Would a reinvention of Glock equal failure?

[Pond, James Pond]

I wasn't sure how to phrase the question but hopefully its explanation will explain it for me.

I've just perused a thread about a lucky member who's getting to try out the new Glock Gen 5. In the thread was a link to an online review comparing the two consecutive Gens 4 and 5.

So there were a few cosmetic changes and a few details revised but at a distance of a few feet, most would struggle to distinguish one from the other....

So it seems to me that most semi manufacturers have released guns that have their own looks and style, whereas we all know that Glocks all look much of a muchness. Some might be bigger or small or shoot a different calibre but they essentially all look alike.
Even CZs look a little different over their range with the 97 and Rami and SP-01 pistols looking different to the more common CZ75 frame.

So, do you think that if Glock did a complete re-think and launched a completely new pistol, even if the internal design were very similar, such a pistol would signal a fall in Glock sales or a rise?

Would it signify that Perfection wasn't perfect to begin with or would it be exciting to see how the same design in a different chassis would look, feel and shoot?

[TunnelRat]

I put this in the other thread, but it exactly tries to cover this topic:

Glocks and the way people think about them sort of crack me up. It's a brand that constantly gets ragged on for never changing and then when they do change people complain that they do it too much. Can't win it seems.

While I get that in the grand scheme these are minor changes, I'm personally more excited about these changes than I was about the Gen 4. As for "revolutionary" changes, it's not going to happen folks. No company is going to risk alienating all the fans it has now on the possibility of picking up more. In reality I often question how many people would actually buy a Glock if Glock did make the changes they supposedly want. At the end of the day Glock still makes plenty of sales. There are a lot more competitors on the Block, pun intended, but most of those would be tickled pink to have Glock sales figures. If you don't like them there are loads of options on the market these days.

[dgstill]

Some very simple rules of "Marketing" applied here may help clear things up. There are two well known very very well known brand names who each tried to step out from their own shade and got burnt. First example most will recognize... "Coke". Coke internally decided that since 'Pepsi' namely Pepsi's Cola was a very strong second in the Worldwide Brandnamed Cola market, the powers at Coke decided that if they had both the original Coke and a sweeter version 'New Coke', then no one on the planet would have any reason to buy Pepsi. Well Cola drinkers liked original Coke because of how it tasted. They liked Pepsi for the same reason...it tasted like Pepsi! New Coke tasted like 'New Coke' for which no market existed, so Failure! Another, everyone has heard of Levi Stauss & Co. Great high quality Blue Jeans. Excellent for a century or more...thru fads like bell-bottom but still Blue Jeans! Ever hear of Levi Strauss & Co. 'Shoes'? Not likely even though Levi tried more the. Onc to launch Levi's Shoes! Glock has greatly influenced nearly every Pistol manufacturer in some way. But how could Glock benefit by making say a 'Glock Steel 1911A1' or a 'Glock Single Action Revolver'? Maybe they are capable of revolutionary changes to 1912's and Single Action Revolvers? But if they can and if they do...rules of Marketing say Glock should introduce a 1911A1 under a completely new Brand Name. Because a Glock is and always will be a Glock Gen____?!

[O4L]

Something like this?

[arquebus357]

Yeah...Glock needs to come out with a steam punk version like Ruger did with the American.

[Pond, James Pond]

Well, I've read those responses, but I'm not sure they capture what I'm getting at.

Firstly, Glock can still continue to make its line up as it stands; that's not the issue. It's a good line up but there's a limit to what you can do to it before you start going around in circles and the groove-less grips of the Gen 5 point to that already.

Secondly, it's not about Glock bringing out a SA revolver or 1911. Both of those are known designs and Glock is recognised as having a design of its own. If the Remington/Colt/Springfield/Ithaca contract 1911s have been copied ad nauseum by other brands then so have Glocks with the paddle trigger design, the polymer frame, the safety-less striker firing mechanism etc.

What I'm talking about is a new line of semi autos. Perhaps with a safety. Perhaps with a more acute grip angle. Perhaps with more curved/rounded slide etc. Sure, keep the easy take-down, lock-up and polygonal rifling...
...but would it hurt Glock as a brand or enhance it if it came out with a civilian line of guns, instead of just the govt contract line up?

[TunnelRat]

But why though? I mean literally every company I can think of off the top of my head makes a striker fired polymer pistol, and a number of those with safeties and every one of those has its own unique design. What would Glock really gain by adding a safety and a different grip angle? What design cues out there haven't been done? Is that enough of a greater market share to warrant the investment? To be honest I'll be interested to see how a number of these companies do financially going forward when they essentially make the same product, albeit with some different options.

with a civilian line of guns, instead of just the govt contract line up

I'm a civilian that owns a Glock. What should differentiate what they sell to me as opposed to an agency or department?

