Talk:Glock/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Archive of old numbered model articles

The following is for quick reference:

Glock models
	Standard	Compact	Subcompact	Competition	Slimline
9mm	17 / 18	19	26	34	~
.40	22	23	27	24 / 35	~
.357	31	32	33	~	~
.380	~	25	28	~	~
10mm	20	~	29	~	~
.45	21	~	30	~	36
.45 GAP	37	38	39	~	~

Merger

I've merged the various articles per concensus and discussion. It lasted a month and lots of people had good stuff to say. Now, please put your money where your mouth is. Read the article and, if you think something is missing, put it in the article. Some examples are pictures and perhaps unique characeristics that were missed in the merge. For instance, newer Glocks have three pins instead of two. Instead of criticising, join the community and help improve. --Asams10 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the generation info for individual Glocks is now missing. Probably should be added in. Perhaps some more pistol specific information should be added in as well. The charts are a little scanty on it.--LWF (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Spent a couple of hours today skimming those individual articles and could, quite literally, find NOTHING that I thought was unique or needed to go into this article that wasn't already there. This is a chance for those who brought that up to put in some time and effort and salvage what they though was unique. I didn't see it, but I'm not perfect either. --Asams10 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This merge is an absolutely preposterous act for which I can think of no justification. A wealth of information has been lost for no conceivable reason. Congratulations. MalikCarr (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, cute comment from somebody who cares. I can tell, I know your edit history. Okay, I'll bite... WHAT information has been lost? Please lay it on the line. What information is gone? Oh, I'm waiting. I've read through the articles, have you? Preposterous? Not really. I'm begging you to defend your position. You've said that info is lost, tell me what the info is. --Asams10 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article name should be Glock pistol, following the naming of articles like M1911 pistol as all Glocks are based on the same pattern. --Philip Laurence (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be for the move. The sooner, the better. I'd just not like to be the one who goes around and makes all the redirect edits. --Asams10 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I can redirect them all if it's moved again. --Philip Laurence (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Asams10, I would encourage you to assume good faith on the part of dissenting parties - your comments above are skirting the lines civility in many ways. You can tell that I "care" based on my edit histories? Great. You know, there's an encyclopedia called Citizendium that may cater more to your tastes if you believe edit history and/or number of edits better qualifies one to have an opinion.

That said, here's just a few things that have been lost in this so-called "merge".

Okay, thanks for joining the firearms community over a month after the merge tags were placed. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Entire models have been replaced with a single sentence, which does not even indicate the model in question. For example, there is no mention of the cutout slide or reduced trigger pull of the Glock 34 and 35.

So add it. Is it that hard? You need an entire article to say what takes less than a sentence to say? --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the design history of some models. For instance, the reader would not be aware that there was a Glock 17L, and that it was discontinued when the Glock 34 and 35 were released, in the current iteration of things.

Cool, actually you'd know if you'd have spent your time improving the article rather than complaining as I said in my first post on this discussion page. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• A link was posted to the Glock corporate website for each pistol model at the end of the article. That information is now unavailable.

Wow, we could fix that in about 20 seconds. The article is, what, one day old and you spent more time adding this criticism than it would have taken to add the link to the article! --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Consistency. Why is there a Glock 18 page still? Because it has a feature for automatic fire? Because it was featured in the video game Counterstrike? Popular culture or "interesting factoids" shouldn't be, and are not, a factor for inclusion into Wikipedia. Instead, we have notability and verifiability, of which all Glock models demonstratively are.

The Glock 18 is a machine pistol and not a conventional pistol. It is therefore in another class. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Logical precedent. "All Glocks are the same except for dimensions and caliber, so they need to be merged." This is a recipe for an absolute train wreck on firearms families. The only major differences between the AKM and AK-74 are caliber and a muzzle brake, so why don't we merge those together? Or, the Browning Automatic Rifle and the wz.1928 of Polish manufacture are basically the same gun; the latter just has a different caliber and a pistol grip. Let's merge those together too. How about the AR-15 family? There's currently articles for the AR-10, AR-15, M16, M4 Carbine, and so on - they're all pretty similar, just some cosmetic differences, different calibers and accessories, these obviously aren't serving the interests of Wikipedians at large.

