The New Glock Gen 5s

rkm456 said:
None of this addresses anything I've said so I'm not sure the relevance. So, sure? I guess?

Actually yes, they do. Almost all LEO/Mil contracts will specify a minimum pull weight in an attempt to prevent ND's. By most accounts it's the reason why if I had a dime for every department that issued PPQ's, I'd have exactly zero dimes.
Click to expand...

When did a heavy trigger become a crappy trigger? There are lots of heavy triggers on pistols with crisp trigger breaks and short resets. When did winning a LEO contract become a litmus test for a quality firearm particularly if we are discussing pistols in the civilian context? I wish the various departments would spend more on training and shooting practice for their officers and less time listening to lawyers.

Go back and read your post #60 where you wrote,"Its primarily Canadian target shooters who feel the need to drone on and on about acceptable trigger quality. Believe it or not we aren't a gun manufacturers target market." The guns I listed are all guns made specifically for the competition market, a market you seem to dismiss. While "we" as limited to Canadians, may not be the sole target market, "we" as part of the global competition market certainly are a target market for gun manufacturers. Truth be known, the Canadian LEO market is hardly the driving force for manufacturers either but in the Global sense the LEO market is very large.

I am one of thousands of shooters who choose our pistols for the sport we play. To shoot our favourite sport we have a wide selection of quality pistols to choose from, limited only by our desire to compete and the amount of money we want to spend. We are not limited to one gun our employer chooses to insist we use.

You obviously like Glocks. They are certainly good guns. They, like most modern firearms, are reliable. The gun, whether you want to admit it or not has become dated. It is nice to see the design catch up to the rest of the industry with needed changes to the trigger group, and some improvement in the guns ergonomics.

Lastly, I could care less if the PPQ M2 ever wins a LEO contract. I do care if the parts and service department is lacking and most certainly will form part of any decision to buy the gun. For any intended purpose I have for a pistol, the gun has the best qualities I have experienced in a striker fired pistol including trigger, ergonomics and sights out of the box. The existing Glock variants, IMHO, don't even come close, perhaps the Gen 5 will.

FYI, I prefer my M&P doctored PRO for competition along with the Beretta 92A1 and recently a M9A1 Compact. When I shot IPSC , the CZ Shadow and a Tanfoglio 5" ruled my gun bag. Having a 3# SA trigger worked well when shooting B Zone plates at any distance.

If Claven2 shoots a lot of IPSC Production he will soon discover why so many Production shooters choose the CZ Shadow 1, or 2 and the Tanfoglio Stock 111 as there boom sticks. For IDPA his Glock or variants of same are the most popular design for Stock Service Division.

Take Care

Bob
 
My stock Shadow trigger pull was around 12 pounds in DA, and around 8 lbs in SA. Very heavy, but definitely not "crappy". There is a difference.
 
Canuck44 said:
When did a heavy trigger become a crappy trigger?
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't particularly long. So if your concern isn't related to weight, I really have no idea what your beef is.

The guns I listed are all guns made specifically for the competition market, a market you seem to dismiss.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of firearms are not sold to competition shooters. There's a reason why competition guns are reworked guns originally designed as duty guns.

The gun, whether you want to admit it or not has become dated.
Click to expand...

In what capacity?

Warmest Regards

Paul
 
Canuck44 said:
If Claven2 shoots a lot of IPSC Production he will soon discover why so many Production shooters choose the CZ Shadow 1, or 2 and the Tanfoglio Stock 111 as there boom sticks. For IDPA his Glock or variants of same are the most popular design for Stock Service Division.


[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm aware the Tanfo and Shadow 2 are the predominant gun in IPSC these days. It was not always so, but is that way now. I much prefer the USPSA rules that don't limit SF guns to 5# triggers - the rule was clearly implemented to give a massive advantage to DA/SA guns for reasons unknown to me. Steel DA/SA guns are also a lot more expensive and provide more profit to the companies that sponsor the events - so maybe I've answered my own question :(
 
rkm456 said:
In what capacity?
Click to expand...

I believe he means that other SF guns have ergonomic grips, better fitting grip straps, ambi controls, barrels that reliably shoot lead bullets and tighter chambers that don't swell brass, offer steel sights on base model offerings, come with flared mag wells, have reversible mag releases, and have trigger springs that feel less muchy than in older SF guns.

He's right that a lot of Glock's competition has these things in spades.

