Details out on Glock 17M

[Hambo]

Bet you 5 PF dollars, the 17/19M, in form if not name, will be for sale to the general public in 2017.

No bet. Those sneaky Austrians are always out to make a quick Euro. In keeping with the current marketing practices of other gun companies it will be the Österreich Liebe.

[JustOneGun]

Bet you 5 PF dollars, the 17/19M, in form if not name, will be for sale to the general public in 2017.

I don't know if it will be 2017 but it only makes sense that as production increases allowing the public to buy it would follow. Sort of a minority rule in economics. Government won't take a 17 but will take a 17M, the public will take a 17M even if they want the 17.

[GJM]

If folks here on PF nuthug for even FBI sights, think they might be a tad bit interested in an FBI Glock?

[LockedBreech]

I think Glock has de-throned HK in the "Because you suck and we hate you" marketing slogan.

I think that's absolutely true. On some level, I even understand it. Glock has astonishingly effective marketing, huge sales, thousands of police and military contracts, and a good product. A large number of the more casual gun people I know, mostly the officers I work with, are almost religiously dedicated to them. They don't care to hear about HK, Beretta, Sig, any of that. Their Glocks run and are simple and light and that's all they care about.

Bafflingly, even when they don't run, that loyalty continues. Local Sheriff's Office is fine because they carry G19s and G21s, but when our town PD's Gen 3 G22s started choking with their lights they just immediately upgraded to Gen 4 G22s. That's not to say the Gen 4 G22 is not a good option, but as I understand it there was literally zero discussion of any other manufacturer or caliber.

Glock's problem is that history is full of companies that were unquestionably dominant in their industry, got stagnant, and got passed up. It will be interesting to see what happens in the sidearm market in the next 10-20 years.

[JonInWA]

It may not be "fair," but I'd pose the thought that what may be significantly driving an organizational train to remain with Glock is the simple reality that their ease in organizational maintenance (i.e, armorer training, detailed disassembly/inspection/reassembly) requires very.very low amounts of time to do. And when "time" is a forecastable resource, that costs dollars and personnel scheduling, and savings can be significantly impactful to the overall decision matrix.

Additionally, Glock forecasted replacement parts intervals are both reasonable, relatively predictable, and the parts themselves are inexpensive, easily available, and extraordinarily well supported by Glock via their field regional LE reps, backed by Smyrna/Austria.

There a a host of excellent pistols available to us, and LEO/military organizations today, at excellent price-points. That's not the issue/key decision point, in my opinion. What's more important is 1) How much/many resources will we have to dedicated to periodic inspections/component replacements, and 2) When Officer Fumblehands dunks his pistol in a barrel of powdered doughnut sugar dust and then immerses it in pancake syrup, how quickly can his pistol be thoroughly cleaned and re-certified for service?

When you add to the equation that intrinsically Glocks as a general rule are competitive in terms of reliability/accuracy/durability/ergonomics, it becomes pretty easy to see how they've achieved and maintained a position of preeminence in the holsters of many LEOs/militarys/retail consumers. I don't think that the British Army (and certainly others), for example, stumbled into their selection of the Glock 17 by accident-subsequent to their use, exposure affiliations with (and presumably testing) of some of the world's preeminent contemporary platforms.

Best, Jon

[Mr_White]

It may not be "fair," but I'd pose the thought that what may be significantly driving an organizational train to remain with Glock is the simple reality that their ease in organizational maintenance (i.e, armorer training, detailed disassembly/inspection/reassembly) requires very.very low amounts of time to do. And when "time" is a forecastable resource, that costs dollars and personnel scheduling, and savings can be significantly impactful to the overall decision matrix.

Additionally, Glock forecasted replacement parts intervals are both reasonable, relatively predictable, and the parts themselves are inexpensive, easily available, and extraordinarily well supported by Glock via their field regional LE reps, backed by Smyrna.

That even means quite a bit to me at the individual level. I can only imagine how powerful it is institutionally.

