GlockTalk Forum banner

81 - 100 of 128 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,278 Posts
I’m personally not a polymer pistol guy at all. I do like them for carry due to the weight, but I only need so many carry guns. I have three Glocks (G19, G43, and G42) that I carry at different times.

Like I said earlier, I like the Glock’s trigger (for carry) and the way they point. I do shoot some other polymers better, mainly the fully cocked variety, but I don’t like that sort of trigger on a carry gun. I shoot Glocks well enough for their purpose, so it’s no big deal in that regard.

I don’t shoot other polymers well enough that I’d ever take them to the range over the many higher end metal guns I’m fortunate enough to own, so they have no purpose for me. I owned several and just never shot them much at all.

In fact, the only polymers I enjoy shooting enough to warrant trips to the range are my Strike Ones and the new Type B version of it.

I do shoot my Glocks here and there, but only cause I carry them. Otherwise they would be gathering dust. In fact, I probably wouldn’t even own them in the first place. Like other polymers, they aren’t something I particularly enjoy shooting. I have to remind myself to stick one in the range case from time to time, but it always takes the place one gun or another that I’d much rather bring. It’s more a chore than a pleasure, sad to say.

I couldn’t care less what the current market share is, but it will keep getting smaller for all the popular polymers as more and more come into the market. That’s just simple mathematics.

Not sure if this makes sense to anyone, but it does to me and that’s what I care about. :)
it makes perfect sense to me. When it comes to Glocks, I don't get excited and passionate nor full of dislike.....meh....it's a Glock. It is the only gun that when I buy a new one, I don't post a pic here. Rather I'll say: "Bought new Glock" for the thread title. In the thread I'll post "no pic coming....just close your eyes and think of a Glock".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
125,787 Posts
it makes perfect sense to me. When it comes to Glocks, I don't get excited and passionate nor full of dislike.....meh....it's a Glock. It is the only gun that when I buy a new one, I don't post a pic here. Rather I'll say: "Bought new Glock" for the thread title. In the thread I'll post "no pic coming....just close your eyes and think of a Glock".
Yeah I hear you on that :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
Have to admit when they released the g45 I was with the majority in thinking they did it backwards, but I immediately fell in love the first time I held one. Bought one two days later. I enjoy all of my Glocks, but the G45 is amazing. Don't get me wrong I would still like to see a reverse model (17 slide on 19 frame) as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,946 Posts
So tired of hearing "Glock Killer"... ME, TOO!

"Psycho Killer" by the Talking Heads is WAYYYY better!

Glock's competition started ramping up in the 90's, got serious in the early 2000's, and is oppressive now. It isn't going to get easier for Glock. As Bac noted, unless the gun market is rapidly expanding (which stopped after the Obama years), there are more people fishing for the same number of fish. That is not good for Glock, as it will force new product development OR sales margin erosion.

Glock is holding this at bay with a flurry of tweaks and aggressive marketing schemes, but that will only carry them so far.

There is no "Glock Killer", as Glock isn't going to be easily killed. It isn't exactly Lingchi (death by a thousand cuts), but the process is the roughly the same... competitors expanding into the space, and starting to slowly cut away at the business. At first (2000) it doesn't seem to have any impact. After a decade, some note the number of competitors and the success they are having and followers they are gaining. Then we see marketing with new models that are low-cost modifications to keep the sales volume churning.

It doesn't reverse. There is no happy ending with Glock re-emerging and reclaiming the throne and 99% market share like they had in the late 80's and early 90's in the polymer striker realm. They remain a viable company with loyal fans, but their market share remains roughly the same or declines. The good news for us is other brand offerings, and agressive price competition yielding lower prices. We all win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tacticaljoey

·
Registered
Joined
·
125,787 Posts
So tired of hearing "Glock Killer"... ME, TOO!

"Psycho Killer" by the Talking Heads is WAYYYY better!

Glock's competition started ramping up in the 90's, got serious in the early 2000's, and is oppressive now. It isn't going to get easier for Glock. As Bac noted, unless the gun market is rapidly expanding (which stopped after the Obama years), there are more people fishing for the same number of fish. That is not good for Glock, as it will force new product development OR sales margin erosion.

Glock is holding this at bay with a flurry of tweaks and aggressive marketing schemes, but that will only carry them so far.

There is no "Glock Killer", as Glock isn't going to be easily killed. It isn't exactly Lingchi (death by a thousand cuts), but the process is the roughly the same... competitors expanding into the space, and starting to slowly cut away at the business. At first (2000) it doesn't seem to have any impact. After a decade, some note the number of competitors and the success they are having and followers they are gaining. Then we see marketing with new models that are low-cost modifications to keep the sales volume churning.

