John Farnam writes [via ammoland.com]:
As a marketing amateur, it strikes me that reputations are invariably tied to product and company names, and at least in the gun business, confusion is the rule, rather than the exception. And, much confusion is avoided when gunmakers are understandable and consistent with product titles, and unfailingly follow-up with dynamite customer service.
GLOCK is the best example! “GLOCK” means only one thing. GLOCK makes only pistols. No GLOCK pistol has ever had a manual safety, nor a manual decocking lever/button, nor a magazine safety, nor has been hammer-fired. All GLOCK pistols, no matter the size, are striker-fired, polymer-framed, and have pretty much the same profile.
Thus, when someone says “GLOCK,” you won’t hear “Which style?,” nor “Is that the variant with the decocking button?” etc. Everyone knows what “Glock” means! While GLOCK has been criticized for never offering “variants,” the reward has been that the name “GLOCK” is seldom a source of confusion in the minds of consumers.
Envying GLOCK’s spectacular marketing success over the past thirty years, nearly every other gunmaker in the world is currently producing “GLOCK-like” pistols. The foregoing is no secret! All are striker-fired, polymer-framed, and have no manual decocking lever/button. Nearly all (including GLOCK) now feature VGG (variable grip geometry). And, they’re all doing their best to capitalize on what they see as ways in which the GLOCK pattern can be improved. From positioning of controls, to profile, to take-down procedure, sights, accessories, additional “features,” etc, manufacturers are doing their best to produce worthy competitors to the GLOCK pattern.
The SA/XD and XD/M, S&W M&P, Walther PPQ, FNS, Kahr, Ruger All American, SIG/320, H&K VP9, and now the Century Arms Canik (TP9SF), and the CZ P10C are all worthy and acceptable examples. I just heard of a new one, from Europe, called the BBTech. Remington’s candidate, the RP9, has also just hit the market. Beretta’s long-awaited “APX” has yet to rear its head! Colt apparently has no plans, and no clue!
As an Operator, the addition of “features” like manual safeties, magazine safeties, “ambidextrous controls,” extended/enlarged levers and buttons, ad nauseam, represents going backwards! Serious Operators have scant use for all that junk, and GLOCK, to their everlasting credit, has steadfastly refused to put any of that trash on their guns. Magazine safeties, for example, are far worse that a mere annoyance. Magazine safeties are a death-trap and thus not recommended on any serious pistol. Not all agree, however.
In my view, all this is healthy (albeit confusing), both in terms of the viability of our gunmaking industry, and in terms of the advancement of our Art. Good competition makes good products. It’s yet another miracle of capitalism! Getting back to the point . ..
In this business, names are important. Reputations are even more important. Gunmakers need to know what they represent in the minds of their customers.
– “BBTech” pistols, in the American market, will be immediately confused with “BB guns.” Potential gun buyers will quickly pass them by and look no closer!
– “Canik” pistols are what? Do they work like a GLOCK, or do they have a decocking button? The term, “Canik” has been applied by Century Arms to several different variants. That’s a mistake! The Canik TP9SF/Elite is what you want, but that’s a lot of letters and numbers to remember!
My advice to gunmaker’s marketing departments is to come up with a name that is simple to pronounce and easy to remember, and then stick with it, so that over time we all become accustomed to what that name means. Don’t give it a “number.” Give it a name!
Be reluctant to load-up your otherwise excellent weapon with glib, trendy, glamorous junk, designed only to appeal only to the fearful, careless, shallow and self-centered.
We aging Operators, and the next generation of young Operators we’re training-up, are depending on you to provide us with superior weapons – simple, quick, slick, fast, reliable, durable, and lethal.
Don’t fail us!
/John
—————————
About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc
As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor John Farnam will urge you, based on your own beliefs, to make up your mind in advance as to what you would do when faced with an imminent and unlawful lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance, if any. Defense Training International wants to make sure that their students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or inactions. It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to the Planet Earth. Mr Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit: www.defense-training.com
Glock did actually produce a small number of pistols equipped with a manual safety, although they were never produced in any real numbers. Your point still very much stands, however.
