Glock 19X to be introduced in January

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Compared to the tired old lines, complaints about the color are kind of a refreshing change.

 

[M1key]

Yah, I know. I'm on another forum (not even a gun one) and there's a guy that shows up from time to time to relentlessly bash the Glocks and the idiots who own them. Surprised he hasn't been perma-banned. He does love his 1911s though...

M

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I love my 1911s and wouldn't want one without a thumb safety, But a thumb safety on most striker fire handguns would be about as useful as a blinker on a race car. But then some people like to be extra safe, like the one that will wear a life-vest in a hot tub.

 

[DPris]

Stuck a Hogue Handall on this X here today.
Makes that grip configuration almost livable.

If Glock would ever just put a palmswell on their pistols.....

I'll see how it shoots later this week, hopefully.
Denis

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

Held one tonight. Didn't do anything for me. I'll stick to my 19's.

 

[DPris]

Popped the lanyard ring out to get the Handall on, and that reverts to the old thumb cutout at the bottom rear. Still no front cutout, but at least it restores 50% of the jammed mag ripout capability.

If I were going to go back to any Glock carry, this model would be it.
WITH the Handall on.

It's not a bad configuration, even if it is backwards.
Denis

 

[Homerboy]

I love my 1911s and wouldn't want one without a thumb safety, But a thumb safety on most striker fire handguns would be about as useful as a blinker on a race car. But then some people like to be extra safe, like the one that will wear a life-vest in a hot tub.

Awful analogy and you know it. No chance of drowning in a hot tub. Where did they come up with the term “Glock Leg”?

Manual safeties have a viable place in the gun market. Those who deride them just sound stupid. And why is it different on a striker fired weapon over a hammer fired one? Think that little paddle on the trigger somehow makes it safe? Jacket strings, branches, holster snaps, all of them have gotten into that trigger guard and fired the weapon. Before Glocks became the norm, millions of people carried and used weapons with safeties. They’re all still here.

I see you served. Glad you made it through carrying 1911’s. M9’s, and every rifle issued. They all had safeties.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

Awful analogy and you know it. No chance of drowning in a hot tub. Where did they come up with the term “Glock Leg”?

Manual safeties have a viable place in the gun market. Those who deride them just sound stupid. And why is it different on a striker fired weapon over a hammer fired one? Think that little paddle on the trigger somehow makes it safe? Jacket strings, branches, holster snaps, all of them have gotten into that trigger guard and fired the weapon. Before Glocks became the norm, millions of people carried and used weapons with safeties. They’re all still here.

I see you served. Glad you made it through carrying 1911’s. M9’s, and every rifle issued. They all had safeties.

I understand that you like a gun with a manual safety and that seems to be your biggest problem with Glocks. But since Glock does not offer a gun with a manual safety, why do you pay so much attention to them or even care what other people think of them. Do you feel the same about other guns like the S&W SD series, or the Springfield XD's?
Or is that you have something personal against Glocks and by Trolling Glock topics it makes you feel better.

 

[Homerboy]

And since you think they are not necessary, especially on a striker fired weapon (still can’t figure out how a partially cocked striker with no safety is less likely to benefit from
A safety as a TDA hammer fired one), why do you keep commenting on this? The original 1911 designed by Browning had no manual safety. Just the grip safety. The military required it. And since you served, did you carry the 1911? What condition did you carry it in? Chamber empty and hammer down. Funny how the Beretta M9 didn’t share that requirement.

A better question would be, how does the LACK of a safety make a weapon a better option? 99.99% of us will never fire a weapon in self defense. Many of those who do are using safety equipped weapons. Negligent discharges are far too common, and weapons with a safety make those less likely. Fortunately for you, accidents prevented by a safety never make the news so you can continue to spout your theories.

And yes, I feel the same about any other striker fired weapon without a manual safety. At least the XD has the grip safety. I own a S&W Shield and a Ruger Lc9s. Also an M&P Bodyguard. All have safeties. I also own a S&W 5946. No safety. But not a 3/4 cocked striker with a 5 pound trigger either. And a hammer that I can cover as I holster.

 

[helitack32f1]

Or is that you have something personal against Glocks and by Trolling Glock topics it makes you feel better.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head with this comment. No amount of rationalization will affect the thinking of someone who feels the need to read about and comment on guns he doesn’t want and clearly does not understand.

 

[Homerboy]

I believe you have hit the nail on the head with this comment. No amount of rationalization will affect the thinking of someone who feels the need to read about and comment on guns he doesn’t want and clearly does not understand.

I’ve owned and fully understand Glocks. They’re a dependable polymer framed striker fired weapon. They’re not the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But if you want to go out and get a new Glock, have at it. I prefer M&P’s, and the new 2.0 doesn’t do anything for me either. Sandpaper texturing and a slightly better trigger? If you want an M&P I guess buy the new one. But I’d rather have a Shield 1.0 then the 2.0. Don’t see the point in taking a loss on selling my perfectly useable 1.0 to fund a 2.0, and while I do have several of other gun makes, no polymer striker gun will ever require multiples. My Garands are icons to be respected and collected.1911’s and S&W revolvers, too. Plastic guns of all types are no different than a hammer in a tool box.

This whole thread started with the introduction of a new Glock. A weapon that has been essentially unchanged since it hit the streets over 30 years ago. Please don’t tell me about newer guide rods, finger grooves, and texturing. It isn’t all that different. I am underwhelmed by it, and every other slightly tweaked and rebranded weapon. It’s not a Glock thing. It’s a cheap plastic sell to a gullible public who will buy it thing.

Ruger just released a 9MM Carbine that is an upgrade to their old Pc9. But it’s a takedown model with exchangeable mag wells and will take Ruger and Glock mags. Now that’s something different. I’m in for that one.

 

[helitack32f1]

I’ve owned and fully understand Glocks. They’re a dependable polymer framed striker fired weapon. They’re not the greatest thing since sliced bread.

But if you want to go out and get a new Glock, have at it. I prefer M&P’s, and the new 2.0 doesn’t do anything for me either. Sandpaper texturing and a slightly better trigger? If you want an M&P I guess buy the new one. But I’d rather have a Shield 1.0 then the 2.0. Don’t see the point in taking a loss on selling my perfectly useable 1.0 to fund a 2.0, and while I do have several of other gun makes, no polymer striker gun will ever require multiples. My Garands are icons to be respected and collected.1911’s and S&W revolvers, too. Plastic guns of all types are no different than a hammer in a tool box.

This whole thread started with the introduction of a new Glock. A weapon that has been essentially unchanged since it hit the streets over 30 years ago. Please don’t tell me about newer guide rods, finger grooves, and texturing. It isn’t all that different. I am underwhelmed by it, and every other slightly tweaked and rebranded weapon. It’s not a Glock thing. It’s a cheap plastic sell to a gullible public who will buy it thing.

Ruger just released a 9MM Carbine that is an upgrade to their old Pc9. But it’s a takedown model with exchangeable mag wells and will take Ruger and Glock mags. Now that’s something different. I’m in for that one.

I do not care if you have looked at, held, shot, owned or owned stock and collect every model of Glock made, the question remains: why do you feel the need to go on and on, repeating yourself, in a thread about a gun you don’t want or need?

And, a follow on question: do you go to threads about all the other striker fired guns that do not have a safety and whine on incessantly about their lack of safety? I suspect you do not. It’s a Glock thing.

If you want something different, move on to a company that sells something different.

You have come into a thread about a new Glock that does not have a manual safety, that is built and sold by a company that does not and has never sold guns with a manual safety to civilians and you can’t stop whining about the fact that oddly enough, this gun has no safety! What sense does that make?

 

[Wisco]

A better question would be, how does the LACK of a safety make a weapon a better option?

One less step in the draw. Nothing to accidentally engage like on a M9 during reload or malfunction. Nothing to accidentally not take off like the minuscule safeties on some of the guns out there.

You clearly want a safety. That's cool.

I don't want manual safeties. That's cool, too.

I think you're wrong about Glocks not being the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think there's nothing better out there.

 

[Homerboy]

I do not care if you have looked at, held, shot, owned or owned stock and collect every model of Glock made, the question remains: why do you feel the need to go on and on, repeating yourself, in a thread about a gun you don’t want or need?

And, a follow on question: do you go to threads about all the other striker fired guns that do not have a safety and whine on incessantly about their lack of safety? I suspect you do not. It’s a Glock thing.

If you want something different, move on to a company that sells something different.

You have come into a thread about a new Glock that does not have a manual safety, that is built and sold by a company that does not and has never sold guns with a manual safety to civilians and you can’t stop whining about the fact that oddly enough, this gun has no safety! What sense does that make?

I made one post. The rest of them have been in response to others addressing me.

Most other striker fired weapons have a safety option. Not many people commenting on the SD9 or CM9. But in tbe ones I do see, I generally comment that they’re not for me due to the lack of a manual safety.

And yet Glock threads are be only ones that get people so hot. Guess you’re still buying into the “Perfection” slogan from 30 yeas ago. Funny how perfection is in its 6th generation.

 

[george burns]

These have been all over slickguns for a month now. I never mentioned it because it's a stupid idea in the first place. The reason "or one of the main reasons" the 19 is so popular, is the size and proportions of the gun, Hell everyone try's to make a gun that carries 15 rounds of 9mm with the same specs as the 19, so if you wanted 17 rounds, why would you not but a Glock 17, it's the grip that makes it harder to conceal not the barrel length. This is just doing something just for the sake of doing it, just add a plus 2 and you accomplish the same thing, nothing to see here.

 

[helitack32f1]

And yet Glock threads are be only ones that get people so hot. Guess you’re still buying into the “Perfection” slogan from 30 yeas ago. Funny how perfection is in its 6th generation.

Glock threads are the heated ones for one reason and one reason only: they bring out the biggest of trolls. No other manufacturers threads feature near the number of know-it-all’s that get butthurt because people refuse to take advantage off their great wisdom. You are the perfect example of such a person. Most people are capable of posting a comment stating their dislike and moving on. Glock bashers and haters are not like that. They have to keep going on incessantly until the thread gets closed.

Now, I know you think you were having a drop the mic moment with your statement about Glock slogan “Glock Perfection”. It wasn't original. All this really showed is that you apparently do not understand slogans and catch phrases. They are not to be taken literally. My guess is that since you have trouble understanding that, you are probably out right now driving around in a Chevrolet expecting it to “Find New Roads” for you while sipping a RedBull and getting impatient over the fact that you still don’t have wings.

 

[Homerboy]

Glock threads are the heated ones for one reason and one reason only: they bring out the biggest of trolls. No other manufacturers threads feature near the number of know-it-all’s that get butthurt because people refuse to take advantage off their great wisdom. You are the perfect example of such a person. Most people are capable of posting a comment stating their dislike and moving on. Glock bashers and haters are not like that. They have to keep going on incessantly until the thread gets closed.

Now, I know you think you were having a drop the mic moment with your statement about Glock slogan “Glock Perfection”. It wasn't original. All this really showed is that you apparently do not understand slogans and catch phrases. They are not to be taken literally. My guess is that since you have trouble understanding that, you are probably out right now driving around in a Chevrolet expecting it to “Find New Roads” for you while sipping a RedBull and getting impatient over the fact that you still don’t have wings.

Buy a Glock. Buy 10. I don’t care. By stop with the “butt-hurt” nonsense. I don’t care what you choose to buy or carry. Just look in the mirror next time you type “butt-hurt”. You claim others are so anti-Glock, yet you are so pro-Glock thatbthere is no conversation. You think a tan Glock with a couple of changes is revolutionary.

I work with a guy with at least 30 Glocks. No lie. Every caliber, model, and generation. He has to have them all. Free country. But 30 plastic guns that are all 90% identical? That’s a joke.

But this new tan Glock-X does nothing more than a Glock from 10 years ago. Nothing of importance. You can “ooh and ahh” about “grip texture” all you want. Gaston needs your dollars to buy a new jet. And your purchase will fund one of the ashtrays on it.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

And since you think they are not necessary, especially on a striker fired weapon (still can’t figure out how a partially cocked striker with no safety is less likely to benefit from
A safety as a TDA hammer fired one), why do you keep commenting on this? The original 1911 designed by Browning had no manual safety. Just the grip safety. The military required it. And since you served, did you carry the 1911? What condition did you carry it in? Chamber empty and hammer down. Funny how the Beretta M9 didn’t share that requirement.

A better question would be, how does the LACK of a safety make a weapon a better option? 99.99% of us will never fire a weapon in self defense. Many of those who do are using safety equipped weapons. Negligent discharges are far too common, and weapons with a safety make those less likely. Fortunately for you, accidents prevented by a safety never make the news so you can continue to spout your theories.

And yes, I feel the same about any other striker fired weapon without a manual safety. At least the XD has the grip safety. I own a S&W Shield and a Ruger Lc9s. Also an M&P Bodyguard. All have safeties. I also own a S&W 5946. No safety. But not a 3/4 cocked striker with a 5 pound trigger either. And a hammer that I can cover as I holster.

There are many guns on the market that I don't care for, but I have not made it a point to tell everyone ad nauseam. I'm more apathetic when topics on those guns come up.
Where did you find your facts on weapons used in self defense?
I have read more accounts on people shooting themselves while trying to de-cock a gun with a hammer and thumb safety then those with striker fire pistols without manual safeties.
If you don't like a gun, for what ever reason, then don't like. Find something that that makes you happy. Don't hate on people that don't feel that same as you.

 

[Homerboy]

There are many guns on the market that I don't care for, but I have not made it a point to tell everyone ad nauseam. I'm more apathetic when topics on those guns come up.
Where did you find your facts on weapons used in self defense?
I have read more accounts on people shooting themselves while trying to de-cock a gun with a hammer and thumb safety then those with striker fire pistols without manual safeties.
If you don't like a gun, for what ever reason, then don't like. Find something that that makes you happy. Don't hate on people that don't feel that same as you.

And there are many guns I don't care for. I make my comment and move on. But when others directly address me, I respond. Same as you.

You were the one who made the comparison of a safety on a striker gun to a blinker on a race car and a lifejacket in a hot tub. Don't pretend you have been so high and mighty. You said the 1911 with a safety is fine. It was created without one. The military required it and it hasn't changed to this day. The 19-X had a safety for the military trials. Glock lost, sued and lost again, and released the weapon without a safety. And Glock-aholics just say thank you.

If Glock made toilet paper, there would be people on here swearing there has been a 95% reduction in chafing and buy it by the case.

Where did I get my stats as to self defense shooting? Well, since people have been carrying semi auto pistols for about 3 times as long as the Glock has been in existence, and the vast majority of those had a manual safety, I'd say the addition of a manual safety isn't a deterrent.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

And there are many guns I don't care for. I make my comment and move on. But when others directly address me, I respond. Same as you.

You were the one who made the comparison of a safety on a striker gun to a blinker on a race car and a lifejacket in a hot tub. Don't pretend you have been so high and mighty. You said the 1911 with a safety is fine. It was created without one. The military required it and it hasn't changed to this day. The 19-X had a safety for the military trials. Glock lost, sued and lost again, and released the weapon without a safety. And Glock-aholics just say thank you.

If Glock made toilet paper, there would be people on here swearing there has been a 95% reduction in chafing and buy it by the case.

High and mighty???? I was just having a little fun. I think you wear your boxers just a little to tight.

 

[Homerboy]

High and mighty???? I was just having a little fun. I think you wear your boxers just a little to tight.

Enjoy your Glocks. Just remember, as a gunnery sergeant in the USMC, you have no doubt earned that rank. But using "keep my booger hook of the bang switch" makes you sound like a pimply faced teenager who logs 50 hours a week playing Call of Duty. It comes across as very juvenile and obtuse. People who handle the amount of weapons you claim to don't sound like mall ninjas. Not calling you a liar, but your analogies to lifejackets in hot tubs and blinkers on race cars when passing judgement on weapons that millions of people carry daily, including yourself while still in the service, takes away any credibility you strive to show.

And before you say "I never carried a Glock in the service", exactly HOW is carrying a Glock without a safety safer than carrying an M4 or an M9 off safe? Touch that trigger and BANG. The M9 has a much longer trigger pull, too.

 

[helitack32f1]

And, now back to the actual subject of this thread, the Glock 19X.

 

[Homerboy]

It’s a Glock. And tan. I’m sure it’s reliable. Those who are into that will get one.

But remember how long people were clamoring for a single stack Glock 9MM. Never got one until s&w, Ruger and others released one. The popularity was explosive. So then the 43 comes out. Meh.

And how long have people been asking for a Glock carbine? I would have bought one. You had the Hi-Point and if you got lucky enough to find a Kel-Tex 2000, you got one.

Now Ruger has a new Carbine. Takes Ruger mags AND Glock mags. I have money down on one for be last three weeks at my LGS. I’m not willing to pay MSRP for one. Now that is innovative. A 9MM take down Carbine that accepts mags from multiple platforms. How much you wanna bet a Glock carbine is gonna come out in about 2 years?

 

[helitack32f1]

Blah blah blah...

And now back to the topic of the thread. Here is another Glock 19X video.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

It’s a Glock. And tan. I’m sure it’s reliable. Those who are into that will get one.

But remember how long people were clamoring for a single stack Glock 9MM. Never got one until s&w, Ruger and others released one. The popularity was explosive. So then the 43 comes out. Meh.

And how long have people been asking for a Glock carbine? I would have bought one. You had the Hi-Point and if you got lucky enough to find a Kel-Tex 2000, you got one.

Now Ruger has a new Carbine. Takes Ruger mags AND Glock mags. I have money down on one for be last three weeks at my LGS. I’m not willing to pay MSRP for one. Now that is innovative. A 9MM take down Carbine that accepts mags from multiple platforms. How much you wanna bet a Glock carbine is gonna come out in about 2 years?

I make my comment and move on.