Somehow Recoil Magazine’s Sunday post breaking the news of GLOCK’s first rotating-barrel pistol got past us. The new gun’s numerical designation: GLOCK 46. Originally posted on German weapons magazine Das Magazin für Waffenbesitzer, the G46 has some other unique features besides that barrel.
From the sounds of it, the G46 can be field stripped without the user having to pull the trigger. Whether this was a requirement for the German police contract this gun was designed to fill is not known, but it will definitely make many agencies and some consumers happy. Technical details may be revealed in this February 2017 patent application.
While the frame is mostly Gen5 GLOCK 19 in form, it appears to have some changes such as an extended beavertail, a slide-bevel-matched dust cover, and apparently no Operator notch (the mag-stripping cutout at the bottom of the frontstrap). Additionally, the shape of the trigger is new.
The biggest change, though, is definitely with the barrel locking mechanism. According to these photos and this late 2016 patent application, the G46 sports a rotating, rather than tilting, barrel.
No other info is available at this time, including whether or not the G46 is destined for the U.S. market.
If it did hit our shores — this rotating-barrel GLOCK 19, in effect — would you be on the list? Does the G46 with its new locking system and no-trigger-pull takedown have additional appeal to you? Sound off in the comments and let us know!
Meh. Innovation is good but glock should stick to incremental changes.
Copying Beretta’s PX4 again. Nice work, GLUCK.
Actually, the Savage that went up against the 1911 prototypes way back in 1907 had a rotating barrel.
Go back and read Hatcher’s Notebook and you’ll find that rotating barrels are one of those things that work great in theory, but reality, not so much.
Grand Power K100 and Beretta PX4 beg to differ.
The GrandPowers are hella nice. Rotating barrels are awesome, so easy to keep on target while throwing lead as fast as you can pull a trigger. Have you actually shot a rotating barrel?
??? Wait. I thought the Glock was perfect already.
They are. They’re just trying to be fancy….
Glock’s are so prefect. You have to spend another $400.00 in upgrades to make it better then the CZ.
It would depend on whether that rotating barrel offered any practical advantages over the locked breech design. If none, then no, I don’t see the point, other than “it’s different”.
But, but, I thought it was perfection.
I’ll be curious to see how it functions especially considering that the Savage 1907 variants in .45 ACP are supposedly noticeably harsher in recoil. Then again there are a couple of commercial rotating barrel 9mms aren’t there?
Notably the current Beretta Storm series and it’s parent model the 8000 Cougar.
The Grand Power also has a rotating barrel, I think,
It does.
Beretta’s rotating barrel design was created to tame the “snap” of the 40 s&w. My compact px4 Storm is a great shooter, and probably the most overbuilt 9mm on the market today. The downside to the design is more parts, so theoretically more places for a mechanical failure to occur, although i’ve not personally seen or heard of a Cougar or Storm failing in any caliber.
The Glock 46 design looks interesting but I doubt we will ever see them released to the public.
Grand powers, Cougers by Stoeger using Berretta 8000 machine , Px4, updated Barretta 8000″… Bond Bullpup,,,,
The Beretta PX4 is farely accurate even in compact configuration, if the Glock 46 is as accurate as Glock 19, I am a buyer.
Another concern would suppressor capability.
I think the rotating barrel has a slight edge in accuracy and reliability, since the barrel is not tilting up and down with each shot, but the advantage may be more theoretical than practical. The regular G19 is extremely reliable and more than accurate enough for self defense at close ranges, which is where almost all pistol fights occur.
I do wish Glock would make a factory trigger setup with a crisp and clean break, rather than the factory “sproing.” That would be more of an improvement than a rotary barrel, IMHO.
IF, Glock could spring themselves past that spongey feeling. Oh my!
“Factory sproing” is absolutely a phrase that should enter the gun workd lexicon.
“How’s your new pistol?”
“Well, it came with the factory sproing, but after I dropped a Timney in, it’s great.”
You’re asking for quite a change in the design of a striker-fired pistol. Striker-fired pistols have springy/creepy triggers by their nature.
True, but most of them aren’t as bad as Glocks.