It doesn't reverse. There is no happy ending with Glock re-emerging and reclaiming the throne and 99% market share like they had in the late 80's and early 90's in the polymer striker realm. They remain a viable company with loyal fans, but their market share remains roughly the same or declines. The good news for us is other brand offerings, and agressive price competition yielding lower prices. We all win.
Very true Gonzo

The more offerings there are, the harder it will be for all these companies to gain share, Glock or otherwise.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,946 Posts
Well the more competition there is, the more they will lose market share.

100% doesn’t get any bigger. When there was five companies building polymer service guns it was easier. Now that there are dozens, it’s a little harder to keep the same market share. Kind of common sense to me.
Very common sense. One can still be profitable, and lose market share.

In the 70's and 80's, Ford, GM, and Chrysler owned a huge chunk of the world car market, with VW, Renault, Puegeot, and Fiat being smaller players (and Datsun, Honda,Toyota, all just emerging onto the global market).
By 2000, GM, Ford, Toyota, Daimler-Chrysler, and VW made the most cars, but Nissan (Datsun) and Honda were growing fast!.
By 2016, Toyota, VW and Hyundai are the biggest three auto makers (e.g., the "Big Three" of Detroit waned, and though they may be selling more cars than they did historically, they have lost market share... the same challenge Glock is facing, regardless of whether they keep a top spot). Fiat-Chrysler isn't even in the top 7, trailing Honda, Nissan, Ford, and GM, and Daimler is out of the top ten.

Glock's most significant strength is is 30+ year-old LEO placement history. They can do trade-ins that others cannot (I have posted often about the $60 trade-in for my local, small police dept.). Do stupid low trade-ins ($60 per gun), and take the old Glock's and resell CPO/Used guns to generate the profit margin. That is what they have. They have no other significant market advantage outside of historical placements, and a good name that many are rabidly loyal to.

But new gun owners (without biases) see lots of options in lots of price points. I is a crowded market with lots of great options! The more options to choose from, the lower Glock's individual sale success rate drops. This is an undeniable path Glock is on, barring something truly remarkable in terms of gun design (which seems unlikely and unrealistic to expect of them or any other gun company).

It is good to be king, but if the money is good, lots of people will show up to take a piece of the action. You may or may not be de-throned, but you WILL lose market share! Nature and economics abhor a vacuum!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,418 Posts
Very common sense. One can still be profitable, and lose market share.

In the 70's and 80's, Ford, GM, and Chrysler owned a huge chunk of the world car market, with VW, Renault, Puegeot, and Fiat being smaller players (and Datsun, Honda,Toyota, all just emerging onto the global market).
By 2000, GM, Ford, Toyota, Daimler-Chrysler, and VW made the most cars, but Nissan (Datsun) and Honda were growing fast!.
By 2016, Toyota, VW and Hyundai are the biggest three auto makers (e.g., the "Big Three" of Detroit waned, and though they may be selling more cars than they did historically, they have lost market share... the same challenge Glock is facing, regardless of whether they keep a top spot). Fiat-Chrysler isn't even in the top 7, trailing Honda, Nissan, Ford, and GM, and Daimler is out of the top ten.

Glock's most significant strength is is 30+ year-old LEO placement history. They can do trade-ins that others cannot (I have posted often about the $60 trade-in for my local, small police dept.). Do stupid low trade-ins ($60 per gun), and take the old Glock's and resell CPO/Used guns to generate the profit margin. That is what they have. They have no other significant market advantage outside of historical placements, and a good name that many are rabidly loyal to.

But new gun owners (without biases) see lots of options in lots of price points. I is a crowded market with lots of great options! The more options to choose from, the lower Glock's individual sale success rate drops. This is an undeniable path Glock is on, barring something truly remarkable in terms of gun design (which seems unlikely and unrealistic to expect of them or any other gun company).

It is good to be king, but if the money is good, lots of people will show up to take a piece of the action. You may or may not be de-throned, but you WILL lose market share! Nature and economics abhor a vacuum!
S&W and Sig are doing the same trade in policy with PDs. It’s no secret that Glock is and has been losing market share, both civilian and LEO. It really doesn’t make a difference though. Glock’s market share will never drop enough to kill them off. We are actually pretty lucky, the amount of quality carry pistols on the market is amazing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,946 Posts
Should someone design, market, and price the perfect Glock killer they'd still be behind the 8 ball because of Glocks 30 year head start in reliability and customer service.

My 2 cents worth.
Yep. Glock will see declining market share. They will feel downward price pressures. The glory days in terms of market share are ABSOLUTELY behind them... and things get much, much harder going forward. Competition is rough, which makes it harder for Glock.

But you are right. Glock has some historical advantages and enviable market positions. So, if I were called by Gaston and asked if I wanted to run his company (even with the increasing headwinds they will face), I would give an emphatic "yes" (despite being woefully unqualified both in the business and firearms expertise realms!).

Why? It is a good product, great brand name (with a mystical loyalty factor for some), with lots of LEO placements. And you don't need 70% of the market to have a great company. You can have under 15% of the market and be kicking butt! McDonald's has ~19% of the fast food market (49% of limited burger market), but Culver's, Chik-Fil-A, and In-N-Out Burger are doing fine!

Consider the fact that Apple is the third largest smartphone brand today (behind Samsung and Huawei). Are Apple smartphones bad? Heck, no!

In 2009, RIM (Blackberry) and Nokia dominated, with Apple only having 16% (and Samsung barely getting mention).

Apple had 23% of the market in 2011 and 2012. They have declined to now having just 12% of the market! But Apple isn't dead, dying, or even gravely ill. It has lofty expectations and pressure, but they are one of the most valuable companies, and losing market share in an expanding market is expected. Did anyone think Nokia would keep 40-50% of the mobile phone market, without competition emerging to fill the vacuum of demand? No.

And we should not expect Glock to retain all of their historical market share. It just won't happen.

But there no Glock Killer in sight. Glock won't be pushed aside that easily!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,434 Posts
S&W and Sig are doing the same trade in policy with PDs. It’s no secret that Glock is and has been losing market share, both civilian and LEO. It really doesn’t make a difference though. Glock’s market share will never drop enough to kill them off. We are actually pretty lucky, the amount of quality carry pistols on the market is amazing.
It really is a good time for choices in the guns market.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,946 Posts
S&W and Sig are doing the same trade in policy with PDs. It’s no secret that Glock is and has been losing market share, both civilian and LEO. It really doesn’t make a difference though. Glock’s market share will never drop enough to kill them off. We are actually pretty lucky, the amount of quality carry pistols on the market is amazing.
Yep. Absolutely correct. But in the trade-in realm, if you have 70% of the holsters, your ability to do the trades is significantly higher. Glock's ace-in-the-hole is this historical advantage. I don't have the numbers, but it is probably safe to guess that the remaining 30% is split largely between SIG and S&W, giving each of them ~15% of the holsters. Glock's 70% looks pretty good!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
This is an undeniable path Glock is on, barring something truly remarkable in terms of gun design (which seems unlikely and unrealistic to expect of them or any other gun company).
I thought it unlikely too, then I bought and shot the Archon B and boy have they innovated.

It might be too expensive to make a big dent in the market off the bat, but shooting it is believing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,418 Posts
Yep. Absolutely correct. But in the trade-in realm, if you have 70% of the holsters, your ability to do the trades is significantly higher. Glock's ace-in-the-hole is this historical advantage. I don't have the numbers, but it is probably safe to guess that the remaining 30% is split largely between SIG and S&W, giving each of them ~15% of the holsters. Glock's 70% looks pretty good!
That would be true if companies like S&W and Sig weren’t throwing in holsters and other accessories in the deal to get departments to switch. My dept was switching out of the Sw99 years ago. T&E multiple manufactures including Glock and Sig. Smith offered M&P holsters, both belt and drop down if we stuck with Smith. Care to guess what pistol we carry?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,069 Posts
Now you know why I buy them even though I generally don't buy polymer handguns.
I do indeed. Usually you are way above my price point, but in this range I think this the best value by far. No pimped out Glock or tricked out PPQ or P10c comes even close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,927 Posts
"There is no negative to competition...
Competition is the only reason Glock has made any updates to their design."
-DerekCox.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,333 Posts
What the military or LE choice to issues mean absolutely nothing to me . Never has . Yet some give officers a choice of brands and models even . I found glocks basically dead to me back around '87 when I first tried one . Simply did not like the pistols general design . Tried a few more thru the years looking to see if the " upgrades" made a practical difference but no difference with anything that matters to me so I do not own anything gluck .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,711 Posts
What the military or LE choice to issues mean absolutely nothing to me . Never has . Yet some give officers a choice of brands and models even . I found glocks basically dead to me back around '87 when I first tried one . Simply did not like the pistols general design . Tried a few more thru the years looking to see if the " upgrades" made a practical difference but no difference with anything that matters to me so I do not own anything gluck .
I consider Glock like a Honda or Toyota. They aren't the best, but they're reliable, affordable and consistent. Once, I wasn't a fan of Glock, but as time went on I warmed up to them as my wants changed. I no longer wanted to carry a $1,000 1911. I wanted a tool that I didn't mind if it got dinged up. That is what Glock is, a tool.

I am sure there are better options out there, but Glock works for me.
 
81 - 100 of 128 Posts
Top