Good Article On Glock

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Gaston Glock, the 80 plus year old billionaire that owns the company, will be dead soon.


And considering that he designed and built the Glock pistol from the ground up, along with the company that produces it, into a multi billion dollar family owned empire, I fail to see how his death will be some sort of "blessing".

 

[JDM396]

Originally Posted By: SKVenture
Originally Posted By: JDM396


However, how often do you see an M&P do this?



Realistically, probably just as often.



Considering Glocks outsell the M&P probably 5-1 it's no surprise we hear about Glocks failing like that more often. However I would wager the actual stats are near identical as I strongly feel both Glock and S&W build very good guns.

These failures we see are 99.9% of the time a by-product of overpowered ammo. Even factory New ammo can have a hot load hear and there. Factories pumping out millions of rounds a year its inevitable.



Nah, that's just not true. The M&P was designed around the .40 whereas the Glock 22 was not. Given previous problems with unsupported barrels and it just wasn't a good mix. BTW one of those pics is not a M&P.

 

[JDM396]

Originally Posted By: The_Eric
If we adjust for time on the market, I wonder where S&W would come in? I'm sure Glock has more out there because they have been out for much longer (striker fired, poly pistol).

It looks like 1980 for Glock and what? 2007 for the M&P. So Glock has a 27 year jump on the market. Who wants to adjust for time in the market?

FWIW, it doesn't matter to me. Glock or M&P. I own M&P and my next poly gun will be the CZ P10C, but realize Glock is great too. Mostly just curious how well the market is receiving the M&P compared to the Glock in current times.


I think Glock was 82 and the M&P was 2005. I'm with you on the CZ, I've only held one and dry fired, and that one was already sold. A trigger that is a huge step above Glock or M&P.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: billt460
And considering that he designed and built the Glock pistol from the ground up, along with the company that produces it, into a multi billion dollar family owned empire, I fail to see how his death will be some sort of "blessing".

Yea he is kinda the the modern John Browning. Not that he is his equal..no one is.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: billt460
And considering that he designed and built the Glock pistol from the ground up, along with the company that produces it, into a multi billion dollar family owned empire, I fail to see how his death will be some sort of "blessing".

Yea he is kinda the the modern John Browning. Not that he is his equal..no one is.


The whole deal with Glock has been his colorful personal life. Someone once tried to murder him, with a hammer I believe. Then there was all the gossip about wild parties on his private jet with strippers and such. Then he married a young, hot babe. And last but not least, there was a story floating around about all kinds of inner family squabbles, cutting his kids out of the will, and a bunch of other nonsense. People like reading that stuff. But it has zero bearing on his company's success, or the quality of his products. Guy's with the ability to invent successful products are often a bit eccentric. There was a story written that one Winter John Garand flooded his living room, so he could make a ice skating rink out of it. And another that he would spend up to $100.00 at the Coney Island Shooting Gallery. That was in 1930's dollars.

As you mentioned, there hasn't been anyone like Glock in the firearms industry since John Browning. And even if you figure in inflation, Browning was nowhere near as financially successful as Glock. Which makes him somewhat unique. Inventors are not usually as financially successful as the people who market their inventions. John Browning compared to Oliver Winchester and FN. Steve Wozniak ($100 Million net worth), compared to Steve Jobs, ($8 Billion). Where as Gaston Glock possessed the unique ability to both invent, and market successfully. And became a multi billionaire as a result of doing both without any outside influence or interference. Glock is still family owned compared to other family founded companies that have long since gone public. Like Ruger in 1969.

 

[JDM396]

The Glock Koolaid is flowing free lol...

Glock isn't the modern Browning equivalent, not even close, couldn't even hold his jock strap. Let's see.... Stoner, Garand, Kalishikov, Schmeisser, Mauser.... all had designs that had a MUCH more significant impact in the firearms world and especially world history than Glock.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: JDM396
.... Stoner, Garand, Kalishikov, Schmeisser, Mauser....


And all of them put together couldn't buy Glock's jock strap. Success always takes you farther than recognition. As always, there is no nobility in poverty. And the world is full of designers and inventors who died either poor or broke.

 

[JDM396]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: JDM396
.... Stoner, Garand, Kalishikov, Schmeisser, Mauser....


And all of them put together couldn't buy Glock's jock strap. Success always takes you farther than recognition. As always, there is no nobility in poverty. And the world is full of designers and inventors who died either poor or broke.


Your comment...
Quote:
As you mentioned, there hasn't been anyone like Glock in the firearms industry since John Browning


is fascinating in terms of a complete omission of the progression of firearms since Browning, and lack of knowledge concerning those responsible for several key firearm platforms. I will say that I'm not sure how you measure success. If you truly measure it in dollar signs, then bless your heart. You see, that's a more simple and superficial point of view than what I'm trying to relay, and it's something that means little in the gun world.

