| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Glock pistol series: Difference between revisions
StanTheMan (talk | contribs) m (→Other models) |
(→Please welcome me, i am new here: new section) |
||
| Line 111: | Line 111: | ||
: - I replaced the sections I previously deleted by request of MoviePropMaster2008. Essentially they are for reference right now. However, there are also a sort of placeholder as well - MPM has stated on other pages that such guns are in movie inventory, so eventually they'll get listings/entries - As such, the sections are to remain so that they don't have to be re-created later. A couple of the guns are already linked on pages I believe, but the pages may not be complete or they may not be listed for some other reason. I did remove them because at the time they weren't featured in anything, but it really wasn't my call to remove them in the first place. If there a couple variants you think are truly extraneous, you can debate it with MPM and the others.<br><BR>''The reason why we have it is so that we don't have to re-create it when an entry comes up.''<BR><BR>''Actually most Mods don't want member deleting ANY section as a rule. Usually the section WILL get an entry, it's just a matter of time. The only guns we delete are the really weird one offs that have no place on IMFDB. But a legitimate variant of a gun series that exists on IMFDB stays.''<BR><BR>Hope this answers your question. Basically there is a possibility they will be used in something, if they indeed haven't already, and so we'll have the sections there for that. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | : - I replaced the sections I previously deleted by request of MoviePropMaster2008. Essentially they are for reference right now. However, there are also a sort of placeholder as well - MPM has stated on other pages that such guns are in movie inventory, so eventually they'll get listings/entries - As such, the sections are to remain so that they don't have to be re-created later. A couple of the guns are already linked on pages I believe, but the pages may not be complete or they may not be listed for some other reason. I did remove them because at the time they weren't featured in anything, but it really wasn't my call to remove them in the first place. If there a couple variants you think are truly extraneous, you can debate it with MPM and the others.<br><BR>''The reason why we have it is so that we don't have to re-create it when an entry comes up.''<BR><BR>''Actually most Mods don't want member deleting ANY section as a rule. Usually the section WILL get an entry, it's just a matter of time. The only guns we delete are the really weird one offs that have no place on IMFDB. But a legitimate variant of a gun series that exists on IMFDB stays.''<BR><BR>Hope this answers your question. Basically there is a possibility they will be used in something, if they indeed haven't already, and so we'll have the sections there for that. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Please welcome me, i am new here == | |||
Hi I’m new here. I’m sorry if "/index.php/Talk:Glock" is the wrong place for this but I was hoping some one here on www.imfdb.org would be able to help me to choose the right one. | |||
Revision as of 12:54, 16 October 2010
2 Glocks (.45?) play prominet roles in the movie "Fracture" starring Anthony Hopkins. Don't know the model so I didn't edit the main page (80.121.38.199 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC))
Other Glock Variations
Longslide versions get their own Glock Model Numbers?
It seems kind of odd to me as to why variations of Glock pistols available with longer barrels have their own unique model numbers. Many gun websites I've been to don't seem to list such customizations with their own unique model numbers (except maybe in inventory listings or the like), but rather just mention that a particular model of pistol has a longer barrel version available. Is such a practice just for convenient reference? To satisfy customer preferences? Or for some other reason?
By the way, I appreciate all the hard work the people here have done in identifying the various Glock pistols used in the media on this site. I'd find it pretty hard myself, since barring obvious visual differences like how to tell a full-size Glock from a subcompact one apart, I wouldn't be able to tell a G17 from a G22 without seeing the number on the slide in a movie, for instance, since they look substantially the same. Something like trying to tell a G22 from a G20 would also be quite difficult without hearing a character in a movie say its caliber out aloud or seeing the number on the slide, since they are chambered for similarly-sized cartridges. I don't think its entry on the date of this comment is correct--the real-life US Marshals use Glocks chambered for .40 S&W, not 10mm Auto.
About the only exception to the aforementioned practice on Glock's end is the Glock 20, which apparently now has a factory-made longslide version (not the aftermarket ones), but to my knowledge does not have a unique Glock model number. Can someone fill me in on this? --Mazryonh 06:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The "Glock invisible"-nonsense
Here's what Hugh Laurie (yes, the "House M. D."-guy) had to say about that in his novel "The gun seller": "You may have read, at one time or another, some of the nonsense that’s been written about the Glock. The fact that its body is made from a fancy polymer material got one or two journalists very excited a while back about the possibility that the gun might not register on airport X-ray machines - which happens to be so much hooey. The slide, barrel, and a fair portion of its innards are metal, and if that weren’t enough, seventeen rounds of Parabellum ammunition are pretty hard to pass off as lipstick refills. What it does have is a high magazine capacity for a low weight, great accuracy, and virtually unequalled reliability. All of which have made the Glock 17 the choice of housewives everywhere." Dr. House, I couldn't agree more. --Lastgunslinger 22:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit that my whole perspective of Glock changed when they sued Smith & Wesson over the Sigma. I mean, they make more money from their handguns than any other company in the world and then they go and sue someone. The Glocks design is so simple it resembles every handgun, you might as well sue them all. I see the similarities but they are easily telled apart. Not a cool thing to do Glock, I wish you hadn't stooped down like that.
