New Glocks this summer

[MegademiC]

They were in 1986....

30 years later and were up to 2, maybe 3 options for safe, accurate, and durable striker fired 9mm pistols.
Glock
HK
Cz/m&p 2.0 battle to the death for slot#3.

[GunsCarsBikesCigars]

picked up this bad mamma jamma. love it. replaced my hammer with it.

[scooter22]

30 years later and were up to 2, maybe 3 options for safe, accurate, and durable striker fired 9mm pistols.
Glock
HK
Cz/m&p 2.0 battle to the death for slot#3.

PPQ > MP

CZ P10 felt great at the shop. I would need an aftermarket extended mag release though


Official Kremlin Transmission

[MountainRaven]

30 years later and were up to 2, maybe 3 options for safe, accurate, and durable striker fired 9mm pistols.
Glock
HK
Cz/m&p 2.0 battle to the death for slot#3.

You forgot Steyr and Walther.

[JHC]

Well I will speak from my personal experience, Glocks have fallen a bit behind the curve. Now I am not referencing the durability or reliability of the platform, but from an ergonomic standpoint. I can confidently argue that fact simply because if they weren't, guys like me and many other wouldn't still be in business.

Sig P320's H&K, M&P, XD'd, CZ-p10's PPQ take your pick, none of them are sent in for anything other than texturing work. Almost every Glock that comes through my shop gets a reduction, finger hump removal, and undercuts. Those modifications are done for fitment, not just to look better, or grip better in the hand. Now I understand there are tons and tons of Glocks out there compared to other platforms, but the fact remains, I see more Glocks than anything else.

The biggest development on the new glock is going to be the lack of finger humps, so I will give them that, but that took how long. The back strap hump is still there, the cramped underside of the trigger guard is also still there. Overall the ergonomics on the Glock pistols have remained virtually unchanged for over 20 years. The colt 1911 and the model T come to mind when I think about it. Both were solid reliable designs, much like the Glock, but both companies suffered financially over the years due to not refining and innovating.

Lets face it, when the glock came out, pistols for the most part ergonomically were still quite blocky, aside from the 1911 and it's thinness. It was much more difficult to step outside the design box with the materials used at the time. Glock and their polymer were revolutionary, but weren't tons different, design wise than pistols at the time, other than lighter weight and higher capacity.

Now here we are in the age of polymer handguns, and most all of the other manufacturers have build pistols with smooth comfortable form fitting grips and more modern designs. This is the are where Glock has fallen behind, ergonomics plain and simple. IMO hacking off the finger humps isn't what I would consider groundbreaking a redesign. There are a few things about the new design, that IMO actually go back wards, but that conversation is for another time.

There is no reason Glock could not revamp the ergonomics of the pistol and still retain the current fire control system and other positive attributes of the current pistols. The new Glock pistol will sell without a doubt cause it is a Glock, but a revised and I mean ergo wise, design would have easily carried Glock for another 20 or 30 years.

Oh well maybe next time.

TXPO

Ergo's to feel good or ergo's that shoot gooder? The two are often not the same. If its an actual "reach" problem that's one thing. But good feeling curves do not make better shooters necessarily.

Most recent competitors offer an easier to shoot fully tensioned striker. There is that. The long term value of that will be interesting to see play out.

[ScottsBad]

30 years later and were up to 2, maybe 3 options for safe, accurate, and durable striker fired 9mm pistols.
Glock
HK
Cz/m&p 2.0 battle to the death for slot#3.

I don't know my Walther PPQ M2 has held up pretty damn well, is very accurate, and has a great trigger.

[Texaspoff]

Ergo's to feel good or ergo's that shoot gooder? The two are often not the same. If its an actual "reach" problem that's one thing. But good feeling curves do not make better shooters necessarily.

Most recent competitors offer an easier to shoot fully tensioned striker. There is that. The long term value of that will be interesting to see play out.

Trigger reach is the biggest question asked by customers when they contact me about reductions. The second is "will it get rid of the hump because it doesn't hit me right". Both of those data points could contribute to feeling good and shooting gooder... depending on each shooter.

I can run a Glock with or without any modifications and shoot them both equally. After 200 to 300 rounds, however the factory trigger guard will start to wear on my index finger causing me to milk my index finger. This can affect my overall shooting characteristics, causing me to have to think about maintaining my grip. So my example is a simple undercut, or radius change by glock would cause the factory glock to feel better, and thus allow me to shoot with more consistency during a range session. The undercut is the one thing I do with every Glock I own. Some have other work done as well, but the undercut is a must have for me.

I do agree with the point of feeling better does not always equate to better shooting. I actually think the M&P has a decent ergos overall. For the life of me, and I have tried for years to find a a good grip, but for whatever reason I can't get set with them. I have never been able to produce what I consider reasonable accuracy with them, and I know it wasn't the gun. At the same time, I am able to run the hell out of a P30 with the factory long DA/SA triggers, just because the grip fits me so well.

I tell people all the time, go to a gun shop and find a gun that feels good to you. The go to a range and rent that gun, and see how it works for you. If it is a no go, then start again. Just because it feels good in the shop doesn't mean it will work for you in the real world.

For me that gun is the APX right now. It felt pretty good in the store, and the trigger pull was just Meh, but once I took one out to the range it was like a whole other pistol. I was extremely impressed with it, so much so I went out and bought one.

TXPO

[Lee Indy]

The FNS is superior to all of them. But there is no support for it. FN doesnt really care about civilian sales it seems

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[El Pistolero]

The FNS is superior to all of them. But there is no support for it. FN doesnt really care about civilian sales it seems

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

In what way is the FNS superior?

[Lee Indy]

Ergonomics. Factory trigger. Built in mag well. Felt recoil. Full ambi. When comparing a 17 to the FNS9. The 19 wins vs the fns compact. They missed the boat shortening the barrel and the mag needing an extension to get a full 3 finger grip.

I carry a glock 19. But if the FN was similar proportions and had better support from the market Id switch completely.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk