Is Glock aiming at cutting costs recently? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Is Glock aiming at cutting costs recently?


Marshall_tx
11-02-2012, 11:50
I really admire the simplicity and strong reliability of Glock's, reason being why I have 4 of them (not much by some people's standards). But I first bought my first Glock in 07, the model 23. Ever since then I've bought some and sold some. But when I disassemble to clean them there is somewhat of a notable difference, perceived by me at least, of the different build materials. I just bought a 22, 2 days ago and when I field stripped it, the insides looked different, for starters, the 22 looked like it had some sort of a plastic rail support on the front rails, whereas my 07 Glock 23 does not have the "supports". Also, the locking blocks look like they're plated on the new ones and I've been seeing as to how allot of people are noticing excessive wear and signs of wear on the locking block whereas my Glock 23 has no signs of wear at all on the inside from shooting some 5,000 rounds through it. I haven't given it much thought, but recently the M&P's have caught my attention, it looks like they've made their own polymer version of the Glock, and have done a mighty fine job at it. I know Glock is made in Austria, but I honestly would not be surprised if they've been importing some of the internal's from China like the springs, extractor's, locking blocks, or others of the sort. Because while these parts are very small, when they order 50-60,000 I'm sure they can cut costs and try to rely on their past success to keep people coming back. Then again, I'm just playing devil's advocate :devildance:. I really like Glock's and between the HK's, and Sig's I've had in the past, I've only held onto the Glock's because I don't see any other handgun taking the Glock's position as leader in utility, reliability, and simplicity and that's all I really look for. I'm not a big fan of firearm's that don't go 'bang' every time their trigger is pulled.

NCHeel
11-02-2012, 12:21
I have seen the plastic things you are talking about. My 19 has them but the 26 does not. The 26 is newer so that rules out a design change to produce it cheaper. I think the big deal is GLOCKS are made to be service weapons. They have never cared for aesthetics. They function but now-a-days people want something to be pretty also. GLOCk has never been into that. If someone wants a safe queen get a Kimber.

Marshall_tx
11-02-2012, 12:40
I have seen the plastic things you are talking about. My 19 has them but the 26 does not. The 26 is newer so that rules out a design change to produce it cheaper. I think the big deal is GLOCKS are made to be service weapons. They have never cared for aesthetics. They function but now-a-days people want something to be pretty also. GLOCk has never been into that. If someone wants a safe queen get a Kimber.

I 100% agree, Glock needs to stick to what they've been known for, a quality, functional, durable firearm. The last thing we need from them is the company trying to round off the edges from their "2x4" and trying to replace functionality with form.

samurairabbi
11-02-2012, 12:54
Glock produces INTERNALLY only three parts: frame, slide, barrel. All other parts are OEM from outside suppliers.

SJ 40
11-02-2012, 13:09
Like you said if a gun doesn't go bang it's not of any value. I love my Glocks and everyone goes Bang every time no matter the ammunition it's feed. I am always on the lookout for Glocks,I'm just not interested in any Glock produced after 12/06 but that's just me.
SJ 40

mr00jimbo
11-02-2012, 13:54
Glock produces INTERNALLY only three parts: frame, slide, barrel. All other parts are OEM from outside suppliers.

where are they outsourced to?

SCmasterblaster
11-02-2012, 14:07
some pictures would be nice. :cool:

DocWills
11-02-2012, 14:33
ALL gun companies outsource. What and who depends. Ruger and smith get a lot of very surprising orders in the US.
There are a bunch of Euro companies capable in that sort of thing.:supergrin:

samurairabbi
11-02-2012, 14:47
where are they outsourced to?

All over Europe and, probably, Asia. In the late nineties, Russia was a major source of OEM Glock parts.

Chuck TX
11-02-2012, 16:34
Did they start using MIM parts?

Bruce M
11-02-2012, 16:53
A few months, maybe half a year ago it seemed fairly accepted that Glock was behind in production by several hundred thousand pistols. I have not heard recently if they are still behind and if so how much. Perhaps the reason for changes in parts was to speed up production and any changes in quality are a result of attempting to make more parts faster rather than any cost cutting move. That is, of course, just a rambling guess with no facts to back it up at all.

unit1069
11-02-2012, 17:50
Is Glock aiming at cutting costs recently?

