[glockhoarder]

The subject of the earliest production Glocks recently came up on a totally unrelated thread that ended going off into two different tangents.

For purposes of finding info on the earliest production Glocks and for future searchability, I thought that I'd start this thread on the topic.

The following was posted by gunter_h:

"Serial no AB005 was the first civilian proofed Glock ever, the first batch of civilian proofed G17s was a total of 141 AA prefix G17s. The original military issue P80s (the contract was for 25.000) were mostly used to death by the Austrian army; any remaining frames were swapped for Gen3 frames a couple of years ago. Some were available for private purchase to active service (N)CO and via the HSV (Heeressportverein; Army Sports Club), with an unknown fraction being kept as safe queens somewhere. "

I replied with the following:

"Awesome info Gunter! Clearly there is no substitute for being close to the source and speaking and reading the native Glock tongue!

Do you know what date codes that AB005 had? Have you seen this gun? Can you please share the source of this info? What about AB000 - AB004?

Unless any G17s had date codes before ATR - and none that I've see do - than the first two batches of P80 predate all G17s.

Regarding the AAs....

I have seen images of very early AAs with ATR and later dated codes. As per a thread on this forum, AA600 and up were imported into the US. While I've seen images of very early AAs over there (AA0xx) I've not seen any in the AA1xx - AA599 SN range. I was guessing that they were sold in Europe but have not come across any. I know that the very first AAs were gifts from Gaston Glock to VIPs. I've also seen images of a couple AB-0xx guns, also with ATR date codes. I'm told that they were Austrian police trial guns.

Re: P80s. Per an Austrian reference, the original ones were delivered as per the attached photo. The text in the photo following the two 10.000 entries is different than the text following the 200 and 4.800 entries. Can you please let us know what it says?

I don't know if the Gen 1 P80s had date codes or not. The one that's in the Smithsonian museum in the US does not seem to from what I can see.

I've heard that only one original, Gen 1 P80 is in private hands of a collector. Are you certain that there are more?

How many 82s have you heard of?

Love your posts!!

Best,

Ron "


I would love to continue the discussion, esp. with our Austrian friends who live close to the source and speak the mother tongue.

In addition to the info that I've noted above, I'd note that, oddly, I've seen images (which I don't have permission to share) of a duotone AA01x gun with a date code of LTF (2/84) despite that the date code of an AA03x gun - which is not duotone - is ATR (12/83). One explanation that I heard was that they took the parts at hand to assemble the very early AA guns which were gifts to VIPs. This was just a guess however as far as I know.

As noted above, I've seen two images of different AB-0xx guns (which I also don't have permission to share) which were, I'm told, Austrian police trials guns. Both of them have the AB-xxx SN format on the slide that the P80s did, while the SN on the barrel is the usual AB 0xx. I've seen and own (as you guys know) some relatively early ABs with the usual SN format on the slide. I'm not sure what he cutoff was for the two different slide formats. Both of these guns had ATR date codes - the earliest that I've seen on any G 17.

I thought that it was very interesting that the very first AA and AB guns seem to have been made at the same time but for different purposes - gifts to VIPs and Austrian police trials respectively.

I'm extremely interested in any further info on these very early guns. I'm looking forward to gunter's reply.

 

[gunter_h]

The civil proofing of Glocks started with the single pistol AB005 in November 1983 with a date code of VTR.

The first civil batch proofing was AA001 thru AA141 in December 1983 with a date code of ATR.

See „Weiterentwicklung der Selbstladepistole I – Österreichische Pistolen –Band II“ by Josef Mötz and Joschi Schuy.

From my personal records, I know that AB023 also has a date code of ATR, whereas AB176 has a date code of LTF (Feb 84)

 

[glockhoarder]

The civil proofing of Glocks started with the single pistol AB005 in November 1983 with a date code of VTR.

The first civil batch proofing was AA001 thru AA141 in December 1983 with a date code of ATR.

See „Weiterentwicklung der Selbstladepistole I – Österreichische Pistolen –Band II“ by Josef Mötz and Joschi Schuy.

From my personal records, I know that AB023 also has a date code of ATR, whereas AB176 has a date code of LTF (Feb 84)

Thank u!!

I actually have that book. I'll have to look it over more carefully w one of my friends who can translate.

I was told that the first ABs went to Austrian police for trials whereas the first AAs were given as gifts by Gaston to VIPs.

I wonder why they made the first AAs and ABs at the same time instead of in order w AAs first?

I wonder how many ABs had the VTR date code.

It's interesting that the very early ABs had the AB-0xx SN format on the slide whereas guns as early as AB-09x did not nor did the first AAs. I wonder why.

It would be great for a collector to have access to the early Glock employees who would know. Most of them may well had sadly passed.

Thx for the info!!!

 

[glockhoarder]

I'd add to the above that I wonder what AB000 - AB004 were. Were they P80s?

Also, as noted in my original post, I've seen ckear photos of an AA01x gun with an LTF date code. So, if the grouping in the book for the first civilian batch proofing is accurate I wonder why this gun (and possibly others?) has the LTF date code.

Really interesting stuff.

 

[gunter_h]

Adding AB9xx NTF (3/84) and AE3xx,AE4xx ZTF (6/84).

Note that proofing houses are run by the state and the date code is marked when the parts are proofed. This does not reflect when they were actually submitted. And there are no rules stating that serial numbers must be assigned in any particular order, or that guns are submitted in ascending serial number order.

So it is quite possible that serial numbers were assigned, guns submitted and guns proofed "out of sequence". This is even to be expected when production batches are reassigned to a different contract with a corresponding change in delivery deadline. Even more so when such procedures are not firmly established yet.

 

[rincar]

I have a AF serial number prefix Glock 17. It is reported to be one of the first one Thousand imported into the USA

 

[glockhoarder]

Adding AB9xx NTF (3/84) and AE3xx,AE4xx ZTF (6/84).

Note that proofing houses are run by the state and the date code is marked when the parts are proofed. This does not reflect when they were actually submitted. And there are no rules stating that serial numbers must be assigned in any particular order, or that guns are submitted in ascending serial number order.

So it is quite possible that serial numbers were assigned, guns submitted and guns proofed "out of sequence". This is even to be expected when production batches are reassigned to a different contract with a corresponding change in delivery deadline. Even more so when such procedures are not firmly established yet.

Thanks yet again for the info - that only someone over there would know. Most appreciated.

I didn't think that there was a law saying guns had to be made or proofed in order of SN. I was just wondering why Glock did the first AAs and ABs at the same time.

Also, if the first 141 AA were batch proofed as per the book, I didn't understand why some of these have the LTF date code while the book says that they should be ATR. As noted, I've seen guns from this batch with both. Oddly the earlier gun by SN had the later date code.

Thanks again so much for your extremely interesting contributions!!

 

[glockhoarder]

I have a AF serial number prefix Glock 17. It is reported to be one of the first one Thousand imported into the USA

That is correct! Further, AFs have substantial collector value. There are multiple threads in his sub-forum discussing these as well as a recent sale of an AF.

We'd love to see pics.

Nice to have you on the collector forum!

 

[L.A.Tactical]

Adding AB9xx NTF (3/84) and AE3xx,AE4xx ZTF (6/84).

Note that proofing houses are run by the state and the date code is marked when the parts are proofed. This does not reflect when they were actually submitted. And there are no rules stating that serial numbers must be assigned in any particular order, or that guns are submitted in ascending serial number order.

So it is quite possible that serial numbers were assigned, guns submitted and guns proofed "out of sequence". This is even to be expected when production batches are reassigned to a different contract with a corresponding change in delivery deadline. Even more so when such procedures are not firmly established yet.

