I have a question for all the Glock fans here. What is the newest innovation that Glock has come up with since they first released the Glock 17 back in the late 80’s or early 90’s? BTW, I don’t consider any of the other models any more innovative than the Model 17 except for the Model 44. I am starting to think that Glock is just resting on its laurels here and selling guns that are in essence not much different than the original from 30 years ago.

Glock is perfection!  Always has been.  Everyone else has been playing catch-up!   

But, seriously, until Glock, how many polymer pistols were there?  Now everyone is making or trying to design their own polymer striker-fired models.

The modern Glock models have only 35 parts on average, making them reliable and easy to maintain. They have a low bore axis that reduces recoil.  Latest designs offer improved ergonomics, like interchangeable back straps.

When you start out way ahead of the pack, why try to make changes for the sake of change?  #1 criteria for any firearm is when you pull the trigger, it goes, "BANG!"  Given the number of extreme conditions the Glock's been tested in and it still just works, I think using "innovation" as a milestone is not a good standard.

The innovations came with the first Glock 17.  I don't see that they are resting on their laurels as much as continuing to give the customers the same thing they've come to trust for decades.

The 1911 has remained relatively the same for over a century.  Is it also considered obsolete due to its lack of innovations?  That pistol is still the standard by which all other pistol designs are measured.

You shot the IPSC target in the "D zone" (aka dick), didntcha?   

Nope.  I wound up with A/Head shots when I was aiming for A/Torso.   

Having to really squeeze the trigger caused me to raise the muzzle.  I was not slapping the trigger, or else I would have been going for the "primary target".

Since I started out on revolvers, I'm used to double-action.  The thing that gets you in competition is the trigger seems to take sooooo loooong to pull compared to follow-up shots with just a reset/pull or SA pull after a full trigger release.  That means having to wait with sights on target longer for the gun to catch up.  If you try to hurry the trigger pull, you're likely to push or pull the sights off target.

The P226 has an excellent stock trigger, which I replaced with a Sig Short Reset Trigger (SRT).  It's smooth, but only if you squeeze it vs. yanking it.

I wasn't really shooting for speed since I only went out to the MPPL competitions twice.  I was trying more to concentrate on each target and shooting safely. 

I couldn't find the joy in standing around watching a bunch of other people shoot for 20-30 minutes just so I could shoot my stage for 1-3 minutes.  Besides helping setup, I was there for 4-5 hours, and only got to shoot once per stage -- usually 4-6 stages.

I will say the moving/sliding/bobbing target stands and steel plates were a pleasant change from paper at 25 yds, but it bothered me that everyone was there to compete with no regular days scheduled for PRACTICE other than previous competition days.  Some of the targets, like the Texas Star, really called for practice before trying to run against it for time.   

It would be nice to have a day where you pay a fee for as many stages as they have set up.  You could run them all as many times as you wanted if the number of other shooters allowed you the time.  You could still do timing and scoring, but with enough volunteers, those activities along with resetting the targets could be super quick.  In fact, the more steel they use, the fewer holes they would have to tally and tape.   

To me, if something works, there is no need to spend R&D into making another totally new product.  Glock makes tons of money and makes tweaks to their guns.  Even different models/calibers are pretty much all based on the same design. Compared to say if they made a 1911 or a hammer fired pistol or AR.

And since their name is so highly respected, if they did make say a 1911 and it didn't perform well, then they lose some of that respect.  So not worth it.

Nope.  I wound up with A/Head shots when I was aiming for A/Torso.   

Having to really squeeze the trigger caused me to raise the muzzle.  I was not slapping the trigger, or else I would have been going for the "primary target".

Since I started out on revolvers, I'm used to double-action.  The thing that gets you in competition is the trigger seems to take sooooo loooong to pull compared to follow-up shots with just a reset/pull or SA pull after a full trigger release.  That means having to wait with sights on target longer for the gun to catch up.  If you try to hurry the trigger pull, you're likely to push or pull the sights off target.

The P226 has an excellent stock trigger, which I replaced with a Sig Short Reset Trigger (SRT).  It's smooth, but only if you squeeze it vs. yanking it.

I wasn't really shooting for speed since I only went out to the MPPL competitions twice.  I was trying more to concentrate on each target and shooting safely. 

I couldn't find the joy in standing around watching a bunch of other people shoot for 20-30 minutes just so I could shoot my stage for 1-3 minutes.  Besides helping setup, I was there for 4-5 hours, and only got to shoot once per stage -- usually 4-6 stages.

I will say the moving/sliding/bobbing target stands and steel plates were a pleasant change from paper at 25 yds, but it bothered me that everyone was there to compete with no regular days scheduled for PRACTICE other than previous competition days.  Some of the targets, like the Texas Star, really called for practice before trying to run against it for time.   

It would be nice to have a day where you pay a fee for as many stages as they have set up.  You could run them all as many times as you wanted if the number of other shooters allowed you the time.  You could still do timing and scoring, but with enough volunteers, those activities along with resetting the targets could be super quick.  In fact, the more steel they use, the fewer holes they would have to tally and tape.   

Re:MPPL, that's pretty much exactly why I started shooting USPSA/IPSC.  Texas star was my favorite, but also fun to watch.  Esp when that sucker started spinning.   

Glock 19 20th Anniversary



Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

To me, if something works, there is no need to spend R&D into making another totally new product.  Glock makes tons of money and makes tweaks to their guns.  Even different models/calibers are pretty much all based on the same design. Compared to say if they made a 1911 or a hammer fired pistol or AR.

And since their name is so highly respected, if they did make say a 1911 and it didn't perform well, then they lose some of that respect.  So not worth it.

Eventually though I would think they are going to have to come out with a new design. Maybe not? Or how about a new design but don’t stop manufacturing the old one?

Eventually though I would think they are going to have to come out with a new design. Maybe not? Or how about a new design but don’t stop manufacturing the old one?

As someone I heard or read on the Web stated, there's a reason "Glock" has become synonymous for many with "handgun".  The popularity and proliferation of Glocks throughout the US the last 4 decades is a testament to its value, reliability, applicability and effectiveness.

The VA Tech mass shooter used 2 handguns.  Primary was a G19.  Secondary was a Walther P22 .22LR.

The Xerox mass shooter used a G17.

Diplomatic Security Services Special Agent Chris Deedy used a G26.

Just to name a few. 

When you need a tissue, you ask for a "Kleenex".

When you need to make a copy of a paper, you make a "Xerox."

When you see a crime committed with a handgun, you describe it as a Glock or something other than a Glock!   

Eventually though I would think they are going to have to come out with a new design. Maybe not? Or how about a new design but don’t stop manufacturing the old one?

They do make a K-bar, which I bought when it was first released and was $19.99. I tried to find something wrong with it, but couldn't.  Has the G logo and "made in Austria" on it too.  The sheath sucks.

Eventually though I would think they are going to have to come out with a new design. Maybe not? Or how about a new design but don’t stop manufacturing the old one?

Maybe turn this around and approach it from "what would Inspector like to see Glock incorporate or innovate"? 

To me, performance benefits or more durable materials are what I think they could do.  I'm totally fine with Gen 4 and 5.  The incorporation of cuts for RDS was good, but can be had aftermarket.  People complain about the trigger, but nothing was wrong with it.  I think they also have to play the numbers game in overall production costs low.  I think that may be ok for the sights, but I'm sure there are other things where that angle plays a role. 

I just happened to think about how Colt has brought back the Python and Cobra revolvers into production at a time when revolvers are seen by many, if not most, shooters as obsolete.  S&W continues to offer revolvers that haven't changed significantly since being introduced in the mid 1900s.  They might have added internal keyed locks, replaced hammer-embedded firing pins with floating, frame-mounted firing pins and use MTM versus forged steel in some parts, but the overall designs haven't changed.

So, obviously it's the market that determines whether or not something has no more use.  Demand for revolvers will always be there for people who just love them and those who may not have the strength, dexterity or skills to operate a semi-auto.  Revolvers also have an easier time complying with certain states' list of legal handguns.

Different tools for different people.

How many footballs does it take to stop rounds from a Glock 19?

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/05/how-many-footballs-does-it-take-to-stop-bullets-shot-from-a-glock-19/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt&_source=amnparler

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

How many footballs does it take to stop rounds from a Glock 19?

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2016/05/how-many-footballs-does-it-take-to-stop-bullets-shot-from-a-glock-19/?utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=alt&_source=amnparler

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

There's a YT channel where a guy does similar test. How many frying pans does it take to stop an elephant gun, iphones to stop a AK rd, etc... IIRC it's Kentucky Demolition or something.  Not the guy who's SEBU 50 blew up.  He even had a what happes when you cement a pistol and fire it.  Trigger to grip was not cemented.  Basically, it fired and didn't explode.  But 2nd round didn't chamber.

It would be cool if glock simply came out with a hammer da/sa pistol built on the same frames their using with gen 5 glocks. So we can keep the mags we all have stocked up on lol.

Id prefer a da/sa with decocker over a 1911 style safety (like the p365 with safety) so just incase a round doesnt fire i can just pull the trigger again. Instead of racking it blah blah blah. And go from there on.

It would very be much like a sig p2022. Or imagine a beretta 92 g slide etc on a glock frame 

It would be cool if glock simply came out with a hammer da/sa pistol built on the same frames their using with gen 5 glocks. So we can keep the mags we all have stocked up on lol.

Id prefer a da/sa with decocker over a 1911 style safety (like the p365 with safety) so just incase a round doesnt fire i can just pull the trigger again. Instead of racking it blah blah blah. And go from there on.

It would very be much like a sig p2022. Or imagine a beretta 92 g slide etc on a glock frame 

I tried using my Sig P226 in the MPPL action bay competitions.  The DA pull needed for the first shot was enough of a detriment that I tried the Glock 17 next time.  There's a lot to be said for having a striker fired pistol with one in the chamber vs. having to exert almost double the trigger pressure that first round in a DA pistol.

Having said that, if you choose not to carry/store your defensive firearm with one in the chamber. then there's no real difference.  Same can be said of the 1911 if not chambered beforehand.

DA does offer a degree of safety in the form of trigger pressure needed to fire the gun, but it can still happen.  Same is true of a Glock if the trigger is accidentally pulled.  Only the SA 1911 has redundant safeties to hopefully prevent the majority of most foreseeable accidents.  Round chambered, hammer cocked, manual safety disengaged, grip safety depressed, and trigger pulled.  Eliminate any of those, and the 1911 should not fire.

Each model seems to have a trade-off in an attempt to balance simplicity and safety.  Given that the 1911 has all those built-in safety features, it also has the most complexity, meaning it only takes one failure to stop the gun from firing -- or to cause the gun to fire when you didn't expect it to.

The best safety feature is the shooter's proficiency with the weapon.  Practice, practice, practice.  Don't depend on the gun alone to prevent accidents.  Be totally familiar and comfortable with the safety features, and keep it away from people who aren't as proficient.