That said, Glock seems to have updated most of these things in the Gen5, taking away any "paper advantage" other new-ish SF guns had, and I genuinely prefer the grip angle on a glock - I guess I'm just lucky that it feels nicer in my hand than the average M&P offering. No two hands are the same.

One thing Glock has going for it that no competitor does is that the basic glock design has been around since the early 1980's, millions of them have been made, and with few exceptions, most parts interchange between models and are backwards compatible. Glock's after market support is second to none, and they are still counted among the most reliable polymer framed pistols ever made.

I think the Gen 5 bodes well for Glock and I do intend to purchase one as soon as I can locate one for sale in Canada.
 
Claven2 said:
Yeah, I'm aware the Tanfo and Shadow 2 are the predominant gun in IPSC these days. It was not always so, but is that way now. I much prefer the USPSA rules that don't limit SF guns to 5# triggers - the rule was clearly implemented to give a massive advantage to DA/SA guns for reasons unknown to me. Steel DA/SA guns are also a lot more expensive and provide more profit to the companies that sponsor the events - so maybe I've answered my own question :(
Click to expand...

I believe the intention of the rule was to ensure a level playing field. Obviously the good people at CZ had other ideas.
 
rkm456 Claven2 answered the question. The design was dated. Why do you think Glock made the changes they did? I get the Glock love but really... when it came out it had no real competition. Steel guns were expensive to make compared to the injected molded polymer design of the Glocks and it was an instant hit. Move froward 30 odd years and the Glock is just one of many polymer framed guns vying for the consumers dollar. Glock has lost sales to the M&P, Beretta and recently SIG 320. The latter is already showing up at major matches in the US, an indication the consumer market would seem to ready to follow the US Army contracted pistol. Aside from recent reported issues the 320 is going to hit the Glock market in the US. SIG will make changes to the trigger group to eliminate the drop firing issues, just like Glock made changes to their barrel design over the years to eliminate the unsupported barrel issues.

Claven2 it is the archer not the arrow when it comes to competition in IPSC, IDPA and USPSA. The gun's set up helps but the top shooters can win just about anything in their hands. You make a good point though. Rules do tend to dictate the type of equipment used. IPSC does favour the DA/SA set up with their 5# minimum pull for their Production Divisipn. IDPA certainly favours the polymer striker fired pistol across the pistol divisions. While you might see more striker fired guns in USPSA I know some folks who do quite well with their CZ's in the US. Vogel did win the World Production Division with a stock Glock 17 a few years ago so the Glock 17 is capable. Whether the shooter holding the gun is, is another story. The Glock 34 has won it's share of major matches in the US. Go for it.

Take Care

Bob
 
Canuck44 said:
rkm456 Claven2 answered the question. The design was dated. Why do you think Glock made the changes they did? I get the Glock love but really... when it came out it had no real competition. Steel guns were expensive to make compared to the injected molded polymer design of the Glocks and it was an instant hit. Move froward 30 odd years and the Glock is just one of many polymer framed guns vying for the consumers dollar. Glock has lost sales to the M&P, Beretta and recently SIG 320. The latter is already showing up at major matches in the US, an indication the consumer market would seem to ready to follow the US Army contracted pistol. Aside from recent reported issues the 320 is going to hit the Glock market in the US. SIG will make changes to the trigger group to eliminate the drop firing issues, just like Glock made changes to their barrel design over the years to eliminate the unsupported barrel issues.
Click to expand...

The problem with the logic you're trying to apply is that Glock regularly updates their product to meet market demands. If you objectively believed what you're saying, you'd be applauding Glock for changing things up. Rather than doing that, you criticize them for "copying their competition" It's really funny how people try to reconcile things to themselves. Glock making changes is a sign of weakness, they aren't doing it for their customers. They're doing it to copycat others because they're scared. But when other companies copy their 30+ year old formula it's because they're innovative.

Cheers

Simon
 
rkm456 - where have I criticized Glock for bringing their gun up to date? It certainly is not a weakness just an acknowledgment their gun needed updating. You can twist your argument any way you want. "Scared, "copycat", you really are being creative and a bit silly now. No one to my knowledge is copying a 30 year old design. I do know of a 30 year old design that has been constantly upgraded to keep pace with the marketplace, a fact you seem to be oblivious to. Glock follows while others lead. You may choke n that when you read this but t is true. With their fan base and market position established it is a smart business model to follow. I suspect the logic may escape you but it works.

Take Care

Bob
 
CV32 said:
Lots of em around. They are called Gen 2, 3, 4 and now 5.
Click to expand...

