Glock Talk banner

Is the Glock being outpaced by the competition?

  • Yes

    Votes: 96 30.9%
  • No

    Votes: 215 69.1%

The Glock Has Been Outpaced by the Competition: True/False/Why/Why Not

17K views 359 replies 130 participants last post by  CladderPup 
#1 ·
In another conversation a person asserted that the Glock is "being outpaced by the competition." I was going to respond there but thought it deserved its own topic.

So, what do you think?

Has the Glock been outpaced by the competition? Let's get some meat on the bare-bone nature of that assertion.

If so, how and why? If not, why not?

Be as specific as possible.
 
#3 ·
I think Glock is being outpaced but not dramatically.
Modularity is the big thing I see that Glock is missing. The MOS slides kinda make up for that but they won't even put taller sights on them to accommodate a red dot, kinda goofy.

That said, it's not a gap that can't be made up with an innovation or two. Handguns are such an evolved, established technology that it's hard to get too far ahead or fall too far behind the curve once you have a modern product.
 
#4 ·
yes and no. Glock is no longer innovative, and no longer the "king" of reliability in striker fired handguns. There are many guns that are just as reliable, and manage to do some kick ass things over the last few years.

however, that's not a bad thing. Like the 1911, if it works then there's no reason to change it. That's part of the appeal of a glock. A stupidly simple design that is easy to maintain and cheap to replace parts. No need for a billion roll pins, trigger springs that require a bachelors in engineering and 9 arms to replace etc. They've been outpaced innovatively, but as I said, innovation isn't everything.
 
#10 ·
I think this quip actually does help us explain where and how the competition is "outpacing" the Glock. There have been updates and enhancements to the original Browning 1911 design, but fundamentally the functionality and 'how it works' remains the same. Some would argue that the advent of tighter slide to frame tolerances and tighter bushings and so forth have enhanced accuracy, but ... those tighter tolerances do result in less reliable functioning, etc.

etc.

I see this as comparable to striker action improvements.

HK's striker action handguns are very well made, to be sure, and they have their own storied history of being among the very first to the starting line with striker action, but ... HK's striker action handguns are NOT anywhere nearly as easy to detail strip and so forth as the Glock.
 
#8 ·
When all the competition does is switch from making their old designs to making Glock copies, how is Glock being outpaced? At best, the competition is catching up in design and they aren't even close in marketing and sales.
 
#9 ·
I've fired, used, field stripped and detailed stripped every striker action handgun on the market today. Simply put, the Glock remains the easiest of them all to use and to maintain. The ones that approximate the ease of use and maintenance of a Glock are those that have most closely imitated Glock's design.

I'm just not personally seeing how, apart from cosmetic and arguably ergonomic options, any striker action handgun is "outpacing" the Glock, but I welcome insight and correction into this.
 
#12 ·
Here is the thing about modularity, for most people it doesn't matter. The majority of gun buyers buy one gun, shoot a couple of rounds through it put it and the rest of the box of ammunition away and that is it. People who buy several guns want several guns. Do you want to take your gun apart every night to change it out from its EDC configuration to its home defense configuration? I sure don't.

There is no one out there who is making a more compact package vs capacity than Glock. If you buy anything with 15 rounds in the magazine it is going to be bigger than a Glock 19. A 15 round 320 is a lot closer to a G17 than a G19. There really is nothing to compare to a G26. Everything is bigger. Its only when you get to the single stacks that it evens up. I've been puzzled by this for years. It seems a simple thing to do.

Scale has advantages. No one is selling guns in the volume Glock is. This leads to tons of aftermarket parts, holsters and other accessories being available.

I don't think the 320 is going to make a big dent in police sales. If the plastic is as soft as I am hearing it is its going to get dinged up on a police belt and appearance matters to police and not just for appearance sake. If guns look neglected and abused its a problem.
 
#132 ·
Here is the thing about modularity, for most people it doesn't matter. The majority of gun buyers buy one gun, shoot a couple of rounds through it put it and the rest of the box of ammunition away and that is it. People who buy several guns want several guns. Do you want to take your gun apart every night to change it out from its EDC configuration to its home defense configuration? I sure don't.
The biggest advantage of a modular handgun is that they can be configured, not that they can be converted.

If you want gun with a 4 inch slide but a shorter grip with the P320 you just buy the compact gun and the $45 subcompact grip frame. If you hate the way it balances you are out $45 but can just put the original grip back. With Glock you would have to start with a G19 and cut down the frame. There would be no going back if you butchered the gun cutting it down or did not like the end result.

There are a couple of spots on my G19 where the backstraps attach that rub me the wrong way when I shoot it. I have thought about sanding them down but am hesitant to do so since if I sand too far unsanding is not an option. If the worst I could do was ruin a easily replaceable grip module I would give it a try.

Providing a wide array of grip options should be inexpensive. Instead of trying to sell caliber conversion kits nearly as expensive as a whole new gun they should be providing more grip options. Short grip modules with long enough dust covers to not leave a gap on the longer slides would be a good start. Grips with integrated lights and lasers could be other options.

If I did not already own a G19 I would probably buy a compact P320 because it feels better in my hand and I shot the ones I rented a little bit better than the Glock. But not better enough to make switching worthwhile. The smaller size and lighter weight of a Glock with the same capacity are nice too. As are magazines that do not cost $45.
 
#13 ·
No, not really, IMHO. There are some neat ideas being fielded by other companies, but nothing seems to be setting the world on fire. Glocks are hard to beat in any category.
As far as the ARMY's new choice; I'm going to say that isn't finalized yet, as the ARMY shorted the tests badly. Lawsuits will probably shut the selection down, before it's all said and done.
I have owned 2 of the ARMY's newest selection and while I find it to be a pretty nice and well engineered piece, I can tell you it will not be a good thing in the Troops hands w/o a General order NOT to mess with it. There are 2 small parts in the striker ass'y that will quite literally take off to parts unknown during an advanced field strip if a person is not very careful when removing that ass'y. And the pistol will not be carry safe w/o them.
On top of that, I could not stand the double "Tick" trigger that about half of that model seems to have. The company can and does fix it, but you have to send in the pistol to do so. Not for me, thanks. I'll pass.
Oops, off topic. Sorry.
Glocks just work, and work good, just like the 1911 does to this day.
 
#14 ·
Outpaced in what way?

Loss of market share? It doesn't look like it. The other brands are offing big rebates to sell pistols. Glock isn't. they aren't dropping prices either. At least looking from the outside, it wouldn't appear like Glock is loosing any market share.

Design innovations? The only thing that seems innovative is the modular trigger assembly. The jury's still out on if that will have an impact on Glock sales.

It seems to me, in a business sense, Glock is a "cash cow" in their market. They have a high market share and are highly profitable selling what they have using their normal sales approach. They made some minor packaging tweeks with summer special Glocks, but they aren't cutting price or issuing rebates. Cash cows usually don't change business models until the market forces them to.
 
#20 ·
For Glock to have to "fix" something, they would have to believe something was "broken".
Which begs the question...is there actually something "broken" about the Glock? In recent years we have seen them tinker with the ergonomics, offer variations with the backstrap, but beyond that.... what has been "broken" that needs "fixing"?
 
#16 ·
Maybe my standards are too low? It goes bang many times without stoppage. The bullets go where I want if I do my part. It's about as simple as such a device can be.

Can you define 'outpaced'?

I'm shooting a Gen1 and multiple Gen2 and don't feel the need to 'upgrade'. I am building Gen3 right now simply due to availability of parts.

If it could be...lighter? Leads to more felt recoil and slower recovery. Smaller? My hands are big. Higher capacity? Not as concealable, and I keep 33rd spare mags. More reliable? Pretty much every stoppage I've had was related to ammo. More durable? I've never worn one out.

Keep in mind; I am driving a 1988 Jeep Wrangler because the 2008 I had, had too many electronics on it. I wanted a carburetor without emissions trappings on the motor. So, it could just be me. I like things simple.

David
 
#21 ·
Personally, I like simple and basic in a carry handgun, so Sig and company can keep all their fancy modular pistols, and I'll keep my Glock. I don't even really care for the Gen 4 backsraps on Glocks, but I like the Gen 4 mag release and grip texture, so I deal with them.

Also, like another member posted, nobody comes close in size to capacity ratio, especially in the 26/27/33 size, which is what I carry. I tried to like the M&Pc, but it was just too big compared to the baby Glock.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
#25 ·
The 320 is a unique concept with the modular trigger and different frames. Look at the cost of Sig mags that are double the cost of Glock.

Glock is a good balance of cost versus quality versus the other brands in my opinion. There is a whole aftermarket of parts if you choose to go that route.

Glock is really simple to maintain and the parts are really cheap. Back when Glock came out most of the parts were $1 excluding the bigger items like a firing pin, locking block, barrel, etc.
 
#26 ·
IMO as an outsider, I think Glock is holding onto their market share and possibly slightly increasing it. The question for me is; is this sustainable? I think Glock looks at it like many large companies do. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If Glock as a company wants to continue to grow, IMO they need to become more innovative than the competition while remaining competitive with regard to the price of their products. The Gen 5 may play a huge role in this if Glock is smart enough to move their product in the direction that their customer base wants to move. If they drag their heels (as they usually do) IMO they are risking loss of market share to companies like Sig that will be in the spotlight over the next few years. Only time will tell.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grunow
#27 ·
Thirty six years ago, when the first Glock was introduced, the Glock 17 was 30 years ahead of its time. That means that for the past several years, there has been great parity in the plastic striker gun industry. S&W M&P, CZ P10 (prolly), Springfield Armory and Glock are more or less now equals in reliability, durability, ergos, price, etc. Glock remains preeminent largely because of its 30 year head start.

Has Glock fallen behind? No. But Glock seriously lacks innovation and a desire to get new products to market. They were several years behind the curve on the 42 and 43, for example, while the Shield, PM9, PF9 and others had their growth spurt, and Glock inexplicably seems to have no desire to meet the high demand for an 8-round mag for the 42 and 43. Glock has rested on its laurels for 30 years, and rightfully so. But if they stick with this approach much longer, they will continue to fade into the pack while newer, more innovating guns rise to the top. The P320 contract is but an appetizer for what is to come, and Glock better take notice.

For more on the subject, see Blockbuster, Polaroid and Blackberry.
 
#29 ·
IMO Glock is perfect the way it is. If they want to make an upgrade that would keep everyone happy it would be adding a finger groove panel so those who don't wish to use it, won't attach it. Don't give a damn about modular.
 
#31 ·
The only failure that Glock has made, and has done little to correct is the single stack .45 the Model 36. I've had a Sig P245 for more than 15 years and it's been dead nuts reliable and concealable. I can also, and very Glock like, run 6, 7, 8 or 10 shot mags thru the same gun. Not so the Model 36. And I don't know what the problem is with that model and why they can't seem to get it working right.

On the other hand, nobody makes a gun as chameleon like, concealable and as shootable as the Model 26 and it's other sub-compact brothers; the Model 19 is unique for it's size, capacity, and reliability And the long slide competition models; 34, 35, & 41 are unmatched by any competitor.

I don't see much to worry about....
 
#32 ·
Glock prices don't change much and they can be expensive or flirting with being expensive.

The Glock sights are a huge down fall.

Compared to other guns, Glock has more plastic and less metal for contact areas... some might feel construction is not worth cost.

M&P as well as Springfield Armory are growing as competitors and they're learning from past mistakes. Concealed world loves these two brands.

Sig P320... ehh some love em others could care less. Too early to really know its durability and versatility. Great concept.

Hk also gets a lot of liking.

I think Glock needs to improve considerations. These "summer sale models" should not be temporary. At least for the sights.

Aside from long term reliability and popularity, the best thing Glock has going is the aftermarket support versus competitors. The simplicity of the gun itself allows the average user to change parts without complicated risk for safety. You have to be careless to really screw up a drop in part whether it's centering your sights properly or dropping a trigger in. You'd have to be someone that can F up a slice of bread with butter.

I also think Glock should consider grip texture for improvement. Smith and Wesson has accomplished ergonomics to not only be sexy but I have yet to hear anyone say they did not fall in love with how the grip feels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top