Your post talked about justifying the production change. The production changes have already been put in place, and have been for various models for decades. They can do this (already have). That is my point. It is already a paved and travelled road, not some mysterious and expensive journey!Glock only does that for specific contracts so not sold to the public in the US so not so flat.
I really don't care if Glock starts selling them with thumb safety options I just know I would never buy one with the safety. If someone wants choice buy the brand making the gun they way you want.
Whether they ever allow general sales to have access is up to Glock, but that argument doesn't apply. They can find a way to add/remove serrations, add/remove finger grooves, add/remove cutouts. All trivial, just like adding a manual safety.
Your words below:
As for buying another brand, people are. For a variety of reasons. Why not remove one of those reasons?It clearly shows the No and the won't buy anyway are 70%. So why would Glock consider adding a thumb safety if it doesn't sell enough to justify the production change. Option 2 leads to a split.
Choice is simple Glock doesn't offer the thumb safety if wanted buy another brand.
New York City historically required a super-heave trigger, and Glock happily obliged, but the uproar over that has faded, and folks talk about 12 pound triggers without foaming at the mouth (and some rumors indicated NYC may switch away from that super-heavy trigger option). Glock isn't nearly as inflexible with their design offerings as some of their followers seem to be.