Glock is discontinuing all model because of out lash about glock switches


https://us.glock.com/en/discontinued-models

I wonder if Glock will offer trade-in discounts to try and reduce the number of pre-V Glocks in circulation?

Cucks.

This will set precedent. Wait till CA finalizes their fingerprint access on gun system.  Or "your gun mag limit is 10rds, but the gun can hold a mag that can hold more than 10rds, change it or we sue you again".

Then it's a cat and mouse game as new switches will be invented.

Criminal California: It has to be aggressively confronted and defeated by whatever means necessary.

Certainly they are drafting paper to ban all long guns - as a simple hacksaw can turn them into short barreled weapons, right?

Everything under the sun that is produced can be altered to make it not what it is supposed to be.

Everything.

Cucks.

This will set precedent. Wait till CA finalizes their fingerprint access on gun system.  Or "your gun mag limit is 10rds, but the gun can hold a mag that can hold more than 10rds, change it or we sue you again".

Then it's a cat and mouse game as new switches will be invented.

If the facts support the allegation that Glocks stand out as the only pistols that a switch can be easily installed in to create a full-auto pistol, then i think they have a duty to change that design, especially if it's unintentional.

Glock switches are specifically designed to fit Glock pistols, particularly
models like the Glock 17 and Glock 19, which are among the most
common. However, they can also potentially fit other Glock models that
share similar internal designs.

With CA banning Glocks over this problem, I think it's prudent for Glock to get out in front of it by announcing a solution -- at least for new production runs.

The liability of letting a firearm remain capabel of full-auto rate of fire could destroy the company.

This is not the first time a firearm design resulted in it's ban: The Tech-DC9 was simple to convert to full-auto.  Many Tech-9 variants were used in mass shootings, but none were converted according to the source I saw,

Without a solution, Glock may face the same bans as Tech-9s.  CA may just be the tip of the spear.

I'd wait and see if this even matters.  If the V-series replaces the current pistol lines with comparable, or even better, firearms, then the company will have taken the opportunity to sell more -- not fewer -- Glocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_switch

If the facts support the allegation that Glocks stand out as the only pistols that a switch can be easily installed in to create a full-auto pistol, then i think they have a duty to change that design, especially if it's unintentional.

Are you sure it's not Fudd Jackson?

Legalize full auto!

Are you sure it's not Fudd Jackson?

Legalize full auto!

The fact is: full auto is not legal to import.  And to transfer one, you have to apply for an NFA permit.

So, why wouldn't an Austrian company protect themselves against liability lawsuits?  If they intend to continue sales in the US, they need to make changes.  CA may be the first of many states which pass laws to ban them.  That's not a good long term business plan, nor is it protecting the Second Amendment.  Kicking Glocks out of the US market is a gun-hater's wet dream!

Wishing full autos were legalized doesn't change reality.  Call me a Fudd if you like.  It doesn't change anything.  Unless/until the NFA is repealed or changed, full auto firearm retail sales are unlawful.  Saying it's not a full auto unless it has a switch is like saying a 15 rd mag is legal as long as it contains no ammo ... or only the number that's legal.

if the Glock design accepts a switch and operates in FA with it, then the pistol is designed to be used as a machine gun.  There's no simpler way to look at it.

Criminal California: It has to be aggressively confronted and defeated by whatever means necessary.

Certainly they are drafting paper to ban all long guns - as a simple hacksaw can turn them into short barreled weapons, right?

Everything under the sun that is produced can be altered to make it not what it is supposed to be.

Everything.

Clearly the intent here is to establish yet another degenerate precedent to attack the industry:  If it can be modified to be what WE define as bad, it IS bad and should be made illegal.

This is the new ground they want to drag the industry on top of so they can kill it there -  this is what it means to subvert, and this is what they specialize in, as we all should have known long, long ago.

I.e. the switch is totally illegal, doing the modification is totally illegal, but with this shift in the ground of the argument all that instantly becomes beside the point: The actual illegality is the the gun, because it is not designed to be unmodifiable!

Next up for them is likely the AR platform.  Many versions are easily drop-in modified to full auto.  Here’s just one search hit:

“Another fantastic invention that came about in the 1980s was the “Lightning Link.” Properly known as the S.W.D., Inc. Auto Connector, fewer than 900 of these were manufactured and in the NFA registry prior to May 1986. This is a drop-in part to convert a commercial AR-15 into a fully automatic firearm.”

https://www.recoilweb.com/turning-your-ar-15-into-an-m-16-150631.html

So, AR’s capable of being modified this way are next - exactly the same situation.

The first and foremost engineering priority with respect to firearms is NOT the anticipation and thwarting of all possible modifications after sale - and it never can be allowed to be.  Hence if the industry doesn’t kill this evil dead, they will have us back to flintlocks.

Legalize full auto

It’s the only way to be sure

Clearly the intent here is to establish yet another degenerate precedent to attack the industry:  If it can be modified to be what WE define as bad, it IS bad and should be made illegal.

This is the new ground they want to drag the industry on top of so they can kill it there -  this is what it means to subvert, and this is what they specialize in, as we all should have known long, long ago.

I.e. the switch is totally illegal, doing the modification is totally illegal, but with this shift in the ground of the argument all that instantly becomes beside the point: The actual illegality is the the gun, because it is not designed to be unmodifiable!

Next up for them is likely the AR platform.  Many versions are easily drop-in modified to full auto.  Here’s just one search hit:

“Another fantastic invention that came about in the 1980s was the “Lightning Link.” Properly known as the S.W.D., Inc. Auto Connector, fewer than 900 of these were manufactured and in the NFA registry prior to May 1986. This is a drop-in part to convert a commercial AR-15 into a fully automatic firearm.”

https://www.recoilweb.com/turning-your-ar-15-into-an-m-16-150631.html

So, AR’s capable of being modified this way are next - exactly the same situation.

The first and foremost engineering priority with respect to firearms is NOT the anticipation and thwarting of all possible modifications after sale - and it never can be allowed to be.  Hence if the industry doesn’t kill this evil dead, they will have us back to flintlocks.

inserting a switch into a Glock pistol is not a modification.  It's a conversion to FA that requires no modification to the original pistol.

That's different than the AR15 to M16 modification.

AR15s can have a FA BCG and still not function in FA.  But, if you machine the lower reciever to accept a FA sear, then you can convert it to FA.

The most common way is to buy the actual M-16 fire control parts
and install them in a lower receiver. Most lower receivers need to
be modified by drilling a third hole to fit the auto sear.

What separates a registered receiver has a third pin hole to house
 the auto sear.

One of the first methods of converting an AR to fire full auto is to
install a part known as a Drop-In Auto Sear, or DIAS. The DIAS
requires an M-16 hammer, selector, and bolt installed in the rifle.
The “Drop In” appellation refers to the end-user not having to machine
 the lower to accommodate an auto sear, as a secondary auto sear
is part of the DIAS.

A DIAS doesn’t require a third pin hole, though some receivers will
require some milling.

There are other conversion methods mentioned in your link that require no milling or modifications.  Most of those were popular in the1980s, and unless the parts were properly registered by the NFA, producing or possessing more is unlawful.  Also, the Lightning Link only functioned with a specific Colt AR15 bolt model SP-1 as well as a small handfull of early civilian AR15s.  "After 1989, Colt added what’s known as a “High Shelf” in their lower receivers to prevent installation of a Lightning Link. These lowers can work if the shelf is milled away."  Sounds like Colt was making changes in their products to prevent FA long before Glock's recent change.

With the prices of ammo today, you'd have to be financially comfortable to shoot a FA firearm.  At Front Sight, I paid $40 for the privilege of doing a 30 rd mag dump.  It was over in about 5 seconds!  And the smoke and particles it spewed were very hard to see through and also very irritating to my eyes.  So much fun and unpleasant reactions to such a short FA experience.

“I overpaid to exercise my constitutional rights…”

Shut your Fudd hole

inserting a switch into a Glock pistol is not a modification.  It's a conversion to FA that requires no modification to the original pistol.

