A Glock "Gen 6" that features grip angle changeable backstraps would be very welcome. It would solve one of the chief complaints some folks (myself included despite shooting glocks for 20 years) have with the design, while adding almost nothing to the production cost.
With swappable grip angle backstraps, you can go from ~1911, to CZ, to Glock grip angle, whichever points most naturally for the shooter. Lone Wolf has had this for like 10 years with their Timberwolf frame.
Originally Posted by SwampDweller
I don't believe there is one "right" grip angle or brand pistol. If I was a manufacturer, I would want to appeal to as many shooters as possible. Shadow Systems figured out how to do back straps and give a choice of Glock, Sig and in between grip angles while maintaining "Glockness."A Glock "Gen 6" that features grip angle changeable backstraps would be very welcome. It would solve one of the chief complaints some folks (myself included despite shooting glocks for 20 years) have with the design, while adding almost nothing to the production cost.
With swappable grip angle backstraps, you can go from ~1911, to CZ, to Glock grip angle, whichever points most naturally for the shooter. Lone Wolf has had this for like 10 years with their Timberwolf frame.
BTW, the new shooters today are rocking Staccato, Walther and other hip brands, and less so Glocks. Even the Gucci Glocks are less prevalent.
Glock as an enterprise made more money than Mr. Glock could ever imagine. Once some new buyer ponies up multiple billions of dollars, they are going to want to capture and preserve as much market share as possible. I suspect that is who will drive innovation.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I learned to (improperly) shoot handguns with 1911s then M9s. My first competent instruction was with the M11. But, all along, I primarily carried a Glock 19 by choice, because of size efficiency, reliability, and simplicity of maintenance. From 2004 until 2020ish, I carried a G19 on and off duty every day, and, for about 5 years of that time, was blessed to be in an assignment where I had, basically, unlimited access to training ammunition and quarterly professional training from some of the greatest handgun trainers in the country. During that time alone, I shot conservatively 15,000 rounds per year in training. When I left that assignment, I could run and shoot a G19 like a MONSTER - consistently hitting pepper poppers at 100 yards 12-15 rounds out of 15, and able to shoot 17 rounds (full loaded pistol with a reload and one additional shot) into 2-3" perfectly-centered groups at 15 yards in under 8 seconds from concealed holster.
When I left that dream job and went back to "typical" law enforcement, my shooting dropped to maybe once a quarter, and 150-200 rounds per session (if I was lucky). By the time a year had gone by, I was back to drifting my rear sight WAY to the right and struggling with long distance accuracy. By the time I retired (10 years later), with reductions in grip strength and eyesight, my Glock shooting became progressively worse. As of today, I can outshoot my G19 by a SIGNIFICANT measure with a cheapass Springfield Prodigy (with generally similar optics) and can match my Glock shooting on nearly all drills with a P365XL with a smaller windowed optic. Both of these pistols "fit" my hand better, "point" better (less fishing for the dot on presentation), and track better in recoil with less effort from me.
Again, not a knock on Glocks, they were my "go to" for the 18 out of my 20 year LE career. But, with well north of 150K rounds through various GLOCK models over a 30ish year period, they still don't present properly FOR ME from the holster, and the trigger is much harder for me to press without upsetting the sights.
Just one long-time Glock guy's experience.
A Glock is very easy to shoot OK, but extremely challenging to shoot at a very high level.
Likes pretty much everything in every caliber.
I prefer data to anecdotes...But when you google, "Backstrap angle 1911" - you get a lot of threads asking for advice on converting Glock grip angles to more closely match the 1911 or CZ. When you google, "Backstrap angle Glock" you get a lot of threads for advice on converting Glock grip angles to more closely match the 1911 or CZ.
What you don't find are "How do I make my 1911 feel more like a Glock?" or "How do I make my CZ feel more like a Glock?"
The CZ grip angle is basically an arched main spring housing 1911. And the 1911 everyone wants is the flat main spring housing 1911. And many folks are trying to get their polymer guns to closely match one of those two.
___
Not everything on the internet is right. But more than a few thousand folks out there are trying to make their Glock point like a 1911 or CZ and not vice versa - that might be telling.
___
That said, I understand why Glock does business in the way Glock does. There is no compelling reason when you're a maker of Glock's size to mess with a successful formula. And I don't see institutional buyers buying into the modularity handgun train like private citizens are.
