GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-02-2012, 11:50   #1
Marshall_tx
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Lonestar State
Posts: 21
Is Glock aiming at cutting costs recently?

I really admire the simplicity and strong reliability of Glock's, reason being why I have 4 of them (not much by some people's standards). But I first bought my first Glock in 07, the model 23. Ever since then I've bought some and sold some. But when I disassemble to clean them there is somewhat of a notable difference, perceived by me at least, of the different build materials. I just bought a 22, 2 days ago and when I field stripped it, the insides looked different, for starters, the 22 looked like it had some sort of a plastic rail support on the front rails, whereas my 07 Glock 23 does not have the "supports". Also, the locking blocks look like they're plated on the new ones and I've been seeing as to how allot of people are noticing excessive wear and signs of wear on the locking block whereas my Glock 23 has no signs of wear at all on the inside from shooting some 5,000 rounds through it. I haven't given it much thought, but recently the M&P's have caught my attention, it looks like they've made their own polymer version of the Glock, and have done a mighty fine job at it. I know Glock is made in Austria, but I honestly would not be surprised if they've been importing some of the internal's from China like the springs, extractor's, locking blocks, or others of the sort. Because while these parts are very small, when they order 50-60,000 I'm sure they can cut costs and try to rely on their past success to keep people coming back. Then again, I'm just playing devil's advocate . I really like Glock's and between the HK's, and Sig's I've had in the past, I've only held onto the Glock's because I don't see any other handgun taking the Glock's position as leader in utility, reliability, and simplicity and that's all I really look for. I'm not a big fan of firearm's that don't go 'bang' every time their trigger is pulled.
Marshall_tx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 12:21   #2
NCHeel
Senior Member
 
NCHeel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Charlotte N.C.
Posts: 460
I have seen the plastic things you are talking about. My 19 has them but the 26 does not. The 26 is newer so that rules out a design change to produce it cheaper. I think the big deal is GLOCKS are made to be service weapons. They have never cared for aesthetics. They function but now-a-days people want something to be pretty also. GLOCk has never been into that. If someone wants a safe queen get a Kimber.
__________________
Gen4 G17, G19, G26. Love the Gen4's.

Glock and S&W M&P Certified Armorer
NRA certified RSO
NRA Instructor for pistol, rifle, shotgun & PPIH and PPOH
NCHeel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 12:40   #3
Marshall_tx
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: The Lonestar State
Posts: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCHeel View Post
I have seen the plastic things you are talking about. My 19 has them but the 26 does not. The 26 is newer so that rules out a design change to produce it cheaper. I think the big deal is GLOCKS are made to be service weapons. They have never cared for aesthetics. They function but now-a-days people want something to be pretty also. GLOCk has never been into that. If someone wants a safe queen get a Kimber.
I 100% agree, Glock needs to stick to what they've been known for, a quality, functional, durable firearm. The last thing we need from them is the company trying to round off the edges from their "2x4" and trying to replace functionality with form.
Marshall_tx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 12:54   #4
samurairabbi
Dungeon Schmuck
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,922
Glock produces INTERNALLY only three parts: frame, slide, barrel. All other parts are OEM from outside suppliers.
__________________
Samurai Rabbi
samurairabbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 13:54   #5
mr00jimbo
Senior Member
 
mr00jimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by samurairabbi View Post
Glock produces INTERNALLY only three parts: frame, slide, barrel. All other parts are OEM from outside suppliers.
where are they outsourced to?
__________________
"Learning to shoot with a Glock is like learning to drive with a car with a smashed windshield and two flat tires."
-Yo
mr00jimbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 14:07   #6
SCmasterblaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Hartford, Vermont
Posts: 16,020
Well

some pictures would be nice.
__________________
Gun Ownership Offers Freedom in Many Dimensions
SCmasterblaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 14:33   #7
DocWills
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 498
ALL gun companies outsource. What and who depends. Ruger and smith get a lot of very surprising orders in the US.
There are a bunch of Euro companies capable in that sort of thing.
__________________
There is no cure for stupid, but ignorance may be healed in the Forums.
DocWills is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 14:47   #8
samurairabbi
Dungeon Schmuck
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr00jimbo View Post
where are they outsourced to?
All over Europe and, probably, Asia. In the late nineties, Russia was a major source of OEM Glock parts.
__________________
Samurai Rabbi
samurairabbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 13:09   #9
SJ 40
Senior Member
 
