I hope Glock is paying attention

[joshs]

I like the Glock grip angle, and find my P365 to be too vertical.

A modular gun has limited value to me. When I need something different, I am unlikely to have time to change the configuration before I run out the door. I would rather have a second gun in the second configuration.

Agreed. I'm not sure the potential durability trade-off that a pinned together chassis and polymer grip module provides is worth it over a more proven polymer frame design like Glock, HK, Smith, or Bereta PX4. I also think the "fit" argument is pretty weak. Humans are pretty similarly configured, and multiple humans have proven that a Glock can be shot at the near limit of pistol performance.

[the Schwartz]

I agree with you on that. I will say at least for the 320's I own, all got wilson combat grips and it made a world of difference in them.

As far as Glocks go, modularity wouldn't be a big deal if they would revise their ergos, but that is going to require a lot of things to accomplish that, 1st being changing magazine design, and their polymer composition. That's a topic for another thread.

While modularity is more appealing in theory than in practice, it can be a benefit for future changes. Grip modules being the biggest advantage, at least that was the case for me and the 320's. Slides, barrel, and things of that nature aren't really things that can't be done with any pistol for the most part.



TXPO

Glock's polymer formulation is a highly respected hybrid engineering polyamide (according to FTIR); what's wrong with it?

[EVP]

Glocks target audience is a two-tiered affair: law enforcement and buyers who don't obsess over widgets in PF fashion, they just need a reliable gun for as little money as possible. Much of the second tier overlaps into the first. The company sells every gun it makes. The profit margin is so high they can literally give them away for free by the dozens. Every time another company attempts to dethrone them, it shits the bed in dramatic fashion. They're coasting because they can. If you think otherwise, you're not thinking big picture.

Totally agree with the above.







The OP has a point but,

I believe enthusiast often think that most gun owners think how they do. The vast majority of people really don’t care about modularity and all the other stuff.

Outside of internet forums and these small sub groups nobody is really talking about this or even cares.

[DMF13]

We'll see.

Are you the "Zen Master," or even just Gust Avrokotos?

[No.6]

The only modular change I personally care about would be moving the serialized component to something other than the frame. Two reasons:

- A significant number of people wish to change out their frame for increased capacity for range or competition use or duty vs. smaller for CCW. Thus 43, 48, 43x and 17, 19, 45

- A trend running as long as Glock is people stippling their grips. There are professional jobs, great amateur jobs, an unnerving number of hideous jobs seen on the internet and, I'm sure, a much larger number of people with permanent regret who did not choose to subject themselves to internet ridicule.

A quick look at the Glock parts list informs us that the barrel is a money investment; the slide is a lesser one; and the rest of the parts are spare change. The only reason the frame isn't a fiddly part for cheap is that it's "the gun" from an ATF perspective.

Even now you can pay $18.50 and get a Beretta Pico frame in black or 'lavendar' Sig sells generic frames for $30 or $50 for people who want to regular or XL size their 365 or ones with fancy wood for much more. That's the right approach IMO since *something* has to have the number on it. (I own neither a 365 nor a Pico, but that's not why).

[Joe in PNG]

Are you the "Zen Master," or even just Gust Avrokotos?

[GJM]

I also think the "fit" argument is pretty weak. Humans are pretty similarly configured, and multiple humans have proven that a Glock can be shot at the near limit of pistol performance.

I think that is true. I also think it is true that a Glock is harder to shoot than some other pistols. The Glock grip angle and trigger characteristics can be challenging. If Glock can preserve what makes a Glock a Glock, and make their pistols more shootable for average shooters, that would be good for Glock.

[BillSWPA]

I think that is true. I also think it is true that a Glock is harder to shoot than some other pistols. The Glock grip angle and trigger characteristics can be challenging. If Glock can preserve what makes a Glock a Glock, and make their pistols more shootable for average shooters, that would be good for Glock.

I wonder how much of the difficulty is caused by grip angle and how much is caused by the shape of the grip, which seems closer to rectangular than others and seems to encourage “biceping” the grip with the trigger finger?

I can transition between a Glock and 1911 seamlessly, but transitioning between a Glock and P365 is more difficult when drawing from a holster. Possibly some of us are more used to Glock’s grip angle and others are used to other angles?

[BN]

Glocks The company sells every gun it makes. The profit margin is so high they can literally give them away for free by the dozens.

A question about modular changes? How many rounds do you need to fire to vet the change before you trust the pistol for carry?

[SwampDweller]

I think that is true. I also think it is true that a Glock is harder to shoot than some other pistols. The Glock grip angle and trigger characteristics can be challenging. If Glock can preserve what makes a Glock a Glock, and make their pistols more shootable for average shooters, that would be good for Glock.

This is certainly true for people who grew up with and are used to shooting other pistols, but for many of the young’uns these days who grew up on Glocks, it’s all the other pistols that have weird grip angles, don’t point well, and are more difficult to shoot. I think it’s a matter of muscle memory, what gun one cut one’s teeth on, and what one shoots the most rather than objective factors.