I'll get excited when Glock produces a double-stack pistol that doesn't feel like a brick. Looking at that diagram, it looks like I'll be waiting a while longer.

 

Coming from a person that truly loves the Glock design. When I saw the Glock 46, that was made for the German police (I believe.) I realize that design would never take off here in the United States. So I'm hoping their new designs really bring something great for the table.

 

https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/patents-suggest-glock-gen-6-changes.2023124/unread

We have a discussion ongoing on this.

 

Nope. The Gen 3 fits my hand. I have (6) Glocks left and am not bored with Life.

 

Personally I think Glock should explore different designs to try out. Maybe an old school DA/SA design or a DAO only model. Their amazing innovation with the Glock line could make for some new/exciting versions of other styles of handgun. Coming from Glock many people would be interested. If any company on this planet could come up with a DA/SA or DAO handgun that is pocket sized (and light) and dead nuts reliable I would bet on it being Glock. Their current line up of handguns are loved and respected (very rightfully so) but other options might appeal to other factions of the firearm community.

 

Making the grip of the pistol removable halfway up is only creating a weakspot in my opinion. I can see that thing becoming loose over time.

 

Honestly that's one of the first things I thought of when I saw the design. (loose grip) But since we don't know for sure which direction it's going.... everybody here including myself are kind of guessing.

 

It looks like Glock is answering a question no one is asking. I see zero practical need for the ability to have a frame that can go from a G26 length to a G17 length. I know there are some that will appreciate that ability, I just don't think there is a wide spread desire for it.

They would have been far better off revising their ergos even just a little bit. I had first heard they were going to change a few things on the frame to help with ergonomics, but now I'm not so sure that was accurate.

If they do go this route I don't think there are a ton of folks that are going to run out and replace their current Glocks with this new design. Just my opinion, but the grip reduction work ratio to grip chops is about 1000% to .5%.





TXPO

 

It looks like Glock is answering a question no one is asking. I see zero practical need for the ability to have a frame that can go from a G26 length to a G17 length. I know there are some that will appreciate that ability, I just don't think there is a wide spread desire for it.

I wonder if it has more to do with Glock taking care of an itch they have, as opposed to scratching an itch of ours.

If they can manufacture one frame (buy fewer complex and VERY expensive frame injection molds) and use a subset of items to make the gun small/medium/large, they can reduce manufacturing and inventory costs. The excuse would be "hey, you can change grip sizes to match the outfit you are wearing!", but the reality might be "we can make more money by trimming manufacturing costs, and this will help... just remember to have marketing tell them it is about them changing grip sizes to match the outfit they are wearing! So... you are saying we will save $14.22 per gun we sell, right? Carry the one...yep, that adds up to a lot of money!".

Dunno. Just a guess.

The TNGA-K frame is used for the Toyota Camry, Avalon, Crown, Sienna, Highlander, Grand Highlander, RAV4 and Lexus NX, ES, LX, RX, and TX. If Glock can mirror those sorts of platform-sharing savings, they probably should.

 

We'll see what they do. remember it's just a patent doesn't mean they're going to use it. many companies patent something and never get around to doing it.

 

Hopefully a 1911 grip angle.

 

If they do, I hope it's optional. I like the Glock grip angle.

 

That My Friend is a very good point! How Automotive companies try to use the same parts. Isn't that the reason why the CBP contract has all the same G19 compatible parts...for G26, G19, G47. to save $$$$

 

We keep buying Glocks with the exact same 22° angle.... if we really didn't like them, we wouldn't be buying them.

 

I own several Glocks, and I've got too much money invested in them to let them go. But I HAVE quit buying them, just because of the grip angle - it doesn't match all the other handguns I own. I solved the problem with Lone Wolf Timberwolf frames.

 

I think Glock is more focused on military and law enforcement business than the civilian side.

 

While Glock might sell more guns to government and police. They normally sell bulk at reduced prices. (like CBP contract) Making the civilian market (imo) more profitable for Glock. (higher price tag)

 

I’m not being a wise guy but do you have anything to back that up? I don’t think Glock releases details of sales and profit margins. Just curious. And I saw your “imo”. I wanted to ask anyway. Thanks.

 

The grip angel is half the reason I own a number greater than 1 of them.