[TunnelRat]

FWIW it seems the executives at Glock don't intend to let the investment from the MHS go to waste. Maybe that might mean a safety equipped Glock available to the public?

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ence-magazine/

[Pond, James Pond]

But why though? I mean literally every company I can think of off the top of my head makes a striker fired polymer pistol, and a number of those with safeties and every one of those has its own unique design. What would Glock really gain by adding a safety and a different grip angle? What design cues out there haven't been done? Is that enough of a greater market share to warrant the investment? To be honest I'll be interested to see how a number of these companies do financially going forward when they essentially make the same product, albeit with some different options.

Well, my design examples were just that; examples. As opposed to recommendations.

The point is, how long can Glock keep "refining" their existing gun design before it runs out of steam?

And they can perhaps tap into the sizeable market share who don't like their existing line-up by creating different one.

I'm a civilian that owns a Glock. What should differentiate what they sell to me as opposed to an agency or department?

So was I but we both know that Glock makes most of its money through Govt contracts to LE agencies, militaries etc. The Glocks you own and I have owned were initially designed with Govt mass purchases in mind.

Allegedly, according to the "HK hates you!" school of thought, so did HK, but they are now in financial trouble.

What I'm getting at is this:

Would Glock, 20yrs from now, still be what it is if all it'd done was move through Gen 6, Gen 7, Gen 8 and had reached Gen 9 of pistols that look pretty similar to those that had been launched in the 80s?

If not (and my guess is they wouldn't be), then would launching a new line of pistols, distinct but not unrelated to the original be a bad thing or would it secure the company's future?

[osbornk]

Harley Davidson tried to veer from their traditional air cooled motorcycles with the V-Rod and failed miserably. The Harley fans weren't ready for something new. BMW tried to drop the boxer twin for inline water cooled engines with the introduction of the K bike. The K bike was a far better performer but they to keep and improve the boxer twin to keep their customers. Whether it is better or not, a well known product needs to stay with what made them well known even though they can deviate with additional products that veer away. Glock needs to stay Glock even if they introduce a different variation.

[TunnelRat]

The point is, how long can Glock keep "refining" their existing gun design before it runs out of steam?

I think you could make this statement about the industry as a whole rather than just Glock. Again, literally every company out there is now making essentially its own copy of what Glock started decades ago. Is that enough to keep them going long term? Where are their original ideas? Frankly the tilting barrel locked breach design works. That's why it's been around for decades now. Cosmetic changes aside I think most people in the industry will agree that if any major changes are made in coming decades it will likely be with ammunition more than with the design of the firearms themselves. Unless we start moving into something other than firearms.

And they can perhaps tap into the sizeable market share who don't like their existing line-up by creating different one.

See I disagree with this, as I alluded to above. I honestly doubt that those that claim they'd buy Glocks if only this or that was changed really would. Those individuals aren't just not owning firearms at all right now. They're owning other firearms. Even if Glock did make changes, how many of those people would switch over from what they're currently using to Glock? They might in time, but how long would it take for that investment to pay off? And again, Glock is still making a lot of sales. The top is getting more crowded but they're far from being pushed off the mountain at this point.

Large scale changes also to an extent fly in the face of what Glock has been marketing for decades now, at least in terms of a manual safety as, according to Glock himself, the original idea was not to have one and the company has spent a lot of time and money convincing what is the majority of the market out there that he is right. Even if not Glocks, the majority of pistols sold that I'm aware of are polymer framed striker fired pistols, the majority of those without safeties.

So was I but we both know that Glock makes most of its money through Govt contracts to LE agencies, militaries etc. The Glocks you own and I have owned were initially designed with Govt mass purchases in mind.

From Glock: The Rise of America's Gun the story from Gaston was the design decisions he made were done after consulting with a number of people he considered experts (and who didn't get much in return for their help). Certainly he wanted to keep costs down and make profit, but I don't know that you can say that all he cared about from the beginning was massive contracts as he was a nobody when he started all this. That was his end goal, but I think he realized he needed a decent product to start all of this. Maybe what he ended up with was a jack of all trades and master of none, but it went far and is still doing well.

I'll also state that while no doubt the contracts for thousands of pistols at a time are very valuable to Glock, I don't think in any way you can discount the civilian sales they've made of those same pistols. They took the civilian world by storm. In fact HK, which you brought up, learned the hard way the danger of putting all their eggs in the government contract basket and it was only with the advent of the HK VP9 and their recent push into the civilian side of things that they really avoided financial ruin IMO (this is from my interpretation of their issues making liability payments on debts that resulted in Moody's downgrading their rating twice). Glock's margins on civilian sales are much higher than LEO contracts, so even if the quantity of sales isn't the same the profit from each comes into play. I believe you're not stateside from previous interactions and no doubt you're familiar with the US gun market, but the sales Glock still makes on reputation alone are staggering.