AKM's and AK-74's are different on numerous levels. Your ignorance of that basic fact doesn't help qualify your statements. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were a layman, and I heard someone mention "Glock 35" in conversation while passing them by on the street, what would I do to learn more about this? Either go to Google, or perhaps go straight to Wikipedia, the sum of all human knowledge. Instead of getting a concise and helpful article explaining the pistol's design history and unique faculties, with a table to show its year of introduction, production numbers, weight, dimensions, and a link to Glock's website, I'm sent to "Glock pistols" where there's a general overview of the Glock design. Great.

One would type "Glock 35" into the search box and up would pop the article that tells him everything the Glock 35 article did.--Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How have we improved the project? Created countless redirects, wasted valuable images and attributed entire handgun models to an entry on a table? Outstanding.

Nope, I've consolidated the entire Glock pistol story into one page rather than having 23 separate pages that have to say the same thing over and over again. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, if you're going to continue to be hostile and sardonic, I'll just be bold and revert the other Glock articles back into their previous functional formats. Wikipedia moves by consensus, not a majority vote, and I haven't seen a single opposition viewpoint represented in this so-called merge. MalikCarr (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your points are all interesting and I'd love to shoot them down one by one. Read above. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You still walk around act hostile to anyone who dissents on your opinion Asams10. I previously suggested you learn to calm down. Seems your still having hostility problems. Your comment about MalikCarr joining a monther after the tags were placed was nothing short of an active insult against him. You know better. Alyeska (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't even think about deleting this again Asams10. Your actions are not perceived as very pleasent. I am not the only one to make these comments. Going about and intentionaly deleting the comments is not appropriate. Alyeska (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Implying that there's more of a difference between the AKM and AK-74 than there are between various Glock models, then insulting my intelligence with it, has really undermined whatever argument you might have had in the first place. Some suggested reading for you:

• [http://www.amazon.com/Assault-Rifle-Maxim-Popenker/dp/1861267002/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200537970&sr=8-1 Assault Rifle], by Max Popenker
• [http://www.amazon.com/Military-Small-Arms-20th-Century/dp/0873418247/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200538012&sr=1-9 Military Small Arms of the Twentieth Century], by Ian V. Hogg

I'm not going to suggest you don't know what you're talking about (when someone doesn't assume good faith, you're supposed to turn the other cheek), but I am now fairly certain that this merge was made in extremely poor fashion and has not at all benefited the project, even for a generalist encyclopedia. Anyway, in lieu of the "consensus" to merge having several caveats that have not been fulfilled (e.g. more than just a mention on a table for a given model), I'll be putting the individual Glock articles back up, with an added link to this article as a "general overview". If and when this article is ever as informative and encyclopedic as the others were, then those individual pages will be outmoded. Until then... MalikCarr (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know Max, not personally but we've corresponded some. Why don't you ask him? Ian Hogg? You're trying to reference him, are you? Please. Try something by Ezell or Smith. Better yet, try building Glocks. Take the Armory course, play with piles of parts and get an idea of their interchangeability. Then, do the same thing for AK's. I've done both; I know; I've been there; you're wrong. I'm not insulting your intelligence nor am I trying to pull one over on you. You're stating lots of opinion and I disagree, however I've laid out my case clearly and completely and you didn't take part in the discussion until now. Please reread the discussion and reread the articles as they were, then feel free to join the community and try and improve this article. --Asams10 (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard Mr. Popenker is a swell guy in person; always wanted to meet him. Same goes for M. Kalashnikov, but he very rarely comes to the United States so that's doubtful. That said, I have dismantled a number of Kalashnikov actions before, in their original caliber, 5.45x39 and 5.56x45 chamberings (the Arsenal AKs are the best, if you ask me - the kind from RAA are just Saigas with AK-type furniture) - they're no different than the various Glocks are, especially if you consider aftermarket add-ons and what have you (compare to AK-74M with the integrated folding stock and smooth dust cover, vs. the older style ribbed model). I still fail to see any reason why we should have one Glock article and two Kalashnikov articles (or more if you include the regional variants; AMD-64, Rk.62, Maadi, the Romanian Garda ones, etc). MalikCarr (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Article sections for models

I would like to propose that some (or possibly even all) Glock pistol models get their own section in the new, merged article. We could start by re-adding some of the material that was left behind in the merge, cutting out the parts that are already covered in the main article. The "Overview of models" table could have links from the model numbers to each section.

