Is Glock aiming at cutting costs recently?

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


  1. I had 12 Glocks down to 5 and the reason I don't get rid of these is because I have too many extra parts, mags, holster, etc. H&K, Sig and 1911 for now.
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. I've wondered if the change to New Coke wasn't really done to hide the change from sugar to corn syrup as the sweetener.


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     

  3. You also get 3 mags instead of 2.
     
  4. Yes, but the 4's come with three mags, and the 3's come with two.

    Rats!!! HexHead already said that. Day late and a dollar short...that's me. lol
     
    #44 Lowjiber, Nov 4, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2012
  5. In its ads, Taurus claims to make all the parts for its guns...

    Properly done, investment casting - the process Ruger uses - aligns the grain of the metal to best resist forces of firing.


    Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine
     
  6. Not sure where you mean to go with some of your posts. It's somewhat apparent you're dissatisfied with some aspects of newer Glocks. Okay. Your prerogative.

    FWIW, I'm neither a competitive shooter, nor am I a licensed gunsmith, engineer, factory technician, rep or salesperson.

    I've been a LE firearms instructor since '90, and I've been through more than 20 armorer classes (only 3 of which have been Glock classes), so I've acquired a passing familiarity with some small number of firearms used in the LE/Gov field, and I've had the opportunity to work with both LE & non-LE shooters (which has allowed me to observe how various guns behave in the hands of some shooters/owners).

    Never claimed to be anybody's "expert".

    I haven't taken a job with any of the gun companies since my retirement (really thought about it, though).

    I neither shill for any particular firearm company, nor profess "loyalty" to any of their products simply based upon a company. (I leave that sort of thing to folks who like to claim loyalty and allegiance to sports teams ... which is something else I don't do. ;) )

    As an armorer I've listened to any number of armorer instructors, reps, engineers and other factory folks (for assorted gun companies) who have described assorted changes, revisions & refinements involving designs, materials, manufacturing and vendors. Not uncommon in the firearms world. Sometimes changes have the desired result ... and sometimes there's an occasional unintended consequence. Things happen.

    I think the internet allows little things to get blown out of proportion very easily and incredibly quickly.

    I think incorrect info gets circulated and becomes accepted as "fact".

    I also think that the expectations of some firearms owners can be a bit unrealistic, too. ;)

    If you're dissatisfied with your Gen4 Glock, you might consider either working with the company to resolve any realistic issues, or do so with a local Glock armorer. The company was very responsive when I was discussing my own late production Gen3 erratic ejection issues. They offered to examine the gun and try to correct anything necessary if I wanted, even though I'm an armorer. I have no complaints with their response and helpfulness.

    Glocks aren't necessarily my first couple of choices for plastic pistols, but they make a fine, serviceable product. I'll continue to own and use the ones I've bought.

    BTW, as an armorer for the M&P pistol (2 classes) and the SW99/P99 (3 classes), I've become aware of how each of those designs have received (and benefited from) revisions, refinements and design changes along the way, over the years. Like I said ... such things aren't uncommon. ;)
     
    #46 fastbolt, Nov 4, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2012
  7.  
    #47 jupiter, Nov 4, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2012
  8. Actually, the "informed opinion" comment was made in general reflection, thinking back over numerous other posts made in other thread topics. Your comment made me think back over other posts (which can be a good thing). Not this one, and not pertaining to what you'd posted. Didn't mean for you to take it that way. I'd have said the same thing if we'd been discussing this subject together over a cup of coffee, and you'd have been better able to realize I wasn't directing it at your comments.

    If you never meant to question my experience, perhaps you might have phrased your comments a bit differently? It's not easy to read things like, "Wow! I've found someone who's really in the know!", and know how they mean their comment without being able to see facial expressions & body language, as well as hear it said. ;)

    One of the problems of the internet, right. :)
     
    #48 fastbolt, Nov 4, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2012
  9. Fastbolt
    I've been a member here a long time. In general, I agree with your comments far more than I disagree. In this case, we'll just agree to disagree.

    One thing i've learned for sure!
    Never use an IPad with auto-correct when posting on Glocktalk. It sucks:supergrin:
     
    #49 jupiter, Nov 4, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2012
  10. Made me chuckle about the auto-correct thing. ;)

    Not sure where we really disagree on anything. Nobody wants to see reductions in quality, right?

    I simply don't think that any and all changes made by manufacturers (or their vendors) should automatically be suspected of having been done to "cut corners & costs", at the expense of quality.

    I do, however, think that sometimes a change (revision, vendor spec change, etc) that's made for ease of manufacturing - which may, or may not, be solely for cost-cutting - might result in something that's unexpected (by both the manufacturer and the consumer).

    Returning to the "previous method" may not automatically always be the answer, although some adjustment may certainly be in order, allowing the new method (process, etc) to continue to be used.

    I don't concern myself with other folks always (or ever) agreeing with me. I change my own opinions all the time, especially when experience indicates it's appropriate. ;)
     
    #50 fastbolt, Nov 4, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2012
  11. I think investment casting, results in a random grain pattern, in the part. Forging does tend to align the grain, in the metal. That's why people didn't like Ruger's guns, at the beginning.
     

Share This Page