Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Square slides?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by chris in va, Nov 12, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. coolluke01

    coolluke01 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,041
    Location:
    MN
    I can't see how a square or round slide would help concealment. I know some guns are thinner, but the slide is in the holster for the most part. The grip is the only thing I ever have any trouble concealing on a hand gun.
     
  2. tipoc

    tipoc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    As others have said the squared slide and use of the squared locking block rising up into the ejection port was first used in the Sig P220 and introduced in 1974. It was, as Tuner said, both easier (and less expensive), to manufacture than the locking lugs of the 1911 or the BHP, but also potentially stronger. The P220 also introduced the flat topped, squareish slide profile.

    The P210, based on the Petter design, uses 2 locking lugs and has a rounded slide profile.

    Glock's many innovations combined for one of the most important handguns of the last part of the 20th century. While the method of slide lockup was not original to them it was combined with a number of other features that made for a strong, reliable and accurate sidearm that took full advantage of modern production methods and materials. This made it possible for Glock to manufacture and ship a handgun for about $100. in the 1990s and sell it for $400. in the U.S. and other countries commercially and for less to law enforcement or the military. It became a very popular gun and remains so.

    The particular shape of the Glock slide is a result of the manufacturing process and the desire of the company to keep the gun simple and inexpensive to manufacture. There is no ornamentation to it as there is on the M&P for example. This is by design and a point of pride for some Glocksters. Other Glock fanciers have sent their guns out to Robar or others to have some personal style added.

    Glock profiles are not thin, as everyone knows, but they are still thinner than a revolver profile. Many folks CCW Glocks.

    tipoc
     
  3. CZ57

    CZ57 member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,533
    Location:
    Heart of Texas
    It was Sauer after they partnered with SIG that created the locking block design that was first introduced in the US as the Browning BDA. H&K were the pioneers of the polymer frame concept with the VP-70z. Glock copied from both designs with the G17. Unfortunately, they obviously didn't understand the need for good chamber support with the introduction of the G20, G21 and G22. The Croation firm of IM Metals took it a step further after a close evaluation of the SIG/Sauer design and offered a barrel with a chamber design with no need for barrel lugs ala S/S with adequate chamber support along with the grip safety ala 1911, but they included a steel locking block that also incorporates the forward slide rails and is removable and replaceable as a single unit ala the SIG/Sauer owned Mauser M2 design. With further enhancement they offered the XDm which incorporates all the features with a trapezoidal shaped slide and the feature that negates dry firing for disassembly. One of the first firms to follow the SIG/Sauer example besides Glock was Sturm Ruger with the introduction of the P-85. ;)
     
  4. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    18,550
    Location:
    Lexington,North Carolina...or thereabouts
    The "Locking Block" is really no more than a square lug...a derivative of the Colt-Browning tilt barrel design. Look at a 1911 or High Power barrel...at the first lug wall...and imagine making it wide and square. It's function is the same, and it works in exactly the same way to prevent separation of the barrel and the breechblock when the system is accelerating under equal/opposite force.

    Like all short recoil operated systems, the slide is driven rearward...grabs the barrel by the lug...and hauls it backward with it for about a 10th inch. This gives the bullet time to escape so that pressures can drop to a level that allows the barrel and slide to separate...or open the breech. Then the bullet exits, the barrel is pulled down...and the slide continues on its way under the momentum that was conserved during the acceleration phase.

    And that's pretty much how it works.
     
  5. Ash

    Ash Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,358
    Location:
    Anywhere but here
    tipoc, out of curiosity, what were Glock's "many innovations"? Not to trash them, just interested in what Glock brought to the table, design-wise. I prefer CZ designs, specifically Tanfoglio's evolution of the CZ-75 as built by IMI, SA, and others. Nothing about the CZ-75 and its derivatives was original except for the shape of the grip frame, which really does fit the hand like a glove. Everything else came from another design - which makes sense since the auto pistol has been out for 125 years and the concept has been thoroughly hashed-out for 4 decades now. With that in mind, I don't intend a pot and kettle here.

