PDA

View Full Version : Glock Gen5 ideas?


Rugerismisticness
January 8, 2011, 09:04 PM
What would you do to the Gen4 to improve it? I would slim it down, give it a better trigger with no creep, pretravel or overtravel at a crisp 5lbs, add a slight tapper to the top of the slide with a small serrations on the top, add a CCO model (maybe a 17 slide on a 19 frame:confused:), and I would ask they retain the double recoil spring on the Gen4s.

jman841
January 8, 2011, 09:13 PM
design each weapon around the caliber it was made for, not try to get one spring to fit more than 1 caliber like they did with the gen 3 and 4's. Having way to many problems with springs to tight in the gen 4's for the 9mm with a spring that was designed for the .40.

voyager4520
January 8, 2011, 09:46 PM
I'd remove the hump from the backstrap. Gen4 is an improvement over Gen3, but the hump is still annoying.

LockedBreech
January 8, 2011, 10:18 PM
Honestly, I would rather they just go back to the Gen 3 design.

10mm4ever
January 9, 2011, 02:45 AM
The Glock needs a true "overhaul". The only thing thats been changed for the most part are grip textures and they just now got around to adding interchangeable back straps!? Not only is the design becoming outdated but the polymer used for the frame is 80's technology. The better designs are now using a steel "chassis" in the frame that allows you to remove the entire lockwork and frame rails as one sub-assembly. This means that if a frame rail becomes damaged or overly worn it can be replaced as opposed to scrapping the entire frame. In terms of polymers, most mfgrs have moved towards Zytel, which is far tougher.

IMightBeWrong
January 9, 2011, 03:44 AM
I would make it almost identical to the Gen 4 but with the 9mm using the original spring setup and a better back strap system.

Rugerismisticness
January 9, 2011, 07:08 AM
Second the steel chassis idea. I much prefer Rugers polymer (I don't believe it is zytel) to the Glock/S&W polymer. I do like the hump on the backstrap.

Officer's Match
January 9, 2011, 10:12 AM
All slides (not just subcompacts and GAP models) should have the rounded snout to improve reholstering.

Grasping serrations on the slide could be improved as follows (this would apply to any semiauto): the lower depth of the grooves should be the level/depth that the entire slide from the cocking serrations forward, which is to say the slide would become slightly slimmer ahead of the CS. Additionally, the taller part of the CS could be graduated so they get slightly "taller" as they go rearward, provided a more positive grip not entirely dependent on friction, kinda' like holding a tapered drinking glass versus a straight walled one.

EdInk
January 9, 2011, 10:43 AM
They should have the Kool-Aid be grape instead of cherry flavored.

In all seriousness, increase magazine capacity and loose the finger grooves. Guns with arched backs are perfectly comfortable to shoot IMHO without finger grooves. Look at 1911s with arched MSH, Springfield XDs and the Gen 2 grips.

10mm4ever
January 9, 2011, 02:33 PM
One thing that IS disconcerting is the fact that after all these years when Glock finally DID make an internal change like something as simple as a damn recoil spring, look at how it turned out!

t45
January 9, 2011, 02:36 PM
OK I'll start the fire and say, " Add a manual safety"

woconnor
January 9, 2011, 02:57 PM
I think the finger groves are a sightly evolution of the glock, they're ergonomic and I almost feel like they keep me on target and give 100% control on grip.

I agree with the steel framing, however slimming down the slide, rounding the muzzle, and rounding sharp edges will take away from the glock look and sacrifice the unique style that has defined the pistol for over 2 decades, for a fraction of convenience and comfort.

xMINORxTHREATx
January 9, 2011, 04:04 PM
Steel frame "chassis" with Zytel, rounded edges (not extremely rounded, but enough to not snag when re-holstering) OPTIONAL manual safety, interchangeable FRONT AND BACK straps. front with or without finger grooves, back with and without an arch.

In my opinion, making a pistol that fits one persons hand, VS a pistol you can change to fit your hand like a glove with all the parts that come with it, choice B will sell better.

Make the front and back straps come with the gun, and if possible, figure out a way to make the manual safety removable with out any gun smithing. Like maybe a 1911 style thumb safety, put it in the fire position and remove it and just rely on the trigger safety. That way there isn't an un-sightly empty area on the slide or frame where the safety used to be.

bigghoss
January 9, 2011, 07:00 PM
Add a manual safety

no, people that buy glocks do it to get a gun WITHOUT one of those.

I would start by going back to the gen 3 recoil spring. then I would make the backstrap completely removable so you can stick with the classic glock shape or swap it out for a flat one. I would probably try to do the same with the fingergrooves on the frontstrap.

RT
January 9, 2011, 07:33 PM
Adjustable grip like the Hk P30

xMINORxTHREATx
January 9, 2011, 09:13 PM
people that buy glocks do it to get a gun WITHOUT one of those

I'm sure SOME Glock owners bought them because they lacked manual safeties. And I'm sure some people bought them because they have the name Glock on it.

