After all, Glock isn't that innovative, is it?

[Bluestarlizzard]

First of all, I said "burp" not "blip"

Second, 19 years *is* a burp by comparison. If it was more then a burp, it would still be on the market with new and improved models every few years.

Think BIG picture.

 

[Gats Italian]

I wasn't quoting you, so chill out. Without the VP70 pioneering plastic, even if more in the gun press saw it than did actual customers, the Glock may not have been as accepted as it became.

I don't know and you don't either, so don't be so quick to dismiss the trailblazer in favor of the settler.

 

[Bluestarlizzard]

Oh, dear. I seem to have offended the HK adoration train.

I'm so very very very sorry to the bottem of my little wittle heart.

HK burps often. Occasionally they have some really intresting ones. Hello, Squeezecocker
But the VP70Z had more issues then the inovation could overcome.
Glocks got only one that comes to mind, and that's the sensitivity to limp wrists.

The what haves, could haves arn't under discussion. What did happen is. Face facts, HK didn't change the market or the world with their first foray into the world of plastic, Glock did.
Glock picked up an a whole lot of bits and peices, put them all together an viola! We have the bases for the 2nd pistol to change the world. Love 'em or hate 'em, this is what Glock did.
That is innovation, and that's the innovation that matters.

 

[dayman]

has one aspect, pulling the trigger for disassembly, which has been avoided by everyone

The only other striker fired guns I have are an XD, and a PPQ and they both have trigger pulls as part of the take down.


To quote myself

It's my understanding that the Glock was the first pistol to have many of the features we now consider fairly standard all in one gun

emphasis added.

I wasn't saying the Glock was the first gun with any one of those features, I was saying it was the first with all of them.
I can't think of a gun that's come out in the past 100 years that isn't mostly a collection of recycled/borrowed ideas. And Glock was the first company to put together the combination that most people seem to want these days.
Whether you personally like Glocks, you can't rationally deny that Glocks, and other very similar packages (I'm talking user interface as much as mechanical design) that have come out since - like the XD, M&P, SR line, etc - control the lions share of the semi-auto market.
Does that make Gocks the best? No.
Does that make Glocks "perfection"? No.
But it certainly makes the Glock 17 an innovative design.

 

[carguychris]

My S&W 3rd generation pistols... cost less than a new Glock (...in their day).

Actually... no.

MSRP's in 1992, from Handguns '92, published by DBI Books and edited by Jack Lewis:

Glock 17: $579.95
Glock 17L: $963.15 (yowzah!)
Glock 19: $579.95
Glock 20: $638.49
Glock 21: $638.49
Glock 22: $579.95
Glock 23: $579.95

Now the closest equivalent 3rd-gen 'Smiths, fixed-sight prices quoted:

5903: $636.00
5904: $592.00
5906: $652.00
6904: $561.00
6906: $618.00
1006: $747.00
4506: $714.00
4006: $708.00
4014: $629.00

As you can see, the only 3rd-gen S&W that undercuts a kinda-sorta-equal Glock is the M6904. The 9mm 59-series and 69-series are close; the .40S&W, .45ACP, and 10mm pistols, less so.

Admittedly, I'm quoting MSRP, so things may have been different once dealer discounts were factored in. However, almost all of the S&W 3rd-gens would require a substantial markdown to match MSRP of a Glock.

Just for comparison purposes, from the same book:

Beretta 92FS: $630.00
Colt MkIV / Series 80, blue finish: $639.95
HK P7M13: $1,159.00 (yowzah!)
Ruger P85, blue: $390.50
SIG P226, 9mm, blue: $780.00
Star 30M: $495.00

 

[Bluestarlizzard]

Oh, dear. Dad came home.

"I had a VP70Z and it was a peice of crap. Horrible trigger, prone to fireing pin breakage, european mag release..."

^ this is what I mean. Yes, it had an innovation that was really great, but overall it just didn't make the splash that Glock did.

 

[Strafer Gott]

An 18 round 9mm pistol was a paramilitary or third world police force weapon in the time frame the VP70Z was offered. Magazine capacity in the pre-Glock era was low, and a Hi-cap had an advantage. Most people carried revolvers or 1911 automatics of some type, so 18 rounds provided profligate levels of ammo. The striker system probably blew a few minds, as it still does today.
I still shoot mine, but not since the ammo crisis, because I just can't afford a high sustained rate of fire anymore.