Would Glock, 20yrs from now, still be what it is if all it'd done was move through Gen 6, Gen 7, Gen 8 and had reached Gen 9 of pistols that look pretty similar to those that had been launched in the 80s?

If not (and my guess is they wouldn't be), then would launching a new line of pistols, distinct but not unrelated to the original be a bad thing or would it secure the company's future?

I don't know for sure. I again think most of these arguments could be made against the industry as a whole. I don't really see what Glock could offer right now that is truly revolutionary. Do they risk losing their future by not innovating now? They might, but I don't know if enough writing is on the wall to make that judgement at this point.

People have been predicting Glock's demise for a long time, and one day no doubt the company will go away. But in honesty I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

[rep1954]

All I can say is Glock did very well with the reinvention of the H&K VP70Z.

[Pond, James Pond]

H&K VP70Z

It's a shame HK didn't pick up that baton by marketing it. They might not be in such dire straits now...

I again think most of these arguments could be made against the industry as a whole. I don't really see what Glock could offer right now that is truly revolutionary. Do they risk losing their future by not innovating now? They might, but I don't know if enough writing is on the wall to make that judgement at this point.

I take your point about the industry as a whole. It just seems that if the the industry is not really innovating, Glock is innovating less.

Perhaps the very fact they aren't trying to make a new look is actually in their favour, giving an impression of pedigree or some such...

[Big Shrek]

Actually, the biggest change in the 5th Gen is almost unnoticed...
they used Marlin-type button rifling in their barrels to produce
more lands & grooves, which works wonders for bullet spin.

A pistoleer who knows what they are doing should easily be able
to produce 4" groups at 50 yards. Barrel is THAT much of a difference.

Other changes include the removal of those dadgum ridges on
the frontstrap, a change driven by MANY customer complaints.
Glock does listen, those ridges being gone proves it.

All in all, I'm just waiting for the 5th Gen to make it to the 10mm's,
because the benefits of what they have done will be extraordinary
for a G40MOS

[Pond, James Pond]

All in all, I'm just waiting for the 5th Gen to make it to the 10mm's,
because the benefits of what they have done will be extraordinary
for a G40MOS

But do you think Glock is right to not play around with the design as a whole, but rather tweak bits here and there?

In a sense, the path forward for them might be to build a modular firearm where buyers can pick and choose the features they've offered to make the "Gen" of there choosing...

Maximum choice without having a product list a mile long....

This is the problem I get with things like S&W: they just have soooooo many guns in the sales catalogue. Perusing the S&W website is bewildering for me!

[Big Shrek]

Well, since I've already got the best pistols for me...
only time I bother to get anything new is if there is
a substantial upgrade in technology...
quite frankly everything has already been done in the 90's...
so there are plenty of choices in older guns to keep
me busy while everyone is looking for NEWER BETTER

Which is why all my S&W's are 3rd Gen's
S&W Bums refuse to do a 10mm in the M&P.
Their mistake.

Glock's tweaking their design much as Wilson Combat
tweaks 1911's...but instead of coming out with one change
at a time, Glock's doing several solid upgrades at once.
Of course, if you think about it, 10 years per Gen is right
in line...they're learning and advancing...until powder-actuated
pistols are no longer needed.

I'll take a Battlestar Galactica: TOS blaster, please
Failing that, gimme a Gen 5 G40MOS for hunting!!

[adamBomb]

FWIW it seems the executives at Glock don't intend to let the investment from the MHS go to waste. Maybe that might mean a safety equipped Glock available to the public?

If they do that I will add more glocks to my collection. Still cant figure out why its not an option when they have made them for military/leo

[kozak6]

Depends.

There might be a market for a Glock Deluxe.

Put metal sights on it, a trigger upgrade, forward serrations, and a "real" modular grip. Glock is starting to fall behind in comparison to the PPQ, VP9, P10C, etc.

There's also plenty of room for an out of the box game gun, like the Walther Q5.

Actually, the biggest change in the 5th Gen is almost unnoticed...
they used Marlin-type button rifling in their barrels to produce
more lands & grooves, which works wonders for bullet spin.

Were there accuracy issues with the polygonal barrels? This change is a two-fer. It's a Miami barrel for everyone, except cheaper since since button rifling costs less to produce.

Other changes include the removal of those dadgum ridges on
the frontstrap, a change driven by MANY customer complaints.
Glock does listen, those ridges being gone proves it.

Only if that customer is the FBI .

[Jim Watson]

Considering that all major manufacturers are making striker fired plastic pistols, I think there is a lot of life left in the original Glock envelope. They just won't have it all their own way all the time.

Consider that there is almost no interchangeability between the Gen 5 and prior versions. Has to be driving the aftermarket nuts, their junk won't fit.