No Glock equipped with a manual safety has ever left a Glock factory or been offered for sale in the civilian or LE market, never happened.
Cominolli Custom of New York sells a manual safety kit for Glocks that requires the warranty voiding alteration of cutting a slot into the polymer frame, so if you’ve ever seen a Glock with a manual safety, the pistol likely had the Cominolli kit installed.
If Glock ever had manufactured a pistol equipped with a manual safety the same “firearms experts” who believe the ridiculous NYPD 12lb Glock trigger enhances safety would jump at the chance to further complicate and degrade the simplicity and proven reliability of the Glock.
Damn, Google is tough!
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/08/25/thumb-safety-glock/
Ditch the exclamation points!
NEVER!!!
The consumers wins when there are options and competition in any sort of market as the author pointed out. Glocks have their place and I’m not going to try to take anything away from them but I want options when I’m going to shell out cash.
You do have options, you don’t have to buy a Glock.
Glock, glockity glock glock, and furthermore glock.
Oh yeah and does it take Glock mags?
Owning a glock means never having to say “I’m gay.”
Because everyone will automatically know.
Don’t worry your pink hat with ears will give you away regardless of gun choice.
[Don’t give it a “number.” Give it a name!]
I count 27 different models on GLOCK’s website, all given a number…
That was my first thought. Glock is alllll about numbering their guns.
True.
Also true: all of Glock’s handgun models consist of nothing more than the name “Glock” and a simple two-digit number.
Something along these lines would be necessary anyhow since they (rightly) offer their handguns in different calibers.
Where I think Glock fails: they assign different numbers to the same caliber to indicate whether it is compact, 4 inch barrel, 4.5 inch barrel, or long slide. That is a problem. When someone references a Glock 20, I have to ask myself, “Is that their compact, full size (4.5 inch barrel), or long slide in 9mm, .40 S&W, 10mm, or .45 ACP?”
N9ot being a Glock Fanboi like the author obviously is, I have no idea what any of those numbers mean. So I agree with you, the numbering is meaningless, and I am not lkikely to run off to Glock’s website to figure out what people are talking about.
Glock’s model numbering system is dead-simple, especially for those of us who came of age while trying to keep up with S&W’s two-digit, then three-digit, and finally FOUR-digit model numbering systems. Heck, when I was a young-un, S&W’s didn’t even HAVE model numbers, and we STILL knew what was what!
Mutter-mumble…dang kids nowadays, thinking they’re all digital and shi+… and stay off my LAN!
The Glock models were generally assigned model numbers in the order of their introduction, but a few were assigned number and then put on the back burner to get other, newer, models released.
Just go to this linked page, and take a screenshot of the chart and save it somewhere. Done!
https://us.glock.com/products/all
Glock has one of the worst numbering systems ever. At least the S&W numbers have some meaning: 5 is a blued gun, 6 is stainless steel.
Unless you are a Glockophile, remembering what the model number means is pretty difficult. I can remember three: 17, 18, and 19.
How about Glock Compact 9mm (nee 19), Glock Subcompact Slim 9mm (something with a 4), etc. Not that I care what Glock does. Never owned a Glock, never owned a Honda Civic either.
Until very recently, selling a Glock to a customer consisted of two questions:
“What caliber do you prefer?”
“Would you like small, medium or large?”
Nice and easy as that may seem, I see no reason to quit my favorite not-all-that-serious hobby at work: arguing that Glock is NOT the final word in combat handguns.
(Ruger is!!!)
*sneaks away giggling*
Right on. Only own Rugers. Friends have some glocks & they ARE NOT reliable, unless you count reliably jamming. If I got a glock for free I would not use it or keep it.
Then somebody isn’t cleaning/lubing their weapon. Regardless, at some point ALL weapons will fail at some point. Nothing is 100% reliable 100% of the time. People say, “Well it was caused by bad ammo.” Yeah, I know, whatever the cause sooner or later it WILL malfunction. Ergo, malfunction drills.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ruger? Reliable?? Best joke I’ve heard all year!
Only one number I needs to know… Glawk Faw-tay!