LOL, Seems to me there are only a half dozen or so parts in the Gen 5 that are compatible with previous generations. The Gen 5 is for all intent and purpose a new pistol and an improved one at that. None of your examples are clones but simply variations of the original design made by the same company. Claven2 listed pistols that other companies other than the originator of the design produce. eg Beretta, Girsan, Helwan, Taurus all make a 92 Variant.

Nobody to my knowledge is making a clone of the Gen 1 Glock.

Take Care
Bob
.​
 
Canuck44 said:
LOL, Seems to me there are only a half dozen or so parts in the Gen 5 that are compatible with previous generations. The Gen 5 is for all intent and purpose a new pistol and an improved one at that. None of your examples are clones but simply variations of the original design made by the same company. Claven2 listed pistols that other companies other than the originator of the design produce. eg Beretta, Girsan, Helwan, Taurus all make a 92 Variant. Nobody to my knowledge is making a clone of the Gen 1 Glock. Take Care
Bob
Click to expand...

We were talking about copies of the Gen 1, not clones. For example, the Taurus PT92 is not a clone of the Beretta 92, but rather a copy of the design with some differences (both functional and aesthetic), e.g. frame vs slide mounted safety. Much like how Glock's generational product lines also have differences but are essentially copies of the same foundational design.
 
CV32 said:
We were talking about copies of the Gen 1, not clones. For example, the Taurus PT92 is not a clone of the Beretta 92, but rather a copy of the design with some differences (both functional and aesthetic), e.g. frame vs slide mounted safety. Much like how Glock's generational product lines also have differences but are essentially copies of the same foundational design.
Click to expand...

The first Beretta 92 has a frame mounted safety. The Taurus clones are made on Beretta equipment originally under license from Beretta. Clones are copies of original designs made by different companies. Parts may or may not be compatible. Functionally they both shot the 9MM cartridge and aesthetically the Taurus and the original 92 are identical. The Girsan is a clone of the 92F. Here are the variants to the Beretta 92. Seems like even venerable 92 has had some "improvements" over the years. :>)

http://92fs.net/FAQ/S92/92Fam/0 - FamilyTree.gif

Take Care

Bob
 
Canuck44 said:
The first Beretta 92 has a frame mounted safety. The Taurus clones are made on Beretta equipment originally under license from Beretta. Clones are copies of original designs made by different companies. Parts may or may not be compatible. Functionally they both shot the 9MM cartridge and aesthetically the Taurus and the original 92 are identical. The Girsan is a clone of the 92F. Here are the variants to the Beretta 92. Seems like even venerable 92 has had some "improvements" over the years. :>) http://92fs.net/FAQ/S92/92Fam/0 - FamilyTree.gif Take Care
Click to expand...

Again, we were originally talking about copies, not clones. There is a difference between the two. And you make my point. That parts aren't compatible is often a tell tale sign that they aren't clones. The variants of the Beretta 92 aren't clones of each other, but rather copies of the original design with individual changes or "improvements", as you say. So it goes with the Glocks.
 
Canuck44 said:
rkm456 - where have I criticized Glock for bringing their gun up to date? It certainly is not a weakness just an acknowledgment their gun needed updating. You can twist your argument any way you want. "Scared, "copycat", you really are being creative and a bit silly now. No one to my knowledge is copying a 30 year old design. I do know of a 30 year old design that has been constantly upgraded to keep pace with the marketplace, a fact you seem to be oblivious to. Glock follows while others lead. You may choke n that when you read this but t is true. With their fan base and market position established it is a smart business model to follow. I suspect the logic may escape you but it works.

Take Care

Bob
Click to expand...

1) You might consider reading your posts from the first couple pages of this thread. They're extremely critical of Glock "catching up"

2) Smith and Wesson made a clone so close they were successfully sued by Glock. All polymer striker guns are effectively Glock copies. It's laughable that you're pretending every manufacturers is substantially different from the next.

Best wishes

Ralph
 
Canuck44 said:
LOL, Seems to me there are only a half dozen or so parts in the Gen 5 that are compatible with previous generations. The Gen 5 is for all intent and purpose a new pistol and an improved one at that. None of your examples are clones but simply variations of the original design made by the same company. Claven2 listed pistols that other companies other than the originator of the design produce. eg Beretta, Girsan, Helwan, Taurus all make a 92 Variant.

Nobody to my knowledge is making a clone of the Gen 1 Glock.

Take Care
Bob
.​
Click to expand...

There are Glock clones of pre-gen5 models, such as the poly90. Fwiw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom