For one thing, the G19 came out several years before the G26. Secondly, the G26 frame is too short to accommodate a rail mounted accessory, such as a light. Many use the G19 as a duty piece and like that option.Originally Posted by powell556
Does this hangup of yours extend to cars? Would you not buy an SUV that's built on that same manufacturer's truck frame?
As someone else said, streamlining production = cost savings to us. Compatibility is a feature, not a problem.
I heard S&W does the same thing with their revolvers. They use the same frame, but change the barrel and cylinders rather than building a unique frame for each model gun. All about cost cutting rather than providing a better weapon...
Chris
I don't think this is an issue.
You're pretty set that it saves Glock money, thus must be inferior. While it may cost them less, that doesnt mean it's not as good. You seemingly have a problem with them using the same frame, but then turn around and say why not have them all on a 26 frame. Do you think variety good or bad? Different frame sizes work for different hands and different uses. Extending the front of the frame doesnt improve the function, so why bother?
The portion of the frame in front of the trigger guard is generally referred to as a dust cover. It used to be just called the frame. The slide portion that travels rearward into the channel created by the dust cover (thus compressing the recoil spring) has no particular name that I'm aware of, a few will also call it the dust cover.
Dust cover is kind of an odd term people use to describe anything covering the bottom of the recoil spring. To be honest I use it to descfibe the forward frame area but thats just for lack of a betfer term when comparing Berettas.
-Cory
Last edited by Cory; 05-18-2019 at 07:48 AM.
Great point on the frame size being too short for a light. Which brings up one problem with the G48... couldn't it accommodate a light rail if it was built on a proper frame size? Or would it be too thick?
Regarding cars, I haven't researched that subject, but all else equal, I would rather buy an SUV that's built on a frame that was designed for that SUV rather than a frame that was designed for a truck. Two car companies, each equal i every way except one consolidates their truck frames to SUVs... of course I'd rather have the SUV-specific frame. It has to be better, at least slightly, even if 0.1%, because otherwise there wouldn't be a difference in an SUV-specific frame and a truck-specific frame.
That's not to say I would never buy something that had manufacturing consolidations in it. I will probably buy a G48, I just want to make sure it's as good as it could be.
Here's a real world example of a firearm's shortcut that I doubt anyone here would disagree with. G17 was the original glock. Then Glock decided to make .40 cal and put it in the same frame. That didn't work out too well, and they changed the frames in Gen 3 to accomodate the higher pressure round. Of course, they effectively consolidated on the .40 cal frame for the 9mm guns, since it didn't really hurt the 9mm to have that extra pin in the receiver.
But, if you were the buyer of a Gen 2 .40 G22, you did have a worse gun due to manufacturer consolidation of parts.
Believing that because one consolidation of parts was a failure, then all consolidation of parts is a failure is a clear logical fallacy. You're over thinking the G48 like crazy.
I’m just a little bit ... Dude, real SUVs are built on truck frames. Other, crossover-type SUVs are built on car frames and are really just tall cars with sometimes crappy and sometimes okay and sometimes improved traction and a little off-road capability thrown in if it doesn’t make the soccer moms who mostly drive them uncomfortable shuttling kids. Similarly to your comparison of the G22/G17 frames: truck frames are more durable for actual use as an actual off-road capable, 4x4 vehicle.
Take the time you've spent debating and typing about this complete non-issue and dry fire. You'll more than make up your 0.1% difference in performance. It's also rather silly to worry about such small differences in a mass produced machine of any sort. It's not a hand-fitted custom pistol for bull's eye, it's a defensive pistol where such minute differences in performance are completely irrelevant. Completely.
Sorta around sometimes for some of your shitty mod needs.
Well I would respond just "Okay" to this thread and or "I don't know what you mean" but instead I will say this the bull nose on a 34 or 48 and now 47 is stronger than the 17 and 19 etc. That really doesn't mean a lot though and people spent more time than this thread is worth responding in a thoughtful way.
You have been here less than three months and posted more than I did probably in the first three years I have been on here. I think you'd be better served by reading and not posting but then again as much as this forum has done for me it really isn't the same anymore.
The whole point of the G48 is to have a G19-sized gun, but thinner to be easier to conceal. If you make it thick enough to have a rail to accommodate a light, you now have a G19 all over again!
Reply With Quote