The resulting article might end up being quite long, but that's not a problem. Remember, it's okay, or even preferable, to include a lot of information in articles, as long as we're avoiding material that's totally irrelevant, or that's contrary to project guidelines, such as the use of guns in video games. It's also okay if some article sections are just a few sentences.

Here's what a section could look like. This one's for the Glock 19. I wrote it by taking the old Glock 19 article, here, removing the redundant material, and rearranging it somewhat. This is not intended to be the final word on a new Glock 19 section, it's just a general example to show what I'm talking about:

---

Begin proposed section example

Development of the Glock 19 started in 1988. In 1990 it entered service in the Swedish Army as the Pistol 88B (Pistol 88 is the designation for the Glock 17).

Most law enforcement agencies that use the Glock 17 can also choose the Glock 19 for concealed carry. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) offers the Glock 19 with the "NY-2" 12 pound trigger pull as a service pistol. Israel's Shabak, uses a Glock 19C with extended slide stop, extended magazine release, Meprolight night sights and lighter 3.5 pound trigger. It is also used by USAF pilots as their personal defense weapon.

The Glock 19 has undergone two major revisions since its introduction and therefore there are three generations commonly recognized:

• Gen 1: Non-checkered front grip and rear grip.
• Gen 2: Added checkering to the front of the grip as well as rear of grip.
• Gen 3: Added molded finger grooves on front grip, built in rail on frame for light/laser. Thumb reliefs molded into frame.

End proposed section example

---

— Mudwater 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate what I said before. There is nothing unique to the Glock 19 save that it is used by the Sweedish Army, Israel, etc. In fact, hundreds of agencies use the Glock 19 as can be said about any of the Glock models. The 'generation' discussion applies to all pistols. Glock has simply evolved the line over the years. --Asams10 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a section for every model, I would suggest a simpler layout: A section discussing generations (I, II, III), and a section for operating mechanisms(recoil, blow back, and select-fire). The differences in size and caliber are handled better in a table, imo. --68.102.156.139 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about one section entitled Calibers, one entitled Sizes and a third entitled Production changes. The production changes can describe the generations and also other changes such as the three-pin and the differences in the mold and how the serial number is affixed. I think the difference of having blowback operated .380's is best discussed with a sentence under caliber. I don't think there needs to be a section on firing modes as the Glock 18 has its own article. Myself and a few other editors have said we'd write these sections. If I get some time tonight I'll write it up. --Asams10 (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and do some of this as well. By the way, this is the kind of thing I meant earlier when I mentioned more information on the individual models. Probably should have been clearer.--LWF (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Many newer pistols, the XD for exanmple, come in a wide range of sizes and calibers but they're all the same pistol. Also I think the Glock 18 should stay at it's own article because it's unique. --Philip Laurence (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Those new sections sound good. Thanks to those editors who suggested them, and to those who have worked hard on this article. But, I'm still wondering if there's a way to bring in more of the material about individual models from the old articles. If a section in the new article for each model is too extreme, how about a bulleted list of some or all of the models, either in the Variants section or in one new section? Here are bullet points for two of the models. I'm sure they could be improved by other editors, they're just intended as examples, again using material copied out of the old articles with little or no modification.