Some Glock owners that I've talked to wanted manual safeties. So like I said, making it an OPTION would appeal to both parties.

HKFan9
January 9, 2011, 09:41 PM
Sounds like most people want to make it an H&K :rolleyes: start saving those pennies. I don't see Glock making any more changes for a long long time. I'd be interested in a slim line single stack Glock... similar to a Kahr Arms... but then again I am completely happy with Kahr.

jman841
January 9, 2011, 10:52 PM
I would like to see a glock in dedicated .22 LR... i think it would be a huge success. I know the ISSC makes a glock like one but if glock made one themselves I know i would be interested.

FreakGasolineFight
January 10, 2011, 01:27 AM
1: Re-design to make grips more universally ergonomic.
2: Work to resolve KB issue by re-designing the .40 and .45-caliber Glocks to handle higher cartridge pressures.
3: Make a manual safety optional on the more popular Glock models.
4: Introduce slim-line single-stacks chambered in 9mm, .40, and .45. (HKfan already pointed out this one. Not a flaw in the current design, but I'm sure lots of people would love them.)
5: Introduce an internal steel frame (10mm4ever already pointed out this one.)

Rugerismisticness
January 10, 2011, 04:51 AM
These all seem like some major improvements, what do ya'll think we should do? I think the glock could easily be that much better.

Ridge_Runner_5
January 10, 2011, 07:55 AM
In all seriousness, increase magazine capacity...

:confused:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/89Sunbird/Shooting/DSC_0003-1.jpg

LordTio3
January 10, 2011, 08:50 AM
In all seriousness, increase magazine capacity...


Waaaa? A 33 round magazine in a sub-compact 9mm pistol isn't enough magazine capacity? And the fact that all larger magazines of the same caliber will be accepted by every pistol of that caliber doesn't dwarf most all other auto designs in terms of capacity?

I agree with making some Slim Frame models in some other calibers and frame sizes. I do like the dual recoil spring.

I also would like to see the Glock 20's and 29's show up again in 10mm. Not a very popular caliber, but it's a loyal niche market.

I'm not sure about the "steel skeleton chassis" idea. I don't know if any of you have ever seen a slow motion capture of what a Glock looks like when it's fired, but...
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/112009/1258451591_slo_mo_glock_shooting.gif
... my guess is that adding a steel skeleton to the polymer, and exposing it to repeated recoil would cause the polymer to flex, just as usual, but the steel would begin to retain the flexed shape, causing it to warp.

I'd also like to see a Glock offerend in .454 Casull.:eek:

As for adding an external safety, I realistically think that people have 3 options for this with Glocks.

1. They can either get as serious as they should already be and brush up on their safeties (The one between your ears and the one you've got on your hand).

2. They can admit to themselves that they DO sometimes have lapses in safety, and cannot handle the professional and mechanically rigid safety practices of carrying a Glock pistol; opting rather to buy and carry something else that has an external safety. (There's nothing wrong with this at all; it's just called being self-aware).

3. Or they can carry their Glock pistol with the Manual Safety that it came with in the box. http://www.uniquetek.com/members/696296/uploaded/[email protected]

As for me, I've never had the need for a manual safety on my Glock, and I don't think we'll be seeing them pop up anytime soon.

~LT

10mm4ever
January 10, 2011, 09:52 AM
Lordtio.....the heavy steel chassis was first introduced in the Steyr M/MA1 and the rest of the industry is catching on. The FNP/FNX, S&W M&P and others have copied this design cue and it works by limiting flex and providing a more rigid platform. From an armorers standpoint, it allows one to pull the entire guts of the pistol out as one sub-assembly, frame rails included. One of the biggest weaknesses of the Glock has been the fact that the frame rails cant be replaced if they break or wear down. Another problem with the Glock can be pin drift. The polymer continually flexes around the trigger and locking block pins and eventually this leads to pins drifting from the frame. As usual, Glock has opted to to nothing more than change grip textures with the gen4 and FINALLY added interchangeable backstraps. Why they went to a more complicated 2 stage recoil spring is beyond me, but it's been the subject of controversy and in my opinion has only served to tarnish the 9mm Glocks reputation. The actual designer of the original Glock(Wilhelm Bubits)left the company back in 1997 and went to Steyr with his then new design, which eventually became the Steyr M. Whomever Glock is now hiring to update the design simply doesnt know it like the original designer and as time passes, it's becoming more and more apparent. Long story short, Bubits began working on a new project to completely "overhaul" the original Glock design in the mid 90's. When he approached Gaston with what was intended to be the 3rd gen Glock, Gaston declined and the two parted ways. Bubits took his new design across the street to Steyr and two years later, the Steyr M series was introduced. Bubits most recent design is the Caracal and it looks very good from the reviews!

