My mother almost lost her career because of Glock.
She was a career long LEO in the Southeastern US. She carried a Sig P220 throughout her civilian law enforcement career. She was an expert marksman who always either won or placed highly in each competition she attended. She was also a firearms instructor for her county Sheriff's department.
Then Glock and their marketing folks came along and started putting money in the pockets of Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police, and other law enforcement leaders.
Next thing you know, my mother's Sheriff was telling her and the rest of the department that they had to carry a department issued Glock rather than whatever firearm they had carried for years prior.
My mother was the only one who fought this and it cost her a lot of friends and money but she eventually won the right to carry her P220. She ended up having to retire early from the county Sheriff's Department because most of her peers were hostile towards her after she went against the Sheriff.
All of this happened while I was a little boy in the 80s and 90s but to this day the only modern pistol brands I buy are Sig and CZ. I guess my bias was created in childhood, but I'll never buy or own a Glock.
A lot of departments switched away from DA/SA pistols like the P220 because they require more training to use safely. After the first shot, the trigger is much lighter. If the user doesn't decock before holstering, there's a significant risk of an unintentional discharge. It's a similar story for single action only pistols like the 1911. If that safety isn't on, the light trigger increases the chance of accidents. With striker-fired and double action only pistols, there is no need to decock or engage/disengage the safety, which is great for safely re-holstering after a stressful situation.
I can see both sides of this. It makes sense for departments to have blanket policies, but it also makes sense why she was so upset by the change.
I'm upvoting you, because I think it is a legit question.
He didn't invent striker fired pistols, or the use of polymer construction, but it was the Glock that took it from an oddball design, to 80%+ marketshare. Before the Glock, and it was a totally different world; heavy steel double and single action hammer fired pistols. Glock turned that upside down. He was amazingly influential. Maybe not as an inventor, but as a designer/engineer.
Agreed that he took what so many other engineers did and made a great reliable pistol (with a crap trigger) from them. His accomplishments are worth celebrating but he's no Browning or Stoner.
The glock made the gun, an arguably rudimentary mechanical contraction, relatively speaking, sexy, high-tech/futuristic and TACTICAL COUTURE was made a thing - then you have 5.11 - and the ramp up with all sorts of other tacctical couture lifestyle brands (triple aught, etc) Now you have tactical couture coffee in Black Rifle (which ads a veneer of "giving back" to the tactically couture marketing siphon that occurs in all industries...(the marketing siphon is in all industries)
Recall when Robo Cop came out and Ford did the placement of the Ford Taurus as the cop car in RoboCop - it made it look 'futuristic, yet based in reality.
All of a sudden the ford Taurus entered the police wardrobe.
(Have you noticed that police talk about lack of funds, low pay, and have robocallers asking for donations, yet you've never seen a dirty, old police cruiser of any sort.
They rock brand new ford whatevers all the time.
For every explorer/expedition style made, like 30% of the yield of those lines go to LEO.
5.11 used to be rock climbing gear by Royal Robbins. Then the FBI cadets started wearing them. Now they are tacticool clothes worn by all the LARPers and chairborne commandos.
Interesting. I've been wearing Royal Robbins pants for years and actually ended up with a pair of 5.11 pants that I think are excellent. I'm not surprised that there is a connection.
Screw the branding, but I spend a whole lot of time being active outside and really like clothing that is durable and moves very well.
Maybe analgous to Steve Jobs and the Mac? H&K is Xerox. Glock is not the inventor, but the person who saw the future, put it together in a commercially appealing package, and totally changed the market.
Browning is without a doubt the #1 most important/influential. His impact went beyond handguns as well.
My case for putting Glock with Browning is that Browning influenced handguns were the dominant design for a 100 years, but they have been largely replaced over the last 30 years by Glock influenced designs. If you look at handguns today, Glock is the most impactful person.
He made the polymer pistol work and created an entire industry. Polymer pistols won, everyone makes them now.
Polymer not only saves weight and cost, but also provides deformity under the stress of firing which absorbs some energy rather than sending it through your wrist.
Glock is now a platform - with patent expiration, Glock is now like 1911 with many manufacturers supporting interchange with Glock parts.