    SIG was original when they folded a heavy gauge of steel to form a slide and then locked the barrel straight into the ejection port. Hk was original when they introduced plastics into frame construction, though Remington did so with firearms a decade earlier. Savage, Mauser, and others were innovative when they introduced striker-fired (though really not innovative since everybody was using strikers in bolt-action rifles by the time 1900 saw the light of day). Browning himself liked the striker in his early design for the Hi Power (which incidentally included the rails-in-the-frame design later adopted by SIG, CZ, and Star). The cocking system employed by Glocks was used in production in the early 20th century so now it is about 100 years old. CZ was using firing pin blocks in the 1950's - Glock's take down notch was used on the CZ-52 as well.

    So, what were Glock's many innovations?
     
  6. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,301
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    I would say their Tenifer treatment was pretty innovative.
     
  7. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    5,316
    Location:
    TX
    It was inventive, too bad it wasn't glock who did so... Changing the name from tufftride to tenifer is not quite the same.
    It's been around since the 60's, but I do believe they were the first to use it on firearms..
     
  8. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,301
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    If thats what defines innovative then one could argue:
    Sig didn't innovate with a folded slide because people have been folding metal since they discovered metal.
    HK and Remington didn't innovate with plastic because people were making stuff out of plastic for decades.

    Plastic, tenifer, large capacity, reliabile, inexpensive.......none may be innovative on their own, but pretty neat when combined.
     
  9. tipoc

    tipoc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    From Ash,
    Not so many actually. The main one being the conception of it.

    Glock did not know much about guns when he decided to go for the Austrian Army contract in 1980 or so. He went out and bought a Walther P38, a Beretta 92, a CZ75, and a Sig Sauer P220 and studied them. He pulled together a group of men who knew guns and the military and production techniques and together they studied. This group knew the other guns submitted well and knew the H&K guns the VP70 and the P9S which used plastic in their construction. They were familiar with the Steyr AUG which also used polymer. As Ash and others have said they put together some of the best features of these guns in a new and innovative fashion with an eye to new production techniques and materials which they were very familiar with. The approach was innovative.

    They deliberately kept the number of parts low, they also kept the production procedures simple and easy to do on CNC machinery by partially trained workers. The "squarish looking" slide was machined from a solid piece of barstock with as few tool movements as necessary to reduce time and save on tooling. They used a known finish on the slide but one that was durable. They kept production costs low in all ways. They had no factory before they won the contract. They had no history of their own which could help or hinder. Once they won the contract they hired a number of workers, many immigrant North Africans, in order to fill it.

    The "safe action" trigger was new and innovative. Also inexpensive to manufacture.

    Plastic on rifles and handguns was known before the Glock. The innovation here was putting it together in a form that was successful. Then marketing it in traditional ways-publicity, strippers and hookers, payoffs, a good product at a surprisingly good price, etc.

    All in all a revolutionary development with a deep effect on handgun design and the market. I don't like 'em personally, never have. Of the kin I think the M&P is better. But all in all a strong, durable gun that took full advantage of good previous designs, updated them, used modern materials and techniques in an innovative way. They have made mis-steps but all handgun manufacturers have.

    tipoc
     
  10. tarosean

    tarosean Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2010
    Messages:
    5,316
    Location:
    TX
    Transfer bar and Trigger Safety's were done back in late 1800's by Iver Johnson.
     
  11. Ash

    Ash Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,358
    Location:
    Anywhere but here
    There was nothing revolutionary about the Glock. Had Gaston done it a decade earlier, it would have failed. What happened with Glock was that it was at the right time at the right place. Even so, I suspect the concept would have died and Glock would have gone the way of John Inglis had Austria picked the Steyr instead.

    Glock GMbh is an example of capitalism at its best and I don't fault Gaston's willingness to go out on a limb. Again, I like the CZ-75, but nothing outside of a nearly perfect grip design, is original to the CZ so I avoid casting too broad a net. Glock is no different in that regard.