• Glock 19 — Development of the Glock 19 started in 1988. In 1990 it entered service in the Swedish Army as the Pistol 88B (Pistol 88 is the designation for the Glock 17). Most law enforcement agencies that use the Glock 17 can also choose the Glock 19 for concealed carry. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) offers the Glock 19 with the "NY-2" 12 pound trigger pull as a service pistol. Israel's Shabak, uses a Glock 19C with extended slide stop, extended magazine release, Meprolight night sights and lighter 3.5 pound trigger. It is also used by USAF pilots as their personal defense weapon.
• Glock 21SF — Another revision hit the market in Spring 2007, in an attempt to make fullsize .45 Glock more appealing to shooters with smaller hands. Glock has released the model 21SF, which stands for "Short Frame". The pistol was originally designed to compete in the now cancelled US Military Trials that were searching for a .45 ACP pistol to replace the Beretta M9. The first 21SF's designed for the military included revisions such as ambidextrous magazine release and a M1913 Picatinny rail system (which replaces the standard universal rail system on other Glock pistols), along with the frame reduction designed to make the grip more universal. The grip reduction removed material mainly from the backstrap of the grip. Initial information is that only a limited number of 21SF's in full military spec will enter the public market, and that the company is going to mass produce a grip reduced model with the 1913 style frame rails. The 21SF is currently available with the 1913 rail and the Glock rail. Glock will be adding to the options a version available with the Glock rail and the original style magazine release (for those that prefer it over the ambidextrous release).

— Mudwater 02:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Glock 19 info is cool, but are we really going to get into having all the info from all the articles included in this article? The point is that for any one model, there are dozens to hundreds of agencies who use them. Listing each of these agencies would be a fools errand of monumenal proportions. Moving down that path is also an error as it's either everything, nothing, or a meaningless compromise. I don't think that a comprehensive list is possible or even the least bit adviseable.

The Glock 21SF deserves a paragraph, I believe, as it was a shot at a huge military contract and involved significant changes to the firearm to comply with the requirements of the bid. Why don't you just add the stuff and let others pare it down. Concensus by edit. --Asams10 (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could only list militaries that use the various models? It would keep the list far shorter, and in general a military using a particular firearm is more notable than an agency. Just a thought.--LWF (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus by edit" might be a good way to re-add the material. But, should the model info be in a bulleted list? And, should it be in the Variants section, or in a new section? — Mudwater 03:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, there are two charts already that cover the models completely. I like the idea of having the sections I already listed and then give a separate paragraph or sentence where needed. For instance, to say that the Glock 19 was developed for the Swiss? or whoever, great, say it under the subsection title under Sizes/compacts. Then, under Sizes/subcompacts, we put the info on the nested recoil springs. Under Calibers/.45, we'd add a paragraph about the Glock 21SF. If you have a bulleted list, it's just like having the separate articles only it lengthens this article needlessly when this article is intended to be a clarification and consolidation. The two tables are hugely helpful and answer 90% of the questions people would have about the model differences. I also see the point that was made earlier about not wanting to condense the article to a few simple tables. --Asams10 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Uses?

Hi, I'm having a very hard time finding information on Glock pistols' specific uses. I do not know much about pistols, and I am wondering why there are so many models of Glocks. I can see from the charts that there are different calibers, sizes and weights, but some calibers have several models of Glock and I was wondering what the difference was. Or, to put it in question form: why do shooters choose one Glock model over another? There does not seem to be any mention of the intended use for the various Glock pistol models, but maybe I am looking in the wrong place. Also, what does the term "(Gen 3)" or "3rd Gen" mean? It only occurs twice in the article, and both times it is under photos with no elaboration. If anyone can put me on the right track, I thank you. --MuséeRouge (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is still evolving. 3rd gen means 3rd Generation. In the gun forum and gun review world, they describe Glock pistol variations based on generations. Third generation guns have finger-groves on the front of the grip and rails on the dust cover (most models). --Asams10 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Hayden120 (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and, first of all, I am sorry for my imperfect English.

I think that most important feature of 3rd gen. Glocks is locking block axis (above and slightly rear the axis of trigger). This feature appeared firstly in models of .40, .45 and 10 mm calibers, and on Glock 25, subcompact model in 9x19 cal, in 1996, and after that was introduced in all 9x19 models, e. g. in Glock 17. This detail used for more rugginess of the pistol's frame. In full disassembly this detail should be removed firstly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.0.210.102 (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)