The new glock 19x coming January 27!
frame of a glock 17 but the slide is 19 length other features too....

I don't know what the purpose of the shorter slide is.  Not going to sell well in states with 10 rnd limits.  CCW for people with big hands?

I don't know what the purpose of the shorter slide is.  Not going to sell well in states with 10 rnd limits.  CCW for people with big hands?

Shorter slide and barrel means lighter than a G17.  They did something similar with the G30S by reducing the G30 slide width to make it lighter and slightly thinner for easier carry.

You'd also be able to share mags between the 19X and 17.  That's good for G17 service weapon users when you ask someone for another mag because yours jammed/is empty.  G19 mags won't work in a G17.

It must fill some niche that the G19 and G17 alone doesn't fit.  If not, then it's a ploy to sell more guns to Glock fanboys or collectors.

Just using my imagination.   

Sounds like an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist.  Would make more sense imo to see the reverse...  a g17 length slide and g19 length grip.

The 19x makes no sense to me....  I went from carrying a 17 to the 19 because I wanted a smaller package that didn't print. The grip is what prints.  If the point is to carry in an OWB holster then why not use a 17 over this thing?  We can already use 17 mags with G19's, "over insertion" isn't an issue.  I just don't get it..... 

P.S.  They should have let this project die when they lost the contract lol.

Didnt watch the video but it looks like thats the gun that lost to the sig without the manual safety.

I'm sure its just glock trying to recoup some of their R&D by searching the pockets of mil fanboys.

For concealed carry, the grip length and not the slide length matters more, right?  I personally dont like the 19 because my pinky hangs off the bottom and this would solve that problem.  But, why?

No interest for me personally. I’d stick with a standard Gen 5 19.

However, I can see tons of people going after this for a number of reasons. That it’s new, seemingly limited edition nature of it, so have what the troops have (or will have), etc. Even just for the color. I recall all the buzz when Glock first came out with the FDE frame. I have one in FDE. First, I wanted a second 17 and the FDE seemed like a nice option, but I would have been completely happy with a standard black frame.

Didnt watch the video but it looks like thats the gun that lost to the sig without the manual safety.

I'm sure its just glock trying to recoup some of their R&D by searching the pockets of mil fanboys.

For concealed carry, the grip length and not the slide length matters more, right?  I personally dont like the 19 because my pinky hangs off the bottom and this would solve that problem.  But, why?

I guess one needs an open mind (and wallet) to at least try the 19X to see if one prefers it over other options.  It may be a "carrot" to entice owners to try the Gen5 features.

Sounds like the same "Why the G42?  Why a .380 and not a 9mm?" threads.  Then, the G43 came out.

Will a 17X be coming soon?    Maybe a G21X with a G19 length slide in .45 ACP? 

Ooooh... brown. 

I vastly prefer the G17 grip/frame over the 19, but indeed I primarily carry a 19 concealed.  I don't like where the hump on the 19 sized pistol interacts with my hand and in Gen 4 and previous versions I completely reshape the grip.  I would enjoy shooting the 19 quite a bit more with the G17 sized frame, but it indeed it would not conceal as nicely for some.  I carry a 17 concealed from time to time and I know a lot of guys that carry 17's and 34's concealed all the time.

This pistol configuration dimensionally is pretty common in many offerings from various manufacturers.  This should have been an MOS from the start.  A bit less length if one intended to do a compensated build or a suppressor while maintaining a standard frame.  There are some specific reasons that Glock built this dimension for Mil trials.  I don't like the all FDE, or lanyard, and it is a bit niche, but It will sell.   

Interesting to see all of the comments, from supports and detractors of this gun.  Glock seems to be like the New England Patriots or New York Yankees.  You have the extreme fanboys and haters. 

One common theme that keeps coming up is that this gun doesn't makes sense for carrying concealed.  Well, they have plenty of other tried and true options for that market.  I don't believe concealment was one of the primary criteria for this gun. 

A friend posted his opinion that Glock is losing it's high perch status of handguns.  He said "Glock won't be king in 5 years".  Mind you that he's like me.  A Glock shooter, but also interested and own other handguns and not against changing if something better comes along.  I see his point about how other companies like Sig, HK, etc have been changing and improving, especially in terms of options offered that cater to consumer feedback.  However, I am not looking for Glock to come out with anything super innovative.  Boring reliability is what I want from a Glock.  Are they perfect?  No.  Every person's hand is different and everyone is going to have their individual preference.  In a way, how much more does a tool need to be improved?  I guess you can try to innovate a claw hammer, but that's a tried and true tool.  Anything super innovative for that would be a nail gun.   

Interesting to see all of the comments, from supports and detractors of this gun.  Glock seems to be like the New England Patriots or New York Yankees.  You have the extreme fanboys and haters. 

One common theme that keeps coming up is that this gun doesn't makes sense for carrying concealed.  Well, they have plenty of other tried and true options for that market.  I don't believe concealment was one of the primary criteria for this gun. 

A friend posted his opinion that Glock is losing it's high perch status of handguns.  He said "Glock won't be king in 5 years".  Mind you that he's like me.  A Glock shooter, but also interested and own other handguns and not against changing if something better comes along.  I see his point about how other companies like Sig, HK, etc have been changing and improving, especially in terms of options offered that cater to consumer feedback.  However, I am not looking for Glock to come out with anything super innovative.  Boring reliability is what I want from a Glock.  Are they perfect?  No.  Every person's hand is different and everyone is going to have their individual preference.  In a way, how much more does a tool need to be improved?  I guess you can try to innovate a claw hammer, but that's a tried and true tool.  Anything super innovative for that would be a nail gun.   