The point I'm making, and something you can't argue with, is that those individuals contributed more to the firearm world than Glock. Some of those firearms it could be argued, at least in part had a hand in changing world history, and Browning was on another level in this arena, as his designs are STILL in use today. After 100+ years will be using Glocks? I doubt it. However, even on the small chance that we do, he only designed one platform, Browning designed several.

 

[billt460]

You don't listen very well do you? My point, before you came barging in with your usual unrelated B.S., was that Glock was able to not only INVENT one of the most iconic, successful, and most copied pistols ever produced. He was also a marketing genius, who made billions of dollars MARKETING his own creations. None of the people you mentioned came close to accomplishing that feat. Even Bill Ruger, who would be the only other successful gun designer and manufacturer who could be listed in the same category, (before his company went public), was nowhere near as successful as Glock.

 

[JDM396]

Originally Posted By: billt460
You don't listen very well do you? My point, before you came barging in with your usual unrelated B.S., was that Glock was able to not only INVENT one of the most iconic, successful, and most copied pistols ever produced. He was also a marketing genius, who made billions of dollars MARKETING his own creations. None of the people you mentioned came close to accomplishing that feat. Even Bill Ruger, who would be the only other successful gun designer and manufacturer who could be listed in the same category, (before his company went public), was nowhere near as successful as Glock.


I read and understood your theory quite well. Like I said, I called what is important to you so I say again....bless your heart..... it's the simple and superficial things that matter to some people. Godspeed man, beat that chest about how Gaston is the best firearms marketer in all of the land!!

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: JDM396
Godspeed man, beat that chest about how Gaston is the best firearms marketer in all of the land!!


I find it highly amusing how much that simple fact seems to upset you.

 

[bubbatime]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Gaston Glock, the 80 plus year old billionaire that owns the company, will be dead soon.


And considering that he designed and built the Glock pistol from the ground up, along with the company that produces it, into a multi billion dollar family owned empire, I fail to see how his death will be some sort of "blessing".


Ruger became a much better company after Ruger died when new folks started making decisions. The market has changed. Rapidly. You cant innovate when you got an old crotchety 80 year old at the helm, that does things the "old way" the way he "has always done it".

Case in point, Glock pistol finger grooves. NO ONE likes them. Everyone universally hates them. People have begged and begged Glock to remove them for almost 20 years. All it takes is a simple mold change. Not until the FBI demands that the finger grooves go away that Glock finally listens and designs a pistol without them. I still cant get a 4th or 5th gen Glock without finger grooves. If I could, I would sell 5 older Glocks today and buy 5 new Glocks without finger grooves tomorrow . I know a lot of other guys that would sell their finger groove Glocks and replace them. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales, becuase old man Glock refuses to sell (for 20 years) the product that people want.

Add in the Glock carbine. People have begged for a Glock carbine that takes Glock magazines for 20 plus years. They could/would completely dominate the pistol caliber carbine/sub machine gun market, but they are not interested with old geezer Glock at the helm.

Basically, Glock could build several new factories, staff them with hundreds of people, and increase sales two or threefold IF HE WANTED TO. He doesn't care about the consumer. He needs to go.

 

[CarbonSteel]

Originally Posted By: bubbatime
Case in point, Glock pistol finger grooves. NO ONE likes them. Everyone universally hates them.
I have very large hands and was initially concerned about the grooves, but I find that I like them. Perhaps I am in the minority, but there it is. Not that it matters, but if the fingers grooves were that much of a show stopper, it would seem that Glock sales would have tapered off years ago. I sort of get what you are saying, but I am sure there is some pride of ownership that Glock has for his company and who are we to say he needs to go? We can always vote with our dollars and buy another brand of firearm.

 

[billt460]

There is no reason for Glock, "to go". That statement in itself is ridiculous. More companies have been wrecked by second party managers and owners, than have been helped. Case in point Apple. They fired Steve Jobs who built the place. After they went public, the "new management" felt he wasn't capable of expanding the company in the direction they thought it should go. Then after almost train wrecking the company they sought to better, he was brought back to save it... And did so resoundingly.

Ruger was set in his ways. Most all of which were very financially successful. A few were not good, like his choice to not sell Hi-Cap magazines to the public. But it doesn't change the fact he built a multi million dollar gun company up from nothing. While many gun companies in that same time frame went broke. Bill Ruger proved his products before he introduced them. And when he did they stayed in production. He was one of the greatest innovators of the modern Vacuum Investment Casting process to this day.

Since his death, how many "new" semi auto pistol designs has Ruger gone through? It seems they introduce a new one every 15 minutes. Each one more ugly than the last. The gun business is very tough to be successful in. No matter what Glock does, there will be people who want something different. Or else hate whatever they make outright. Fortunately for them, they've got far more satisfied owners of their products, than they do detractors.

