After all, Glock isn't that innovative, is it?

[Bluestarlizzard]

Oh, dear. Dad came home.

"I had a VP70Z and it was a peice of crap. Horrible trigger, prone to fireing pin breakage, european mag release..."

^ this is what I mean. Yes, it had an innovation that was really great, but overall it just didn't make the splash that Glock did.

[Strafer Gott]

An 18 round 9mm pistol was a paramilitary or third world police force weapon in the time frame the VP70Z was offered. Magazine capacity in the pre-Glock era was low, and a Hi-cap had an advantage. Most people carried revolvers or 1911 automatics of some type, so 18 rounds provided profligate levels of ammo. The striker system probably blew a few minds, as it still does today.
I still shoot mine, but not since the ammo crisis, because I just can't afford a high sustained rate of fire anymore.

[5.56RifleGuy]

Ill have to remember that being first doesn't amount to to truly being first until it sells well and is widely used.

Up yours Orville and Wilber Wright.

[5.56RifleGuy]

Striker fire is suprisingly old too. The oldest design I have seen was the 1893 Borchardt.

[arch308]

The Wright brothers is a good example. Alot of people were expierementing with airplanes at the time of the Wright brothers. People here and in Europe already had gliders and were trying different means of propulsion. The Wright brothers are remembered because they were the first to get it right.

Kinda like Glock.

[dayman]

Ill have to remember that being first doesn't amount to to truly being first until it sells well and is widely used.

Up yours Orville and Wilber Wright.

I'm going to give you the benifit of the doubt, and say that you're being sardonic. If so, well played.

If not, "up yours Clément Ader" might be more appropriate.
What with his oddly designed bat-plane, and far less publicized (but still self-powered) flight 13 years before the Wright brothers.
The Wright brothers are remembered because they were the first ones to make sure they had a photographer.

[Bluestarlizzard]

Ill have to remember that being first doesn't amount to to truly being first until it sells well and is widely used

*grin* in the big scheme of things, that is all that actually matters.

Think about it, nobody really cared that there was another contenent out there until Columbus "discovered" America in 1492.
Roanoke failed, but Jamestown thrived. Does Roanoke matter? Not so much.

Being first is one thing, being remembered for being first means you made an impact.

[Sevens]

Gotta love someone that comes in to make a rude comment for no reason.
I replied specifically to the quoted text that came from wpsdlrg.
I also mentioned that the VP70 wasn't a success.
I didn't mention the Nylon 66 because it isn't a handgun.
Sorry that you know everything though, some people do not.
Feel free to not reply next time.

I owe you an apology. VP70 angle in your post came off as predictable to me and I should have and could have found a less caustic way to mention that, or as you suggested-- simply not posted whatsoever.

It's an odd thing on a discussion forum with hardcore enthusiasts, and there's no doubt that many of us (myself certainly included) end up quite hypocritical. We've seen some arguments and points get flipped SO MANY times that we get jaded. The fact is, however, that we must have many of the conversations multiple times... or we run out of things to talk about. And so many new folks visit here and there, it may well be the first time they've had the conversation.

I would be better served to simply roll my eyes and visit the next thread and save my snark comments. They are often unproductive.

[5.56RifleGuy]

Thanks. No harm done really.

I do think the glock line of pistols were very innovative, expecially when you view them in the context that they came out over 30 years ago. Its a little harder to recognise now for the fact that so many have done the same type of thing.

I was out shooting my G17 this morning. It was fun, but I would probably trade it for a VP70 if I had the chance. Only if it had the sholder stock with it though.

[Pilot]

I think the Glock was a very innovative pistol, and as others have said, marketed well. Glocks may not have came up with all the new stuff on their own, but they put it together well in a reliable package. BTW, I have never owned a Glock, and probably never will, but the were innovative, and a great pistol.

[Mystro]

At this point in time, Glock is the Cornflakes of guns. Its cheap, will fill you up, but isn't gonna excite your taste buds.

[Sevens]

We didn't have internet discussion forums BEFORE the Glock pistol, but if we had, I wonder what would be the most loathed firearm before the Glock arrived?

If you want to credit Glock with something a bit different, you have to be able to stand back and duly note the fact that it takes enormous, large-scale success...to also get hated so much, with so much apparent passion, by so many.