'Resembles Every Handgun'
"The Glocks design is so simple it resembles every handgun, you might as well sue them all."
It only resembles every handgun, because almost every brand has a Glock copy now. There wasn't anything like it back in 1982 when it was released. Back then its main competitors were the 1911, S&W 39, Berreta 92 and various wheel guns. Gunner313 Not to mention that S&W didn't just copy the Glock design they cloned it with parts that would fit into a Glock body, with potentially disastrous consequences.
A copy is a near exact of something. The S&W Sigma is the only Glock copy. The rest are just polymer pistols.--FIVETWOSEVEN 18:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Durability
- Does anyone else find it ironic that Glock's are nigh indestructable but feel really fragile?-S&Wshooter 23:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The Glocks I've fired, for the most part, don't feel extremely fragile. Sure, they don't have that 'all metal heft' that some other handguns have, which makes them lighter, and conceivably more fragile feeling, but none of mine have never felt like they would shatter if I dropped them. I might be misunderstanding what you mean, though. Acora 21:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- It just about takes a nuclear blast to destroy one, but at the same time it feels like I could cruch it with my bare hands-S&Wshooter 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Catastrophic Failure
The Portland, Oregon police department stopped offering the .45 Glock 21 as an option for Officers to carry on duty after two incidents in which the weapons exploded in the hands of the range master during testing. Afterwards reports came in from across the country of similar incidents with the Glock 21. Do all Glocks chambered for powerful cartridges (.45, 10mm) have this problem or is it just the Glock 21? Furthermore do all Glock 21s have this issue or were these just a few rare accidents? I don't particularly like Glock pistols but never considered them dangerous (at least to the user) before hearing about these incidents. -Anonymous
Hmm. Given the problems that PPB has given Glock in the past (back in the early nineties they commented that "PBB is one of those customers we can't seem to ever make happy") I'm not surprised they blame the company rather than themselves. They also refused to fly to Smyrna to allow Glock to examine one of the pistols; they also refused to allow Glock to remove even one of the allegedly defective pistols for lab tests. The PPB also failed to submit either of the pistols for independent testing, despite stating that it would.
If there was a design flaw it would have shown up long before now. Glock has ~65% of the US LEA market, mostly in .40 and while the "Short and Weak" isn't nearly as powerful as 10mm Auto, it's generally loaded to higher pressures than .45 ACP
I've used the G20 and G29 (both chambered for the far more powerful 10mm Auto round) for years and haven't had a gun explode or do anything worse that FTE when used with poor ammunition. A few years back we torture tested one with 15,000rds in a single day, it didn't explode.
Portland Police and it's standards
The Portland Police Bureau is a strange department. I've known experienced officers who have tried to get on with the PPB only to be told that they didn't meet Portland's criteria. In a couple cases they were experienced Oregon certified officers from neighboring cities. One of them spent a year in Kosovo with the U.N. civil police training task force. It's a strange city with an odd police administration. I've known a few good cops who work for Portland, but overall I'm glad that I never applied with the PPB.Ultimately I believe the politics of that part of Oregon would have driven me crazy.Very very LEFT WING. --Jcordell 15:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It's only certain Glock models that do it. I've noticed it a lot on the .40 S&W models such as the 22 or 23. The problem is that in order to increase more reliable feeding as well as to make the gun cycle more reliably, Glocks have more of their chambers cut away, which leaves parts of the case unsupported. They count on the casing to hold in the powder load. I think it happens mostly on the larger cartridges such as 10mm Auto, .40 S&W or .45ACP. Haven't heard of it happening on any of the .45GAP models though. I'm personally not a big fan of Glock pistols. I don't find them very visually appealing and I hate the lack of a manual safety. And I really, really dislike the trigger they make on it. They need to take off the little lever in the trigger, and just go to a solid double action trigger and put a manual safety on it. I'm a 1911 man, but I think there are many other designs that are better than Glock's. For example, Sig Sauer or H&K. Or Springfield's XD series. S&W Sigma. I mean the list goes on and on. I won't buy a Glock for the reasons I mentioned above. Right now, all I own are 1911s and one H&K USP .45.
- I'm a bit confused. You say that you do not like Glock pistols because you find them unattractive and you prefer a manual safety, both of which are valid reasons. But then you claim that designs from SIG Sauer, H&K USP, the Springfield XD, and the S&W Sigma -- all of which, save for a few specialty models, do not have a manual safety -- are superior to the Glock design. That just doesn't make sense. It's perfectly fine to dislike Glock pistols, but to claim that they are inferior to other designs for lacking a manual safety, when those very other designs also lack manual safeties, is rather odd. 68.39.83.179 22:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've only had hands-on experience with the Glock 21 myself. Me and my sister shot one on my birthday this year, and she had the Glock malfunction on her too, albeit not nearly as severely as the incidents mentioned above. She pulled the trigger and the weapon failed to discharge. When I cleared the chamber, I found that the pin had missed the primer and struck the back of the casing. After that though we didn't have any further problems with the weapon, that being the only round out of 50 we put through the Glock 21 that had a misfire. Orca1 9904 03:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Glock 18
what would a fully automatic pistol be used for? VIPs protection and CQC There was a fad for such machine pistols (VP-70 and M-93R for other examples).