    SIG did nothing new by folding a slide, but they did something new with the ejection port. Even that was not revolutionary, but evolutionary. There is virtually nothing that is revolutionary in firearms. Even the self-contained brass cartridge filled with powder, capped with a primer and loaded with a projectile was evolutionary from the percussion cap firearm.

    The closest things I can think of that were revolutionary in firearms were: 1. black powder poured down a barrel to launch a lethal projectile, 2. rifling of the bore to increase accuracy, 3. the revolving cylinder creating a repeater. Everything else is an adaptation or evolution of one of those. The primer cap is just evolved ignition. The box magazine is just evolved cylinder.
     
  12. hentown

    hentown Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,742
    The innovation is the total package...designing a reliable,lightweight, accurate pistol that never requires the services of a gunsmith. Every part can be changed out by the consumer, with no special tools. Also, I'd have to say that the marketing of Glocks has been pretty innovative and wildly succcessful.
     
  13. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    18,550
    Location:
    Lexington,North Carolina...or thereabouts
    Nothing innovative about that, either I'm afraid.

    After the specs were reworked, and during the rush to armament of WW2, one of the must-haves with the US Army's pistol was complete, drop-in interchangeability of parts from all contractors. This included contractors who only supplied parts and not complete pistols.

    The test was to have armorers disassemble 2 pistols from each of the five contractors and toss them into a box. box was then dumped onto a table and they reassembled 10 pistols with no regard as to what went where. All pistols had to meet function and accuracy requirements. They did. The test was repeated with another 10 randomly-selected pistols. All passed again. Then, various small parts were randomly selected and installed from inventory. They all worked.

    And let's not forget that the 1911 and 1911A1 pistols in their original configuration could be detail-stripped and reassembled with no tools other than the gun's own parts...lending itself to parts replacement in the field without the need for an armorer.

    This is just one example of complete parts interchangeability requirements. The concept predates Glock by over a hundred years.
     
  14. hentown

    hentown Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,742
    IF JMB had been alive in the 1980s, his pride and joy would probably look a lot more like a Glock than a 1911. :evil:

    Back to my previous post, the innovation was the complete package, a LIGHTWEIGHT, accurate, durable pistol, which, btw, is a lot easier to disassemble in the field without losing pins, small springs, etc., than is a 1911...not that I don't also like my 1911s. ;)
     
  15. tipoc

    tipoc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    I seem to recall that being on a small revolver made of steel. It looked nothing like the Glock "Safe Action" trigger.

    tipoc
     
  16. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    18,550
    Location:
    Lexington,North Carolina...or thereabouts
    I'm a little confused. Which springs are so easy to lose? By original spec, the recoil spring presses onto the guide rod and the plug threads onto the open end of the spring. It can't go anywhere, even if the plug gets loose.

    The plunger spring was kinked to keep it from launching when the thumb safety comes out.

    There's the firing pin and spring, but that's easy to deal with once ya know how. It's all in the thumb.

    And...as originally designed...the pistol can be detail-stripped down to the bare slide and frame without tools...minus the ejector and grip bushings...in about a minute, and reassembled in two. (And I can prove it. Come see.)


    There are three small pins...no argument...but that's what a helmet is for. In the absence of a helmet, a shirt or jacket will do.

    Weight? About 4 ounces difference between a loaded 5-inch 1911 and a Glock...what is it in .45 caliber...21? 23? I can't keep up.

    Capacity. Yeah, there's that I guess.

    Innovations? Not much new under the sun. Everybody borrows ideas from those who came before them. Gaston was no different. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
     
  17. tipoc

    tipoc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    From Ash,

    Ash is correct here to caution against the overuse of the term "revolutionary". I bought a pair of shoes the other day and received a "radical", "extreme" and "tactical" pair of free socks with the shoes. I have to wash them same as the others.

    However when a gun or rifle changes the shape of what is acceptable in firearms then you can speak of a "revolutionary" impact.

    Revolution is itself the result of evolutionary changes it is the sharp forward jump of those changes resulting in something new. Revolutions develop out of the material that exists. The 1911 did not drop from the heavens. No deity whispered the design in Browning's ear.

    A fella can quibble over the use of the term, so let's get that out of the way so we can get to the heart of the disagreement. Call the Glock a game changing design. One that has had a profound impact on the firearms industry over the last quarter century and set the industry off scrambling to catch up. Now we have discussed why that was and we can get into that more.

    Fellas can say ..."But there was nothing new in the design componants" etc., etc. but at a certain point we have to be like Nikki Finke to Carl Rove on election night..."Is that real math you are using or just something to make yourself feel better?"

    There have been several important and influential designs for pistols in the last 110 years or so. The CZ 75 was influential, a da/sa gun that could be carried cocked and locked and that had, at the time, the best da trigger of any semi out there (my opinion but shared by others at the time like Jeff Cooper). It was frequently cloned. But it was not as influential as the Walther guns, PP, PPK, P38 that set a standard for da/sa triggers. Though the Austrian Little Tom had pioneered the concept Walther made the da/sa trigger and slide mounted safety the type standard for military and law enforcement for a few decades.

    Browning designs changed the face of handgunning. He and Luger, and Borchardt and Mauser were key players in the revolutionary transition from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols.

    The H&K VP 70 design and design conception were flawed. It introduced polymer construction but in an unsuccessful package. The Glock conception was successful and it has brought about significant change in how firearms are manufactured.

    A fella has said..."But this would of happened anyway". Yep it would have, but it didn't. It happened the way it has happened. A number of known elements of design and production technique were brought together to produce a product that has had deep significance in the industry and for the sport. It was innovative.

    Bill Ruger did the same with cast frames for his revolvers and pistols and stamped metal for his Ruger Mark I. Nothing new there either.

    Gaston Glock could not design a firearm to save his life. He brought together the folks who could though. Luck, marketing, right time right place, some smarts (the fella who made the movie Die Hard looked to H&K, S&W, Colt, Berretta and others to get a gun for the movie and they all either refused or wanted to charge him, Glock gave him some for free) all helped. Sam Colt would understand that.

    tipoc
     
  18. 1911Tuner

    1911Tuner Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    18,550
    Location:
    Lexington,North Carolina...or thereabouts
    Anyway. Square slides with a single lug. Remember?

    Cheaper, faster, easier to get the same breech strength as multiple radial lugs.
     
  19. MCMXI

    MCMXI Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    Messages:
    7,218
    Location:
    NW Montana
    SIGs have been accurate, durable and easy to field strip long before GLOCKs came along. The weight has never been an issue for me so GLOCK really doesn't offer anything I need or want.


    It can't be much clearer than that.
     
  20. Blue Brick

    Blue Brick Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,452
    Location:
    Pinal County, Arizona
    Loving this thread...... :)
     
  21. tipoc

    tipoc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,880
    Same for me. But it don't tick me off that they exist either and it don't stop me from seeing the value of them. Sigs are easier to take down as well.

    tipoc
     
  22. The Lone Haranguer

    The Lone Haranguer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,717
    Location:
    Johnson City, TN
    A slim gun is more comfortable to carry IWB than a thicker one, but this has little to do with the slide/barrel lockup used.
     
  23. Blue Brick

    Blue Brick Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    1,452
    Location:
    Pinal County, Arizona
    How does the Hi Point lock up or does it lock up?
     
  24. dogtown tom

    dogtown tom Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    4,301
    Location:
    Plano, Texas
    Hi Points are blowback operated.
     
  25. The Lone Haranguer

    The Lone Haranguer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    Messages:
    11,717
    Location:
    Johnson City, TN
    A Hi-Point does have a big bulky square slide, but this has nothing to do with any barrel/slide lockup because, being of straight blowback operation, there isn't anyway. The slide is heavy because the gun relies on the mass of the slide to keep the breech closed until the bullet has exited. The alternative to the heavy slide is a recoil spring that could double as truck suspension. ;) And the slide is large because zinc, being lighter than steel, needs more of it to achieve the desired weight. But if it were made of steel the gun would cost more.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page