I think we'd have as much (or more?) collective *HATE* for H/K if they had as much success in the market as Glock has had.

[wpsdlrg]

"My S&W 3rd generation pistols... cost less than a new Glock (...in their day).
Actually... no.

MSRP's in 1992, from Handguns '92, published by DBI Books and edited by Jack Lewis:

Glock 17: $579.95
Glock 17L: $963.15 (yowzah!)
Glock 19: $579.95
Glock 20: $638.49
" Glock 21: $638.49
Glock 22: $579.95
Glock 23: $579.95

Now the closest equivalent 3rd-gen 'Smiths, fixed-sight prices quoted:

5903: $636.00
5904: $592.00
5906: $652.00
6904: $561.00
6906: $618.00
1006: $747.00
4506: $714.00
4006: $708.00
4014: $629.00 "


Whoops. My bad. Good to know.

(Did you really spend the time, to do that much research, over a point like that ?) Hmmm. Speaks volumes. Anyway, not important.

Interesting data, though, as it points to a VERY interesting conclusion about Glocks. Consider that the 3rd generation S&Ws are all-metal guns, with expensive machining as the primary production process......and Glocks (the frames) are injection molded plastic... spit out from a machine at a cost of roughly $5 a pop. Also given, thanks to your extensive research, that the Glock models quoted were assigned MSRPs very close to that of the S&Ws listed. It would therefore seem that, Glock were true innovators.....of f'ing their customers in the backside, anyway. Clearly, based on the published MSRPs quoted above, Glock overpriced the crap out of their products - which were/are FAR cheaper to manufacture.

Not really a surprise, though. The really interesting thing about all of that, for me anyway, is that all of the Glockies and LE agencies that bought/ buy them....seem to happily bend over for a little Austrian #$@&.... at every opportunity. That, too, speaks volumes.

[carguychris]

Consider that the 3rd generation S&Ws are all-metal guns, with expensive machining as the primary production process......and Glocks (the frames) are injection molded plastic... spit out from a machine at a cost of roughly $5 a pop. Also given, thanks to your extensive research, that the Glock models quoted were assigned MSRPs very close to that of the S&Ws listed... Clearly, based on the published MSRPs quoted above, Glock overpriced the crap out of their products - which were/are FAR cheaper to manufacture.

I'm personally convinced that the $5 Glock story is little more than an urban myth, or at least a very unrealistic oversimplified figure that doesn't take fixed costs, labor, and other overhead into account.

That said, in the book Glock: The Rise of America's Gun by Paul Barrett, the author claims that Glock's U.S. sales office initially made a very conscious and deliberate decision to set their retail prices only slightly beneath their U.S.-based competitors, even though the manufacturing process allowed them to sell the pistols for significantly less. The reason was to avoid creating the perception that the Glock was a low-end, cut-rate product- a legitimate concern given Americans' tendency to view plastic as a material used mostly in cheap things.

I think the gambit worked, and I don't see it as ripping off consumers; I see it as good marketing and salesmanship.

It's interesting to note that plastic-frame Rugers have always been much cheaper than Glocks, and back in the 80s and early 90s, metal-frame Stars were much cheaper as well. Ruger's earlier plastic-frame pistols were not particularly well accepted, and have recently been supplanted by models that are more similar to Glocks, likely deliberately so. Star is out of business, IMHO largely because their products were viewed as low-end and cut-rate, despite the fact that their quality was actually pretty good. This tells us something!

It's also instructive to note that Glock has pretty much held the line on price since the early 1990s, while other makers have created Glock-like product lines to match them. Glock likely makes less money per pistol today than in 1992, but is evidently still doing pretty well. This also tells us something.

[JohnKSa]

...and has one aspect, pulling the trigger for disassembly, which has been avoided by everyone.

Pulling the trigger for disassembly is a very common requirement for striker-fired pistols unless the manufacturer/designer makes a point to avoid it. When it comes to striker-fired pistols, pulling the trigger for disassembly is the norm, not the exception.

It's not an unheard of requirement even for hammer-fired pistols. The Ruger .22LR Mk I, II, II and 22/45 pistols are probably the most well-known example.

...the two piece trigger—which is a dubious "innovation,"...

There funny thing about the Glock trigger safety is that in spite of all the negative commentary about it, other manufacturers have tried to make similar guns using a different approach and failed. Ruger ended up having to recall their initial run of SR9 pistols and re-release them with what amounts to an outright copy of the Glock trigger safety.