I don't know, but the testimonial evidence is that the Gen 4 Glocks have derailed Glock's stellar reputation for total out-of-the-box reliability, extending even to the late model Gen 3 products.

Gaston Glock is getting up there in age and perhaps has allowed others without his attention to important factors to supplant his decision-making process. Just sayin' ...

One thing's for sure, I'm certainly happy with my 2007 Glock that is the only firearm I own that has been absolutely perfect since Day One with every FMJ and JHP ammo put through it.

Yertology
11-02-2012, 20:00
I'm just not interested in any Glock produced after 12/06 but that's just me. 40

I'm curious, why this date?



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

SJ 40
11-02-2012, 20:21
I'm curious, why this date?



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engineSome say the use of MiMed parts were first used by Glock some time in 07,some say 09. I don't know for sure and I know Glock isn't going to say.

What I do know is by limiting myself to that date,unless the gun has been back to Glock they do not contain MiMed parts.
Such as extractor or locking blocks.

The use of MiMed parts maybe of no consequence to some I would rather not have/use them. So for me I limit my self to 12/06 serial numbers and prior,which is not very limiting to me as all the Glocks I own function with Perfection.
SJ 40

Made in Austria
11-02-2012, 20:46
I don't think Glock is cutting too much on the costs. I have a couple gen4's and they are all very reliable now, just like the old ones which I have as well. I also can't complain about the gray dull finish, it's holding up well so far.

The only thing they had major problems with are the extractors. Some of them are/were out of spec. I am sure one of their extractor MIM molders is/was out of spec because not all gen4's came with problems out of the box, and the ones which had problems can be fixed by replacing and tweaking extractors. I fixed the erratic ejection of two gen4 G19 and a few gen4 G23 by replacing extractors with new different numbered OEM extractors.

All of them still work like a sewing machine. The first one I fixed was a G23 gen4, it has now about 3500 through it and still shoots and ejects like it should.

MIM parts are normally not bad as long as they are in spec and done/molded correctly.

AustinTx
11-02-2012, 23:08
Some say the use of MiMed parts were first used by Glock some time in 07,some say 09. I don't know for sure and I know Glock isn't going to say.

What I do know is by limiting myself to that date,unless the gun has been back to Glock they do not contain MiMed parts.
Such as extractor or locking blocks.

The use of MiMed parts maybe of no consequence to some I would rather not have/use them. So for me I limit my self to 12/06 serial numbers and prior,which is not very limiting to me as all the Glocks I own function with Perfection.
SJ 40

I am slightly amused at people that buy a gun, made by injecting molten plastic, into a form and worry about MIM parts in it. Assuming, Glock's bad extractors are MIM (which I'm not sure anyone knows, positively), They don't work because they aren't the right size or shape. Evidently people can tell they're the wrong size, by eyesight.

Locking Blocks: My old Gen 3 Glocks appear to have some sort of molded locking blocks, in them and never broken one yet. The ones I checked, have a sprue from the mold.

AustinTx
11-02-2012, 23:10
Coke changed Coke and almost went broke. Glock changed the Model 17 and messed up the most reliable 9mm ever made, looks like.

whirlibird
11-03-2012, 00:37
Most manufacturers make changes to make less costly products to increase market shares and profits. Be it MIM parts, injection molding, casting, etc.

Engineering changes are also made to increase reliability, reduce wear or failures, etc.

The end question is not what costs can we live with but what cost is our life worth?

For example, most 1911 makers use MIM parts in some place or another, often many.
But a few, still cling to refusing to use MIM parts. The difference is a couple of hundred dollars to start, normally.

What happens? People buy the cheaper product because it 's cheaper. Rather than considering if it's better or not.

Take the Glock for example, at @$500 you get a gun remarkably reliable, reasonably accurate and one that takes a tremendous amount of abuse. Same with the XD, M&P and others.

Jump to three times that price and people start having chest pains, brain issues and they can't find the ability to carry a gun that costs that much. However for that price you get something that's just as reliable as the Glock, much more accurate and one that will only increase in value over time. Note I didn't mention model or make.

Compare it to cars.

Buy the Toyota, it runs and keeps on running.
Buy the 'Vette, it runs and takes a little tinkering but holds its value over the years.

They both do the same thing, one just looks a whole lot better doing it.