You have zero way of knowing how much, if any sales Glock "lost" because they didn't remove finger grooves that you happen not to like. I have 6 of them, and I've never given them a thought. And judging by Glock's sales over the last 2+ decades, I can understand why Glock hasn't either. There has never been as successful of a gun company as Glock, in the same time frame they've existed in. Their products still have more buyers than any other like pistol in it's time. It has a track record of reliability and performance second to none. When Glock finally does go, they had better be very careful about making any, let alone big sweeping changes. Trying to Change direction after enjoying massive success for 30+ years seldom brings greater success.

 

[CT8]

A unique Glock FYI,lookup Glocks Johnson.
I didn't know !!!

 

[SKVenture]

Originally Posted By: JDM396
Originally Posted By: SKVenture
Originally Posted By: JDM396


However, how often do you see an M&P do this?



Realistically, probably just as often.



Considering Glocks outsell the M&P probably 5-1 it's no surprise we hear about Glocks failing like that more often. However I would wager the actual stats are near identical as I strongly feel both Glock and S&W build very good guns.

These failures we see are 99.9% of the time a by-product of overpowered ammo. Even factory New ammo can have a hot load hear and there. Factories pumping out millions of rounds a year its inevitable.



Nah, that's just not true. The M&P was designed around the .40 whereas the Glock 22 was not. Given previous problems with unsupported barrels and it just wasn't a good mix. BTW one of those pics is not a M&P.


Your saying that it's not true. But can you provide any evidence. We can all be arm chair commandos today and argue until our faces are blue that our OPINION is right.

Facts are facts.

Glock has been selling their .40 models for over 15 additional years than SW.
Since SW has offered the MP line, glock has consistently outsold them.

There are literally millions more Glocks in the world than M&Ps.

BOTH platforms have a record of Kabooms.

Your saying Glock has a satisitically greater chance of going Kaboom.
What evidence do you have of this?

From everything that is available online right now any sensible person would freely admit that that claim cannot be justly made as their is zero evidence of it actually being true.

 

[JDM396]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Godspeed man, beat that chest about how Gaston is the best firearms marketer in all of the land!!


I find it highly amusing how much that simple fact seems to upset you.

What you're confusing for being "upset" is a fascination of tying your ego to the marketing capacity of Glock for validation. That's understandable though, confusion seems commonplace for you.

 

[JDM396]

Originally Posted By: SKVenture
Originally Posted By: JDM396
Originally Posted By: SKVenture
Originally Posted By: JDM396


However, how often do you see an M&P do this?



Realistically, probably just as often.



Considering Glocks outsell the M&P probably 5-1 it's no surprise we hear about Glocks failing like that more often. However I would wager the actual stats are near identical as I strongly feel both Glock and S&W build very good guns.

These failures we see are 99.9% of the time a by-product of overpowered ammo. Even factory New ammo can have a hot load hear and there. Factories pumping out millions of rounds a year its inevitable.



Nah, that's just not true. The M&P was designed around the .40 whereas the Glock 22 was not. Given previous problems with unsupported barrels and it just wasn't a good mix. BTW one of those pics is not a M&P.


Your saying that it's not true. But can you provide any evidence. We can all be arm chair commandos today and argue until our faces are blue that our OPINION is right.

Facts are facts.

Glock has been selling their .40 models for over 15 additional years than SW.
Since SW has offered the MP line, glock has consistently outsold them.

There are literally millions more Glocks in the world than M&Ps.

BOTH platforms have a record of Kabooms.

Your saying Glock has a satisitically greater chance of going Kaboom.
What evidence do you have of this?

From everything that is available online right now any sensible person would freely admit that that claim cannot be justly made as their is zero evidence of it actually being true.


True, my anecdotes of Glock KB'ing or having failures, while significantly higher in number via searches, doesn't prove anything more than you claim of posting a few M&Ps that do. What I'm basing my theory on is going on the facts that Glock has made "upgrades" to their platforms over time. 2 pins to 3 (cracked frames) more support with their barrels (too many KBs or firing out of battery) and finally they tried to fix the WML issue with the Gen4 "upgrades." In which I experienced the WML issue with my Gen 3 G22 personally. As stated here by Streamlight.

http://www.streamlight.com/docs/default-source/product-specific-issues/glockissues.pdf

Granted, I could google god knows how many guys having issues but that's moot as you say and that's fine. What you did have was a good number of LE agencies trading in their .40 for 9mm due to issues. Two large local agencies traded theirs in because of said issues, I will say that their tolerance of .40 issues was low due to the cost of 9mm and the negligible difference in performance. None of what I just posted was my opinion, Glock did make these revisions, people were exhibiting these problems. You just didn't see this with the M&P because it was built from the ground up in .40 in mind. It seems the Gen 4 .40s had little, if any, problems after that. "Perfection" was finally achieved I guess. But I must ask? How many revisions have been made to the original M&P .40? Any unsupported barrel issues? Did they add any pins? Have frame flex issues? Nope.