Anyway, the biggest reason the Glock trigger safety gets so much bad press is that people make unjustified/uninformed assumptions about what it is intended to do.

I tend to agree with the basic premise of the OP that Glock's greatest innovation had more do with combining a series of at the time uncommon (though not necessarily new) features into one product than with introducing stunning new approaches to solving common firearm design problems. It helped that it was also quite durable and functional, and that it hit the market just when the market was hungry for a product like the Glock.

[Sevens]

(Did you really spend the time, to do that much research, over a point like that ?) Hmmm. Speaks volumes. Anyway, not important.

What are you trying to say with this comment?

Every post that carguychris ever bothers to make speaks volumes. His posts are part of what makes TFL the finest discussion forum I've yet seen on this subject. His passion on the subject of Smith & Wesson handguns, especially the semi-auto handguns is evident.

In any case, my 1006 was bought in July '92, NIB from local gun store for $539.95, just as a nugget of history from back in the day. But MSRP is a static, issued number that doesn't vary, and it will forever be used as a basis for argument, especially when discussing long since past selling markets.

[dayman]

I'm going to second Sevens.
The reason that I use this forum over all the other options out there is specifically because of all the knowledgeable people (like carguychris)who are interested enough about guns to research things and provide actual information.
When I'm trolling around here I actually learn stuff.

[JohnKSa]

The posts made here at TFL last a very long time and become part of the collective firearms knowledge base on the internet, so we should all invest time and effort to insure, as much as is reasonably possible, that what we post is correct.

Obviously, that goal will never be fully met as humans are fallible and the information we use to verify our facts is also created by fallible humans. However, that doesn't lessen the importance of the goal.

[Bluestarlizzard]

You know, of all the Glock hate talk I've heard, the concept that Glock was ripping people off is a first.

Really? Ripping people off?

Such makes me think that if they had sold there offerings at rock bottem prices, you'd still hate them for undercutting American companys that couldn't compeate with such low prices.

Are those prices unreasonable? I don't think so. Or is it just such a sin to make money?

It's Glocks design, it's Glock process, and it's Glocks company. Nobody went out and forced anyone to buy the product. Glock has made a fortune off it and nobody can say the Glock pistol is crap that doesn't work.

As for the slogan, "Perfection"...

What company doesn't have an incredibly pretentious slogan?

How about HK's oldie but goody "In a world of comprimise, some don't" ... Not even on letting AR mags fit their precious .223.

Or maybe Colts ancient one "God made man, Sam Colt made them equal" forget perfection, Sam Colt has godlike abilitys!!


I find the claims of Glock ripping people off to be as convincing as the rantings of any hotblooded troll.

If we're gonna hate on Glock, can we at least hate on something of merit?

[Sevens]

Excellent post.

[James K]

Ah, the problems of the pioneer. You come up with something different and innovative, and people like it and you become successful. Then others copy your idea until your different idea becomes commonplace. Then folks say you really didn't produce anything new because everyone is doing it.

Jim

[TailGator]

In a certain way Gaston Glock reminds me of Henry Ford. Ford didn't invent the automobile, but he figured out a way to build them efficiently and market them at a substantial profit. Glock designed a pistol for efficient high-volume production and had an excellent marketing plan. The OP validly points out that they are all the same basic mechanism, with the only changes being caliber and frame size. That is, of course, part of the efficiency, a lot like Ford's crack that his car could be had in any color you want, as long as it is black. Sometimes the most innovative things are the things that anyone COULD have done, but one person thought of it and DARED to do it.

[JN01]

There is something to be said about doing one thing well and sticking with it, rather than screwing it up with "improvements" (i.e. Gen4 recoil springs and extractors).

It also seems that a company with a more diverse product line would capture more of the market, but then again, if your innovations are not thought through or executed properly (many, many examples of those), what are they really worth?

[fire4606]

"Hmmm. Speaks volumes. Anyway, not important."

Agreed, one poster just gained credibility, one just lost some.

[mitranoc]

It's Glocks design, it's Glock process, and it's Glocks company. Nobody went out and forced anyone to buy the product. Glock has made a fortune off it and nobody can say the Glock pistol is crap that doesn't work.

Nicely stated.