Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/10/2005 10:01:36 AM EDT
Have any of you heard any reliable rumors about Generation 4 Glocks? Specifically if there are any plans for a Gen4 Glock and if so, when are they tentatively planed to be released and what changes are planed?

The change I would like to see would be to have changeable grip inserts (both front and rear), something like the Magpul MIAD grip. I think this would be a huge improvement and would potentially eliminate one of the biggest things some people bitch about when talking about Glocks. (grip shape, size and the finger grooves)
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:11:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cgv69:
Have any of you heard any reliable rumors about Generation 4 Glocks? Specifically if there are any plans for a Gen4 Glock and if so, when are they tentatively planed to be released and what changes are planed?

The change I would like to see would be to have changeable grip inserts (both front and rear), something like the Magpul MIAD grip. I think this would be a huge improvement and would potentially eliminate one of the biggest things some people bitch about when talking about Glocks. (grip shape, size and the finger grooves)



That would suck if they did that.

Give me a solid handle/grip and not some clicked together three piece modular unit.
Link Posted: 9/10/2005 9:38:44 PM EDT
I would rather have a solid unit my self. It would not be to bad to see some Tan and Grey frames or maybe a grip reduction some how on the 20 and 21 but for the most part I like it just how it is. I used to want a stainless colored slide but the finish in my G19 keeps going like the ebnegizer bunny. A better slide release maybe if you had to change something. OR A CARBINE! Sorry I just had to slip that in.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 1:15:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:

Originally Posted By cgv69:
Have any of you heard any reliable rumors about Generation 4 Glocks? Specifically if there are any plans for a Gen4 Glock and if so, when are they tentatively planed to be released and what changes are planed?

The change I would like to see would be to have changeable grip inserts (both front and rear), something like the Magpul MIAD grip. I think this would be a huge improvement and would potentially eliminate one of the biggest things some people bitch about when talking about Glocks. (grip shape, size and the finger grooves)



That would suck if they did that.

Give me a solid handle/grip and not some clicked together three piece modular unit.



+1

Glocks doen't need a 4th Gen...the 3rd Gen are the best
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:12:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:
Give me a solid handle/grip and not some clicked together three piece modular unit.



Why are some people so afraid of change? Coming from a Glock owner that sounds kind of funny. If done right, your hand would have no idea that it was "some clicked together three piece modular unit" nor would it be any less solid or reliable. My idea would be nothing but adding more options without adding any negatives. There are already a number of other handguns doing the same thing without issue.


Originally Posted By Frens:
Glocks doesn't need a 4th Gen...the 3rd Gen are the best



Sorry but I don't agree with you guys. I've had a Gen2 G17 since it was new and although the grip was a little fatter then what I would like, it worked well for me. I finally got around to getting a G19 which happened to be a Gen3 and as it is, it's almost unusable for me. Those stupid finger grooves don't fit my hands at all. So now I have to decide between taking a dremel to it and making some ugly (and value lowering) modifications or selling\trading it for a Gen2 G19 which then I also loose the rail. Both option suck!

I know I'm not alone on the finger groove thing and I would be surprised it Glock doesn't address it in some way. Either way, like it or not, a Gen 4 is just about a sure thing IMO. The only questions are what will change and when will it happen?

Just my $.02
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 6:43:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/11/2005 6:49:32 AM EDT by Frens]

Originally Posted By cgv69:

Originally Posted By Dace:
Give me a solid handle/grip and not some clicked together three piece modular unit.



Why are some people so afraid of change? Coming from a Glock owner that sounds kind of funny. If done right, your hand would have no idea that it was "some clicked together three piece modular unit" nor would it be any less solid or reliable. My idea would be nothing but adding more options without adding any negatives. There are already a number of other handguns doing the same thing without issue.


Originally Posted By Frens:
Glocks doesn't need a 4th Gen...the 3rd Gen are the best



Sorry but I don't agree with you guys. I've had a Gen2 G17 since it was new and although the grip was a little fatter then what I would like, it worked well for me. I finally got around to getting a G19 which happened to be a Gen3 and as it is, it's almost unusable for me. Those stupid finger grooves don't fit my hands at all. So now I have to decide between taking a dremel to it and making some ugly (and value lowering) modifications or selling\trading it for a Gen2 G19 which then I also loose the rail. Both option suck!

I know I'm not alone on the finger groove thing and I would be surprised it Glock doesn't address it in some way. Either way, like it or not, a Gen 4 is just about a sure thing IMO. The only questions are what will change and when will it happen?

Just my $.02



instead of dremel the finger grooves from your Gen3 you could add the rail to your gen2: IIRC you can get the frame upgraded from the factory...but I don't how much it would cost

Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:35:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cgv69:

Originally Posted By Dace:
Give me a solid handle/grip and not some clicked together three piece modular unit.



Why are some people so afraid of change? Coming from a Glock owner that sounds kind of funny. If done right, your hand would have no idea that it was "some clicked together three piece modular unit" nor would it be any less solid or reliable. My idea would be nothing but adding more options without adding any negatives. There are already a number of other handguns doing the same thing without issue.


Originally Posted By Frens:
Glocks doesn't need a 4th Gen...the 3rd Gen are the best



Sorry but I don't agree with you guys. I've had a Gen2 G17 since it was new and although the grip was a little fatter then what I would like, it worked well for me. I finally got around to getting a G19 which happened to be a Gen3 and as it is, it's almost unusable for me. Those stupid finger grooves don't fit my hands at all. So now I have to decide between taking a dremel to it and making some ugly (and value lowering) modifications or selling\trading it for a Gen2 G19 which then I also loose the rail. Both option suck!

I know I'm not alone on the finger groove thing and I would be surprised it Glock doesn't address it in some way. Either way, like it or not, a Gen 4 is just about a sure thing IMO. The only questions are what will change and when will it happen?

Just my $.02



It has nothing to do with change. I dont beleive in any item that has the combination of being 1.) plastic and 2.) modular such as the MIAD grip. I just dont trust it. I wouldnt trust it on my AR and I wouldnt trust it on a handgun. You are just adding to the equation for it to break.

Sorry but you cant bitch about the glocks grip. How many handguns do you know of that have a "modular" grip? I know of one unless you count the replaceable backstrap on a 1911, but even then its part of the guns function and its all metal.

When you are start making things "modular" and adding to their complexity, you raise ther isk of something breaking.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 8:42:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dace:
It has nothing to do with change. I dont beleive in any item that has the combination of being 1.) plastic and 2.) modular such as the MIAD grip. I just dont trust it. I wouldnt trust it on my AR and I wouldnt trust it on a handgun. You are just adding to the equation for it to break.



The Glock grip is already plastic so all your adding is modularity. Perhaps if you owned a MAID you would feel differently. I do and after seeing it up close, it's design and construction, I have zero fear of anything breaking.


Originally Posted By Dace:
Sorry but you cant bitch about the glocks grip.



I can't? Why not? Well I think that I can and plan tol continue bitching about it as long as they insist on keeping those stupid finger groves. Name me one other gun that has built in, non replaceable finger grooves? Glock has been doing it for how long now and if you've noticed, nobody has copied it yet (for good reason IMO).


Originally Posted By Dace:
How many handguns do you know of that have a "modular" grip?


Walther (P99 and P22) as well as SigPros come to mind. SigPro are fairly new but the Walthers have been out for a while now and I've never seen anything about the grip inserts breaking.


Originally Posted By Dace:
When you are start making things "modular" and adding to their complexity, you raise ther isk of something breaking.



I will go you one further and say anytime you change anything you raise the risk of failure. That said, that is not a good enough reason in my book to not try and improve a product. If you are so worried about complexity and reliability, Why do you even shoot plastic semi-auto pistols? Why not just stick to all steel single action revolvers? Can't get more simple and reliable then that

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 10:23:03 AM EDT
Gen 3 is the best. You don't like the finger grooves? A Robar front strap reduction is $55 this month on special.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 11:44:48 AM EDT
I won't get into which feels best because I've only ever owned Gen 3s but with the amount of money Glock is investing in US manufacturing I can't see them changing all the molds/computers/machines around next year. IIRC most, if not all G17/22/31 frames are now made in the US with the G19/23/32 frames to follow by the end of this year. Glock plans to move all frame manufacturing to the US eventually at a tremendous cost so don't look for them to retool any time soon.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 12:05:55 PM EDT
A Gen 2 grip frame with Gen 3 dust cover light rail would REALLY be cool!
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 1:12:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
Gen 3 is the best.


Based off of what? How many Gen 1 and Gen 2's have you owned? I like the rails and finish of the Gen 3 but they are not perfect.


Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
You don't like the finger grooves?