LordTio3
January 10, 2011, 10:16 AM
The dual recoil spring system seems to be the "way it's all going". Less relt recoil with minimal complication? sign me up. It all works the same way, there's just more spring to work. It's seemed to work out pretty well for Springfield's xD line, and the DPM system for the Smith M&P line is getting pretty good reviews. I personally don't see a problem with it, but to each his own. That's why all guns aren't the same.

~LT

10mm4ever
January 10, 2011, 10:30 AM
Most competition shooters will tell you that dual stage recoil springs are nothing more than a gimmick. I've tried several aftermarket units over the years and can tell you that they were a complete waste of money.

LordTio3
January 10, 2011, 10:37 AM
I personally feel that the dual recoil systems of today find their niche market in sub-compact designs that are becoming all-the-more popular for CCW; especially with the increased popularity of smaller and smaller framed pisols chambered in major defense calibers.

I don't assume the "competition shooter" demographic would think too much of these implementations on their competition tools, but when you're shooting a Kel-tec PF-9 75 rounds into the day, I'm sure glad someone decided to add the second recoil spring.

~LT

rsh32crew
January 10, 2011, 10:53 AM
the factory sites could stand for an update.

jtb1967
January 10, 2011, 11:57 AM
Quote:
Add a manual safety
no, people that buy glocks do it to get a gun WITHOUT one of those.

I would start by going back to the gen 3 recoil spring. then I would make the backstrap completely removable so you can stick with the classic glock shape or swap it out for a flat one. I would probably try to do the same with the fingergrooves on the frontstrap.

I could see where having the option of a manual safety might open up an area of new sales for them. The S&W M&P's have the option.

Burger
January 10, 2011, 12:27 PM
maybe if Glock made a new gun. The 1st gen to now are all the same. New recoil spring? New back strap? New texture?

At this rate, the 5th gen will have bark texture. 6th gen may come with a reg mag and a hi-cap mags. 7th gen may have a newly shaped slide release.

Even the slim line G36 is the same as the other Glocks.

Glock's the only firearms maufacturer that made one that works and copied it in every other gun they make.

10mm4ever
January 10, 2011, 03:36 PM
The extremely cheap plastic stock sights hae always been inexcusable in my opinion. That and the fact that the front sight is simply glued on. If you're paying 500 bucks for a pistol that costs roughly 70 euros to manufacture, steel sights that are dovetailed front and rear isnt to much to ask!:barf:

MisterWhite
January 10, 2011, 03:52 PM
I love my Glocks, but I would suggest:

1. Redesigned stock sights(not made out of plastic, preferably)

2. Make the finger-grooves removeable so the shooter can choose which they prefer

Other than that, I'm satisfied as they are.

comn-cents
January 10, 2011, 03:55 PM
I say some single stack versions. Slimmer back straps.

chasep255
January 10, 2011, 06:24 PM
Add more calibers. What would you guys think of a glock magnum chambered in .44 Rem Mag?

Burger
January 10, 2011, 07:19 PM
Ooooooooh.

A .44 Rem Mag would be much nicer than the G20's 10mm

Catfishman
January 10, 2011, 11:50 PM
I agree with 10mm4ever.
The plastic sights are inexcusable. Plastic sights mounted on a steel slide WILL break off with rough treatment.
I'm a big Glock fan but I'd like to see Glock's explanation

comn-cents
January 11, 2011, 12:07 AM
What's the problem with plastic sight? Did yours fail? Do you know anyone who's plastic sights failed? I saw one video of someone dragging a Glock behind a truck and the sights came off, I would guess that iron sights might have fallen off also.

10mm4ever
January 11, 2011, 12:59 AM
For one thing the sights wear down at a fast rate, especially with a leather holster. I've seen more than one frontsight simply fall off. Years ago I felt a snag when I pulled my G23 from it's holster and found the front sight in the holster,lol. If you saw the actual sights off the pistol, you'd replace them asap!

imp
January 11, 2011, 08:11 PM
How about a DA/SA model with a decent trigger....

Adamantium
January 11, 2011, 09:01 PM
How about a factory warranty that doesn't expire when you shoot your first reload?

Rugerismisticness
January 12, 2011, 07:38 AM
"How about a factory warranty that doesn't expire at the first reload"

Theres a good reason for that, and an even better one for glocks. Glocks are not Rugers, it's just another thing to accept in life:o

MidwestRookie
January 12, 2011, 07:51 AM
couldnt care less what they do for the next gen guns...they've been the same for 20+ years, nothing new is coming any time soon..they'll just add a new gimmick and call it revolutionary perfection..

8shot357
January 12, 2011, 11:14 AM
Talk to Ruger, they're ahead of the game.

10mm4ever
January 12, 2011, 12:05 PM
I agree that Glock is behind the curve these days. Changing grip textures or adding light rails hardly equals a new "generation". Gaston Glock has a reputation for being extremely tight and I think it shows.