I’ve had a theory I’ve been working on that the early guns were produced in serial order, but we have them all mixed up due to the proofing process. Your point really is the basis of my theory; we have no evidence either way that guns were proofed at the time of production and it’s just as likely this was done later and out of order as it is that they were done sequentially (just to be clear, I have no evidence direct evidence so perhaps “hypothesis” is a more accurate description of my thoughts).

From what it seems from GH and Gunter’s reporting, the early AA guns were duo-tone finish with no serial plate like the AB guns we’ve seen. But then there are AC and AD guns both with duo-tone and standard black finishes?

The proof dates span about a year’s time for all the pre-US serial banks and it’s conceivable that they were experimenting quite a bit then—ironing out the kinks. I have even wondered if the AA guns that came to the US (#600 and up) weren’t put on new frames to make them US compliant. In my head, this is more believable than the company producing all the guns from AA000-AA599, skipping to AB000 and going through AG999, before deciding to come back and finish out the AA bank.

Unrelated question: do we have any pictures of early P80s? Were they a different serial range or mixed in with the 17s. The one example I’ve seen was at the Cody Museum and was serial numbered “EA-71.” It had different markings on the barrel that don’t appear to be typical date codes but I was not able to get close-up photos due to it being locked in the display. So it’s possible the P80s were made with only two letters and two numbers and a lot of them could have been earlier than the civilian G17s. Certainly, the chart in Die W would lead us to believe at least 5,000 were made prior to October of 1983.

 

[glockhoarder]

I’ve had a theory I’ve been working on that the early guns were produced in serial order, but we have them all mixed up due to the proofing process. Your point really is the basis of my theory; we have no evidence either way that guns were proofed at the time of production and it’s just as likely this was done later and out of order as it is that they were done sequentially (just to be clear, I have no evidence direct evidence so perhaps “hypothesis” is a more accurate description of my thoughts).

From what it seems from GH and Gunter’s reporting, the early AA guns were duo-tone finish with no serial plate like the AB guns we’ve seen. But then there are AC and AD guns both with duo-tone and standard black finishes?

The proof dates span about a year’s time for all the pre-US serial banks and it’s conceivable that they were experimenting quite a bit then—ironing out the kinks. I have even wondered if the AA guns that came to the US (#600 and up) weren’t put on new frames to make them US compliant. In my head, this is more believable than the company producing all the guns from AA000-AA599, skipping to AB000 and going through AG999, before deciding to come back and finish out the AA bank.

Unrelated question: do we have any pictures of early P80s? Were they a different serial range or mixed in with the 17s. The one example I’ve seen was at the Cody Museum and was serial numbered “EA-71.” It had different markings on the barrel that don’t appear to be typical date codes but I was not able to get close-up photos due to it being locked in the display. So it’s possible the P80s were made with only two letters and two numbers and a lot of them could have been earlier than the civilian G17s. Certainly, the chart in Die W would lead us to believe at least 5,000 were made prior to October of 1983.

A few comments...

I have seen very good pics of AA 01x. This gun is duo-tone with an LTF date code. I've seen very good pics of AA 03x. This is not duo-tone and has an ATR date code.

I've seen pics of two or three AB-02x guns. They are standard finish with ATR date codes. Later but still early ABs are LTF as Gunter notes in post #2 on this thread.

Here are, by far, the best pics I've seen of a G1 P80: Glock P80 Semiautomatic Pistol

The G1 P80s seem to have the letter letter - number number SNs. As noted prior, the two AB-02x guns that I saw with civilian proofs - said to be Austrian police trials guns - retained the - in the SN on the frame but not the barrel. The P80 in the link has this on the bbl as well. I don't see any date code on the P80 in the link. Am I missing something?

The P82s (or at least the one that I've seen good pics of) were in the A-# format. One letter, one number.

 

[stompah]

Could it be guns or parts were made in batches, boxed and sat until they were needed. Then when there was a need for more guns these boxes were grabbed in batches but out of order. Meaning: the inventory wasn't rotated properly.

Then guns were sent for proofing and distributed.

It's not the best answer but still plausible. We also have to remember Gaston went from making plastic products to guns. I'm sure many procedures were carried over. I doubt there is much urgency to make sure products are rotated because the plastic won't deteriorate quickly enough to make a difference.

 

[L.A.Tactical]

Could it be guns or parts were made in batches, boxed and sat until they were needed. Then when there was a need for more guns these boxes were grabbed in batches but out of order. Meaning: the inventory wasn't rotated properly.

Then guns were sent for proofing and distributed.

It's not the best answer but still plausible. We also have to remember Gaston went from making plastic products to guns. I'm sure many procedures were carried over. I doubt there is much urgency to make sure products are rotated because the plastic won't deteriorate quickly enough to make a difference.

This is the common explanation for why there’s no correlation between date code and serial number, yes.
Another reason is that they made two versions of the pistol in the early days—with or without a serial plate—and they reserved full serial blocks for one or the other. This divergence got to be pretty extreme in ‘87 & ‘88; as an example, a CA prefix gun will have the date code for Jan ‘87 while a BZ prefix will be marked for Nov ‘88.

 

[glockhoarder]

This is the common explanation for why there’s no correlation between date code and serial number, yes.
Another reason is that they made two versions of the pistol in the early days—with or without a serial plate—and they reserved full serial blocks for one or the other. This divergence got to be pretty extreme in ‘87 & ‘88; as an example, a CA prefix gun will have the date code for Jan ‘87 while a BZ prefix will be marked for Nov ‘88.

Is there information to confirm that in the very early days (original AA, AB and AC prefix) that they were making frames w/SN plates? The frames with SN plates were made solely for export. Further, beyond the SN plates there are other differences to include Glock USA markings.

 

[L.A.Tactical]

I would actually say that in the pre-US days, they did NOT make two frames. This is probably off-topic for the initial purpose of the thread, but I've always wondered if early A-block frames that came to the US are actually the original frames for the guns or if they thought it would be easier to just remake the frames with the serial number plate and markings added to satisfy the ATF's import requirements. The reason I wonder is that, from what I've found, the first guns were submitted to ATF in July of '85, but according to proof mark dates, all the guns from AA to AK and part of AL, AM, and AN had already been produced.

 

[premiertactical]

All they would have to do is make frames with the plate and use those frames from those guns for non-US import.
As we know little was wasted by Glock.

It makes a great deal of sense that originally those frames were without plates.

 

[glockhoarder]

Something to keep in mind is that when the pre US guns as well as early US guns were proofed by date code, Glock Smyrna, GA - as imprinted on the US import frames didn't yet exist. I'm not sure when the US patents - also on US import frames - were issued.

 

[gunter_h]

I would actually say that in the pre-US days, they did NOT make two frames. This is probably off-topic for the initial purpose of the thread, but I've always wondered if early A-block frames that came to the US are actually the original frames for the guns or if they thought it would be easier to just remake the frames with the serial number plate and markings added to satisfy the ATF's import requirements. The reason I wonder is that, from what I've found, the first guns were submitted to ATF in July of '85, but according to proof mark dates, all the guns from AA to AK and part of AL, AM, and AN had already been produced.

Glock frames are made by injection molding into casts made by electrochemical erosion in a salt bath. This ensures very tight conformity to the positive master template. There are at least two versions of the master template.

There is the orginal master and molds that results in a single seam on the underside of the dust cover, where the mold halves meet. This is what the original pre-US civilian production pieces are expected to have.

There are also molds that optionally allow the serial number plate to be cast in; this results in frames that either have a serial number plate, or show a double seam where it would have beeen. In this case, the SN plate is flush with the surface. It may have been necessary to engrave these, as the inside surface of the plate is only supported by plastic rather than an anvil.

Guns going to US would have to be (re)assemled with a SN plate and the original serial number from the already proofed barrels and slides copied to the frame SN plate with a US prefix.

