Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner
41 - 60 of 80 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
Yes, Glock has made manual safeties, but upon request. I am not saying it is right, but Glock has to be able to say their trigger is safe. Period. While we can agree it is, a jury may NOT feel one without a physically activated block is safe (we even have gun owners who say that, right?). It would be a stretch, but it also would pit Glock's historical stance with the question of why introduce a safety for a gun that doesn't need a safety (I want them to, I am just saying a lawyer and a jury might confuse the heck out of that scenario!).
Then why hasn't Smith & Wesson suffered for it? They have striker-fired pistols with and without manual safeties. In other words, Smith & Wesson can say their manual safetyless striker-fired pistols are safe despite also offering ones with manual safeties, so how is this different? In my opinion it is not, so I can't see how the point is valid. Now from a marketing standpoint I can see Glock making a choice to view it this way, but that's a different matter. Still, given where we are at with Smith & Wesson and others offering a competitive advantage by offering a choice, I don't believe that is likely the case either (not in the 21st Century).

As for the oligopoly information, I don't think they could do it on a sweeping scale, but I also would be skeptical of it never happening. We can look at lysine and Archer Daniels Midland to see companies making silent agreements to prop up profitable segments of the market. It absolutely happens, and your theory may be on point.
Sorry, we already know it happens on a sweeping scale. These were not one or two banks or one or two television manufacturers that were caught. We're talking about many companies. Moreover, you have to consider what can be proven in court. If only six of a dozen manufacturers of a product are caught, that is not to say others were not involved. More importantly a systemwide oligopoly also makes sense for two reasons. First, why would manufacturers want to risk going out of business because someone comes out with a better product that drastically cuts sales for everyone else? I was a director within a Fortune 500 consumer electronics company many years ago, and I can tell you the same patterns emerged in my opinion in that industry as well to include virtually all manufacturers. Second, how could an oligopoly work when only a few companies engage in anti-competitive practices? It can't. The reason being that all of the other manufacturers not engaging in the oligopoly would be at an advantage. In fact, in my MBA textbook, they cryptically referred to tactics used by these businesses to get rid of competition that enters a particular market that would place the oligopoly at risk. The author specifically refrained from mentioning the methods specifically because you can use your imagination what people with a lot of money and power will do if all of the sudden someone builds a better product in the garage that puts all the other companies at risk. Oligopolies just can't exist when other companies share the market and are not bound by anti-competitive practices. This also means that there really are no truly free markets. Economists now use a political term to describe the market: "Imperfectly Competitive Markets".
 

·
Just pixels
Joined
·
3,085 Posts
I wonder if Glock does not like the idea of safety’s on US civilian pistols thinking it would weaken litigation defense “So why do you think some of your pistols need safety’s but others like my clients did not?”. Wherein now they can always say “We put the safety on because it was a contract requirement.” Smith and Wesson of course does it, but has a wide range of firearms they sell so less of a threat.

Anyway, yes I’d buy a “23X” in heartbeat. America went to crap when everybody started carrying 9mm’s,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,074 Posts
However, it actually wasn't a once-off offering. That was written back in 2017. Since that time the Brazilian contract G22.5's came out with a MS. So Glock continues to make MS models for contracts overseas. And of course they've been offered since 1982 for contract runs. Per the article;

The MHS also has a manual thumb safety. The first Glock pistol with manual safety was developed at the request of the Austrian Army in 1982.

So perhaps one day here in the U.S. :)
That doesn’t change any of the point value for handgun imports does it? Just wondering. I’ve heard that about other gun stuff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
496 Posts
One of the biggest lies ever perpetrated was the myth that you can't keep a secret in a room between two people. I could type all night to demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that that is not at all true. It happens all the time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,815 Posts
Would I buy one? No.

The curiosity/history factor would only interest me had they won the contract, the safety is less than interesting to me on a Glock and with the advent of proper Glock 19s available (no grooves, no cutout) I’ve moved on from my love of the 19X/45 configuration since I just shoot the shorter grip better.
 