[rob_s]

It may not be "fair," but I'd pose the thought that what may be significantly driving an organizational train to remain with Glock is the simple reality that their ease in organizational maintenance (i.e, armorer training, detailed disassembly/inspection/reassembly) requires very.very low amounts of time to do. And when "time" is a forecastable resource, that costs dollars and personnel scheduling, and savings can be significantly impactful to the overall decision matrix.

Additionally, Glock forecasted replacement parts intervals are both reasonable, relatively predictable, and the parts themselves are inexpensive, easily available, and extraordinarily well supported by Glock via their field regional LE reps, backed by Smyrna/Austria.

There a a host of excellent pistols available to us, and LEO/military organizations today, at excellent price-points. That's not the issue/key decision point, in my opinion. What's more important is 1) How much/many resources will we have to dedicated to periodic inspections/component replacements, and 2) When Officer Fumblehands dunks his pistol in a barrel of powdered doughnut sugar dust and then immerses it in pancake syrup, how quickly can his pistol be thoroughly cleaned and re-certified for service?

When you add to the equation that intrinsically Glocks as a general rule are competitive in terms of reliability/accuracy/durability/ergonomics, it becomes pretty easy to see how they've achieved and maintained a position of preeminence in the holsters of many LEOs/militarys/retail consumers. I don't think that the British Army (and certainly others), for example, stumbled into their selection of the Glock 17 by accident-subsequent to their use, exposure affiliations with (and presumably testing) of some of the world's preeminent contemporary platforms.

Best, Jon

so, what you're saying is, there are more and greater (better?) reasons to pick a gunfighting gun that just the gunfighting?

That even means quite a bit to me at the individual level. I can only imagine how powerful it is institutionally.

Yup.

[JHC]

That even means quite a bit to me at the individual level. I can only imagine how powerful it is institutionally.

Oh hell yeah. One former high volume military pistol shooter described to me how upon pounding volume through an issued Glock, if he saw some anomaly he'd drop it off at the armory and describe the behavior. Pick it up rebuilt a few hours later or next day (can't recall which he said) and resume. Rinse/repeat.

That's not trivial.

[JonInWA]

so, what you're saying is, there are more and greater (better?) reasons to pick a gunfighting gun that just the gunfighting?




Yup.

Yep. Especially when the platforms considered offer only incremental differences/advantages between themselves (as opposed one of them possessing paradigm-shifting/game-changing advantages over the others). And, frankly, even that might not make the decision cut and dry, if the manufacturer could not provide sufficient logistical and training support for said platform concurrent with and subsequent to the sale/contract.

You might just make the most effective hand-held light sabre in the universe-but if it can't be supported in the field, it becomes transformed into a paperweight...

Best, Jon

[JonInWA]

As an individual user, here's something I consider, using platforms I have:

Let's say I'm choosing a .40 platform to go on a hunting/wilderness trip. I want something that's durable, light in weight, reliable, accurate and weather-impervious. I have 2 platforms that easily fit the criteria: My Gen4 Glock G22 and my HK VP40. I can make a pretty cogent case that the VP40 has materially higher quality components, and possibly a better finish, has more ergonomic tailorability, and is a tad more accurate; but if there's a chance that the gun is going to be dumped in water/mud/dust/sand at some point in the trip, I'm much more likely to choose the Glock, for these reasons:

1) that intrinsically, both in terms of individual components, overall ergonomics, accuracy and overall quality, it's more than adequately good enough in all the criteria areas (Tam's "lagomorth"/good enough concept), and

2) It's incredibly easy (and fast) for me to both field- and detail-disassemble to clean/dry/service as needed, without any specialized tools-if necessary, I could simply utilize a field-expedient tool, such as a twig for a detailed disassembly

Much as I like my VP40, when it comes to doing anything more than a field-stripping, you'd pretty much either be an HK-trained and certified VP armorer, or have expeditious access to one. And that's pretty important to me, in the scenario driving the train. While I wouldn't expect the VP40 to break, it certainly could become immobilized due to environmental factors.

I respectfully suggest that such concerns may well apply to both individual and organizational selection and use decision-making.

Best, Jon