Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Glock Forum' started by StanDJ77, Jul 31, 2011.
Will Glock make a gen 5 pistol? If so, what do you guys wanna see changed and what should they keep?
I would love to see the finger groves go away and some better factory sights. Other than that I'm fine with them as is. What I want more than anything however is a Glock carbine. I'd be first on the list for one if they announced it.
I'm sure there will be a Gen5, just not in the next few years. As for what I'd like to see changed, nothing really except maybe a refined trigger action.
I don't see the point in the Gen 4, so Gen 3 for me and happy with it.
Wait, I would reshape the trigger guard area over the top finger grove on the compacts
I like the Gen 4 just for the more narrow grip. Personal preference though I suppose. I would be interested in a Gen 5. Theres always room for improvement.
I agree. Don't expect a Gen 5 for many years. Heck Gen 4 has been a painful birth. But I do like Gen 4 for the grip sizes and new RSAs mainly.
I'd like to see them copy the XD-M and price it $150.00 less.
Then I could finally buy a Glock.
Copy the xd-m in what way?
I would like Glock to make the 3 dot sight system standard on all their Glocks. Also maybe if they would put a grip saftey on it like the XD(m)'s have, but not so obtrusive.
LMAO..................XD like some others copied Glock LOL
I have the G36 and G32 both 3rd gen. Only thing they needs is to maybe be in RTF 3. IMO there was no need for a 4th gen.
Glock is now at the point they are just re-inventing the wheel. Gen. 3 was perfect in all ways. The only real thing they could do if offer more single stack models other than my beloved G36. People would jump off building to get a Glock single stack 9mm (why idk, 9mm sucks) but they would
Personally, I think the glock gen 4 is about as good as it can be for a stock weapon. The bore axis is about as low as it can be to mitigate recoil coupled with a double recoil spring system so felt recoil is minimized. It has a more narrow grip than the prior glocks so it's comfortably handled by people without bear paws for hands. The sights are easily fixed if the stock sights aren't doing it for you. As for the safety, I believe the trigger safety and the shooters finger is plenty. Too many safeties on a weapon system can cause for confusion in time of high stress, though the grip safety doesn't serve much of a purpose in my eyes. The XD-m on the other hand has a high bore axis which increases felt recoil. Also, the trigger pull is longer, it has unnecessary safeties and is ugly as hell lol
No such thing as "unnecessary safety" when dealing with the lack of intellect displayed by the majority of the population.
Good point. I guess thats who springfield made the XD for.
The grip angle...I'm not flaming Glock's here, they have a great reputation, it's just that for those of us who grew up pre-glock, Gaston's grip and is too steep.
I understand that completely as I shot nothing but 1911's prior to my first encounter with a Glock. The steep grip angle was engineered for recoil mitigation which allows for quicker target acquisition for follow on shots. That coupled with the low bore axis and double recoil spring on the gen 4 models shows that Gaston is putting serious thought and energy into a solid combat service pistol.
Yes, I'm aware Gaston's grip angle was an intentional "recoil mitigation" design feature. The real effect is that the shooter is forced to angle there grip down to achieve a level sight plain. This works great on paper where there is no stress of bullets coming back at you. In the real world, bullets do come back at you and few people have the ability to stay focused on the front sight. Most in fact, tunnel vision on the target forgetting entirely about there sights. I think this accounts for LEO hit ratios dropping radically upon mass adoption of the Glock.
Yes it does force an angled grip which locks your wrists into a better support position which would actually be better for any shooter, in my opinion. With that said I'm not sure how a decrease in grip angle would allow for better accuracy under fire. I would say that any transition to a new weapon system requires a lot of training to get used to it which might account for dropped LEO ratios. For those who have not experienced the bullets coming back, I would say that tunnel vision is a mindset and lack of training issue over anything else. There is a reason the Department of State contractors are issued them to protect our nation's leaders.
Please document this statement, I find dificult to believe that even with your alleged "hit ratios dropping radically" agencies around the globe are adopting Glocks, it just doesn't make sense.
Seems to me you have a hidden agenda with those blanket statements, you may like or not the Glock as many others do or don't, but misinformation will get you nowhere.
I happen to work for one of those agencies in high threat security overseas, my friend. The department of state contracts companies overseas to provide security for US personnel. Every one of those contractors has extensive combat experience and carries a glock 19 as a side arm and does so as a consensus by the contracting agencies because the glock is the ak-47 of handguns. It can be beaten up, thrown in mud and still fire flawlessly. The engineering is cutting edge because it actually tailors to a professional shooter and that's how they gauge how the weapon is built. Perhaps you didn't read the part of my statement when I said the reason for drop ratios can be attributed to lack of experience with a new weapon system of any kind, not just the glock. This clearly shows in your lack of ability to accept newer weapon systems because you are pre-glock. Perhaps a hi point and an m14 would best suite your needs as technological advancement doesn't seem to be your fortay.