But the Personal defense weapon have taken this firearm nitch and more. Rex095
Sort of like lasers when they first came out.--FIVETWOSEVEN 20:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
what do you mean? about the lasers
Lasers were thought to be the end-all substitute for irons yet now they are just seen as a gimmick.--FIVETWOSEVEN 18:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not really a gimmick today. People still use lasers to aim, distract someone by aiming at their eyes and for small frame guns where the iron sights are bad, like a pocket gun Excalibur01 14:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Generation 4 Glocks
I realized that the page is laking the Gen 4 Glock 17 and Gen 4 Glock 22 --Yocapo32 17:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Added the Gen 4 model for Glock 22--SB2296 17:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The picture you posted is not a 4th Generation Glock; it is an RTF (Rough Texture Frame) model, which is not the same thing. The main difference between the 4th Gen Glocks and older models is that they now have removable backstraps. And anyway, we don't need the picture until we know they've appeared in movies (and at the rate armorers buy new pistols, no time soon.) IMFDB's policy is that we don't need a picture of every variant of a gun that has ever existed (at least not on the gun's page), and especially if it hasn't appeared in anything yet. -MT2008 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Well that and the fact that the 4th Generation also has a captive recoil spring, but of course how in the hell do you show that? Shot a 4th Gen G17 today at the range. Very nice. Recovery is all that much faster. I was impressed. The company will be coming out with the 4th Gen G19 in a month or so. However the 4th Gen G21SF isn't due out until next year. Sorry 45 acp mafia. I was talking to one of the corporate guys so I feel confident that he knows what he's talking about. Anyway just some nice to know trivia.--Jcordell 05:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Glock 34
Just looking at the section for the Glock 34, only End of Days and Man on Fire. In both movies, It's used by the Main Character to attempt suicide. That's gonna be a good ad campaign: "When You Can't Go On Anymore, Reach For Your Glock 34"
1st Generation
Did the first generation of Glock pistols feature anything other than the Glock 17? I've seen second and third generation versions of nearly every model, but the only first generation pistols I've ever seen are Glock 17s. -Anonymous
A small number of first generation Glock 19's were made. - Right Wing Gun Nut
It should have only been in the glock 17...and you shouldn't see one easily because they didn't meet ATF regulation until the generation 2.--Spades of Columbia 22:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
What reg did they not meet?--FIVETWOSEVEN 18:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- 1st Gen Glock 19s do exist, but they're very rare, because Glock went to the checkered front/backstraps on all of its pistols shortly after production began. Also, the Glock 17L and Glock 18 both exist in 1st generation incarnations (though they're also pretty rare). -MT2008 19:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- So there were other 1st generation models than the 17, but were all 1st generation guns 9mms? -Anonymous
To meet American ATF regulations, a steel plate with a stamped serial number was embedded into the dust cover in front of the trigger guard for generation 2. I have seen no evidence of a first generation glock being in any other model than the 17. Even the people that claim they have a generation 1 glock 19 still only show pictures of a generation 2...so i would need to see proof on anything other model being in generation 1. but my knowledge is limited to what's available in the normal U.S.A. for some glock models are not legal to have in the states.--Spades of Columbia 19:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gen 1 Glock 19s do exist. Check out this topic from GlockTalk. -MT2008 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Other models
Why were the models that were removed before put back? I thought IMFDB didn't allow sections for variants of a gun that haven't appeared in any media. -Anonymous
- - I replaced the sections I previously deleted by request of MoviePropMaster2008. Essentially they are for reference right now. However, there are also a sort of placeholder as well - MPM has stated on other pages that such guns are in movie inventory, so eventually they'll get listings/entries - As such, the sections are to remain so that they don't have to be re-created later. A couple of the guns are already linked on pages I believe, but the pages may not be complete or they may not be listed for some other reason. I did remove them because at the time they weren't featured in anything, but it really wasn't my call to remove them in the first place. If there a couple variants you think are truly extraneous, you can debate it with MPM and the others.
The reason why we have it is so that we don't have to re-create it when an entry comes up.
Actually most Mods don't want member deleting ANY section as a rule. Usually the section WILL get an entry, it's just a matter of time. The only guns we delete are the really weird one offs that have no place on IMFDB. But a legitimate variant of a gun series that exists on IMFDB stays.
Hope this answers your question. Basically there is a possibility they will be used in something, if they indeed haven't already, and so we'll have the sections there for that. StanTheMan 05:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Please welcome me, i am new here
Hi I’m new here. I’m sorry if "/index.php/Talk:Glock" is the wrong place for this but I was hoping some one here on www.imfdb.org would be able to help me to choose the right one.