Reliability is why I use a Glock as my daily carry.  I don't need vast innovation from them, just small improvements.
1.  Make trigger guard cuts standard on smaller frames from the factory, or at least have the option.  Like Surf, I prefer the grip of the 17 frame as well, the 19 digs into my middle finger without a cut into the trigger guard.  With the cut the problem is eliminated.
2.  Better grip angle.  Of course with enough reps you can train this out, not the point. 
3.  Ambi mag release.
4.  Better triggers, the gen 5's ARE an improvement over earlier iterations but they can still be improved.
5.  I'm torn on the plastic sights.  On one hand I like the idea of saving money on sights to buy the exact sights I want, but still feel like they should come with actual "iron" sights O.o

As for not being the handgun king, unless Glock does something to interfere with the reliability of their firearms, I don't see that happening.

Reliability is why I use a Glock as my daily carry.  I don't need vast innovation from them, just small improvements.
1.  Make trigger guard cuts standard on smaller frames from the factory, or at least have the option.  Like Surf, I prefer the grip of the 17 frame as well, the 19 digs into my middle finger without a cut into the trigger guard.  With the cut the problem is eliminated.
2.  Better grip angle.  Of course with enough reps you can train this out, not the point. 
3.  Ambi mag release.
4.  Better triggers, the gen 5's ARE an improvement over earlier iterations but they can still be improved.
5.  I'm torn on the plastic sights.  On one hand I like the idea of saving money on sights to buy the exact sights I want, but still feel like they should come with actual "iron" sights O.o

As for not being the handgun king, unless Glock does something to interfere with the reliability of their firearms, I don't see that happening.

Yeah.  I don't think Glock is going anywhere.  However, I do believe that other companies have made good strides recently.  Which is a good thing to have more quality and reliable options.  It's a good time in terms of handgun choices. 

The grip angle thing is another aspect that my buddy and I talked about.  Personally, I never felt that there was anything wrong with the Glock grip angle nor really either appreciated or maybe never fully understood the whole "natural" grip angle.  To me, there's a locked out forward wrist position, which no handgun has that angle, at least for me.  Then there's the other end of the range of motion with the wrist rotated upward.  Everything else seemed to be in between to me.  I guess since when I got more into training and shooting more, it was with a Glock, that seemed somewhat more natural to me.  I know many shooters are used to one gun and then have to adjust when they go to another gun, but I think that's always going to be the case to a certain extent.  I recall the TRex Arms guy in his video about the CZ P10c mention something like it took him a little while to get used to the P10c as he had a tendency to shoot high (or low, I forget which) since he was so used to shooting the 19.  While I like shooting my CZ 75 and 1911, they do seem somewhat strange to me, especially if I haven't shot them in a while. 

He's a buffoon and goofball.     I watch his videos from time to time, but I tend to like video reviews where they actually shoot the gun as opposed to just yapping. 

He's also a Glock hater.  Not that I don't agree with some of what he says.  Just that he has a history of Glock hate. 

He's a buffoon and goofball.     I watch his videos from time to time, but I tend to like video reviews where they actually shoot the gun as opposed to just yapping. 

He's also a Glock hater.  Not that I don't agree with some of what he says.  Just that he has a history of Glock hate. 

He's an idiot and not a very good shooter.  He pontificates from a position that is not based on experience. 

Be mindful that this pistol was designed to meet US Army criteria for an M9 replacement. I dont know or care to read about those requirements but with the acceptance of the Beretta M9 we can see that it doesnt jive with civies. Most soldiers issued pistols didnt CCW. Most of CCW I observed were shoulder holsters. Most were in thigh holsters and even fewer in outside waistband holsters. Id prefer this 19x over an M9 if it were issued.

I like Glocks though all I have are more sophisticated and superior 1911s....I keed!
But two personal points dictate me from getting one. Hawaii CCW for civies and elimination of Crapback

1) Be mindful that this pistol was designed to meet US Army criteria for an M9 replacement. I dont know or care to read about those requirements but with the acceptance of the Beretta M9 we can see that it doesnt jive with civies. Most soldiers issued pistols didnt CCW. Most of CCW I observed were shoulder holsters. Most were in thigh holsters and even fewer in outside waistband holsters. Id prefer this 19x over an M9 if it were issued.

I like Glocks though all I have are more sophisticated and superior 1911s....I keed!
2) But two personal points dictate me from getting one. Hawaii CCW for civies and elimination of Crapback

1) Yup.  It had a targeted purpose goal.  Why I was laughing at all those so hung up on the CCW aspect.
2) Me too. 

I also heard/read where so many were harping on that Sig won the MHS contract and Glock didn't.  Just because a company won a contract doesn't necessarily mean it outright performed the best.  I mean I'm not trying to take anything away from Sig since as far as I can tell, the P320 is generally a really good handgun.  I have no idea of the evaluation criteria that was used, but in my work in facility contracting, the lowest price, technically acceptable is one of the most common methods for award.  That means as long as they didn't fail a criteria and they were lowest cost, they would win.  Yes, we have best value methods of award (combination of best quality and price), but that selection process can take forever and is almost always protested. 

He's an idiot and not a very good shooter.  He pontificates from a position that is not based on experience.

I was trying to be nice, but yeah, he's a tard.   

I was trying to find this other goober.  He was all up in arms about how when he shot the PPQ, his grip would make the magazine drop.  He was a real tard.  It seems like he took his channel down. 

I'm definitely one that needs to try for myself, not matter how much someone comments on how good something is.