I dislike magazine safeties and key safeties. It seems to me that most companies have a “spaghetti” strategy where they’ll make some of every gun and see what sticks. I see your point on how confusing that can be. The problem with “Our company will make only one type of gun” is that very few have the success Glock has had. If/when your “one” gun doesn’t do well…. bye bye company.
The key safeties were a political add-in.
The magazine safeties were to head off lawsuits by cops who “accidentally” shot themselves while “cleaning their service weapons.” S&W knows their market – they’ve been selling to cops longer than just about any other gun manufacture out there, and they know just what that market is capable of.
California mandates them for inclusion on the Roster. Although some of the rules are clearly idiotic, this one was apparently to protect against the idiots who believe that if they drop the mag the gun is suddenly unloaded. How many of us have read of a negligent discharge in exactly this circumstance?
Very true. And let’s not forget that Glock’s success is largely due to their combination of timing, foresight, and innovation. At the time they were introduced, semi-automatic pistols were common for law enforcement, but there were still large swaths of the country where revolvers were issued as duty pistols, but the winds of change were blowing. Glock pretty much led the charge for the many holdouts to switch from revolvers with a combination of a genuinely innovative product with a lot of features that appealed to cops, while aggressively marketing toward law enforcement and offering VERY aggressive pricing to them. Once Glock had the cop market by the balls, the much larger and far more lucrative American non-LEO market was extremely receptive to buying their product.
It is interesting to look at the company’s history and see just how much they did right. Timing played a huge role, and that was down to dumb luck. But it only took a little nudging to create the opportunity, and then they did absolutely everything right in capitalizing on it. And, as the author points out, they have done pretty much everything right since, particularly with protecting their brand (they pretty much stamped out the market for airsoft Glocks, even those without trademarks) and refusing to water it down. Love their product or hate it, their success is certainly an excellent lesson in how to manage a company.
He makes a very valid point about “extras”. While I understand the concept of ambidextrous controls and do see value there, especially for lefties, adding a bunch of other stuff like manual safeties is just silly.
John Browning didn’t believe in manual safeties and IMHO he was right then and, were he still alive, would still be right today.
It was a brilliant strategy for Glock. There’s a lot of demand for a Glock-simple gun without all the different features. But most gunmakers can’t follow that example very far. If someone wants a very simple gun that goes bang, they get a Glock. That market has already been filled. If, on the other hand, you are creating NON-glocks, your market exists but is fragmented because you are adding on options. You’re better off giving some variety at that point because not as many people want a SA\DA semi-auto with manual safety/decocker as want a Glock; so instead you make that AND an option for one without a manual safety.
I mean S&W was probably better off in some ways when they just produced revolvers, but they’d have to accept a much smaller share of the market- even if their brand would be stronger, depth-wise.
The only time Smith & Wesson only produced revolvers was when there were no semi-autos, and around WWII when the US Military decided not to give them a contract to make M1911A1s. They made some semi-autos before WWI and between World Wars but they were all either prototypes or commercial flops. Unfortunately the Model 59 was overshadowed by other Wonder 9s that came out around the same time, and Model 39 was overlooked by a lot of recreational shooters because the gun culture back then was just plain different.
I remember when the mod. 39 was introduced. 9mm was simply not a well known and widely available round in those days. Ball ammo was what you got, if you could find ammo.
Most folks I knew that used handguns had some form of .22 revolver. Or a .357/.38 revolver. If they had a semi it was likely a 1911 or one of the .25 or .32 semi’s that were fairly common then.
Until the mod. 39 I had never seen a new 9mm. All the ones I had seen were ww2 bringbacks.
And it was cheaper then to shoot a .38.
Since I don’t like or own Glocks, I guess I’d be screwed then. The whole line of thinking in this articles sounds very socialist to me, and very un-American. But as they say, opinions are like a**holes…
Infidel! How dare you not worship at the feet of the almighty Gaston and his Perfect(TM) 17? You must be put to death immediately!
No.
The only acceptable punishment for non-believers is to be sentenced to jump from pistol-to-pistol at 6-month intervals, selling each old one at a huge loss so you are able to buy the latest/greatest whizz-bang model as soon as it is available — for all of eternity.