Now before anyone accuses me of being an M&P fan, I don't own one currently, have in the past, but don't own one at this point. I still own a G19.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: JDM396
What you're confusing for being "upset" is a fascination of tying your ego to the marketing capacity of Glock for validation. That's understandable though, confusion seems commonplace for you.


I'm not "tying my ego" to anything. I like Glocks. I have half a dozen of them. I also like 1911's. I have an even dozen of them. I can't even give you an accurate estimate of how many revolvers I have, both single and double action. I won't even get into long guns. So do yourself a big favor. And in the process you'll stop looking so foolish. Stop calling anyone and everyone a, "fanboy" who gives credit where credit is due, to a successful firearms manufacturer. Whomever they happen to be. There are many others besides Glock. They just happen to be the most profound at it in the last 3 decades. It's your problem if you can't deal with the facts, which you've more than proven you cannot. It's why you're so bothered by it all.

 

[JDM396]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: JDM396
What you're confusing for being "upset" is a fascination of tying your ego to the marketing capacity of Glock for validation. That's understandable though, confusion seems commonplace for you.


I'm not "tying my ego" to anything. I like Glocks. I have half a dozen of them. I also like 1911's. I have an even dozen of them. I can't even give you an accurate estimate of how many revolvers I have, both single and double action. I won't even get into long guns. So do yourself a big favor. And in the process you'll stop looking so foolish. Stop calling anyone and everyone a, "fanboy" who gives credit where credit is due, to a successful firearms manufacturer. Whomever they happen to be. There are many others besides Glock. They just happen to be the most profound at it in the last 3 decades. It's your problem if you can't deal with the facts, which you've more than proven you cannot. It's why you're so bothered by it all.


Sure you are....

Let's go through the progression of the goalpost movement...

You: post an article that read like an advertisement
Me: Meh

You: Talk about Magazine interchangeability and essentially modularity
Me: Explain that several manufacturers have caught on, cite the P320

You: State that Glock doesn't change and wonders if Sig's contract will work out for them.
Me: Cite the Military contract Sig just won, that Glock has never been able to get.

You: Bring up Colt?
Me: Good idea, Colt stayed the same and went in the tank, due to not catering to it's civilian public, after the slowing or loss of military contracts.

You: Talk about how Glock appeals to the public wants.
Me: Not really or they would've brought in the SS 9mms and a carbine 10years ago.

Me: Post current sales numbers showing that the SS 9mm is apparently king right now, proving my point. I also post some numbers that show the success of other companies.
You: Complete fly off base and talk about Glock being a private company and post his plane? LOL

Me: Posting a response to another poster in terms of M&P vs Glock, gave my opinion in terms of sights, ergos, and trigger... but posted some pics of Glocks KBs.
You: Post pics of a .40 shield, in which I admit they've had problems. (keep in mind the shield vs glock argument isn't mine)
Me: Post pics of unsupported barrels from Glock vs M&P and XD.

You: Post an article in which you didn't read touting your 10 to 1 theory of Glocks vs M&P (as if this means anything significant) but like I said... you didn't read it LOL. In the title it was shields only, which is impressive. Further adding to my point that Glock should've made a SS 9mm sooner.
Me: I point out your error in not reading your own link.
You: Start demanding that I come up with total M&P model sales?

This went on for awhile.... then I state that I don't believe in putting a .40 in a gun designed for 9mm.

You: Lose your mind and the whole "No manufacturer has built a handgun around the .40 S&W" tirade came soon after.
Me: Provide several models where this has happened. (common knowledge)
You: Cite SAAMI Pressure as a reason why 9mm is equal to .40 so why would a manufacturer build out components of a handgun.
Me: Provide that it has little to do with wear and tear, or rather is just an aspect of such. (common knowledge)
You: Relay that no .40 guns are spec'ed differently.
Me: Yes they are, and here's a few examples.

I let the stupidity go from there... but... there were some comments comparing Browning to Glock.

Me: Comparing Glock to Browning or believing that there's not been a successful firearms innovator since Browning is honestly just hilariously ignorant. Cite several examples.
You: But he's the best firearms marketer ever!!!


So in a nutshell, I've stated my opinion on glocks, still own one, don't own an M&P, wasn't my argument. What I don't care about is someone that relays misinformation. You seem to be a lightning rod because you mix opinion with facts. So like anyone else on this forum, especially if the subject were pertaining to oil, when someone relays [censored], then they are called out on it. Seems the more you called out on it, the more you shovel it out.