Thoughts on G48/34/35 Built on Too Small Frame for Cost Savings?

[MD7305]

But....why? Design the slide to a frame or design a frame to the slide?
Why design a totally new frame when your goal is for a longer barreled gun? Glock made G17s forever and saw a benefit for a longer barreled gun (G34), that only required a new slide assembly. You're right, creating a new mold for a new frame would have cost money, probably made the gun cost significantly more. That would probably result in some guy/gal on a forum starting a thread bashing Glock for not just using a G17 frame to save money?
The slide was designed to work on the smaller frame. Look at the Glock 17L that proceeded the Glock 34. Glock didn't seem to think a longer frame dustcover was necessary either. Gun companies make decisions for a variety of reasons: asthetics, cost, performance, etc. Luckily the market is flooded with excellent designs that we have the luxury of choosing from. Personally I liked the G17 and G34 using the same slide because I could get two guns in one with the purchase if a slide. Same goes for a lot of other models now that the Glock 47 was introduced.

[TicTacticalTimmy]

I dont mean to be a dick, but I cant take seriously the opinion of someone who thinks a car based crossover is a better vehicle than a real body-on-frame SUV.

Back on topic, Im not a huge fan of striker fired guns in general, but I really appreciate the modularity of Glocks especially when combined with how easy they are to work on. I'm considering buying a G48 just because I often carry a G43 and would like to see what it is like with a longer slide. If they were not compatable I would not even be considering the purchase.

In general I always appreciate when a manufacturer has the highest level of parts compatability across their products and even with other manufacturers products. As an example, it is a great feature if a small handgun company's weapons take Glock sights. This ensures a limitless breadth of aftermarket sight option and means the manufacturer can spend more of their R&D budget building a better gun.

This same line of thinking also extends to cars and really to any durable mechanical product. More parts compatability= cheaper parts and more options, plus insurance you will not be left unable to purchase some broken part or desired upgrade when said product is no longer manufactured. That advantage is generally worth, going back to the car example, 10% lower fuel economy by using a body-on-frame design VS a crossover.

[MistWolf]

I dont mean to be a dick, but I cant take seriously the opinion of someone who thinks a car based crossover is a better vehicle than a real body-on-frame SUV....
...That advantage is generally worth, going back to the car example, 10% lower fuel economy by using a body-on-frame design VS a crossover.

Define "better". The original downsized Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was the first vehicle to be designed using stress analyzing CAD software and the first Jeep to use a uni-body (which nearly all modern cars now use) instead of body-on-frame design. The result was a lighter vehicle that was stiffer, 110% more resistant to torsional flexing than body-on-frame designs, making the Cherokee far more stable on the trail. I'm not talking theoretically more stable. I'm talking I saw it with my own eyes on tough trails, first hand experience. I did things in my lifted Cherokees that had guys in their body on frame lifted trucks & SUVs soiling their knickers. I could run obstacles safely in my Cherokee that had other rigs, such as CJ-7s, Blazers, Forerunners & Toyota trucks worried about rollovers because their body-on-frame trucks & SUVs twisted on the trail when a tire drooped out. My Cherokee never twisted when a tire drooped out. Not only did the unibody give my Cherokee lighter weight and improved fuel economy, it gave me better stability on and off road. I'll take it. (Of course, the Cherokee XJ is a real Jeep!)

Dust cover length ain't nothing but aesthetics. Nothing to worry about.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oh, consider it as a typical post by the OP. Some have been a touch

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Oh, consider it as a typical post by the OP. Some have been a touch

Recall the thread about how it is a good thing if someone gets shot in class.

[echo5charlie]

*double checks URL*

Nope, this isnt arfcom.... 🤔

Nope, not GlockTalk either.......just checked. Maybe Gecko45 toeing the waters?


This reminds me of the "pig nose" craze from roughly a decade ago. I actually had fuckers coming into my shop looking for Glocks that didn't have "pig nose".