That's different than the AR15 to M16 modification.

AR15s can have a FA BCG and still not function in FA.  But, if you machine the lower reciever to accept a FA sear, then you can convert it to FA.
There are other conversion methods mentioned in your link that require no milling or modifications.  Most of those were popular in the1980s, and unless the parts were properly registered by the NFA, producing or possessing more is unlawful.  Also, the Lightning Link only functioned with a specific Colt AR15 bolt model SP-1 as well as a small handfull of early civilian AR15s.  "After 1989, Colt added what’s known as a “High Shelf” in their lower receivers to prevent installation of a Lightning Link. These lowers can work if the shelf is milled away."  Sounds like Colt was making changes in their products to prevent FA long before Glock's recent change.

With the prices of ammo today, you'd have to be financially comfortable to shoot a FA firearm.  At Front Sight, I paid $40 for the privilege of doing a 30 rd mag dump.  It was over in about 5 seconds!  And the smoke and particles it spewed were very hard to see threw and also very irritating to my eyes.  So much fun and unpleasant reactions to such a short FA experience.

Yes I know I read the whole thing before I posted - nothing you have regurgitated here blunts the points I made - specifically I said with respect to drop in mod to full auto:

“So, AR’s capable of being modified this way are next - exactly the same situation.”

- and obviously they are, so why try to say otherwise?

I should call you Octopus for all the black ink you squirt!

If the facts support the allegation that Glocks stand out as the only pistols that a switch can be easily installed in to create a full-auto pistol, then i think they have a duty to change that design, especially if it's unintentional.
With CA banning Glocks over this problem, I think it's prudent for Glock to get out in front of it by announcing a solution -- at least for new production runs.

The liability of letting a firearm remain capabel of full-auto rate of fire could destroy the company.

This is not the first time a firearm design resulted in it's ban: The Tech-DC9 was simple to convert to full-auto.  Many Tech-9 variants were used in mass shootings, but none were converted according to the source I saw,

Without a solution, Glock may face the same bans as Tech-9s.  CA may just be the tip of the spear.

I'd wait and see if this even matters.  If the V-series replaces the current pistol lines with comparable, or even better, firearms, then the company will have taken the opportunity to sell more -- not fewer -- Glocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_switch

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree it's the right step.  Just my $0.02 that this is nothing more than an attack on the 2A and it's future.

Clearly the intent here is to establish yet another degenerate precedent to attack the industry:  If it can be modified to be what WE define as bad, it IS bad and should be made illegal.

This is the new ground they want to drag the industry on top of so they can kill it there -  this is what it means to subvert, and this is what they specialize in, as we all should have known long, long ago.

I.e. the switch is totally illegal, doing the modification is totally illegal, but with this shift in the ground of the argument all that instantly becomes beside the point: The actual illegality is the the gun, because it is not designed to be unmodifiable!

Next up for them is likely the AR platform.  Many versions are easily drop-in modified to full auto.  Here’s just one search hit:

“Another fantastic invention that came about in the 1980s was the “Lightning Link.” Properly known as the S.W.D., Inc. Auto Connector, fewer than 900 of these were manufactured and in the NFA registry prior to May 1986. This is a drop-in part to convert a commercial AR-15 into a fully automatic firearm.”

https://www.recoilweb.com/turning-your-ar-15-into-an-m-16-150631.html

So, AR’s capable of being modified this way are next - exactly the same situation.

The first and foremost engineering priority with respect to firearms is NOT the anticipation and thwarting of all possible modifications after sale - and it never can be allowed to be.  Hence if the industry doesn’t kill this evil dead, they will have us back to flintlocks.

I agree. Refer to my over 10 rd mag example that can be next.

inserting a switch into a Glock pistol is not a modification.  It's a conversion to FA that requires no modification to the original pistol.

That's different than the AR15 to M16 modification.

