Was at a new GS in town. Owner telling me that G3 are going to be discontinued since Glock was getting approval for the G5s in CA. Any truth to this?
Gen 3 to be Discontinued
-
Glocktalk is a forum community dedicated to Glock enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Glock pistols and rifles, optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, and more!
tool-time
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
Joined
·
20,631 Posts
California Bill AB 1688 seeks to eliminate California's spurious requirement that guns be able to microstamp a serial number on spent brass. Nobody can do it and nobody intends to do it. That's why California still sells the Gen 3. Not sure if the bill will pass. It is currently "in committee."
California still requires handguns to have a magazine disconnect and a loaded chamber indicator and any guns added onto the roster would have to have those spurious features.
Generation 3 Glocks are currently grandfathered in to the list of "California Complaint firearms.
www.oag.ca.gov
California still requires handguns to have a magazine disconnect and a loaded chamber indicator and any guns added onto the roster would have to have those spurious features.
Generation 3 Glocks are currently grandfathered in to the list of "California Complaint firearms.
Handguns Certified for Sale
Can someone explain why the gen.3 is ok but not other generations of Glocks?
Joined
·
18,211 Posts
Lots of folks feel like Glock changed up a good thing by “improving it.” Early Gen4 19s had the same RSA as the 23s (stiffer) so some of the weaker 9mm range ammo wouldn’t cycle reliably in the 19s (this was quickly remedied), some folks feel the finish quality around that time-frame started to drop off (I’m NOT talking about the Tenifer process), and above all- it was simply a change. The first for Glock in 12 years or so by 2010 when the Gen4 was introduced. I prefer Gen3s myself, though I do like the larger mag release of the Gen4s.
In retrospect I completely missed the context of this entire question
I believe the Gen 3 existed before the CA restrictions, so it was grandfathered in, but new Glocks either had to meet the new requirements or they couldn't be sold, thus the Gen 3 is still produced.
We all should. It's a state after all. What is allowed in one state could spread to other states, and it has. United we stand, divided we fall...
Joined
·
50,384 Posts
Folks, the Gen4 not being on the state Roster predates the enacting of the microstamping requirement (signed by Arnold in '07, but not activated by Harris until early '13). The Gen4 wasn't put on the Roster because it lacks a magazine safety and a loaded chamber indicator that meets the state's standards.
Even if the microstamping requirement didn't exist, the Gen5 (and G42/43's) still couldn't meet the magazine safety and LCI requirements.
Rumors have been circulating for some time about when/if Glock might discontinue the Gen3. Well, the company decided to begin discontinuing the Gen4, but still hasn't said anything about the Gen3.
The state of CA is still a big market for Glock, and it wouldn't be surprising if the Gen3 production (for the US market) continued for CA sales. Kind of like how S&W decided to continue producing the original version of the Shield 9/40 for the CA market (and any other state with similar restrictions that would prohibit the 2.0's from being sold to non-LE).
Even if the microstamping requirement didn't exist, the Gen5 (and G42/43's) still couldn't meet the magazine safety and LCI requirements.
Rumors have been circulating for some time about when/if Glock might discontinue the Gen3. Well, the company decided to begin discontinuing the Gen4, but still hasn't said anything about the Gen3.
The state of CA is still a big market for Glock, and it wouldn't be surprising if the Gen3 production (for the US market) continued for CA sales. Kind of like how S&W decided to continue producing the original version of the Shield 9/40 for the CA market (and any other state with similar restrictions that would prohibit the 2.0's from being sold to non-LE).
Joined
·
29,607 Posts
I'd rather be able to buy a brand new Gen 3 than a Gen 5, and for that matter, I'd be just as happy with a used one in good condition. It takes a lot of use and abuse to "wear out" a Glock.
As far as I'm concerned, the only real "Improvement" of the gen 5's over previous generations is the removal of the finger grooves. the different internals that were "Improved" were not things that were ever a problem on previous generation guns.
The only Gen 5's that I like are the G43x and the G45 but i wish they made them with both forward slide serrations and without the stupid things for those of us who don't like them and have no use for them. I also don't like the Gen 5 40 caliber guns with thier clunky and chunky fat slides, which are OK for a G22 duty gun carried OWB but not for a compact or sub-compact gun carried IWB
As far as I'm concerned, the only real "Improvement" of the gen 5's over previous generations is the removal of the finger grooves. the different internals that were "Improved" were not things that were ever a problem on previous generation guns.
The only Gen 5's that I like are the G43x and the G45 but i wish they made them with both forward slide serrations and without the stupid things for those of us who don't like them and have no use for them. I also don't like the Gen 5 40 caliber guns with thier clunky and chunky fat slides, which are OK for a G22 duty gun carried OWB but not for a compact or sub-compact gun carried IWB
Joined
·
27,646 Posts
They do that and I’ll stop buying glocks
Well...................
The only Gen3's that CA can have are Austrian made. So it could be true that all non Austrian Gen3 production is going to be halted.
Glock would be idiots to not continue to produce for what is inevitably to become their monopoly in CA.
The nuance of the whole Grandfathering in CA revolves around the production process.
Once a production process is changed in any way, and to include LOCATION of manufacture then those firearms have to be RESUBMITTED for consideration for the Approved Roster.
Since the Approved Roster now includes the requirements:
1) Loaded Chamber Indicator - just about everything has this in some way
2) Magazine Safety - many pistols already have this
3) Micro Stamping (in the form of two different locations imprinted on the ejected case that identifies, Make, Model and Serial Number)
So now nothing not already on the list can ever get added to the list. It's going to take a looooong time for the list to dwindle to convince courts the list is an infringement on the 2A.