So what we’re Glock’s patents 44 and 45? Did we miss anything?
I would assume the 44 is the 43 in .40cal and the 45 will be a 43 in .357sig. Just my guess, but who really knows.
44 in .44Mag for San Francisco PD Detectives.
45 is either my single stack G19, or Glock’s 4.5mm Varmint pistol.
I think Beretta beat them to this. Px4 Storm anyone? Copyright infringement anyone?
Rotating barrels on pistols is round about 100 years old. The PX4 did nothing new unless you count it as being the first polymer-framed rotating barrel action pistol, which it most likely is.
Do you really think Beretta is the first company to come up with rotating barrels?
I’ve only had guns for about 5 years now (I’m 56) and admit I don’t know EVERYTHING about guns. All I know is one of the first guns I got was a Px4 Storm & I hadn’t heard of any other rotating barrel pistols at that time, or since, and I do a lot of research on guns, new & old.
Look at a Bond Arms Bullpup, which is based on the Boberg XR9-S:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckyUmldwiDo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZHk4MCMByY
Also of interest would be the Boberg XR45-S:
Savage 1907 (est. 1907…). Patents do not last longer than 21 years (including the 1 year provisional patent). Beretta just copied them.
Huh. Well it’s definitely something new. So that’s neat.
Looks like it’d use a different takedown method than every glok now? Which jives with the no trigger pull takedown touted. These are just mockups, though, so it’s hard to tell.
I would buy it tomorrow if they were available. I always like to try the new stuff. If it doesn’t work like I want it to then I’m not out a ton of money.
So you’re the one who buys stuff early to work out the bugs for the rest of us!
Thanks for all your work.
The immature inner-high schooler believes Glock should have given it the model number 69.
Only 23 more patent designations to go, be patient.
Glock has been trying very hard to change things up while not doing anything new. This rotating barrel is new for them but it doesn’t seem to be anything people were really demanding. This just shows me that Glock will continue to try and win big contracts to stay in business, as opposed to developing new products for individual consumers.
They could call it the “less likely to ND” model.
This is going to make a lot of fanboys miserable. But hey, something new every 25 years is a start.
Okay, add external hammer, reduce grip angle a bit, a frame mounted decocker, and then my interest will raise.
You’re describing a Grand Power.
I know! And the added fun with those grand powers is they look like CZ’s!
Well….It is interesting.
I will wait to see the commercial piece before passing judgement.
Would rather have single stack 19 and 23 – sized pistol….but that’s just me.
I had a Cougar 8040 and I think the rotating barrel made it recoil less than my other 40’s.
I tend to by guns with interesting mechanics so I’m definitely interested. I know there’s other rotating barrel guns out there but none that I like the look of off the top of my head. I’ve always liked the plain practical look of the Glock though so I’d definitely try to pick one up eventually.
Though my next gun is a work in progress. I’m building a .357 Sig on one of those Poly80 compact frames. I just need to decide if I make it the standard compact size or extended slide variant.
Just my op, I’d go the standard compact size, compact frame n all.
Oh yay a big beavertail to poke my stomach… I guess I’ve been missing the complaints of glocl slide bite?
I don’t see the need for the rotating barrel. More complexity, less commonality, for what?
Simple: In order to enable Glock to win LEO (and possibly military) contracts that specify that the pistol’s operator need not pull the trigger to field-strip the gun.
Never mind that any gun owner with even a marginal hint of a clue knows you drop the mag, cycle the slide and then pull the trigger before a field strip. What most of you who haven’t been in the defense sector answering a bid request don’t know is that bids are rigged by specmanship all the time. The people writing the bid request will write it up with some obscurant feature requirement in the bid that only one (or at most two) responding companies might have on their products, and this games the response to the bid so that the agency putting out the bid is able to get the single product/company they want to win the bid to win it.
Glock has probably lost several bids due to the “must pull trigger to field strip the gun” requirement in the RFQ, and this design is how they’re going to answer those RFQ’s.
“Simple: In order to enable Glock to win LEO (and possibly military) contracts that specify that the pistol’s operator need not pull the trigger to field-strip the gun.”
NOW it makes sense as to *why*.
Any secondary advantages like how an R1 Pedersen is easier to work the slide?
Fully supported chamber?
I thot Glocks were perfect? Now my old Glock ain’t as good as a new Glock, ,,, Damnit
Muh PERFECTION!
I already have enough black Cheez-Whiz in my collection.
I’m insanely curious to hear the justification behind this. I’ve owned a rotating barrel pistol (9mm Stoeger Cougar) so I’m familiar with their general operation, and I have no problem with the concept. My Cougar was actually a great gun, I’m just not really on board with Berettas slide mounted safety/decockers.
But the pistol world is dominated by tilt locking Browning style actions, to include Glocks. And Glock is not a company known for changing their basic formula much.
So why? Just why? Rotating barrels are so rare most people would struggle to name more than one or two pistols that utilize that style action. Glocks aren’t exactly failing to sell the way they are now… I must know more!
The implication is that it was designed specifically to win a large law enforcement contract. Same reason the Gen5 was created (features/changes mandated in the FBI request, which resulted in the Glock 17M) and why Glock’s MHS submission had a manual thumb safety and was flat dark earth in color, etc etc. The military said “hey, here’s a $500MM contract for a pistol with a thumb safety and in FDE and blah blah blah” so Glock created a gun to meet those reqs. Same thing here, but for the German police.
once again gaston and his fan boys dont seem to know the definition of “perfection”. why would something perfect need a rotating barrel?
when reading upon the beretta cougar, I thought I read tht the rotating barrel design was john browning work–?
Never mind the action. Just look at those frame bevels that match the front of the slide.
That is an awesome innovation!
Bring that here, and lose the half-moon cutout in the grip while you’re at it.
right? maybe glock can try that next? #neverglock haha
If they really cared about the consumer they’d make a 22lr. I know plenty of people would buy one, and I’d be one of the first in line.
Just buy an Advantage Arms .22 conversion. I have 2 and they both work ok with high velocity ammo. There is another from TacSol that looks pretty good too, I just haven’t tried one.
I can just see some Glockster bragging about installing a high-accuracy spherical bushing on one of these.
….Why?
Any action that precludes the mounting of a suppressor is useless to me.
It was made to satisfy requirements set forth by the bavarian state police to replace their aging hk p7s. One of the requirements was to have a bore axis as low as the p7 its replacing. This is how glock achieved that. It wasnt made with you or any other individual consumers in mind.
Is this rotating barrel design like the Mauser or CZ 22/ CZ 24 handguns in .380? If it is, they have a winner here, but the design is a little complicated. I have never shot a smoother handgun than my CZ 24.
I’d hit it
I’ll take one.
Would it possibly have a lower bore axis? Maybe that’s why there is a beavertail.
Been able to strip my XDm without a trigger pull for a long time, glock.
I read an interesting article about a Bond Arms pistol with a rotating bolt, according to the author, rotating bolts in pistols allow for a more compact design b/c you don’t need room for the “tilt” in’s if the frame.
Being able to strip the gun down without pulling the trigger is something Glock should have done decades ago but the rotating barrel is not an improvement its actually a step backward. Every rotating barrel pistol I ever shot had very sharp recoil due to the fact that it is really not a true locked breach system rather its a delayed blowback and the recoil is sudden and sharp. I have a French MAB in 9mm and even though the gun is made out of old fashioned high quality steel making it a very heavy pistol the recoil on this gun makes it a very uncomfortable gun to shoot. Because of the guns weight it is controllable but you will not find that in a light weight plasticky rotating barrel pistol that is certain.
It’s an interesting design to say the least. Assuming that the “no trigger pull” is just icing on the cake, I wonder what advantages the rotating barrel might have (or might be marketed as having). Could it be cheaper to produce? Lessen felt recoil? Reliability? Accuracy? It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. Current Glocks use the Browning-style tilt lock, which among other things lessens the angle at which ammunition is presented when chambered. I wonder how this will affect reliability.
I have a Beretta PX4 with rotating-barrel lockup, right now. No-trigger-pull takedown (decocking lever) and all. No waiting.