I have a Gen1 Frame with such a double seam. I also have two Gen2 frames (checkering on the front and back straps) that have no serial number. So these frames were obviously produced for export but ended up on G17.2s sold locally.

Probably because of complaints that the SN plate was too easily removed, later versions have a recess that causes the SN plate to be completly inside the frame while partially exposing both front and back of the plate for efficient stamping of serial numbers.

 

[glockhoarder]

Thanks yet again, Gunter.

Your knowledge is so detailed. We all greatly appreciate it. How do you have such detailed knowledge of the early guns? We are so fortunate to have you here.

Do you know why the finishes were different within some early serial number ranges? Meaning some guns with silver barrels and more sheen to the slides - what we call duo-tone on this forum and others the normal finish. There is no particular pattern to this. This is seen - at least by me - in the AA, AB, AC & AD blocks as well as the one P82 that I've seen and in G1 P80s such as the one in the link below. It may be that all P82s and Gen 1 P80s have this duo-tone finish. I don't know as I've not seen many of either. However, in the AA - AD guns there are gums with both types of finishes in no particular order SN wise.

Also, do you know why this finish was dine away with so early? I heard it was less corrosion resistant. But, I'm not sure.

Glock P80 Semiautomatic Pistol

Currently not on view

americanhistory.si.edu

Thank you!

 

[gunter_h]

I had the pleasure of visiting the Glock factory at Deutsch Wagram together with Andy Stanford. His and James' instructors had been the day before and they were met by Robert Glock and actually got to shoot some Glocks at the factory range. Anyway, the tour included a visit to the factory floor along with the mold making, injection molding and metal stamping machines. The barrels and slides were machined at the Ferlach factory and tenifered in Deutsch Wagram for final assembly. Since this was the first plastic framed pistol, there was a lot of trial ane error going on, while attempting to stay on schedule with production. Parts interchangeability being a requirement of the Austrian Army contract enabled them to run whatever machines were available producing parts for stock and assemble them later. I beleive the testing required 100 pistols to be disassembled into individual parts and reassembled by randomly selecting parts and all of them had to work.

They also used ot have a factory outlet where promotional materials could be bought, and also one could come in to have the pistol upgraded to the newest parts. Or even have the gun refinished to current specs. I even exported the Glock posters to US in hundreds because they were not available there. Unfortunately that outlet has long been closed and it seems they try to isolate themselves from individual customers.

 

[glockhoarder]

I had the pleasure of visiting the Glock factory at Deutsch Wagram together with Andy Stanford. His and James' instructors had been the day before and they were met by Robert Glock and actually got to shoot some Glocks at the factory range. Anyway, the tour included a visit to the factory floor along with the mold making, injection molding and metal stamping machines. The barrels and slides were machined at the Ferlach factory and tenifered in Deutsch Wagram for final assembly. Since this was the first plastic framed pistol, there was a lot of trial ane error going on, while attempting to stay on schedule with production. Parts interchangeability being a requirement of the Austrian Army contract enabled them to run whatever machines were available producing parts for stock and assemble them later. I beleive the testing required 100 pistols to be disassembled into individual parts and reassembled by randomly selecting parts and all of them had to work.

They also used ot have a factory outlet where promotional materials could be bought, and also one could come in to have the pistol upgraded to the newest parts. Or even have the gun refinished to current specs. I even exported the Glock posters to US in hundreds because they were not available there. Unfortunately that outlet has long been closed and it seems they try to isolate themselves from individual customers.

Wow, that's SO cool! I don't know who Andy Stanford is.

I met the current President at a very large US gun & shooting spot expo called SHOT show in 2021. He was very nice to chat with but didn't have interest on knowledge of the old history. It would be such a great thing for the hobby and for future shooters and collectors if someone did a book on early Glock history, info the early guns etc before the original workers pass and the info possibly lost forever.

Thanks again!!