CA law still allows folks to have a pistol. It's a matter of semantics.
We still can own any pistol just so long as there is no threaded barrel, or regular capacity magazines.
It's just a matter of semantics how it is acquired, and of course a premium comes with that.
But I've seen NOTHING in CA about any Gen5's getting allowed for sale through an FFL here. PPT are the only source, or moving here with them from another state, OR child/parent transfer (either direction) from out of state.
Joined
·
50,384 Posts
This is the current Roster listing for CA sales to the Public. Note there are 54 models still on the list (which has remained constant for quite a while).
www.oag.ca.gov
Handguns Certified for Sale
Because they are patient zero.
Every bad idea originates there. If only we nipped it in the bud there, instead "who cares".
Joined
·
50,384 Posts
This bill (AB-876) recently died in committee, but it could always come back.
Full proposed text, history and analysis can be found by using the tabs in this link:
If it had been passed ...
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
Section 13660 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
13660.
(a) All handguns purchased or acquired on or after July 1, 2023, which are described in subdivision (b), shall, within 90 days of purchase or acquisition, be equipped with a microscopic array of characters used to identify the make, model, and serial number of the handgun, etched or otherwise imprinted in one or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the handgun, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.
(b) (1) This section applies to all of the following:
(A) Any handgun owned by any state, county, city, city and county, or other law enforcement agency.
(B) Any handgun used, possessed, or otherwise carried by a state, county, city, city and county, or other peace officer while on duty.
(2) This section does not apply to a handgun that is a revolver.
(c) All handguns described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) shall, within 90 days of acquisition, be entered as an institutional weapon into the Automated Firearms System (AFS) via the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) by the state, county, city, city and county, or other law enforcement agency. Any law enforcement agency without access to the AFS shall arrange with the sheriff of the county in which the agency is located to input this information via this system.
It wasn't that long ago legislation was put on the ballot that would remove the peace officer exemption for individual purchase of high capacity magazines, restricting cops to only being able to possess/carry those hi-cap magazines issued to them by their employing agency. Luckily, it failed to pass (it had been linked to another proposed law, and both would've had to be passed to take effect).
Nothing says it can't be introduced and tried again.
Ditto this microstamping law. Interestingly, reading down in the details of the legislation that just died in committee, it appeared as though it didn't require the gun makers to provide the microstamping, but required the receiving LE agencies/peace officers to have the microstamping done after receiving the firearms. Not sure if that had anything to do with it dying in committee, but it had originally been announced as legislation intended to stimulate market interest in microstamping.
Legislators Announce Measure to Require Microstamping Technology in Law Enforcement Handguns
First-in-the-Nation Legislation Would Overcome Gun Industry Obstinance and Mark A Major Step Forward In the Adoption of Microstamping Technology; Would Increase Accountability and Transparency in Officer-Involved Shootings
Never say never ... and don't be surprised in CA legislators attempt to influence the rest of the nation's politicians. Sigh.
Full proposed text, history and analysis can be found by using the tabs in this link:
If it had been passed ...
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1.
Section 13660 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
13660.
(a) All handguns purchased or acquired on or after July 1, 2023, which are described in subdivision (b), shall, within 90 days of purchase or acquisition, be equipped with a microscopic array of characters used to identify the make, model, and serial number of the handgun, etched or otherwise imprinted in one or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the handgun, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.
(b) (1) This section applies to all of the following:
(A) Any handgun owned by any state, county, city, city and county, or other law enforcement agency.
(B) Any handgun used, possessed, or otherwise carried by a state, county, city, city and county, or other peace officer while on duty.
(2) This section does not apply to a handgun that is a revolver.
(c) All handguns described in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) shall, within 90 days of acquisition, be entered as an institutional weapon into the Automated Firearms System (AFS) via the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) by the state, county, city, city and county, or other law enforcement agency. Any law enforcement agency without access to the AFS shall arrange with the sheriff of the county in which the agency is located to input this information via this system.
It wasn't that long ago legislation was put on the ballot that would remove the peace officer exemption for individual purchase of high capacity magazines, restricting cops to only being able to possess/carry those hi-cap magazines issued to them by their employing agency. Luckily, it failed to pass (it had been linked to another proposed law, and both would've had to be passed to take effect).
Nothing says it can't be introduced and tried again.
Ditto this microstamping law. Interestingly, reading down in the details of the legislation that just died in committee, it appeared as though it didn't require the gun makers to provide the microstamping, but required the receiving LE agencies/peace officers to have the microstamping done after receiving the firearms. Not sure if that had anything to do with it dying in committee, but it had originally been announced as legislation intended to stimulate market interest in microstamping.
Legislators Announce Measure to Require Microstamping Technology in Law Enforcement Handguns
First-in-the-Nation Legislation Would Overcome Gun Industry Obstinance and Mark A Major Step Forward In the Adoption of Microstamping Technology; Would Increase Accountability and Transparency in Officer-Involved Shootings
Never say never ... and don't be surprised in CA legislators attempt to influence the rest of the nation's politicians. Sigh.
Joined
·
50,384 Posts
Well, to be fair, this is probably becoming more a thread topic for the Political Issues forum.
Personally, I wonder if we started losing our way (as a country, and individual states) when some people realized they could make a career of politics, instead of holding down a job like their constituency.
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