SJ 40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 7,583
Like you said if a gun doesn't go bang it's not of any value. I love my Glocks and everyone goes Bang every time no matter the ammunition it's feed. I am always on the lookout for Glocks,I'm just not interested in any Glock produced after 12/06 but that's just me.
SJ 40
SJ 40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 16:34   #10
Chuck TX
CLM Number 243
Charter Lifetime Member
 
Chuck TX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 6,608
Did they start using MIM parts?
__________________
"Come and Take it!" - Texans, October 2, 1835
Chuck TX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 16:53   #11
Bruce M
Senior Member
 
Bruce M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: S FL
Posts: 23,223
A few months, maybe half a year ago it seemed fairly accepted that Glock was behind in production by several hundred thousand pistols. I have not heard recently if they are still behind and if so how much. Perhaps the reason for changes in parts was to speed up production and any changes in quality are a result of attempting to make more parts faster rather than any cost cutting move. That is, of course, just a rambling guess with no facts to back it up at all.
__________________
Bruce
I never talked to anyone who had to fire their gun who said "I wished I had the smaller gun and fewer rounds with me" Just because you find a hundred people who agree with you on the internet does not mean you're right.
Bruce M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 17:50   #12
unit1069
Senior Member
 
unit1069's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: So. Central US
Posts: 8,786
Quote:
Is Glock aiming at cutting costs recently?
I don't know, but the testimonial evidence is that the Gen 4 Glocks have derailed Glock's stellar reputation for total out-of-the-box reliability, extending even to the late model Gen 3 products.

Gaston Glock is getting up there in age and perhaps has allowed others without his attention to important factors to supplant his decision-making process. Just sayin' ...

One thing's for sure, I'm certainly happy with my 2007 Glock that is the only firearm I own that has been absolutely perfect since Day One with every FMJ and JHP ammo put through it.
__________________
Rocket Scientist

Last edited by unit1069; 11-02-2012 at 17:52..
unit1069 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 20:00   #13
Yertology
Member
 
Yertology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: ten i see
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJ 40 View Post
I'm just not interested in any Glock produced after 12/06 but that's just me. 40
I'm curious, why this date?



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
__________________
22C RTF2
22 RTF2
Gen4 22 KKM 40-9
Yertology is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 20:21   #14
SJ 40
Senior Member
 
SJ 40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 7,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yertology View Post
I'm curious, why this date?



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
Some say the use of MiMed parts were first used by Glock some time in 07,some say 09. I don't know for sure and I know Glock isn't going to say.

What I do know is by limiting myself to that date,unless the gun has been back to Glock they do not contain MiMed parts.
Such as extractor or locking blocks.

The use of MiMed parts maybe of no consequence to some I would rather not have/use them. So for me I limit my self to 12/06 serial numbers and prior,which is not very limiting to me as all the Glocks I own function with Perfection.
SJ 40

Last edited by SJ 40; 11-02-2012 at 20:22.. Reason: spelling
SJ 40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 20:46   #15
Made in Austria
Senior Member
 
Made in Austria's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 1,747
I don't think Glock is cutting too much on the costs. I have a couple gen4's and they are all very reliable now, just like the old ones which I have as well. I also can't complain about the gray dull finish, it's holding up well so far.

The only thing they had major problems with are the extractors. Some of them are/were out of spec. I am sure one of their extractor MIM molders is/was out of spec because not all gen4's came with problems out of the box, and the ones which had problems can be fixed by replacing and tweaking extractors. I fixed the erratic ejection of two gen4 G19 and a few gen4 G23 by replacing extractors with new different numbered OEM extractors.

All of them still work like a sewing machine. The first one I fixed was a G23 gen4, it has now about 3500 through it and still shoots and ejects like it should.