What could they do differently?
An 18 degree grip like the Other Brands?
Metal magazines so the grip would not have to be so blocky around a bulky plastic magazine... like the Other Brands?

Changing the barrel bore? For better accuracy? Give me a break. I bet their hammer forge wore out and it was cheaper to go to button rifling than to send big money to Krupp.

Springfield had the Croatians build them an XD with a hammer. After the initial ads and obligatory gunzine articles, it has pretty much sunk like a rock. Even my local XD fan has bought a Smith & Wesson.

I think we ought to declare "glock" to be a generic term for all those striker fired plastic pistols, in the same way we have kleenex, xerox, and coke; similar products of different brands.
We would have S&W glocks, Springfield glocks, Walther glocks, H&K glocks, Sig glocks, and, of course Glock glocks.

[sigarms228]

I would not be surprised to see Glock come out with their own modular design to supplement the current line. I doubt they are going to try and reinvent their current line which has been probably the most successful line in modern pistol history.

The Gen 5 is interesting and I really like it. That alone will bring a lot to Glock as I constantly read about those that do not like the grip finger grooves.

Now that it appears they may also add the MHS Glock to their consumer line that would appeal greatly to those that want a Glock with an external safety.

Then there are those that don't like Glock just because Glock is so pervasive and don't want to be seen with what so many others are using, because of that making it so uncool to them. I doubt Glock could make anything that would temp them.

[JohnKSa]

Actually, the biggest change in the 5th Gen is almost unnoticed...
they used Marlin-type button rifling in their barrels to produce
more lands & grooves, which works wonders for bullet spin.

A pistoleer who knows what they are doing should easily be able
to produce 4" groups at 50 yards. Barrel is THAT much of a difference.

I don't have a lot of data because I don't like shooting pistols from a rest. But I did spend some time a few years back shooting a Glock from the bench. It managed a 2" group at 25 yards with the ammo it liked the best. If the new barrels will really do 4" at 50 yards, then it sounds like they're providing about the same accuracy as the old ones. Certainly not a big difference.

This change is a two-fer. It's a Miami barrel for everyone, except cheaper since since button rifling costs less to produce.

As I understand it, hammer forging is more expensive to set up but very inexpensive once the setup is done (at least until the machines wear out and have to be replaced). Button rifling is cheaper to set up but more costly in actual production.

[kozak6]

That's what I thought too, except I read here:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...a-barrel-shop/
that button rifling is cheaper (but it's not exactly a doctoral thesis).

[TailGator]

Consider that there is almost no interchangeability between the Gen 5 and prior versions. Has to be driving the aftermarket nuts, their junk won't fit.

I read somewhere about the lack of interchangeability, too, and as I understand it that lack extends to internal parts. My question, then, is: How thoroughly was this pistol redesigned, and most specifically, was the redesign so thorough that its reliability needs to be proven again?

[gglass]

Originally Posted by arquebus357

Yeah...Glock needs to come out with a steam punk version like Ruger did with the American.

Ah yes, like my Steam Punk PPQ!



Too late Glock...

[BigJimP]

My local range had a 4 day Glock event where you could fire the Gen 5 model 17 & 19....I was at range today, so I put 20 rds thru each model this afternoon.( started Sat & event ended today).

I thought both models are better than older versions I have fired - I liked the new beveled mag well & I thought the trigger, especially on the Gen 5 model 17 was way better than the Gen 4 models they had in rental case -- Gen 5's triggers , to me, - had less wobble - better reset - still a fair amount of creep, but better.../ not like a well tuned 1911 trigger - but pretty good in my view.

I'm not a Glock fan ....I don't own any Glocks, or any poly guns or any stryker fired guns, so I have no axe to grind in Gen 2's vs 4's, or 5's -- .and don't keep track normally on what Glock is doing...but based on what I felt, the Gen 5 will be a good gun especially out the door under $ 600. My local range said they had about 20 of Gen 5 for sale Sat...and they sold quickly with customers lined up at door 2 hrs before opening.

Based partly on that report - I don't think the minor cosmetic changes will hurt sales.

I did hear some knowlegeable Glock fans at my range say the changes were not enough to make them buy a Gen 5 to replace a Gen 2, 3, 4.../ ...but I feel the same way about my primary 1911's from Wilson Combat ( both 5" guns...one in 9mm, one in .45acp ...about 11 and 15 yrs old respectively )...and while Wilson has made some nice changes available like countersunk slide lock, fluted chamber, fluted barrel, flush cut barrel, etc...it doesn't make me want to invest in a new one - when mine are still 100% reliable...

So, only my opinion -- but I think the Gen 5 will sell very well.

I have some grandkids in their 20's now...and a couple of them are saving to buy a handgun....and I think this is a solid option for them...so I shot them today mostly out of curiosity -- and to give them some input, if they ask.