If Glocks are so wonderful why so many generations?

[Nushif]

No such hyperbole from the various 1911manufacturers in general.

You must not actually read a lot of print in ads.

Every manufacturer claims they have the 1911 "just right!" or they have the "best quality for the money" and what not. Glock isn't the only ones using superlatives.

 

[JohnBT]

"same thing happen with cars cellphones TV computers and everything alse"

Except most of those items now cost 1/2 what they did three years ago. If retail on a Glock was now $250 I'd agree with you.

JT

 

[Nushif]

Except most of those items now cost 1/2 what they did three years ago. If retail on a Glock was now $250 I'd agree with you.

I sometimes wish I could find a three year old used gun for half price ... any gun. Fact remains, guns for some reason retain their value incredibly well.
We are supposed to have some pretty savvy people here, but so far nobody has been able to explain why all the common marketing themes that happen literally *everywhere else* are a bad thing in the gun world.
Do we want companies to say things like "Yeah, our 10/22 is kinda the baseline .22. Buy one, cause we have a bunch of aftermarket support." or "We make basically 1911s, too because we saw that people keep buying them so yeah. Buy one of ours, too."
The gun marker appears to be an incredibly niche market. Ever heard a of any different market where lack of progression gets marketed as a positive thing?! How about one where an appeal to using the same technology, methods and practices as three generations before you is a good thing?
Let's face it folks, the gun makers just like any smart industry is selling stuff. they just use different lines. And Glock chose "Perfection" as a slogan, instead of "Tradition" as a catchphrase.
Guns are a different market, comparing them to cellphones is like wondering why Buick isn't making an emission less vehicle. People who drive Buicks don't care about emission less vehicles!
People who buy a lot of guns seem to not *care* about modernity here in the US. They care about tradition and the like. I have the distinct feeling that the slogan "Perfection" works very well in places where progress in guns is seen as a good thing.

 

[DaisyCutter]

In the early days (probably around the time the earth was formed) handgunners were introduced to the Glock 17. What a wonder it was. It was frozen, packed with mud and fired without cleaning, ran over, thrown out of aircraft. The careers of a legion of gun writers started with trying make this beast malfunction.

And the world of semi-auto handguns would never be the same.

But if the beast is so good why do we have four generations on it now? Are there problems with the previous three generations that needed to be corrected or are the "improvements" just hype to create more sales?

Refinement.

Michael Jordan still worked to improve his skills after winning league MVP.

 

[Fastcast]

There is nothing wrong, or lacking in a GEN1/2 Glock.

I'd say the majority agrees, they are certainly lacking in aesthetics.

 

[saltydog452]

Troll or Ignorant..Both!

I've been around a bit on this forum.

I also don't know much, if anything about Glocks.

THR, at least in a previous administration, not only tolerated, but encouraged guestions and lively discussion w/o accusations of stupidity.

Now, I have this G36 and don't know flip about it. Can I ask questions here or go elsewhere?

salty

 

[Sulaco]

I am sure it's part marketing (probably the large part) and part desire to continually improve on a good design.

The jump between the original 17 and the 2nd generation was minor, mostly to allow for better design (3rd pin helping with recoil of more calibers, etc.). The next jump included design changes such as the addition of finger grooves and different grip stipling which was largely due to consumer input. They also added the Glock Universal rail at some point.

The latest changes seem to be from a design and performance stance, but to me, it seems they are trying hard to keep up with the likes of Springfield and Smith & Wesson and their offerings which seem much more ergonomic and modern than the somewhat more "tired" GLOCK design.

Just my two cents...

 

[JohnBT]

My last purchase was a Sig P210 and it wasn't about nostalgia or even being a military surplus gun. Those are great and a bonus, but it was about accuracy. The quality of the steel and the design is excellent, but it's an incredibly accurate pistol.

"Michael Jordan still worked to improve his skills after winning league MVP."

And he never learned to hit a curve. Oh, you mean basketball. Yes, he was good at basketball I'm told.

Glock is good at some things too.

______________

edited to add:

"In the early days (probably around the time the earth was formed) handgunners were introduced to the Glock 17."

The early days? Whose early days? I was 35.

 

[The Sarge]

Dear Mr. Troll,
Name a modern gun from any manufacturer that has not changed/updated any at all.
Your Pal,
Sarge

 

[Deaf Smith]

But if the beast is so good why do we have four generations on it now? Are there problems with the previous three generations that needed to be corrected or are the "improvements" just hype to create more sales?

People get bored with the same old thing.

Kind of like a Ford Mustang. Didn't they make many changes over the years? Or the VW Beetle?

So yea, they add a rail under the frame (which I don't care for... but it's there.) Or the new texture on the side. Or the grip changes over they generations.

I've shot the Glock 17, 1st generation. Fine gun. Shot strait. I doubt there is 10 cents worth of difference on the street between the 1st gen and the 4th.

But there you go, people do get bored...

Deaf