Even with many "pretty" pistols in my collection like Staccatos...I still trust the Glock 43 as my EDC and it has been flawless even with junk discount ball ammo.
its not a contest...Browning and Stoner are legends too
I agree he put together some great lightweight, reliable pistols. He wasn't the first to use polymer (H&K 12 years earlier) and no great leaps forward in engineering like Browning or Stoner. His accomplishments are to be celebrated but he's just not on par with either of those legends.
Completely tangential but I'm always conflicted about this kind of people. "Necessary" evil, I get it, but he'll be remembered for something that is solely made to kill.
Guillotin was apparently gutted that the machine ended up baring his name [0]. Someone I have more respect for.
The original Glock 17 was named because it was the company's 17th patent. The models after seem to be sequential by release date. eg: The Glock 18 is the full auto version of the Glock 17. The Glock 19 is a compact version. The Glock 20 is the 10mm caliber version. And so on. This causes confusion because the Glock 44 is chambered in .22 long rifle, while the Glock 22 is chambered in .40 caliber, the Glock 40 is chambered in 10mm, and the Glock 45 is a 9mm handgun.
Also each Glock has different generations. The 5th gen Glock 17 definitely incorporates newer patents, but the model number hasn't changed.
Some people can’t stand the idea that they might need to protect themselves. They’re not anti-gun, when they have a problem they won’t call a social worker or priest to bring a book, they’ll call a cop to bring a gun. They’re anti-gun owner. Largely I think many of them resent being reliant in a way that other people have chosen not to be.
A true innovative disruptor: a plastic handle and curtain rod maker (?) tried to make weapons for the Austrian army and won. He greatly affected urban warfare in the 90s bringing cheap accurate weapons with easier triggers to the masses.
The Glock 17 comes with 17 round magazines standard, though many police departments use extended magazines. Some pistols of that era had similar capacities, though it wasn't common. The Browning Hi Power came out in 1935 and had a 13 round capacity, and larger magazines (15ish rounds) were available by the 1970s. The Steyr GB was designed in the late 1960s and had an 18 round magazine. Glock's design became popular because it was reliabile, had good capacity, was easy to use, and was inexpensive. Other designs had one or more of those attributes, but not the combination of all of them.
Other platforms use Glock magazines because they are popular, not because they are particularly high quality. The most reliable magazines are double stack, double feed. Glock magazines (like many other pistols) are double stack, single feed. This simplifies feed ramp design, but it creates more friction in the magazines because the rounds have to slide against each other as they go from double stack to single stack at the top of the mag.
This is not to say that Glocks or their magazines are unreliable, just that a better solution exists.
Is manufacturing for them easier? I knew they weren't the best but it's what I mean by good enough. It's a high capacity pistol magazine that is a common calibur that people deem good enough. It's ubiquitous.
Glock magazine bodies are plastic with integrated metal parts, so materials costs are lower but manufacturing is harder. Some companies make Glock-compatible magazines out of metal, and those have higher capacity in the same volume (eg: Shield Arms).
I think the Glock design is excellent, but the magazine is the weakest part. It's not bad, it's just not as good as some others.
Legend has it that he did all the early test firing with his left hand so that if there were a catastrophic failure he could still draft the next version with his right.
She was a career long LEO in the Southeastern US. She carried a Sig P220 throughout her civilian law enforcement career. She was an expert marksman who always either won or placed highly in each competition she attended. She was also a firearms instructor for her county Sheriff's department.
Then Glock and their marketing folks came along and started putting money in the pockets of Sheriffs, Chiefs of Police, and other law enforcement leaders.
Next thing you know, my mother's Sheriff was telling her and the rest of the department that they had to carry a department issued Glock rather than whatever firearm they had carried for years prior.
My mother was the only one who fought this and it cost her a lot of friends and money but she eventually won the right to carry her P220. She ended up having to retire early from the county Sheriff's Department because most of her peers were hostile towards her after she went against the Sheriff.
All of this happened while I was a little boy in the 80s and 90s but to this day the only modern pistol brands I buy are Sig and CZ. I guess my bias was created in childhood, but I'll never buy or own a Glock.