MIM parts are normally not bad as long as they are in spec and done/molded correctly.

Last edited by Made in Austria; 11-02-2012 at 20:53..
Made in Austria is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 23:08   #16
AustinTx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tx
Posts: 8,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJ 40 View Post
Some say the use of MiMed parts were first used by Glock some time in 07,some say 09. I don't know for sure and I know Glock isn't going to say.

What I do know is by limiting myself to that date,unless the gun has been back to Glock they do not contain MiMed parts.
Such as extractor or locking blocks.

The use of MiMed parts maybe of no consequence to some I would rather not have/use them. So for me I limit my self to 12/06 serial numbers and prior,which is not very limiting to me as all the Glocks I own function with Perfection.
SJ 40
I am slightly amused at people that buy a gun, made by injecting molten plastic, into a form and worry about MIM parts in it. Assuming, Glock's bad extractors are MIM (which I'm not sure anyone knows, positively), They don't work because they aren't the right size or shape. Evidently people can tell they're the wrong size, by eyesight.

Locking Blocks: My old Gen 3 Glocks appear to have some sort of molded locking blocks, in them and never broken one yet. The ones I checked, have a sprue from the mold.
AustinTx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 05:35   #17
SJ 40
Senior Member
 
SJ 40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 7,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinTx View Post
I am slightly amused at people that buy a gun, made by injecting molten plastic, into a form and worry about MIM parts in it. Assuming, Glock's bad extractors are MIM (which I'm not sure anyone knows, positively), They don't work because they aren't the right size or shape. Evidently people can tell they're the wrong size, by eyesight.

Locking Blocks: My old Gen 3 Glocks appear to have some sort of molded locking blocks, in them and never broken one yet. The ones I checked, have a sprue from the mold.
Yes the locking blocks at least around mid 2000 at least in the examples I have seen are investment castings as are the extractors.
Ruger long ago perfected and proved investment casting,when done with proper steel and properly heat treated has excellent strength and wear longevity.
SJ 40
SJ 40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 10:36   #18
jupiter
Senior Member
 
jupiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 717
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinTx View Post
I am slightly amused at people that buy a gun, made by injecting molten plastic, into a form and worry about MIM parts in it.
Using your logic, you shouldn't mind if they make your glock barrel and locking block out of Tin. It would be amusing to think certain parts may need to be made better/stronger!

I would rather pay a little more and maintain high standards than compromise on quality in ANY way.
__________________
I hate Chevy Silverado pickups!

Last edited by jupiter; 11-03-2012 at 10:37..
jupiter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-2012, 20:17   #19
AustinTx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tx
Posts: 8,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiter View Post
Using your logic, you shouldn't mind if they make your glock barrel and locking block out of Tin. It would be amusing to think certain parts may need to be made better/stronger!

I would rather pay a little more and maintain high standards than compromise on quality in ANY way.
You're not using logic. The method of making a part, has nothing to do with the material that is suitable, for that part. You can make cheaper frames, with cardboard. Would you buy a cardboard gun, if it was forged or hand made, by an experienced machinist?

Please, tell me, how do you know that quality has been compromised, because a particular part isn't made, using some process that you don't like?

If a gun wasn't built, using more modern methods, that cut cost, I couldn't afford to buy most guns, on the market, now. Parts can be produced, using MIM, to much tighter tolerances than most older methods. It's usually best, for small, intricate parts. Once the process has been set up, every single part, made in a mold will be exactly the same. Ruger has proven casting makes a strong gun frame. People said that was inferior to forging and maybe it is, but it works and keeps the prices where I can afford to buy a gun.

S&W is using MIM parts, in their revolvers and the 629 Classic that I have, is the smoothest trigger and best timed revolver that I own.
AustinTx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2012, 23:10   #20
AustinTx
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tx
Posts: 8,071
Coke changed Coke and almost went broke. Glock changed the Model 17 and messed up the most reliable 9mm ever made, looks like.
AustinTx is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply


Tags
glock, locking block, quality, reliability
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:53.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 914
302 Members
612 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31