And may Gaston have mercy on your soul.
Un-American? Glocks are now American made….
By un-American, I was referring to the notion of the author that a gun manufacturer shouldn’t have a diverse array of gun styles, features, and options. Rather they should be more like Glock in the uniformity of offerings that don’t dilute the brand. I think Americans like choice and are not one-size-fits-all. Want a manual safety? Glock doesn’t have one. Want something hammer fired? Not Glock. Want something stylish? You’ve got to be kidding. Glocks look like they came out of some commie-bloc country. “Glock good. Buy Glock. Glock perfect, you comrade must be defect.
Most Glocks sold in the US are still made in Austria afaik. Some 17s and 19s are manufactured at the factory in Georgia, but most Glocks are still made in Austria with adjustable “target sights” and just re-sighted in Georgia before going to stores.
I eschew manual safeties now but I still see some value in them. Before I really came into the POTG fold, the first handgun I bought had a manual safety and loaded chamber indicator, because it was a “safer” gun. That started me down this wonderful path of gun ownership. I guess what I’m getting at is having some of these superfluous safety features might induce people into buying their first gun, that might otherwise never have purchased one. I still would have bought a handgun regardless of safety features (or lack thereof) but I’m sure it would turn off some people.
I also think they are good when introducing first time shooters to guns. It makes them feel a little more comfortable (especially the ladies) and less likely to become a gun-grabbing moron. Even though the lack of manual safeties makes a Glock way simpler to operate, people who are new/unfamiliar with guns, who are just testing the water would probably rather “feel” safer with manual safeties versus more ease of operation. Just my experience, YMMV.
Agreed. There are different things you want between a range gun and a conceal carry. Or a home defense gun and an “introduce someone new to the gun world” gun. Personally, I think shooting a DA/SA is a bit like driving a manual transmission. Even if you don’t buy one and think they’re obsolete, knowing how to use one is a really good idea and keeps your options open. I’m not a Glock fan personally. But even if I were, one day I’ll inherit most/all of my father’s guns and not a single one of his guns is a Glock.
Canik is actually the production company (canik 55) so it’s not a term, it’s a brand. Century arms is the distributor. So calling it a term was technically incorrect, like saying the term S&W is applied to many variants. Just saying.
And why is there tristar then? Confuses me
Glock is Glock. Definitely.
But which one is he talking about, 17 through 43? Gen 1, 2, 2.5, 3 or 4? The S? SF (21 or 30?)? F? C? L? MOS? RTF? RTF2? Is it FDE? OD? G? Or just black?
Be more specific!
(yes, this is all in jest)
On topic: I think S&W has been doing a decent job at this with M&P. Before that… well, the old metal framed semi-autos were a tad difficult to keep track of. There’s a spreadsheet out there of all of them and it’s quite a long list.
Yea, usually when someone mentions a specific Smith model I have to look it up (Not a S&W revolver guy, although they are great). Now if they say J frame, K frame, etc then I know what they’re talking about.
All gunmakers should be more like Glock? That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. And I own and carry a Glock.
Smart manufacturers design to cover the flaws (real or perceived) of the leading competitor.
* It’s like a Glock but has a better trigger.
* It’s like a Glock but has better sights.
* It’s like a Glock but with a more ergonomic grip.
* It’s like a Glock but not as butt ugly.
* It’s like a Glock but better suited for lefties.
* It’s like a Glock but can be field stripped without pulling the trigger.
* It’s like a Glock but from an American gunmaker.
All of the above complaints have been thrown about for 30+ years. Glock has improved their product (Gen 2, 3, 4) but those complaints remain. The smart competitor listens to them.
Farnam’s still alive? I thought he’d either died or was so far “gray” and off the grid that he’d essentially disappeared into the quantum froth.
Glock’s genius was getting LEO’s to sign on to their bandwagon first and in large numbers. Never mind that many LEO’s started red-legging themselves and installed absurd trigger pull connectors. It was a marketing campaign.
