4th generation Glocks?

[calvin118]

I understand that 4th generation Glocks are supposed to be coming out next year. I heard that they will have new interchangeable backstraps, but was wondering what other features might be in place. A small beavertail and steel chassis like the m&p would really be nice. I am tempted to add another glock to my collection (the 17 RTF), but wonder if it would be more prudent to just wait and see. What do you guys think? Or is the RTF the 4th generation glock and I am just confused?

Thanks.

[t1tan]

RTF is just a texture option, not a new generation.

[ToddG]

However, if you do index well with a current Glock, the adjustable backstrap feature is....irrelevant.

Not necessarily.

I can shoot a P30 in out-of-the-box configuration (all medium grip plates) just fine. But if I set it up "my" way (medium backstrap, small right panel, large left panel) I shoot it better, it's more comfortable, it points more naturally, and my access to the controls is improved.

Just because one size fits all is adequate for someone doesn't mean that improved ergonomics will be irrelevant.

Julie Golob (nee Goloski) is a great example. She certainly was able to handle a Glock well and won many, many championships with them. But she shoots the M&P better, and in no small part it's because she can set the gun up to fit her hand better.

I can drive my wife's car if I leave the front seat where it is normally, but if I adjust it to fit me properly, I'm more comfortable and my overall driving experience & ability is improved. Same same.

[JonInWA]

I agree with your logic (and empirical experience), Todd, but the critical question/issue (at least for many of us) is "How much?"

An individual shooter (in this case, either regarding the P30 and/or a current/future Glock) will have to do their own index/skill matrix-How well do they shoot with a current Gen 3 Glock (or a previous, say USP/HK2000, etc. to remain in consonance with the P30 equation), as opposed to how much better will they shoot with a gun of the same family, albeit with adjustable receiver features?

If in fact they feel that they'd shoot better with an adjustable receiver varient, they would do well to do a cost-effectiveness matrix comparing the cost of the new gun with the cost of ammunition/practice to achieve an acceptable (to the individual) level of skill/performance with the current gun.

My suggestion is merely this: In the real world, most of us have somewhat finite resources (not to say Wifely Review Boards to go before), and given the choice between spending on ammunition and practice versus getting a new gun, the "time and practice" solution is probably less expensive-especially since that with a new gun you're going to have to put in the time and practice in anyhow to ascertain the ideal set-up.

Realistically, most of us on this forum are not Julie Golobs, or David Sevigneys, or Todd Greens, so our measured improvements are not likely to be as refined, or our ability to appreciate and utilize real operational differences in subtly different receivers is of a coarser magnitude (probably not what the marketing departments of HK, Glock, Beretta, SIG-Sauer, Walther, et al want you to think).

So-I agree that there is a difference between "just fine" and "perfectly set-up." And far be it for me to dissuade anyone from making the purchase of their choice, for their individual purposes. I'm just thinking that many of us would be better off by making an informed choice, and then resisting the siren call to be forever pursuing the ultimately perfect hardware solution, instead concentrating on integrating with (and adjusting to, as necessary) the tool of choice through "software solutions-" i.e., practice, training and competitions with said tool.

And then again there's the issue of choosing an established, well fielded platform, versus choosing either a new (or significantly modified) version, as there may (at least initially) be some operational hiccups. Let me put it this way: Given a deployment to an interesting environment, where there's even a remote possibility of the indigenious populace attempting to do interesting things to my persona, and then given a choice of selecting either my Generation 3 Glock G17 or a brand-new Generation 4 Glock 17 in it's initial market appearance, I think that it's pretty much a no-brainer: I'm gonna stick with my proven (both to me individually and empirically by many others) Gen 3 G17. And frankly, I'm unlikely to choose ANY new varient for serious defensive purposes until it's been both fielded for a significant amount of time (say a year or so), and undergone some objective systemmic evaluation and testing, by people/organizations that are credible- Even if with the new varient I feel that there is a quantifiable improvement in my shooting skills (assuming, of course, that I'm shooting operationally effectively to a desired performance level with my current/earlier varient).

Now, if it comes to choosing the best gun for a MATCH, my criteria (and selection) might well be different....(particularly in the situations of a Julie Golob and a David Sevigney, where there is corporate support, both in terms of equipment, training, and ammunition {and they're at the tip of the spear for their respective manufacturers' R&D on their given platforms as well as highlighting the products for marketplace exposure}) ...(funds/Wifely Review Boards permitting in my/our individual situations).

Best, Jon

[calvin118]

Thanks very much for the replies; I actually agree with both of you.

On one hand, backstraps do make a difference for me on some guns. I shoot an MP or HK45 OK with the standard sized straps, but I am noticeably better with the larger ones. I would actually like it if HK made a "L" backstrap for the HK45 to go along with the "S" and "M" included with the gun.

On the other hand Glock 17's have always fit into the crease of my big hand very, very well- and the new RTF seems to fit even a tad better with the toned down finger grooves. Given the uncertainty of what gremlins might find their way into generation 4 and the fact that I shoot the 3rd generation 17 well, I'll probably go ahead and start looking for a deal. There will always be more money to blow in 3 years once the G4 glocks have proven themselves if I decide that there is some feature I absolutely have to have.

Speaking of which, does anyone know of any other plans for product improvement besides the backstraps?

Thanks again.

[TiroFijo]

In my particular case, since the glocks fit me just fine, I actually prefer the simpler/more rugged one piece grip instead of interchageable backstraps/sides.

[ToddG]

Jon -- I'd take it a step further. Often when people on M4C ask about buying a new handgun, my answer is "buy more bullets for the one you've already got instead." All of us could benefit from more time behind the trigger and less time at the gunshop counter.

But at the same time, realities are such that many people will buy a new gun whether they're going to get meaningful training or not. They'll buy a new gun whether they're competent with the one they've already got or not. Sometimes because it's just easier to buy a new gun. Sometimes because people like to collect guns or enjoy the girlish thrill of buying new shoes-no-I-mean-guns.

And some folks are more constrained by time than money (or at least tell themselves it's so) and therefore they really are more likely to benefit from a gun that fits/works better in their hands.

I also know, at least for myself, that a new gun tends to energize my attitude towards range practice. I'm more enthusiastic about a new gun. I'll go to the range more often, shoot more while I'm there, and pay more attention to what I'm doing than when I've been shooting the same gun for a long time.

I don't think we're disagreeing at all. A gun that can be made to fit an individual more properly is an advantage. Most people, however, would be better off putting that same investment into more practice/training.

TiroFijo -- While a one-piece frame may be simpler, there is no evidence I'm aware of to suggest it is "more rugged." Do you have any examples of adjustable-grip frames failing?

[MarshallDodge]

A gun that can be made to fit an individual more properly is an advantage. Most people, however, would be better off putting that same investment into more practice/training.

Agreed, and on the same note, a person will train/practice more with a gun that they enjoy shooting.

[RogerinTPA]

I understand that 4th generation Glocks are supposed to be coming out next year. I heard that they will have new interchangeable backstraps,..

That will be Glock's 1st step into the 21st century. I'll get a G19 if they go that route. IMHO, they are trying to catch up to the M&P, to regain market share. I owned a G23 for years (14). I shot it well, but the grip was terrible for me, felt extremely awkward and uncomfortable in my hand. They should have used the grip angle John Browning used, like the High Power. It's a much more natural, anthropometric, fit to the human hand, than the grip angle on the Glock.

[JonInWA]

I think that your assessment and summation is right on point, Todd (But, as always, it's been a good discussion, and hopefully helpful to the original poster and others).

Best, Jon