Is Glock aiming at cutting costs recently?

Discussion in 'General Glocking' started by Marshall_tx, Nov 2, 2012.

  1. 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 :devildance:. 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.

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Loading...

    Similar Threads Forum Date
    Proper aiming with Glock Sights General how-To Help Forum Oct 12, 2013
    Glock 41 and pins, nice. General Competition Today at 1:00 AM
    large capacity magazine for a Glock 29 Introduction Forum Yesterday at 10:39 PM
    Glock 43 - any torture test stories? General Glocking Yesterday at 10:24 PM
    Milt Sparks VM2 for Glock Holsters & Related Items Yesterday at 8:00 PM

  3. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. samurairabbi

    samurairabbi Dungeon Schmuck

    Glock produces INTERNALLY only three parts: frame, slide, barrel. All other parts are OEM from outside suppliers.
  6. 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
  7. where are they outsourced to?
  8. SCmasterblaster

    Millennium Member

    some pictures would be nice. :cool:
  9. 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.:supergrin:
  10. samurairabbi

    samurairabbi Dungeon Schmuck

    All over Europe and, probably, Asia. In the late nineties, Russia was a major source of OEM Glock parts.
  11. Chuck TX


    Did they start using MIM parts?
  12. Bruce M

    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.
  13. 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.
    #12 unit1069, Nov 2, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2012
  14. I'm curious, why this date?

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  15. 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
    #14 SJ 40, Nov 2, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2012
  16. 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.
    #15 Made in Austria, Nov 2, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2012
  17. 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.
  18. Coke changed Coke and almost went broke. Glock changed the Model 17 and messed up the most reliable 9mm ever made, looks like.
  19. Most manufacturers make changes to make less costly products to increase market shares and profits. Be it MIM parts, injection molding, casting, etc.

    Engineering changes are also made to increase reliability, reduce wear or failures, etc.

    The end question is not what costs can we live with but what cost is our life worth?

    For example, most 1911 makers use MIM parts in some place or another, often many.
    But a few, still cling to refusing to use MIM parts. The difference is a couple of hundred dollars to start, normally.

    What happens? People buy the cheaper product because it 's cheaper. Rather than considering if it's better or not.

    Take the Glock for example, at @$500 you get a gun remarkably reliable, reasonably accurate and one that takes a tremendous amount of abuse. Same with the XD, M&P and others.

    Jump to three times that price and people start having chest pains, brain issues and they can't find the ability to carry a gun that costs that much. However for that price you get something that's just as reliable as the Glock, much more accurate and one that will only increase in value over time. Note I didn't mention model or make.

    Compare it to cars.

    Buy the Toyota, it runs and keeps on running.
    Buy the 'Vette, it runs and takes a little tinkering but holds its value over the years.

    They both do the same thing, one just looks a whole lot better doing it.

    As far as change goes, people are generally against it, and occasionally with good reason.
    One of our local deputies bought a brand new Sig 226. And comparing it to my 25 year old 220, there were a major number of differences. The trigger was terrible, the locking block was rough as a corn cob (MIM), machining changes, etc. He didn't even keep it a week.

    Evaluate change on it's own merits.
  20. But the price tag on a new gen4 is 20-30$ more than a new gen3? This thread is depressing

    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
  21. 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

Share This Page

Duty Gear at CopsPlus