A little bit of bribery and entertainment to help the LEO purchasing agents sign on didn’t hurt, either.
Yea, that’s what I want out of more gun companies – more hookers and blow for everyone!
Sign me up
To be fair, the tacti-tards were redlegging themselves long before Glock came along. If you can shoot yourself in the ass with a Glock, you can shoot yourself in the ass with more or less any handgun. Glocks don’t go bang unless you pull the bang switch.
Yep, cops and security guards were shooting themselves with DA revolvers (!) long before Fantastic Plastic became popular.
If all it took was hookers and blow…politicians would own the industry. Fortunately it requires reliability, reasonable accuracy, hookers, and blow, so no luck for the pols.
AD’s happen with guns. I had a cousin that shot himself in the leg with a .45 revolver. I had another cousin that shot her shower with a .38 revolver. I watched a kid shoot a 12 ga. into his daddy’s car door.
Now, for real AD’s you have to pull a hitch in the service. We had guns, explosives and armored vehicles.
What fun.
Honestly, I think Glock may be approaching the handgun perfection that they often brag about. There were exactly three things on my 34 that I didn’t like.
1. The sights (easily replaced with a nice set of TFOs)
2. The trigger (easily fixed with a quick trigger job and a new connector)
3. The takedown bar
If Glock moves to a SIG / Beretta style takedown lever and adds some of the after market upgrades common on the Glock market, they would have a mechanically perfect pistol. It may not be purty, but it will do the job and it will keep doing it as well as any other handgun or better. Even if you decide to use the slide to drive some nails in your spare time.
They’d also have to add a steel chassis system instead of just affixing the locking block in the plastic frame like they do. I’d also like to see replaceable side panels and frontstraps. and a return of the Compensated models.
Mechanically, I’ve never had a problem with the molded chassis. It works and it works well. If you shoot your pistol enough that it seriously becomes an issue, you’ve probably already shot out the barrel and it would be cheaper to get a new pistol anyway.
–and a steel chassis would nullify the slightly softer feel in recoil that the Glocks seem to possess, especially in the most powerful loadings, such as field loads for 10mm. JMO.
Try out a CZ if you like a choice on sa/da sao. They come with/without decockers, safeties. They have drop in triggers to bypass all the BS. They make range guns, CCW, duty handguns, etc and everything is top quality.
Many people will put that Glock up for sale once they shoot the CZ model of thier choice.
Glocks are not perfect, no gun is. Not having a safety or a decocker is not for everyone. Don’t even start the southpaw wars. Yes, they make a great handgun – is it perfect for all people and/or LE depts – no, they are not. A great range gun, maybe not so great a home protection handgun when you wake up in the wee hours of the morning and can’t think so well(or your spouse does). Unless you train and shoot it often, you just might need that safety/decocker. I am glad that i live in a country that doesn’t try to force me into a handgun with “safety features”, but that doesn’t mean that some feel safer with those in place.
If we could just get them to stop selling and servicing law enforcement in areas that are not 2A friendly. 😉
Why penalize the men and woman of law enforcement for the faults of the law makers?
Because, with very few exceptions, they will still enforce the law. Now, while it’s true that the job of cops is to enforce the laws that legislators write, that does NOT absolve them of responsibility in enforcing said law. While I hate to compare cops to soldiers (there is way too much of that already, and 99 times out of a hundred, it’s an absurd comparison), I’m going to do it just this once. While soldiers don’t get to pick and choose their orders, the fact remains that they are still responsible for actions they take, even those under orders. I don’t see cops as being any different, and I do feel very strongly that those who would choose to wield as much authority as they do have a moral obligation to refuse to enforce malum prohibitum laws (victimless crimes). To use an extreme example, cops who chose to enforce DEEPLY tyrannical, racist laws in the late 1800s and early 1900s are, in my opinion, just as awful (if not more so) as the politicians who passed such laws.
And actually, going back to my point about soldiers, cops can quit their jobs at anytime. So they have even LESS room to use their version of “only following orders” to absolve themselves of responsibility.
It’s almost as if you believe that public servants should be held to a higher standard rather than get free passes and special privelige. Huh… how quaint. Sarc/off.
I wish we all lived in the idealized world you describe but alas we do not. It is not for the officers to enforce the laws they believe are “Victimless” but the laws passed by legislators the public votes in and can vote out of office when laws passed are not to the preference of the voting public. It is now a war crime to broadly carpet bomb areas with known innocent people likely to be killed. It wasn’t in previous world wars. Do police then enforce only the laws that will remain legal or could be legal in different times as your example of racist laws go? I suggest they as citizens and civilians work to remove bad laws while doing their job and using the discretion they have available to them to best serve the public while remaining balanced. If the majority of people in New York city want draconian gun laws or any laws and the elected officials enact these laws how is it the responsibility of the police to enforce different laws. That said enforcement does not always equal 100% application of all laws. I’m sure you or someone you know has broken a law traffic violation or other offense, been stopped by police for it and not been cited, charged or arrested. That is discretion and within the realm of officers balancing the letter of the law with the spirit of the law and public sentiment at the time of the incident.
If you believe that if all officers would just refuse to enforce whatever law you don’t like or that you feel is against the constitution that the laws would change you are thinking just as theoretically simplistic as the anti gun people who think banning all guns will end gun violence. It doesn’t work that way in the real world. Someone will always take the place of those unwilling to do the job and likely will be more in line with the thinking of the leaders making the laws or requiring them to be enforced.
They are the ones to put pressure on those above them. Think “collective bargaining.”
Variety is the spice of life.
I can’t tell you how many cops from the S&W 59 series era, thought ALL auto pistols had magazine safeties. This resulted in them waving around guns they had “made safe” by removing the magazine that still had one in the chamber. Remember the S&W with the “book” engraved on their slides about not having a magazine safety? An engineering solution to a training problem will generally result in yet more problems, requiring yet more engineering solutions, ad nosium….
This DEA agent appeared to drop his mag. He then cycled the slide with a loose round hung up and ready to chamber, no? So some people certainly would be helped by the idiot proofing….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHEOSyMqug
…And all cars should be more like the Honda Civic.
Wow…we’ve now stretched the term “operator” about as far as it can go.
“Operator” as a term is considered “offensive” in the positive sense; taking the fight to the enemy. Perhaps not the best term to utilize for those seeking to claim “defensive” handgun use as this author regularly advocates for.
Unless he has completed the Operator’s Training Course with 1SFOD-D, I’m going to have a hard time calling anyone an “Operator”.
Ahhhhh… the good old “No True Scotsman” test. A “True Operator” prefers Glocks…
What a load of crap.
I’m not a “serious operator”. I’m not an “operator” at all, and I’m not self-delusional enough to pretend I am. And as such, my needs and wants are necessarily different. I rather like my Sig P226 and P238, with their DA/SA actions that can be manually cocked, and also fired when not cocked as a little extra level of safety. I also like the manual decocker as an added safety measure. Why?
Because I’m not silly and delusional enough to think I’m anything other than what I am. And that’s not an operationally operating operator operating operationally.
Keep your Glock (and my first gun was a G23, btw). Continue to operate operationally as a “serious operator.” I still shoot my Sigs better than my old Glock, and enjoy shooting them more.
I agree with naming for awareness and customer loyalty. The problem is when gun makers try to capitalize on past names.
Smith has seriously confused “Bodyguard” even among loyalist. Is it a 380 pistol, a poly framed 38, stainless framed 357, an aluminum framed 38, or a steel framed old school 38 with a hammer mounted firing pin with no freakin lock (the best one IMO).
The problem with Glocks is all the numbers floating around. It’s not a 17 Compact (19) or a sub compact (26). They have their own problems since they march to an ooompah band instead of a drum.
When other companies start to get in their marketing shorts, they will branch out to other type of weapons. You will notice they brought a 380 and a single stack nine. They just haven’t been in business long enough to make the rounds. (I do wish they made a single stack version of the 19). SO i think they’ll have a carbine or some such in the future.
Ruger started out making one pistol and built up to be one of – if not the – largest gun manufacturers.
I am pretty sure that that Glock will have a hard time making a revolver. The Europeans have never really understood the why’s and how’s of revolver design. (Korth is knockoff – well made but a knockoff).
Glock has already been through the pariah, proprietary cartridge phase (45 GAP). Give em time.
Why should other gun companies be more like Glock if Glock already fills the Glock role?
Magazine safeties are a “death trap”? Hyperbolize much Mr. Farnam?
So the glock faithful waited forever for their single stack 9 and even had to buy the 380 as their 2 drink minimum so what’s next?
What’s next is “perfection!” That means a .357 auto that NEVER fails or has mag problems. It will be tiny but carry 25 rounds while your pinky finger hangs off the grip. It will give you long barrel ballistics with a short barrel. You’ll get rifle accuracy. There will be no recoil or blast. I’m sure GLOCK will break the laws of physics very soon. I’m willing to wait for that. Still waiting.
“CREED, Get out of my face! I don’t need no has-beens in my corner. And you better wipe that look off your face before I knock it off. You wanna jump, JUMP! Come on! Come on, CREED! Come on! –Clubber Lang
One of the problems with using names….
All gunmakers should be like Glock.
All of them should start out making curtain rods and shovels.
Executives of the companies should be convicted on bribery charges. Another executive should do time for trying to bump off the boss, and others should be investigated for opening tax dodging offshore accounts in places like Panama.
Yup. All gunmakers should be like Glock.
My Glocks have names. Old Heinrich and Manfred.
“Colt apparently has no plans, and no clue!”
Actually once upon a time Colt had a clue, it was called the Colt 2000 and it sucked. It came from the same strategists who thought the Colt Double Eagle was the way to go for DA/SA semiautomatic pistols.
The Author is a tool.
Actually what company wants to be like Glock, so called perfection, yet trigger sucks, sights suck, and my gen 3 g17 recoil spring needed replacement, had gunsmith try fixing failure to go into battery, then had casings hit me in the face, now just stays in safe, got a g19 and it’s ok had 1 failure after just under 150 rounds then had 2nd failure after another 100 rounds FTE
I’ll give you $200 for that boat-anchor G17, to help you lower your anxiety level and free-up some space in your safe.
Then I’ll remove any/all aftermarket parts, clean and lube it, feed it decent ammo, and watch it run flawlessly for the next 20+ years of range, competition and/or defensive-carry use. And it won’t be the first time I’ve done this. People constantly “improve” Glocks right into the ground, or feed them crap import/steel-case ammo, then wonder why they don’t work well.
I have shot Berettas, Sigs, Glocks, S&W 2nd/3rd Gens, M&Ps, 1911s, H&Ks, and a few oddball pistols and revolvers. Instructed on the Beretta 92 for a stint, as well.
The only pistol I’ve ever had issues with was a box stock Glock 19C 3rd Gen. First round down range failed to feed the next. I couldn’t get through a single mag without 2-3 failures per mag for at least 500 rounds before I gave up on it. This was several years ago; in hindsight, the pistol was likely oversprung, and a new guiderod & recoil spring very likely would have made it run fine.
Lesson Learned: “perfection” and “run out of the box” still need to be verified. It just seems Glock has an army of apologists that will blame any imperfection on the shooter, when it is clear that Glock isn’t any better than other top makes, and a few lemons still make it out into the supply chain.
As you said, any company can have a lemon every now and then, but almost all of the “defective” Glocks I’ve seen were user-driven problems. Failure to clean and lube before the first use (clearly stated in the manual; probably to get the oily-looking-but-actually-sticky rust preservative off the moving metal parts and get something slicker in its place), use of weak/low-quality crap ammo (especially important to use full-power loads, at least initially, with the ported “C” models, which siphon-off some slide energy through the porting), and the inexplicable need to start “fixing” a device that isn’t broken (sometimes, replacing perfectly serviceable parts before it has even been fired for the first time (?!?)) have accounted for most problems.