As far as change goes, people are generally against it, and occasionally with good reason.
One of our local deputies bought a brand new Sig 226. And comparing it to my 25 year old 220, there were a major number of differences. The trigger was terrible, the locking block was rough as a corn cob (MIM), machining changes, etc. He didn't even keep it a week.

Evaluate change on it's own merits.

Yertology
11-03-2012, 05:12
Most manufacturers make changes to make less costly products to increase market shares and profits. Be it MIM parts, injection molding, casting, etc.

But the price tag on a new gen4 is 20-30$ more than a new gen3? This thread is depressing



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

SJ 40
11-03-2012, 05:35
I am slightly amused at people that buy a gun, made by injecting molten plastic, into a form and worry about MIM parts in it. Assuming, Glock's bad extractors are MIM (which I'm not sure anyone knows, positively), They don't work because they aren't the right size or shape. Evidently people can tell they're the wrong size, by eyesight.

Locking Blocks: My old Gen 3 Glocks appear to have some sort of molded locking blocks, in them and never broken one yet. The ones I checked, have a sprue from the mold.Yes the locking blocks at least around mid 2000 at least in the examples I have seen are investment castings as are the extractors.
Ruger long ago perfected and proved investment casting,when done with proper steel and properly heat treated has excellent strength and wear longevity.
SJ 40

RonS
11-03-2012, 06:03
Glock is a mature product. You can only do so much with it. Reduce costs to increase margin. Make small improvements to justify raising the price, market like mad to convice people that it is worth buying.

Their competitors are free to copy the best features and optimize their products and processes based on Glock's strengths and weaknesses and how the market sees them. Some people wanted Glock to add a manual safety. Boom, who makes polymer handguns with manual safeties now? Some people complained Glocks are bulky and feel funny in their hand. SR9 anyone, MP9?

I went with the Glock, but I'm very into brand loyalty, unless you piss me off I do business with what has worked for me in the past. I like the simpicity, I like the availability of parts, the service reputation and the fact that my last Glock was a great gun.

cajun_chooter
11-03-2012, 08:48
isn't it amazing when a company makes a product that is just about perfect... they go and change it ??? why ?

samurairabbi
11-03-2012, 09:40
isn't it amazing when a company makes a product that is just about perfect... they go and change it ??? why ?
This can occur when the Big Kahuna of a privately held company decides change is something he would like to do just for the sake of doing something to pass the time. If this is indeed happening within the Glock organization, we consumers will just have to tolerate it and hope that phase passes.

cajun_chooter
11-03-2012, 10:07
This can occur when the Big Kahuna of a privately held company decides change is something he would like to do just for the sake of doing something to pass the time. If this is indeed happening within the Glock organization, we consumers will just have to tolerate it and hope that phase passes.

or consumers could quit buying their products... and when their profits dwindle... maybe they would take notice

jupiter
11-03-2012, 10:36
I am slightly amused at people that buy a gun, made by injecting molten plastic, into a form and worry about MIM parts in it.

Using your logic, you shouldn't mind if they make your glock barrel and locking block out of Tin. It would be amusing to think certain parts may need to be made better/stronger!:supergrin:

I would rather pay a little more and maintain high standards than compromise on quality in ANY way.

Bruce M
11-03-2012, 14:57
But the price tag on a new gen4 is 20-30$ more than a new gen3? This thread is depressing



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
How many magazines with third generation vs. a Gen4?

fastbolt
11-03-2012, 15:34
Show me a major gun company that isn't constantly looking to reduce costs, especially one that competes for LE/Gov sales ... :whistling:

jupiter
11-03-2012, 16:30
Show me a major gun company that isn't constantly looking to reduce costs, especially one that competes for LE/Gov sales ... :whistling:
Sure..... every Company is looking to save money. Some just refuse to do it at the expense of quality.
Look at some of the Companies that are doing really well right now like BCM. I would be willing to bet their sales would go to hell if they started putting in sub-standard parts.
Even Colt is selling the LE6920 with a better stock (Rogers Super Stoc) than the rattle trap they were using.
People buy these guns because of the Quality.

I don't think most of the large LE/Gov. sales are going to DPMS and STAG.

I would have rather had Glock raise the price of their pistols by $50 dollars and keep the same extractors etc. than put in something that may or may not be as good. They could keep that 3rd magazine they now include with the Gen4s.

Marshall_tx
11-03-2012, 17:38
Just wondering, does anyone know of a vendor that sells Glock replacement parts so we could swap out the "compromised" or less durable parts with cast metal pieces or something other than MIM? I know allot of the parts aren't showing people any trouble for the most part, but I just prefer the idea of having the "more" durable parts in the firearm. Especially like the extractor, and related parts. I also noticed on the older glocks the trigger has ridges on it, but the new glocks, the trigger is just smooth (saving $ by reducing processes). I liked the grooves in the older glocks but to each his own.

jupiter
11-03-2012, 17:55
Just wondering, does anyone know of a vendor that sells Glock replacement parts so we could swap out the "compromised" or less durable parts with cast metal pieces or something other than MIM? I know allot of the parts aren't showing people any trouble for the most part, but I just prefer the idea of having the "more" durable parts in the firearm. Especially like the extractor, and related parts. I also noticed on the older glocks the trigger has ridges on it, but the new glocks, the trigger is just smooth (saving $ by reducing processes). I liked the grooves in the older glocks but to each his own.

http://www.apextactical.com/
From what i've seen, they are selling like HOTCAKES!
I wonder why if there is not a problem with the OEM part?!:supergrin:

SJ 40
11-03-2012, 18:00
Just wondering, does anyone know of a vendor that sells Glock replacement parts so we could swap out the "compromised" or less durable parts with cast metal pieces or something other than MIM? I know allot of the parts aren't showing people any trouble for the most part, but I just prefer the idea of having the "more" durable parts in the firearm. Especially like the extractor, and related parts. I also noticed on the older glocks the trigger has ridges on it, but the new glocks, the trigger is just smooth (saving $ by reducing processes). I liked the grooves in the older glocks but to each his own.Here you are for extractors.

https://apextactical.com/store/product-info.php?pid67.html

The groves on the trigger is a points driven scheme by BATFE to be importable only required on compacts and sub compact Glocks. Full size Glock have smooth trigger and If you really like the grooved trigger you can put one in your full sized gun or vise versa.

http://www.midwayusa.com/product/179747/glock-trigger-with-trigger-bar-glock-19-23-26-27-32-33-except-pre-eh-serial-number-g19-grooved-trigger
. SJ 40

fastbolt
11-03-2012, 18:51
Sure..... every Company is looking to save money. Some just refuse to do it at the expense of quality ...

It's the definition of the phrase "at the expense of quality" that can start to become problematic or contentious. I've heard personal opinions bordering on the innumerable, expressed by owners among various online gun forums, and most of them aren't exactly what you might call an "informed" opinion. :whistling:

The use of MIM for parts in firearms is an example. Some folks have an instant abhorrent reaction, and often without knowing anything about the process or the achievable quality if results.

S&W owns their own MIM molds which is an expensive proposition, and they made the decision to do so reportedly because they wanted to retain control over the quality of the molds. The MIM houses they use aren't located offshore, either.

They operate the largest forging & heat treating facilities on the Eastern Seaboard, making parts (and performing other processes) for many other companies. I've heard they're supplying parts, assemblies & processes for other gun companies, as well as making parts for at least one well respected motorcycle company, and landing gear for aircraft. They have the capability to manufacture all parts needed for their products, but they still use outside vendors where possible ... supposedly not to save on costs, but to save on using up floorspace and manufacturing capability, in-house (until it's ever necessary, someday).

I remember when gun owners reacted the same way to the use of aluminum as pistol frames, or cast steel parts (versus forged) being used.

The funny thing is, I've seen more problems occur with cast & forged steel parts over the years than I have occur with MIM parts. Go figure, right?

Perish the thought of using a plastic compound for a frame!?! :wow:

:rofl:

Kind of depends on the application, the design and the quality of the materials, doesn't it?

Just as some cast is not representative of what's possible (and desirable) for all cast parts ... and ditto with forged ... the use of plastic & MIM depends on why, how & where it's used, and the way it's produced.

Quality control (and the consistency thereof ;) ) also has a lot to do with how a product turns out, right?

Does anybody really think that Glock's introduction of the Gen4 guns was done as a cost-cutting measure? :tongueout:

Tiro Fijo
11-03-2012, 18:57
...The funny thing is, I've seen more problems occur with cast & forged steel parts over the years than I have occur with MIM parts. Go figure, right?...


Correct. I have witnessed the same and been told as such as well in person by a former president of the APG (American Pistolsmith Guild) who builds high dollar 1911's.

99.99% of the time it's the Indian & not the arrow. The quality of shooters has gone down far more than the quality of guns.

fastbolt
11-03-2012, 19:15
99.99% of the time it's the Indian & not the arrow. The quality of shooters has gone down far more than the quality of guns.

Well, I wasn't going to put it quite that way ... but since you brought it up ... :whistling:

As an instructor, I really miss the days when cops had to learn to shoot DA revolvers.

Having to shoot both strong & weak hand at 25 yards, and out to 50 yards, required the shooter to have some grasp of a good handgun shooting foundation, right?

Show me someone who has learned to accurately, controllably and effectively shoot a medium-framed Magnum DA revolver - in DA mode - having to deal with awkward shaped wooden grip stocks, a heavy & long DA trigger stroke, and learn to aim their shots because they've only got 6 rounds at the ready ... and I'll show you a person I'd much rather transition over to pistols, than try and teach a pistol shooter how to shoot a DA revolver. :cool:

I still see some older cops who may grumble about having to deal with loading magazines (instead of cylinders), and having to manipulate slide stop levers, magazine catches and decockers ... but who can drill threat targets as if their guns were radar guided. They may not necessarily like the new-fangled pistols (or cellphones, for that matter), but they've got that whole grip, trigger control & sight alignment/picture process down. ;)

AustinTx
11-03-2012, 20:17
Using your logic, you shouldn't mind if they make your glock barrel and locking block out of Tin. It would be amusing to think certain parts may need to be made better/stronger!:supergrin:

I would rather pay a little more and maintain high standards than compromise on quality in ANY way.

You're not using logic. The method of making a part, has nothing to do with the material that is suitable, for that part. You can make cheaper frames, with cardboard. Would you buy a cardboard gun, if it was forged or hand made, by an experienced machinist?

Please, tell me, how do you know that quality has been compromised, because a particular part isn't made, using some process that you don't like?

If a gun wasn't built, using more modern methods, that cut cost, I couldn't afford to buy most guns, on the market, now. Parts can be produced, using MIM, to much tighter tolerances than most older methods. It's usually best, for small, intricate parts. Once the process has been set up, every single part, made in a mold will be exactly the same. Ruger has proven casting makes a strong gun frame. People said that was inferior to forging and maybe it is, but it works and keeps the prices where I can afford to buy a gun.

S&W is using MIM parts, in their revolvers and the 629 Classic that I have, is the smoothest trigger and best timed revolver that I own.

Warp
11-03-2012, 20:30
But the price tag on a new gen4 is 20-30$ more than a new gen3? This thread is depressing



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

What is the third magazine worth?


isn't it amazing when a company makes a product that is just about perfect... they go and change it ??? why ?

Well, unfortunately a lot of people (consumers) are not very smart, and they complain and bash and say they won't buy XYZ because it hasn't changed in 10+ years, therefore it is outdated and not worth their money. :upeyes:

jupiter
11-03-2012, 20:31
Let me put it this way fastbolt.

Out of the pics below, guess which group of Glocks send brass to my face. I only have 2 Gen4 Glocks.

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g215/lushl0sn/ECFB7FD8-3F59-4806-85F2-952508A9DF2A-116-00000000F80E42A2.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g215/lushl0sn/B00E486B-3055-4223-98C9-2760C57AF085-116-00000001009ACEDE.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g215/lushl0sn/EAE827B4-7D78-4235-B582-B9BDA438DFB5-116-0000000E4F100E07.jpg

http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g215/lushl0sn/04E0D605-8941-40C7-9C0E-231E152B8DF8-116-0000000E835B1C80.jpg

DING, DING, DING........ We have a winner!
http://i57.photobucket.com/albums/g215/lushl0sn/F98B2A5D-E28F-4B4C-9D1C-EE2E36A6440A-147-0000000ECE98C9B1.jpg


I've put countless thousands of rounds through all of them and the only one the send brass flying into my face are the Gen 4 G26s. It doesn't take rocket science to figure out something has changed big time.
Yes fastbolt, it does depend on the application.
It looks like Glock hasn't figured out what parts they can cut corners on.

