create or play in the low-end market.... they brought lower prices to the middle-market, service-grade segment.
 
I don't either. I think they were able to knock about $100 off retail and about $200 of contract/bulk pricing without any perceived loss of quality/capability. They moved the market (downwards) on the cost of a "good gun." They didn't create or play in the low-end market.... they brought lower prices to the middle-market, service-grade segment.
I agree with that 100%. :)
 
My G17L came with a little “tail” of plastic that was on the right side of the front sight that drove me crazy until I took a box cutter and trimmed it down. I bought it for target use rather than for duty/carry.

This is the only Glock of my three (19,34,17L) that has factory sights, the others have aftermarket night sights for duty use. The 17L has an adjustable rear rather than the fixed rear, but it has the same U outline. They’re ok, but I prefer a bit more of a Bo-Mar flat rear/Patridge front for serious target work. Someday I’ll swap them to something I like more, but for now they’re working fine.

Stay safe.
I had the same little bit of extra plastic on the front sight of the G45 I bought. I didn’t worry about it because I was going to put AmeriGlo sights on the gun.
Here are the sights that came off the G45.
9FE12702-B88A-41BF-B91A-423EA060CAB8.jpeg

And yes, Glock still has the metal insert at the base of the rear sight. I have seen some Glocks that were treated roughly that were missing the rear sight, but still had the metal insert still in the dovetail.
4F2989C6-1170-4A2F-8C06-77D1EB123932.jpeg
 
Steel rear sight would be still in the dovetail.
Not necessarily. Ive had to dimple my share of dovetails and/or add a drop or two of Loctite to keep steel sights in the dovetail. They dont always go in tight or stay there.
 
Nor to the upper-mid market or the upper market. They have a very specific market segment they target - service-type pistols for government users and private users who want the same things. They deliver an extremely consistent product in that market, and they market themselves extremely effectively to that market segment. Their "on-brand" time, effort, messaging, etc., is about 100%. They don't deviate.

I'm not sure their strategy is still as "pure" as it once was. I suspect the development of the G42 (and it's derivatives) and the G44 were not really driven primarily by the service pistol (and equivalent) market.
 
I own two G20s. The newest one (SF) has a set of tritium sights but the old pre-groove model has a genuine Glock plastic adjustable rear. I bought it off a gun show table from a guy who had a whole pile of them and I wish I could get a couple more of them for cheap. For a gun that might be used for shooting at a distance sometimes fixed sights (even good ones) don’t cut it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top