In a few other very rare cases, the pistol’s problem(s) could not be isolated or corrected, and they needed to go back to the factory, but in at least one of THOSE cases, I learned much later that the user HAD changed-out a part (connector) before firing, and hadn’t been up-front about it (too embarrassed to admit what they’d done). I own Glocks from Gen1 through Gen4, and I’ll be the first to tell you that the early .40s were crappy, and other models can be very sensitive about ammo quality (G36 and some of the 10mm models, for sure); but anyone who tells me they have a stock 9mm Glock that won’t run with decent-quality factory ammo usually gets a “yeah, right” look from me, and a quick rundown of the items in my first paragraph (above).
Author probably drives a Toyota Corolla, too.
rock with your glock out.
Glocks may be fine for operaters, but I’m no operater. Nor do I have any real desire to be one. Sure I carry a gun similar to a Glock everyday, and I have “tactical” handguns. But when I just feel like shooting it’s often not a black striker fired polymer pistol. Or an AR/AK. It’s a lever action, or a revolver, or a 1911 or something with a hammer just for the sake of it. Strikers are fine, but they’re not particularly interesting for just shooting.
I am of the opinion that maybe, perhaps, you’re just not giving the Fantastic Plastic a real chance.
Forget for a moment the legions of naysayers that tell you Glocks (or Glock-ish pistols) aren’t accurate, and buy a few different types of ammo and subject it to the same sandbag-supported accuracy testing that you’d use if it were an accurized 1911 or .22 target pistol. Be prepared to be surprised.
With loads they prefer, stock Glocks can be VERY accurate, if the shooter is able to hold-up their end of the bargain. Squeeze that trigger slowly, get the surprise break, carefully maintain the sight alignment all the way through the squeeze.
I’ve consistently scored hits on IDPA-size steel targets at 100, 150, and 200 yards with stock Glocks and factory ammo, and I’m not any kind of an Olympic-class shooter. Showing up at the local range’s Bullseye Night (NRA-style one-handed 2700 bullseye matches) with a G17 requires balls and thick skin (you WILL get razzed about it), but thanks to the number of people that try to “buy” accuracy rather than develop skill, I’ve never been the worst shooter or lowest score there. And when the scores are totaled, the razzing often moves to the guy with the $1500+ tuned 1911 that got beat by the newbie with the stock Glock.
There is NO reason to carry a glock & NO company should be like glock. A poorly designed, unsafe, not that that reliable pile of junk. Not only is the product junk, but so is Gaston Glock. A billionaire POS that lives a debauched lifestyle. When I look at a company, I also look at it’s founders & leaders; mr. glock totally sucks. Here is a good link about real news on this pile of garbage: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/11/glock-family-goes-down-guns-blazing.html. Not only would I not by a seriously flawed product like his, but also because I do not want to contribute to this POS’s lifestyle.
Talk about numbers on guns? There is the Glock 17 , 17G2, 17g3, 17g4, 19, 19g2, 19g3 ,19g4, 21, 21g2, 21g3, 21g4, 23, 23 g2, 23g3, 23g4, …26, 32, and so on. None of these numbers indicate the caliber of the gun. When someone says, “I have a glock XX Gen3”, I have to ask what caliber that is and whether it’s semi-compact, compact, or full sized and how it differs from the other versions. It’s as bad as trying to keep up with baseball stats. So, is that guy the leading pitcher in all the majors, the national league, American league or his club? Is that a stat for this season or all time? That is what it’s like trying to sort out the Glock numbers. About all I can remember is that 17s and 19s are 9mm. 23s are 40 cal. So now, I’m left trying to remember a caliber number to go with each model number and generation number. On top of that, I’m left trying to memorize the size of the gun. Ruger has it right. SR9 is a Sturm Ruger 9mm. The SR9C is the compact version. SR40 is a 40 caliber and the SR40C is the compact version. There is an SR45 and an SR22. Guess what caliber they are?
If you want a Glock, get one. If you don’t want a thumb safety don’t get one. Different strokes for different folks. Just don’t try to take away other peoples right to have a pistol configured to their liking. I started out with the 1911 and have no trouble with a good thumb safety and in fact prefer them. Lets not be like the progressives and force everyone to lock in step.
Support the Second Amendment.
Comments are closed.