jupiter
11-03-2012, 21:03
I've heard personal opinions bordering on the innumerable, expressed by owners among various online gun forums, and most of them aren't exactly what you might call an "informed" opinion. :whistling:


Wow! I've found someone who's really in the know!
Are you a Master Class Shooter? I bet you compete in those shooting competitions like IDPA and IPSC?:supergrin:

Marshall_tx
11-04-2012, 01:22
It's the definition of the phrase "at the expense of quality" that can start to become problematic or contentious. I've heard personal opinions bordering on the innumerable, expressed by owners among various online gun forums, and most of them aren't exactly what you might call an "informed" opinion. :whistling:

The use of MIM for parts in firearms is an example. Some folks have an instant abhorrent reaction, and often without knowing anything about the process or the achievable quality if results.

S&W owns their own MIM molds which is an expensive proposition, and they made the decision to do so reportedly because they wanted to retain control over the quality of the molds. The MIM houses they use aren't located offshore, either.

They operate the largest forging & heat treating facilities on the Eastern Seaboard, making parts (and performing other processes) for many other companies. I've heard they're supplying parts, assemblies & processes for other gun companies, as well as making parts for at least one well respected motorcycle company, and landing gear for aircraft. They have the capability to manufacture all parts needed for their products, but they still use outside vendors where possible ... supposedly not to save on costs, but to save on using up floorspace and manufacturing capability, in-house (until it's ever necessary, someday).

I remember when gun owners reacted the same way to the use of aluminum as pistol frames, or cast steel parts (versus forged) being used.

The funny thing is, I've seen more problems occur with cast & forged steel parts over the years than I have occur with MIM parts. Go figure, right?

Perish the thought of using a plastic compound for a frame!?! :wow:

:rofl:

Kind of depends on the application, the design and the quality of the materials, doesn't it?

Just as some cast is not representative of what's possible (and desirable) for all cast parts ... and ditto with forged ... the use of plastic & MIM depends on why, how & where it's used, and the way it's produced.

Quality control (and the consistency thereof ;) ) also has a lot to do with how a product turns out, right?

Does anybody really think that Glock's introduction of the Gen4 guns was done as a cost-cutting measure? :tongueout:

Dang, that was really well put :perfect10:. I must say after that I must agree with you on most points, however, just being the fact that allot of people have been posting about certain parts of the firearm "problematicing" away it still puts me on an uncertainty to some extent, despite being the fact that Glock is supposed to be the "standard" when it comes to good'ol fashion durability, reliability, and economically. I like Glock's because logically, it makes perfect sense to own one; the tool works when you need it to, and the tool does not need to be treated like as if it were fragile. {"Gaston Glock, if you are reading this PLEASE revert back to your previous method/s of placing functionality over form"}

jupiter
11-04-2012, 06:17
Dang, that was really well put :perfect10:. I must say after that I must agree with you on most points, however, just being the fact that allot of people have been posting about certain parts of the firearm "problematicing" away it still puts me on an uncertainty to some extent, despite being the fact that Glock is supposed to be the "standard" when it comes to good'ol fashion durability, reliability, and economically. I like Glock's because logically, it makes perfect sense to own one; the tool works when you need it to, and the tool does not need to be treated like as if it were fragile. {"Gaston Glock, if you are reading this PLEASE revert back to your previous method/s of placing functionality over form"}


Marshall

There are folks who have alots of first hand experience besides high Glocktalk post counts that DO think there is a problem.
Some people are so blind loyal, they will never admit their holy brand may have an Issue.

The Moderators may need to put a warning at the top of this thread.

"WARNING!!!!!........ READING THE POSTS BELOW COULD CAUSE FLASHBACKS TO WALTHERGA THREADS!:supergrin:

ca survivor
11-04-2012, 06:41
I had 12 Glocks down to 5 and the reason I don't get rid of these is because I have too many extra parts, mags, holster, etc. H&K, Sig and 1911 for now.

railfancwb
11-04-2012, 06:49
Coke changed Coke and almost went broke. Glock changed the Model 17 and messed up the most reliable 9mm ever made, looks like.