Real simple - they don't fit my fingers. You guys must have some really skinny fingers because mine are not big by any standard but yet my middle finger does not fit between the first hump and the trigger guard.


Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
A Robar front strap reduction is $55 this month on special.


3 things here...

1. That is not a special price. That is their normal price. The special is 20% off metal refinishing with any Glock service.

2. Why should I have to spend $55 + shipping to make a brand new gun comfortable to shoot? If I want to customize something, I'll buy a 1911. Glocks are supposed to be utility tools that you take out of the box, load them up and then shoot the shit out of.

3. Robar and a dozen other places make a fair amount of money doing front and rear strap modifications\reductions on Glocks. What does that say? That says, contrary to what this thread would seems to indicate, there are a lot of people out there not happy with the Glock grip. That doesn't even count for the people who won't even buy a Glock because of it and\or people who hate it but deal with it.

I've read enough comments from other people in other threads to know I'm not alone here. If anything you guys who like the finger grooves are probably in the minority. For me, Glock could just loose the finger grooves and I would be happy enough but the replaceable front and rear straps would be an awesome idea that would allow everybody to get the fit and feel that they want.


Originally Posted By M4arc:
I won't get into which feels best because I've only ever owned Gen 3s but with the amount of money Glock is investing in US manufacturing I can't see them changing all the molds/computers/machines around next year. IIRC most, if not all G17/22/31 frames are now made in the US with the G19/23/32 frames to follow by the end of this year. Glock plans to move all frame manufacturing to the US eventually at a tremendous cost so don't look for them to retool any time soon.



I don't doubt that they are spending a fair amount of money and resources moving some of their operations to the US but I doubt that is the reason why we won't see a Gen 4 anytime soon (assuming we won't see a Gen 4 anytime soon).

With the 45 GAP introduction last year and the purposed Glock carbine due next year, it's obvious R&D is not on hold at Glock. Second a modular grip would not require a major amount of research, re-programing or re-tooling. Lastly, if in fact new tooling\machines are needed, now would be the perfect time to do it. Why buy or move tools to a new location only to replace them in 1-2 years?

We may not see a Gen4 anytime soon (and even if we do, it may not have the modification I am suggesting) but if not, I doubt the move has much bearing on it.

Again, just my $.02
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 1:32:13 PM EDT
Maybe so but I just can't see Glock respending all the money they invested in US production when they don't even expect to complete the transistion for another couple of years.

They are going to want to see a return on that investment before they spend more.

That said, I would probably buy a couple Gen 4s if they ever come out.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 7:42:35 PM EDT
Allright, I'll throw my 2 cents in, since cgv69 seems to be alone. I personally would love to see a modular grip on a Glock. The Walthers and SogPros have been more than durable, and there is a lot of wasted space in that backstrap. If it fits a person's hands, then great. I have grip reductions on most of my Glocks since I like the back of the grip flat, and I like aggressive texturing.

As far as a front insert goes, I'm doubting they would do that, as it's pretty thin up there already. Who knows though. Personally, I would like to see a Glock come from the factory with a flat backstrap, no fingergrooves or thumb shelves, but still having a light rail, and more aggressive texturing. If they continue to make them like they do now, at least I'll have the pleasure of doing some more grip reductions.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 10:23:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cgv69:
Why should I have to spend $55 + shipping to make a brand new gun comfortable to shoot? If I want to customize something, I'll buy a 1911. Glocks are supposed to be utility tools that you take out of the box, load them up and then shoot the shit out of.



It's a good deal cheaper than buying a new gun.
Link Posted: 9/11/2005 11:47:42 PM EDT
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if the finger groves of the G-19 didn't fit you, why didn't you just buy a G-17?

G-19: Small-Medium hands
G-17: Medium-Large hands
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 3:59:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By clubsoda22:
It's a good deal cheaper than buying a new gun.



Either you missed my point and\or I'm missing yours?


Originally Posted By skypirate7:
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but if the finger groves of the G-19 didn't fit you, why didn't you just buy a G-17?



I already have a G17. I bought the G19 in an attempt to have something a little smaller for CCW purposes.


Originally Posted By skypirate7:
G-19: Small-Medium hands
G-17: Medium-Large hands



If that's the case, who the G26 designed for, pre-teens?

Lets turn this around for a minute, Why have the finger grooves at all? I understand why some people like finger grooves in general but why incorporate them into the design where now it's forced down everybody's throat with no way to adjust the fit?

A smooth front strap like the Gen1's and 2's allows those who want finger grooves to have them via a Hogue grip (which can be positioned to fit the individual shooters hand) without forcing those who don't want them to have them. I have a Hogue on my Gen2 G17 so it's not that I'm opposed to finger grooves in general but they have to fit in order to be useful.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 4:34:21 AM EDT
I have a 3rd gen G17 and I have long fingers. The finger grooves fit me fine, but it's the checkering on the front strap and back strap that is TORTURE on my fingers. It digs into the skin and rubs off the top layer of skin. This is just with dry firing. When firing at the range, it digs in keeps digging until its rubbed numb.

I would like to see the checkering reduced to a less aggressive design. I do not need an accupressure session each time I go shooting. Eliminate the finger grooves so everyone is satisfied, keep the light rail, and maybe thicken up the grip material. The G17 grip feels "skinny" in my hands. An extra 1-3mm would do the trick, along with strengthening the receiver.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 12:16:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 12:17:50 PM EDT by Va_Dinger]
See my 2nd post in this thread:

"Heard a Glock manual safety rumor at work":
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=13&t=20469

I think it's safe to assume whatever pistol Glock is working on for the new military pistol contract could very well end up as the civilian "Gen4" pistols.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 2:01:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
See my 2nd post in this thread:

"Heard a Glock manual safety rumor at work":
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=13&t=20469

I think it's safe to assume whatever pistol Glock is working on for the new military pistol contract could very well end up as the civilian "Gen4" pistols.



IF Glock plans to participate in the new military pistol eval then I can absolutely see them developing a new frame with a modular grip. Hell, I'd be stoked to see one as well even though I have no problem with the current grip/frames.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 2:36:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By metroplex:
I have a 3rd gen G17 and I have long fingers. The finger grooves fit me fine, but it's the checkering on the front strap and back strap that is TORTURE on my fingers. It digs into the skin and rubs off the top layer of skin. This is just with dry firing. When firing at the range, it digs in keeps digging until its rubbed numb.

I would like to see the checkering reduced to a less aggressive design. I do not need an accupressure session each time I go shooting. Eliminate the finger grooves so everyone is satisfied, keep the light rail, and maybe thicken up the grip material. The G17 grip feels "skinny" in my hands. An extra 1-3mm would do the trick, along with strengthening the receiver.



metro has girly hands. Toughen your skin up a bit.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 4:02:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 4:07:07 PM EDT by BrianNH]
I wouldn't hold my breath for a 4th generation Glock. I dont think Glock has any reason to change what has worked for years. With their current offerings, there is a fit for most anybody. If you absolutely cant stand finger grooves, you just have them removed, or, buy a used 2nd gen. There is no such thing as a perfect fit for everyone. I think if Glock had something like a military contract requiring a change to their current design, we may see some changes down the road. It appears the military is looking for some sort of interchangeable grip. I recently heard that S&W was submitting their model 99 striker fired pistol in 45 acp for consideration. See specs of joint combat pistol here
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 6:00:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M4arc:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
See my 2nd post in this thread:

"Heard a Glock manual safety rumor at work":
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=13&t=20469

I think it's safe to assume whatever pistol Glock is working on for the new military pistol contract could very well end up as the civilian "Gen4" pistols.



IF Glock plans to participate in the new military pistol eval then I can absolutely see them developing a new frame with a modular grip. Hell, I'd be stoked to see one as well even though I have no problem with the current grip/frames.



Assuming Glock is going after this new contract, they they will have to develop a modular grip frame because that's what the specifications call for. That being the case, it will only be a matter of time before that new design finds it's way into the current line up (whether they get the military contract or not). If for no other reason then it would be a waste of time and money to develop a common sense upgrade like that and not put it into production.

Face it, like Picatinny light rails 10 years ago, modular grip frames are where all the manufacturers of Poly-framed handguns are heading. It just makes too much sense not to. It will add very little to the manufacturing costs, does not have any negative effects on function or reliability and will allow anyone from the smallest woman to the largest Neanderthal to adjust the fit of the weapon for their hands.

It's a win-win situation. I am willing to bet money that Glocks will one day come with a modular grip frame. The only question in my mind is when?

Link Posted: 9/12/2005 8:26:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cgv69:
Second a modular grip would not require a major amount of research, re-programing or re-tooling.



actually, based on my (limited) experience in the field of plastics in the firearms industry, it would probably cost a fortune to make such major changes to the frame.
i also hate the finger grooves. i carry a 2nd gen.
do you use the light rail on your CCW gun? i don't.

i'm not really a proponent of the modular grip, but add HK to the list of guns with modular frames (p2000 series...)
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 9:34:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cgv69:

Originally Posted By Dace:
Give me a solid handle/grip and not some clicked together three piece modular unit.



Why are some people so afraid of change? Coming from a Glock owner that sounds kind of funny. If done right, your hand would have no idea that it was "some clicked together three piece modular unit" nor would it be any less solid or reliable. My idea would be nothing but adding more options without adding any negatives. There are already a number of other handguns doing the same thing without issue.


Originally Posted By Frens:
Glocks doesn't need a 4th Gen...the 3rd Gen are the best



Sorry but I don't agree with you guys. I've had a Gen2 G17 since it was new and although the grip was a little fatter then what I would like, it worked well for me. I finally got around to getting a G19 which happened to be a Gen3 and as it is, it's almost unusable for me. Those stupid finger grooves don't fit my hands at all. So now I have to decide between taking a dremel to it and making some ugly (and value lowering) modifications or selling\trading it for a Gen2 G19 which then I also loose the rail. Both option suck!

I know I'm not alone on the finger groove thing and I would be surprised it Glock doesn't address it in some way. Either way, like it or not, a Gen 4 is just about a sure thing IMO. The only questions are what will change and when will it happen?

Just my $.02



I had to pay to have them removed from my G19 I hated them so much
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 9:37:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2005 9:38:44 PM EDT by Lumpy196]
Just to highjack this thread further, if you think the MIAD grip if fragile, I refuse to believe you've handled one.



I wouldnt mind the Glock having the option of different backstraps. I dont want the arch flattened, I just want it higher up so it doesnt point so high for me.
Link Posted: 9/12/2005 11:27:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Just to highjack this thread further, if you think the MIAD grip if fragile, I refuse to believe you've handled one.



+1

I refuse to use rubberized grips or grip condoms on my weapons. My P228 was bought used with a pachmyer (sp) grip that came off as soon as I found the screwdriver. The finger groove spacing on the G19/23 doesn't work for me, the G17/22 is great. I work for a living, so my long guns have skater tape and my 1911 has Gunners, and my hands ask for more. The only grip mod I've contemplated was using an abrasive bedliner to rough up things more permanently than the tape.

My biggest fear regarding a Gen4 Glock would be US made slides and a move away from tenifer. Either way, there won't be a shortage of Gen3's for those of us with man-hands. This thread reminds me of the beer ad with the giant can that drops in. "Beer should be BEER" etc... Let's all make a ritual sacrifice to the altar of 'Let's hope they don't unsimplify a simple tool'!

Link Posted: 9/12/2005 11:48:32 PM EDT
First off, I own three Glocks.
A 21, 22 and a 23.

That said, Glock wouldn't have had to make those finger grooves, if
they would have made proper grip checkering.
Not that next to useless WW2 pineapple grenade they call checkering.

metroplex, if you think Glock's checkering is aggressive, you will die
if you ever handle an HK USP.
Oh, and wear gloves when you dry fire your Glock.
Don't forget the moisturizer too.


Link Posted: 9/13/2005 4:36:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By cgv69:

Originally Posted By M4arc:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
See my 2nd post in this thread:

"Heard a Glock manual safety rumor at work":
www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=5&f=13&t=20469

I think it's safe to assume whatever pistol Glock is working on for the new military pistol contract could very well end up as the civilian "Gen4" pistols.



IF Glock plans to participate in the new military pistol eval then I can absolutely see them developing a new frame with a modular grip. Hell, I'd be stoked to see one as well even though I have no problem with the current grip/frames.



Assuming Glock is going after this new contract, they they will have to develop a modular grip frame because that's what the specifications call for. That being the case, it will only be a matter of time before that new design finds it's way into the current line up (whether they get the military contract or not). If for no other reason then it would be a waste of time and money to develop a common sense upgrade like that and not put it into production.

Face it, like Picatinny light rails 10 years ago, modular grip frames are where all the manufacturers of Poly-framed handguns are heading. It just makes too much sense not to. It will add very little to the manufacturing costs, does not have any negative effects on function or reliability and will allow anyone from the smallest woman to the largest Neanderthal to adjust the fit of the weapon for their hands.

It's a win-win situation. I am willing to bet money that Glocks will one day come with a modular grip frame. The only question in my mind is when?




The more I read the JCP specifications the more excited I am to see what Glock will introduce. I would have to imagine that at this point Glock has the design and the prototypes built and are performing some sort of reliability testing. I don't remember reading it but did the JCP specify a date the trials are going to start?

I would like to know:

1) When we will see the photos (we've already seen shitty photos of H&Ks entry)
2) When can I buy one (or three)

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:30:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4arc:
The more I read the JCP specifications the more excited I am to see what Glock will introduce. I would have to imagine that at this point Glock has the design and the prototypes built and are performing some sort of reliability testing. I don't remember reading it but did the JCP specify a date the trials are going to start?

I would like to know:

1) When we will see the photos (we've already seen shitty photos of H&Ks entry)
2) When can I buy one (or three)




I agree, this should be very interesting. I'm not a .45 guy but I think the changes\improvements made will be seen across the entire Glock line. In the other thread, (or maybe it was in this one?) somebody mentioned Glock having to add a manual safety per the JCP requirements but from the way I read them, a manual safety is not "required" on a DAO pistol? However, If one does exists, then there are some guidelines it needs to follow. Is that the way you are reading it?

I do not think there is a need for a manual safety on a Glock and it doesn't appear to me that the requirements dictate one but I have serious doubts that the military will adopt the Glock if they do not add one? Do you agree?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 5:46:56 AM EDT
I doubt that changes will make it across the entire line. Keep in mind that Glock's focus has been law enforcement and they have never needed a safety since they have safety the safe action trigger. The only reason Glock will ever consider adding a safety is for the military contract and they would only produce it for civilians if they get the contract. A safety is against their philosophy. Even when they had specific orders for police guns with safeties, the guns provided were extremly small and they weren't rolled out in mass.

And modular grips? Those are scheduled to come out three months after the carbine. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Glock fan with three currently in the safe, but Glock evolves slowly so don't hold your breath waiting for change.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 7:16:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 7:17:08 AM EDT by M4arc]

Originally Posted By cgv69:
I agree, this should be very interesting. I'm not a .45 guy but I think the changes\improvements made will be seen across the entire Glock line. In the other thread, (or maybe it was in this one?) somebody mentioned Glock having to add a manual safety per the JCP requirements but from the way I read them, a manual safety is not "required" on a DAO pistol? However, If one does exists, then there are some guidelines it needs to follow. Is that the way you are reading it?

I do not think there is a need for a manual safety on a Glock and it doesn't appear to me that the requirements dictate one but I have serious doubts that the military will adopt the Glock if they do not add one? Do you agree?



I can't view the JCP from work for some reason so I'll have to look tonight when I get home. I was under the impression that it had to have a manual safety but you might be right.

I don't see the need for a MS and I would prefer not to have one but that's just me.


Originally Posted By CFFUTS23:
I doubt that changes will make it across the entire line. Keep in mind that Glock's focus has been law enforcement and they have never needed a safety since they have safety the safe action trigger. The only reason Glock will ever consider adding a safety is for the military contract and they would only produce it for civilians if they get the contract. A safety is against their philosophy. Even when they had specific orders for police guns with safeties, the guns provided were extremly small and they weren't rolled out in mass.

And modular grips? Those are scheduled to come out three months after the carbine. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Glock fan with three currently in the safe, but Glock evolves slowly so don't hold your breath waiting for change.



That's not necessarily true. Police Departments have specifications too and some specify a manual safety. I'm sure Glock has kept track of which PDs can not carry Glocks because of the LACK of manual safety. If Glock could provide a model with a MS then that would open up additional sources of revenue. Let's be honest, not all cops are shooters so from and admin & liability standpoint a manual safety is a good thing for some.

I could go either way on whether or not this JCP model with be an across the board replacement. I tend to think, at this point it would not be. I can see all the current models remaining as while Glock introduces this design as a new line. It would make sense to keep the current models and support in place while the new line grows and becomes accepted. That would give them the flexability to phase certain models out if need be.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 7:19:47 AM EDT
Once I filed off the checkering for my pinky finger groove on the G17, the grip felt much better.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 7:32:19 AM EDT
tagarooni

Probably the only way I'll buy yet another Glock is for a modular grip and an ambi safety.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 7:35:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 7:37:07 AM EDT by BrianNH]
I interpreted the JCP spec as saying DA/SA pistols shall have a manual safety. DA only pistols should have an internal safety and IF they have a manual safety, it should meet spec, blah, blah.

So in short, I guess since Glock is considered DA only, they could go either way as far as a manual safety is concerned.

Marc - the JCP spec is a word document. I cant imagine why you couldn't access it at work, maybe they have your system locked down with Net Nanny . If you're bored, IM me with your email address and I will send it to you.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 8:03:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By M4arc:
I can't view the JCP from work for some reason so I'll have to look tonight when I get home. I was under the impression that it had to have a manual safety but you might be right.


Here's what I feel are the relevant sections...

3.4.6. Safety:

3.4.6.2. DAO Pistols. The JCP in DAO shall have an internal safety mechanism that prevents the loaded cartridge from firing if the pistol is dropped or struck and mechanically prevents the firing pin/striker from contacting the cartridge primer unless the trigger is pulled (T). If configured with an external safety, the pistol shall meet the requirements of 3.4.6.2.1.

3.4.6.2.1. DAO Pistols with External Safety. The JCP in DAO with an external safety shall meet the requirements of 3.4.6.2 with the addition of: The external safety shall prevent firing when applied and the trigger is pulled (T). When configured with an external safety, the operator shall be capable of activating and deactivating the external safety with the firing hand (T), and should be capable of activating and deactivating the external safety without shifting the firing grip (O).


That to me would say no manual safety required and I guess someone could even make the argument that the trigger safety in Glock's current design is an "external safety" and meets the requirements (but that would be an iffy argument IMO because of the "and trigger is pulled" statement). Here where it gets almost contridictory...

3.4.6.3. General Safety. The JCP shall be capable of being produced either with or without an external manual safety (T). The weapon shall not create a hazard to the operator or others in close proximity during normal handling, transport, and use (T).

Basically they are saying, your weapon doesn't have to have a safety but you better be able to add one just in case? No big deal for Glock as they have already demonstrated they can if need be.

Honestly looking over the requirements, Glock would not have to change much. All that jumps out at me is...

1. Add a modular grip. - Even this is not a requirement, it is suggested

3.4.4. Ergonomic Enhancements: The JCP shall be operable for a range of operators from the 5th to 95th percentile per section 3.6.3. To aid in this, the JCP should incorporate a modular grip adjustment system to provide enhanced ergonomics (O).

2. Add a lanyard attachment point (Does anybody in the current military even use these anymore?)
3. Color #30118 (Flat, Dark Earth) Frames


Originally Posted By M4arc:
I could go either way on whether or not this JCP model with be an across the board replacement. I tend to think, at this point it would not be. I can see all the current models remaining as while Glock introduces this design as a new line. It would make sense to keep the current models and support in place while the new line grows and becomes accepted. That would give them the flexability to phase certain models out if need be.


While I agree that any changes made will not be seen on the civilian line (assuming they get the military contract) anytime soon, I would be pretty surprised if they kept two separate lines going that were so similar? Who knows, wait and see I guess
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 8:12:51 AM EDT
PS - There is one other section that may be a gotcha for the Glock?

3.4. Weapon controls.

3.4.1. Action: The JCP shall function in double action/single action (DA/SA) or double-action only (DAO) including Striker-Fired Action (SFA) (T). The JCP should have a modular action mechanism that allows reconfiguration at the unit level without modification to the weapon’s major assemblies (O).


I don't know of any design out there that can be switch from DA\SA to DAO and back again by somebody other then a gunsmith\armorer? Depending on how important the military feel this feature is, it may be a big boost Sig and HK and the knock out blow to Glock in this competition unless Gaston has some serious tricks up his sleeve?
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:59:05 PM EDT
If I'm not mistaken, the Gen 4 is already being sold. The only difference I am aware of though is the extractor. The extractor on the Gen 3 is smooth whereas the Gen 4 has a ridge that sticks out when a round is chambered.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 8:44:40 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Southern_Pride:
If I'm not mistaken, the Gen 4 is already being sold. The only difference I am aware of though is the extractor. The extractor on the Gen 3 is smooth whereas the Gen 4 has a ridge that sticks out when a round is chambered.



I don't think the loaded chamber indicator extractor is considered Gen4. They've been out for a while now, and can be retrofit onto like-angled extractor cut slides IIRC.
Top Top