As for, "you don't have to use the modularity even if it is there" - true. But a tool designed around a specific purpose and set of specifications can be made highly durable in those specifications.
Exemplification: I have a hammer with replaceable faces, designed to be modular to use it for different tasks, including as a sledge hammer. When I use it as a sledge hammer, it inevitably works itself loose, requiring constant retightening. I have tried a number of ways to fix it, but it won't stay tight when used as a proper sledge hammer. I quickly realized that it was a "sledge hammer" in idea, but not execution, as a soft mallet use for whacking things with medium power it is exemplary, as a sledge hammer it is garbage. So, I tossed the sledge hammer faces in the "good idea at the time drawer" and when I need a sledge hammer, I reach for a proper sledge hammer.
I shoot a G19 as well or better than any other gun of comparable size and weight. A lot of Gen 4 stock triggers were bad. When Glocks have a distinct wall in the trigger pull, I agree that they are harder to shoot accurately at speed (similar to HK LEM), but stock Gen 5 triggers seem to have a much less defined break point.
For me, the grip angle helps to get a very aggressive weak hand/wrist position, which helps when shooting a 22 oz gun fast.
It's just my own experience but my biggest impediment to shooting a Glock well was trying to shoot it like a 1911.
The square upper grip and trigger manipulation of a Glock pretty much guarantee a single-action technique causes the gun to twist as my trigger finger flexes. Worse still, this happens at the last instant before trigger break.
Focusing on the "straight back" trigger pull only made the problem worse unless I loosened my grip to a point that wasn't realistic for practical shooting. But doing that ended up being a clue what was going on with my grip.
Shooting a Glock more like a revolver made an immediate improvement for me.
Like others have recently said, I shoot a Glock the best if it has a softer or rolling break, and I sink my finger to the first joint rather than the tip.
But modularity has its place in huge fleet purchases. ICE has about 20k gun carriers. Back when i came on the job, we had 6'4" linebackers with huge bear paw hands, along with 5'2" petite females with tiny hands. We had one gun only to issue both folks... the Beretta 96, which is huge. Lawsuits, agency mergers and rationality eventually gave us the USPc, and Glocks/Sig 229 came along later. So our fleet solution to multiple sized shooters was to have 6 different guns. Some issued, some personal purchase. Which was multiple parts/supply chains/contracts. And buying tens of millions of rounds per year for 9mm/40/.38, which was a problem of its own. Now, 9mm is all we stock.
Now, we issue one gun across the board. The 320. We have multiple grip modules for small or large hands. It works out well. And we have one parts/supply chain. We do issue the 365 now, but only to certified UC agents. Everyone else can buy the 365 (or 9mm Glocks) as personally owned duty weapons.
Is modularity the end all be all? No. I bought every grip module there was for my 320. and after a few months, I never swapped out the grip again. its a pain the ass I did not need. I want a big gun? i grab the X Carry 320. I want a small gun? I grab my 365. No need to swap out a thing. For the individual its not a huge deal, for someone buying guns to fit 20k employees? It is a HUGE thing.
SIDE NOTE: sort of a tangent to this thread...
I wanted (and still want) someone to make a 320 grip module that accepts other mags. A 320 grip for glock mags. A 320 grip for M&P mags. A 320 grip for 226 mags, or 92 mags, or Smith 59XX mags.
Why? One of the biggest pain in the ass parts of buying a new gun is buying all new mags. I have about 35 Glock mags. I already have over 20 Beretta mags. Hell, I have more 229 mags than I can count! Why not be able to use them in a cheap $50 Grip module on a 320?? I know there are hurdles with the slide stop engagement, but the mag release button could be addressed when you mold the new module. Heck, someone already makes a module to use 635 mags in a 320, so the concept is solid.
Just a random rant.
“A gun is a tool, Marian; no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.” - Shane
My gen 5 is a sample size of 1 but it is the absolute worst Glock trigger I have experienced, even with a stock trigger spring and 3.5 lb. connector. It has the worst wall of any of my Glocks.
My gen 2.5 and 3 Glocks all have NY1 trigger springs and 3.5 lb. connectors, which I find much easier to use. This combination provides a relatively consistent force from the beginning to the end of the squeeze, and reduces the wall.
Any legal information I may post is general information, and is not legal advice. Such information may or may not apply to your specific situation. I am not your attorney unless an attorney-client relationship is separately and privately established.
Reply With Quote