 

Looks like a fix without a problem.

 

glock has stated before (say the experts) that 65% of their sales are law enforcement and government in the United States. and large portion around the world, exactIy, don't know how many. As far as police departments and governments they don't pay full price. In other words not street value. Everyone I know in law enforcement in my area gets issued a glock. And when they go buy one on their own they get police pricing. normally $100 off.

 

No needs for complications, the simplicity of the pistol is what makes Glock the best handgun on earth.

 

Exactly. And you see how many problems that Glock had when they created something different than their regular doub-stack guns. The 36 single-stack had problems and some could not be remedied , the 44 was problematic , the 42 was problematic , the 43, 43X , and 48 are not perfect , and now some Gen 5's have problems in all calibers. This is why I stay with Generation 2 and 3. New Glock products are now about the level of reliability as Ford , Dodge , and GM (crap) in my opinion.

 

Haven't bought a new Glock since my Glock 21 Generation 4 and Glock 23 Generation 3. My Generation 3 and Generation 4's are doing a fine job on EDC, HD and Competition (IDPA, USPSA) so I don't expect to buy Generation 5 or 6. As @Singlestack Wonder said, it looks like "A solution in search of a problem"!

 

Just my personal taste but I favor Glock Anything in Gen 3. But for everyone else it is nice to have choices.

 

If Glock wanted to go after more LE and Mil contracts with a one size fits all gun, they should have learned something from the MHS trials. The length of the grip has zero to do with appealing to a wide range of users hand size. It has to do with the circumference and trigger reach.

This patent design has absolutely zero effect on that, unless they have different sizes planned that aren't in the patent drawings we have seen. Based on what I can tell from those drawings though, there is an insert to lock the lower section in place, and that insert uses the backstrap channel. That means they overall circumference of the grip in theory should remain the same as it is now, since that space now has to contain the insert.

I was hoping the channel was going to be reduced on the Gen6 so as to reduce the size of the grips circumference as well as eliminating most if not all of the hump. This was what I had initially heard was planned for the Gen6 as well as the redesign of two of the backstraps that would allow the user to add the hump back on for those who liked it. This would have been a much more efficient approach then what the patent drawing is showing. I do know there are some at Glock that think modularity is the future for handguns, but I don't think this is the correct way to achieve that.

As I stated before I do grip chops, but not anywhere near the number of reductions I perform. Shops have been doing reductions on Glock pistols since the early 90's. You would think that since literally every other manufacturer out there has focused on grips that are smaller and more ergonomic than Glock, they might have a few data points to go on.

IMO a Gen6 with a flatter backstrap, slightly smaller grip circumference, better undercut on the trigger guard and maybe texturing on a few index points would likely be enough for consumers to want to buy the new designed models. For me personally, just based on the patent drawings, there is nothing about it that even makes me the slightest bit curious. There is nothing about it that makes me want or need one, it doesn't fit any need I have. YMMV

Maybe the Gen6 will be different that the drawing shown. If not, and I'm still alive by then, I'll hope the Gen7 will be the correct answer.





TXPO

 

Gen 6 will be we're going back to finger grooves.... new and improved finger grooves...hahaha

 

why glock never made the G43 a 8+1, by making the grip lil longer and wider. or a least making a +2 Glock mag. why they couldnt make the 43x at least a 13+1, by widing the grip a lil. why not making the G26 a lil longer grip (like the mod 1) and made a flush 12+1. But that's my fantasy world.

 

I love Glock Mags - durable and cheap. With that said I think if they messed with their magazine technology to fit more rounds and make them flush fit, that would appeal to me.

The competitors are either going to chassis systems or fitting more bullets into smaller magazines. I'm not crazy about the chassis systems but I wouldn't mind more rounds in my flush fit 26 magazine or Glock 43.

 

An 8 round flush fit-not extended base plate mag for the G43 and the G43x would not exist.

 

I could never understand why Glock didn't make a Double Action only revolver that was chambered in .38 super. Maybe put some ports in the barrel and and FDE finish. There! I added my ridiculous, never-gonna-happen niche goofball wish to the thread!! 🤪

 

Make it with a high polish nickel plated slide with an 8” barrel, and we’re gonna make a fortune!