I've wondered if the change to New Coke wasn't really done to hide the change from sugar to corn syrup as the sweetener.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

HexHead
11-04-2012, 06:52
But the price tag on a new gen4 is 20-30$ more than a new gen3? This thread is depressing



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

You also get 3 mags instead of 2.

Lowjiber
11-04-2012, 06:56
But the price tag on a new gen4 is 20-30$ more than a new gen3?
Yes, but the 4's come with three mags, and the 3's come with two.

Rats!!! HexHead already said that. Day late and a dollar short...that's me. lol

railfancwb
11-04-2012, 06:59
In its ads, Taurus claims to make all the parts for its guns...

Properly done, investment casting - the process Ruger uses - aligns the grain of the metal to best resist forces of firing.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

fastbolt
11-04-2012, 11:38
Wow! I've found someone who's really in the know!
Are you a Master Class Shooter? I bet you compete in those shooting competitions like IDPA and IPSC?:supergrin:

Not sure where you mean to go with some of your posts. It's somewhat apparent you're dissatisfied with some aspects of newer Glocks. Okay. Your prerogative.

FWIW, I'm neither a competitive shooter, nor am I a licensed gunsmith, engineer, factory technician, rep or salesperson.

I've been a LE firearms instructor since '90, and I've been through more than 20 armorer classes (only 3 of which have been Glock classes), so I've acquired a passing familiarity with some small number of firearms used in the LE/Gov field, and I've had the opportunity to work with both LE & non-LE shooters (which has allowed me to observe how various guns behave in the hands of some shooters/owners).

Never claimed to be anybody's "expert".

I haven't taken a job with any of the gun companies since my retirement (really thought about it, though).

I neither shill for any particular firearm company, nor profess "loyalty" to any of their products simply based upon a company. (I leave that sort of thing to folks who like to claim loyalty and allegiance to sports teams ... which is something else I don't do. ;) )

As an armorer I've listened to any number of armorer instructors, reps, engineers and other factory folks (for assorted gun companies) who have described assorted changes, revisions & refinements involving designs, materials, manufacturing and vendors. Not uncommon in the firearms world. Sometimes changes have the desired result ... and sometimes there's an occasional unintended consequence. Things happen.

I think the internet allows little things to get blown out of proportion very easily and incredibly quickly.

I think incorrect info gets circulated and becomes accepted as "fact".

I also think that the expectations of some firearms owners can be a bit unrealistic, too. ;)

If you're dissatisfied with your Gen4 Glock, you might consider either working with the company to resolve any realistic issues, or do so with a local Glock armorer. The company was very responsive when I was discussing my own late production Gen3 erratic ejection issues. They offered to examine the gun and try to correct anything necessary if I wanted, even though I'm an armorer. I have no complaints with their response and helpfulness.

Glocks aren't necessarily my first couple of choices for plastic pistols, but they make a fine, serviceable product. I'll continue to own and use the ones I've bought.

BTW, as an armorer for the M&P pistol (2 classes) and the SW99/P99 (3 classes), I've become aware of how each of those designs have received (and benefited from) revisions, refinements and design changes along the way, over the years. Like I said ... such things aren't uncommon. ;)

jupiter
11-04-2012, 12:16
[quote=fastbolt;19590278]Not sure where you mean to go with some of your posts. It's somewhat apparent you're dissatisfied with some aspects of newer Glocks. Okay. Your prerogative.

FWIW, I'm neither a competitive shooter, nor am I a licensed gunsmith, engineer, factory technician, rep or salesperson.

I've been a LE firearms instructor since '90, and I've been through more than 20 armorer classes (only 3 of which have been Glock classes), so I've acquired a passing familiarity with some small number of firearms used in the LE/Gov field, and I've had the opportunity to work with both LE & non-LE shooters (which has allowed me to observe how various guns behave in the hands of some shooters/owners).

Never claimed to be anybody's "expert".

I haven't taken a job with any of the gun companies since my retirement (really thought about it, though).

I neither shill for any particular firearm company, nor profess "loyalty" to any of their products simply based upon a company. (I leave that sort of thing to folks who like to claim loyalty and allegiance to sports teams ... which is something else I don't do. ;) )

As an armorer I've listened to any number of armorer instructors, reps, engineers and other factory folks (for assorted gun companies) who have described assorted changes, revisions & refinements involving designs, materials, manufacturing and vendors. Not uncommon in the firearms world. Sometimes changes have the desired result ... and sometimes there's an occasional unintended consequence. Things happen.

