BSA1 said:
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?
For most shooters, grips on Gen1 Glocks were too slippery, especially when the palms got a little sweaty. I liked the improvements made on Gen2 Glocks to increase the grip. To better buffer the hotter loads, the recoil springs transitioned from open twisted coil to a flat captured spring - and I really welcomed this change as it improved felt recoil with heavier loads and made field stripping and reassembly much easier.
With Gen3, you got finger grooves and accessory rails, further improving grip while aiding control during rapid fire (like double taps) and means to add lights/lasers that LE/tactical customers wanted.
I do not entirely agree with Gen3 RTF/Gen3.5 RTF2 and Gen4 changes, but I think these were done in part due to the growing market competition from other manufacturers that offered better ergonomics and features like M&P and XD/M.
Although I am a fan of Glocks (especially Gen3), I think Glock is at a major crossroads in terms of losing many of their customers to competing pistol models. Glocks were "good" in the 80's and 90's but not sure if they will be "good enough" to compete in 2010's and 2020's without further refinements/improvements.
Taurus just released
G2 models that come chock full of ergonomics/ambidextrous features Gen4 Glocks lack at about $200 less in price. They just about addressed all the typical complaints people have about Glocks (grip angle, ergonomics, no ambi controls, no safety, etc.). This is SERIOUS competition Glock must address to maintain their market share. I believe Glock is already working on Gen5 models, so we'll see if new Glocks are "good enough".