AR15s can have a FA BCG and still not function in FA.  But, if you machine the lower reciever to accept a FA sear, then you can convert it to FA.
There are other conversion methods mentioned in your link that require no milling or modifications.  Most of those were popular in the1980s, and unless the parts were properly registered by the NFA, producing or possessing more is unlawful.  Also, the Lightning Link only functioned with a specific Colt AR15 bolt model SP-1 as well as a small handfull of early civilian AR15s.  "After 1989, Colt added what’s known as a “High Shelf” in their lower receivers to prevent installation of a Lightning Link. These lowers can work if the shelf is milled away."  Sounds like Colt was making changes in their products to prevent FA long before Glock's recent change.

With the prices of ammo today, you'd have to be financially comfortable to shoot a FA firearm.  At Front Sight, I paid $40 for the privilege of doing a 30 rd mag dump.  It was over in about 5 seconds!  And the smoke and particles it spewed were very hard to see threw and also very irritating to my eyes.  So much fun and unpleasant reactions to such a short FA experience.

The government convicted CRS Firearms for his invovlement of the auto link (similar to the above).   The AFT couldn't even get it to work and yet he was convicted for FA.  So I get that you're saying there's a difference between a drop in part and having to do any milling, but with the above also precedent set, I have low confidence that even if milling is involved, would there be any difference.

My statement is all speculation about the future based on current facts and the anti 2A orgs/governments invovled.

The government convicted CRS Firearms for his invovlement of the auto link (similar to the above).   The AFT couldn't even get it to work and yet he was convicted for FA.  So I get that you're saying there's a difference between a drop in part and having to do any milling, but with the above also precedent set, I have low confidence that even if milling is involved, would there be any difference.

My statement is all speculation about the future based on current facts and the anti 2A orgs/governments invovled.

Absolutely!

Did we not just fight tooth and nail to stop their bill that was carefully word-crafted to cover virtually all semiauto long guns as “assault rifles” - based on their argument that they had previously successfully banned “assault pistols” - and this “closes the loop” and finally gets rid of evil “assault rifles”  as should have been done back then?

I cited the example that drop in parts (no frigging milling required) already exist in other platforms like the AR, this is the low hanging fruit - but of course they don’t give a shit about drawing some proper line - QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

“All it takes is drilling a hole”, “all it takes is the swapping out of these parts,” “ all it takes is the modification of this sear in conjunction with….” on and on it will go.

They are of course not above hiring someone to create parts or methods to accomplish what they want in order to execute this strategy.

You know, just like “All we want is marriage equality” …. and next, some fag is pounding the shit out of a girl at the Olympics.  Children are trans-groomed at school, and their parents are threatened with Child Protective Services if they fight it….

This is the MO - how in the hell can anyone here not grasp that?

Absolutely!

Did we not just fight tooth and nail to stop their bill that was carefully word-crafted to cover virtually all semiauto long guns as “assault rifles” - based on their argument that they had previously successfully banned “assault pistols” - and this “closes the loop” and finally gets rid of evil “assault rifles”  as should have been done back then?

Yes.  The loophole argument is used every year.  IIRC by the Chur of the Crossroads and the anti 2a orgs like ET/MDA.

We just beat it this past session.  It was a miracle as Wakai was the vote who caused it to die.  And if people don't know, Wakai is anti 2A. IDK why he changed his mind, I will assume some other backdoor deal was made for something else.  Maybe his step daughter wanted to buy one?  I know her and haven't had the casual convo to ask if she or her bf are gun owners.  Knowing who her step dad is and that he comes by often, I have to tread lightly.

“I overpaid to exercise my constitutional rights…”

Shut your Fudd hole

Show me where I said I overpaid.

Yes I know I read the whole thing before I posted - nothing you have regurgitated here blunts the points I made - specifically I said with respect to drop in mod to full auto:

“So, AR’s capable of being modified this way are next - exactly the same situation.”

- and obviously they are, so why try to say otherwise?

I should call you Octopus for all the black ink you squirt!

Funny how you seem to cherry pick a few words after claiming to have read the whole thing.

You completely missed my point, Patrick. Say, "Hi!" to Sponge Bob for me.