I think the internet allows little things to get blown out of proportion very easily and incredibly quickly.

I think incorrect info gets circulated and becomes accepted as "fact".

I also think that the expectations of some firearms owners can be a bit unrealistic, too. ;)

If you're dissatisfied with your Gen4 Glock, you might consider either working with the company to resolve any realistic issues, or do so with a local Glock armorer. The company was very responsive when I was discussing my own late production Gen3 erratic ejection issues. They offered to examine the gun and try to correct anything necessary if I wanted, even though I'm an armorer. I have no complaints with their response and helpfulness.

Glocks aren't necessarily my first couple of choices for plastic pistols, but they make a fine, serviceable product. I'll continue to own and use the ones I've bought.

BTW, as an armorer for the M&P pistol (2 classes) and the SW99/P99 (3 classes)%2

fastbolt
11-04-2012, 12:36
I make it pretty clear what my opinions were fastbolt.
I was pretty much staying on topic and debating the quality of Glock parts. I never questioned your credentials.
Obviously, because I disagreed with you, you questioned mine with the "informed opinion" statement.
Don't assume those who disagree with you don't have experience. That you be a big mistake and i'll leave it at that.

Actually, the "informed opinion" comment was made in general reflection, thinking back over numerous other posts made in other thread topics. Your comment made me think back over other posts (which can be a good thing). Not this one, and not pertaining to what you'd posted. Didn't mean for you to take it that way. I'd have said the same thing if we'd been discussing this subject together over a cup of coffee, and you'd have been better able to realize I wasn't directing it at your comments.

If you never meant to question my experience, perhaps you might have phrased your comments a bit differently? It's not easy to read things like, "Wow! I've found someone who's really in the know!", and know how they mean their comment without being able to see facial expressions & body language, as well as hear it said. ;)

One of the problems of the internet, right. :)

jupiter
11-04-2012, 12:45
Actually, the "informed opinion" comment was made in general reflection, thinking back over numerous other posts made in other thread topics. Not this one, and not pertaining to what you'd posted. Didn't mean for you to take it that way. I'd have said the same thing if we'd been discussing this subject together over a cup of coffee, and you'd have been better able to realize I wasn't directing it at your comments.

If you never meant to question my experience, perhaps you might have phrased your comments a bit differently? It's not easy to read things like, "Wow! I've found someone who's really in the know!", and know how they mean their comment without being able to see facial expressions & body language, as well as hear it said. ;)

One of the problems of the internet, right. :)

Fastbolt
I've been a member here a long time. In general, I agree with your comments far more than I disagree. In this case, we'll just agree to disagree.

One thing i've learned for sure!
Never use an IPad with auto-correct when posting on Glocktalk. It sucks:supergrin:

fastbolt
11-04-2012, 13:21
Fastbolt
I've been a member here a long time. In general, I agree with your comments far more than I disagree. In this case, we'll just agree to disagree.

One thing i've learned for sure!
Never use an IPad with auto-correct when posting on Glocktalk. It sucks:supergrin:

Made me chuckle about the auto-correct thing. ;)

Not sure where we really disagree on anything. Nobody wants to see reductions in quality, right?

I simply don't think that any and all changes made by manufacturers (or their vendors) should automatically be suspected of having been done to "cut corners & costs", at the expense of quality.

I do, however, think that sometimes a change (revision, vendor spec change, etc) that's made for ease of manufacturing - which may, or may not, be solely for cost-cutting - might result in something that's unexpected (by both the manufacturer and the consumer).

Returning to the "previous method" may not automatically always be the answer, although some adjustment may certainly be in order, allowing the new method (process, etc) to continue to be used.

I don't concern myself with other folks always (or ever) agreeing with me. I change my own opinions all the time, especially when experience indicates it's appropriate. ;)

AustinTx
11-04-2012, 20:36
In its ads, Taurus claims to make all the parts for its guns...

Properly done, investment casting - the process Ruger uses - aligns the grain of the metal to best resist forces of firing.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

I think investment casting, results in a random grain pattern, in the part. Forging does tend to align the grain, in the metal. That's why people didn't like Ruger's guns, at the beginning.