·
Registered
Glock 45/19X
Joined
·
9,314 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 ·
That doesn’t change any of the point value for handgun imports does it? Just wondering. I’ve heard that about other gun stuff
That's a good question that I really don't know the answer to. IIRC, it's a point system based on features, weight, size etc? Like the G25 doesn't make the cut for import (IIRC). Would adding a feature like a MS detract from the point value? I wouldn't 'think' so. But I can't say for certain. And does that affect foreign owned but locally produced firearms? I don't know. :unsure:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
Sorry, we already know it happens on a sweeping scale. These were not one or two banks or one or two television manufacturers that were caught. We're talking about many companies. Moreover, you have to consider what can be proven in court. If only six of a dozen manufacturers of a product are caught, that is not to say others were not involved. More importantly a systemwide oligopoly also makes sense for two reasons. First, why would manufacturers want to risk going out of business because someone comes out with a better product that drastically cuts sales for everyone else? I was a director within a Fortune 500 consumer electronics company many years ago, and I can tell you the same patterns emerged in my opinion in that industry as well to include virtually all manufacturers. Second, how could an oligopoly work when only a few companies engage in anti-competitive practices? It can't. The reason being that all of the other manufacturers not engaging in the oligopoly would be at an advantage. In fact, in my MBA textbook, they cryptically referred to tactics used by these businesses to get rid of competition that enters a particular market that would place the oligopoly at risk. The author specifically refrained from mentioning the methods specifically because you can use your imagination what people with a lot of money and power will do if all of the sudden someone builds a better product in the garage that puts all the other companies at risk. Oligopolies just can't exist when other companies share the market and are not bound by anti-competitive practices. This also means that there really are no truly free markets. Economists now use a political term to describe the market: "Imperfectly Competitive Markets".
To be clear, I wasn't disagreeing with you. My question was more of scale (how MUCH do the companies cooperate, because if some don't, the market control weakens, and there are a LOT of competing companies from various countries... tough to herd cats!).

I agree that oligopolies exist, and that we routinely see businesses doing things to protect or enhance their business. My question is one of degree. While Glock could make quiet deals, the odds of both SIG and S&W and Beretta committing to the same terms is a bit unlikely given their diversity. I don't doubt it happens (in fact, I am sure it DOES happen). I just cannot tell what they might be able to do. It is more complex than fixing a loan rate or single ingredient from soybeans. It is civilian sales, military sales, LE sales, and in a variety of countries. Taurus's needs are different than Springfield's, which are different from Glock. Finding points of alignment is the sticking point. Glock demonstrated a willingness to bend rules when their US sales group engaged in racketeering and fraud with a distributor.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
Glock's have been the dominant gun in American law enforcement for well over 25 years now. At one point 70+% of American LE either issued or authorized Glocks for police use and carry. Current numbers have Glock holding a 65% market share. Glock sells guns as fast as they can ship them. I don't think Glock worries about the minority refusal.
I disagree. They clearly care. After all, they make guns with external safeties to try to win deals. They won the Brazil contract by providing external safeties. They tried to win the X trials by making an external safety.

They absolutely care, the questions is how big does the potential sales dollar amount have to be to get them to open the manual safety door (again, and again, and again!).

It is pretty clear they do care, or they wouldn't be selling and bidding on so many bid contracts that require a manual safety, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jr24

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
I disagree. They clearly care. After all, they make guns with external safeties to try to win deals. They won the Brazil contract by providing external safeties. They tried to win the X trials by making an external safety.

They absolutely care, the questions is how big does the potential sales dollar amount have to be to get them to open the manual safety door (again, and again, and again!).

It is pretty clear they do care, or they wouldn't be selling and bidding on so many bid contracts that require a manual safety, right?
You are most certainly entitled to disagree. But the fact remains Glock has dominated American LE for more than a quarter of a century and has done so without having sold a single department guns with external manual safeties..........

The ONLY time Glock even comes up with a gun having external manual safeties is at specific requests and these requests are very few and far between. The Glock simply does not need one........

ETA: If there were money to be made by selling guns with the external manual safety in America, why isn't Glock doing so.
 

·
NRA Life Member
Joined
·
6,440 Posts
I don't like manual safeties, magazine disconnect safeties, or decockers on carry guns. I could be swayed differently for duty weapons. Not a big deal for me on range guns. Therefore, I don't carry guns with any of those features when off duty. If you prefer a manual safety or mag disconnect, there are MANY options other than Glock. It would make more sense in my mind to choose a different gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indivi

·
Registered
Glock 45/19X
Joined
·
9,314 Posts
Discussion Starter · #53 · (Edited)
But the fact remains Glock has dominated American LE for more than a quarter of a century and has done so without having sold a single department guns with external manual safeties..........
Well, some considerations on this statement. First, the reason Glock has a lion's share of the LE market is because they have a very aggressive marketing strategy and have given sweetheart deals that were too good to pass up. I say that to their credit, it's a good strategy. But the average Officer doesn't care what is in their holster as long as they can qualify with it. Secondly, since Glock doesn't offer the U.S. market the option of a MS there is no way of knowing how many may have wanted a MS. Kind of hard to have something that isn't offered. And we can readily see that had the MHS submission been accepted our military would indeed have Glocks with a MS. Third, training in LE has gone downhill over the last several decades. The philosophy now is catering to the lowest common denominator while pushing the maximum amount through the academy. Which is why in days gone past an Officer could make quality COM shots at 50 yards with a DA revolver with a 10-12lb long trigger pull and nowadays they struggle with a 5lb short trigger pull at 15 yards. Using a MS requires a modicum of training that most academies aren't willing to spend time on.

However, the U.S. is only a small part of the world market and we of course can see other departments around the world that use Glocks with MS just fine. Including the Brazilian 40K G22.5 contract.

The Glock simply does not need one........
That is an opinion, and you are entitled to it. But factually speaking, 'Glock leg' came about for a reason and that reason was an increased incident of unintentional discharges. And the majority of those discharges would not have occurred with a properly engaged MS.

:)

The military wants them for a reason. And that reason is an increased level of safety.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Well, some considerations on this statement. First, the reason Glock has a lion's share of the LE market is because they have a very aggressive marketing strategy and have given sweetheart deals that were too good to pass up. I say that to their credit, it's a good strategy. But the average Officer doesn't care what is in their holster as long as they can qualify with it. Secondly, since Glock doesn't offer the U.S. market the option of a MS there is no way of knowing how many may have wanted a MS. Kind of hard to have something that isn't offered. And we can readily see that had the MHS submission been accepted our military would indeed have Glocks with a MS. Third, training in LE has gone downhill over the last several decades. The philosophy now is catering to the lowest common denominator while pushing the maximum amount through the academy. Which is why in days gone past an Officer could make quality COM shots at 50 yards with a DA revolver with a 10-12lb long trigger pull and nowadays they struggle with a 5lb short trigger pull at 15 yards. Using a MS requires a modicum of training that most academies aren't willing to spend time on.

However, the U.S. is only a small part of the world market and we of course can see other departments around the world that use Glocks with MS just fine. Including the Brazilian 40K G22.5 contract.



That is an opinion, and you are entitled to it. But factually speaking, 'Glock leg' came about for a reason and that reason was an increased incident of unintentional discharges. And the majority of those discharges would not have occurred with a properly engaged MS.



:)

The military wants them for a reason. And that reason is an increased level of safety.
Yeah Glock sure has a great marketing plan.

My opinion of Glock not needing an external manual safety is very factual. I can no more blame Glock for negligent handling of their product, than I can blame any firearm for "gun violence". As for me personally, I understand how the Glock works and have ZERO need and even less desire for a external manual safety. As far as I am concerned (based on three decades of carrying Glock's) proper training solves the "Glock leg" you speak of.

You want/like/need the manual safety-more power to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,814 Posts
As far as I am concerned (based on three decades of carrying Glock's) proper training solves the "Glock leg" you speak of.
Until the moment occurs that it doesn't. The potential is there at all times, it only requires an opportunity.

Looking at the external safety, it appears to be built into the trigger mechanism housing. With that said, the presence of an external safety could be very easily eliminated with a safety delete pin or kit.

I don't think Glock needs to offer a manual safety on every single Glock model, but at least cover the more popular models to some degree. Glock is already making them anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Until the moment occurs that it doesn't. The potential is there at all times, it only requires an opportunity.

Looking at the external safety, it appears to be built into the trigger mechanism housing. With that said, the presence of an external safety could be very easily eliminated with a safety delete pin or kit.

I don't think Glock needs to offer a manual safety on every single Glock model, but at least cover the more popular models to some degree. Glock is already making them anyway.
I can only speak for my experience. I was a firearms instructor for my department and helped with the successful transition to the Glock more than 2 decades ago. I have never seen a single LEO shoot themselves while holstering or unholstering their gun. Simply put: it is a training issue and Glock proved this more than 30 years ago.
 

·
Registered
Glock 45/19X
Joined
·
9,314 Posts
Discussion Starter · #59 ·
Heres a special CAUTION from the Glock Gen 3 manual:

View attachment 980185
I had forgotten about that and I'm glad you posted it in another thread. I felt it was applicable here as well. Thank you. :)

My opinion of Glock not needing an external manual safety is very factual.
I see that this is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I would submit that according to Glock's own owners manual pictured above that it isn't factual. Why do you suppose that Glock's recommendation is for civilians to not carry their Glocks in the ready to fire condition? Could it be because they don't offer a MS to civilians in the U.S. :unsure:

As for me personally, I understand how the Glock works and have ZERO need and even less desire for a external manual safety.
There have been many people that felt the same way right up to the moment they shot themselves. I wonder how they feel now?

As far as I am concerned (based on three decades of carrying Glock's) proper training solves the "Glock leg" you speak of.
There are many people that felt they had lots of training and experience that solved the chance of Glock leg...right up to the moment they shot themselves.

You want/like/need the manual safety-more power to you.
Thank you. I do like them and I think that they are particularly useful on striker-fired pistols with light triggers and short trigger travel. The advent of the term Glock leg supports that position. And it seems that Glock agrees since they make pistols with a MS while simultaneously advise those without access to them to carry the pistol in a 'not ready to fire' condition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
I had forgotten about that and I'm glad you posted it in another thread. I felt it was applicable here as well. Thank you. :)



I see that this is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I would submit that according to Glock's own owners manual pictured above that it isn't factual. Why do you suppose that Glock's recommendation is for civilians to not carry their Glocks in the ready to fire condition? Could it be because they don't offer a MS to civilians in the U.S. :unsure:

Glock tells civilians not to carry their guns loaded and ready to fire because they have no clue as to the level of training the civilians have. As a deputy (assuming deputydave means you are actually in LE, I would think this would be understood. Seems I assumed wrong in your level of understanding. I apologize.)

There have been many people that felt the same way right up to the moment they shot themselves. I wonder how they feel now?

I don't know as I have never met a person who shot themselves with a Glock.

There are many people that felt they had lots of training and experience that solved the chance of Glock leg...right up to the moment they shot themselves.

Perhaps the Glock is not the gun for them to carry.

Thank you. I do like them and I think that they are particularly useful on striker-fired pistols with light triggers and short trigger travel. The advent of the term Glock leg supports that position. And it seems that Glock agrees since they make pistols with a MS while simultaneously advise those without access to them to carry the pistol in a 'not ready to fire' condition.
Training has all but eliminated "glock leg" from the ranks of LE that it makes news when it does happen. Maybe the Glock just isn't for you.
 
41 - 60 of 80 Posts
Top