 

[5.56RifleGuy]

Ill have to remember that being first doesn't amount to to truly being first until it sells well and is widely used.

Up yours Orville and Wilber Wright.

 

[5.56RifleGuy]

Striker fire is suprisingly old too. The oldest design I have seen was the 1893 Borchardt.

 

[arch308]

The Wright brothers is a good example. Alot of people were expierementing with airplanes at the time of the Wright brothers. People here and in Europe already had gliders and were trying different means of propulsion. The Wright brothers are remembered because they were the first to get it right.

Kinda like Glock.

 

[dayman]

Ill have to remember that being first doesn't amount to to truly being first until it sells well and is widely used.

Up yours Orville and Wilber Wright.

I'm going to give you the benifit of the doubt, and say that you're being sardonic. If so, well played.

If not, "up yours Clément Ader" might be more appropriate.
What with his oddly designed bat-plane, and far less publicized (but still self-powered) flight 13 years before the Wright brothers.
The Wright brothers are remembered because they were the first ones to make sure they had a photographer.

 

[Bluestarlizzard]

Ill have to remember that being first doesn't amount to to truly being first until it sells well and is widely used

*grin* in the big scheme of things, that is all that actually matters.

Think about it, nobody really cared that there was another contenent out there until Columbus "discovered" America in 1492.
Roanoke failed, but Jamestown thrived. Does Roanoke matter? Not so much.

Being first is one thing, being remembered for being first means you made an impact.

 

[Sevens]

Gotta love someone that comes in to make a rude comment for no reason.
I replied specifically to the quoted text that came from wpsdlrg.
I also mentioned that the VP70 wasn't a success.
I didn't mention the Nylon 66 because it isn't a handgun.
Sorry that you know everything though, some people do not.
Feel free to not reply next time.

I owe you an apology. VP70 angle in your post came off as predictable to me and I should have and could have found a less caustic way to mention that, or as you suggested-- simply not posted whatsoever.

It's an odd thing on a discussion forum with hardcore enthusiasts, and there's no doubt that many of us (myself certainly included) end up quite hypocritical. We've seen some arguments and points get flipped SO MANY times that we get jaded. The fact is, however, that we must have many of the conversations multiple times... or we run out of things to talk about. And so many new folks visit here and there, it may well be the first time they've had the conversation.

I would be better served to simply roll my eyes and visit the next thread and save my snark comments. They are often unproductive.

 

[5.56RifleGuy]

Thanks. No harm done really.

I do think the glock line of pistols were very innovative, expecially when you view them in the context that they came out over 30 years ago. Its a little harder to recognise now for the fact that so many have done the same type of thing.

I was out shooting my G17 this morning. It was fun, but I would probably trade it for a VP70 if I had the chance. Only if it had the sholder stock with it though.

 

[Pilot]

I think the Glock was a very innovative pistol, and as others have said, marketed well. Glocks may not have came up with all the new stuff on their own, but they put it together well in a reliable package. BTW, I have never owned a Glock, and probably never will, but the were innovative, and a great pistol.

 

[Mystro]

At this point in time, Glock is the Cornflakes of guns. Its cheap, will fill you up, but isn't gonna excite your taste buds.

 

[Sevens]

We didn't have internet discussion forums BEFORE the Glock pistol, but if we had, I wonder what would be the most loathed firearm before the Glock arrived?

If you want to credit Glock with something a bit different, you have to be able to stand back and duly note the fact that it takes enormous, large-scale success...to also get hated so much, with so much apparent passion, by so many.

I think we'd have as much (or more?) collective *HATE* for H/K if they had as much success in the market as Glock has had.

 

[wpsdlrg]

"My S&W 3rd generation pistols... cost less than a new Glock (...in their day).
Actually... no.

MSRP's in 1992, from Handguns '92, published by DBI Books and edited by Jack Lewis:

Glock 17: $579.95
Glock 17L: $963.15 (yowzah!)
Glock 19: $579.95
Glock 20: $638.49
" Glock 21: $638.49
Glock 22: $579.95
Glock 23: $579.95

Now the closest equivalent 3rd-gen 'Smiths, fixed-sight prices quoted:

5903: $636.00
5904: $592.00
5906: $652.00
6904: $561.00
6906: $618.00
1006: $747.00
4506: $714.00
4006: $708.00
4014: $629.00 "


Whoops. My bad. Good to know.

(Did you really spend the time, to do that much research, over a point like that ?) Hmmm. Speaks volumes. Anyway, not important.

Interesting data, though, as it points to a VERY interesting conclusion about Glocks. Consider that the 3rd generation S&Ws are all-metal guns, with expensive machining as the primary production process......and Glocks (the frames) are injection molded plastic... spit out from a machine at a cost of roughly $5 a pop. Also given, thanks to your extensive research, that the Glock models quoted were assigned MSRPs very close to that of the S&Ws listed. It would therefore seem that, Glock were true innovators.....of f'ing their customers in the backside, anyway. Clearly, based on the published MSRPs quoted above, Glock overpriced the crap out of their products - which were/are FAR cheaper to manufacture.

Not really a surprise, though. The really interesting thing about all of that, for me anyway, is that all of the Glockies and LE agencies that bought/ buy them....seem to happily bend over for a little Austrian #$@&.... at every opportunity. That, too, speaks volumes.

 

[carguychris]

Consider that the 3rd generation S&Ws are all-metal guns, with expensive machining as the primary production process......and Glocks (the frames) are injection molded plastic... spit out from a machine at a cost of roughly $5 a pop. Also given, thanks to your extensive research, that the Glock models quoted were assigned MSRPs very close to that of the S&Ws listed... Clearly, based on the published MSRPs quoted above, Glock overpriced the crap out of their products - which were/are FAR cheaper to manufacture.

I'm personally convinced that the $5 Glock story is little more than an urban myth, or at least a very unrealistic oversimplified figure that doesn't take fixed costs, labor, and other overhead into account.

That said, in the book Glock: The Rise of America's Gun by Paul Barrett, the author claims that Glock's U.S. sales office initially made a very conscious and deliberate decision to set their retail prices only slightly beneath their U.S.-based competitors, even though the manufacturing process allowed them to sell the pistols for significantly less. The reason was to avoid creating the perception that the Glock was a low-end, cut-rate product- a legitimate concern given Americans' tendency to view plastic as a material used mostly in cheap things.

I think the gambit worked, and I don't see it as ripping off consumers; I see it as good marketing and salesmanship.

It's interesting to note that plastic-frame Rugers have always been much cheaper than Glocks, and back in the 80s and early 90s, metal-frame Stars were much cheaper as well. Ruger's earlier plastic-frame pistols were not particularly well accepted, and have recently been supplanted by models that are more similar to Glocks, likely deliberately so. Star is out of business, IMHO largely because their products were viewed as low-end and cut-rate, despite the fact that their quality was actually pretty good. This tells us something!

It's also instructive to note that Glock has pretty much held the line on price since the early 1990s, while other makers have created Glock-like product lines to match them. Glock likely makes less money per pistol today than in 1992, but is evidently still doing pretty well. This also tells us something.

 

[JohnKSa]

...and has one aspect, pulling the trigger for disassembly, which has been avoided by everyone.

Pulling the trigger for disassembly is a very common requirement for striker-fired pistols unless the manufacturer/designer makes a point to avoid it. When it comes to striker-fired pistols, pulling the trigger for disassembly is the norm, not the exception.

It's not an unheard of requirement even for hammer-fired pistols. The Ruger .22LR Mk I, II, II and 22/45 pistols are probably the most well-known example.

...the two piece trigger—which is a dubious "innovation,"...

There funny thing about the Glock trigger safety is that in spite of all the negative commentary about it, other manufacturers have tried to make similar guns using a different approach and failed. Ruger ended up having to recall their initial run of SR9 pistols and re-release them with what amounts to an outright copy of the Glock trigger safety.

Anyway, the biggest reason the Glock trigger safety gets so much bad press is that people make unjustified/uninformed assumptions about what it is intended to do.

I tend to agree with the basic premise of the OP that Glock's greatest innovation had more do with combining a series of at the time uncommon (though not necessarily new) features into one product than with introducing stunning new approaches to solving common firearm design problems. It helped that it was also quite durable and functional, and that it hit the market just when the market was hungry for a product like the Glock.