Talk:Glock Ges.m.b.H./Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

GLOCK vs. Glock debate

A long debate on this issue has been archived. At the time of achiving, the editor concensus was in favor of "Glock". Please visit the archive page to view opinions and arguments on the topic. If you wish to express an opinion, you please post in this section or start a new section. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Then apparently the editors are idiots. It is GLOCK. There is no debate about it. Check their website, even call and ask them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.254.152.178 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Should be added

A section about GLOCK pistols in fiction and maybe a list over military/police forces using them would be nice. kallemax 18:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody have any information about the differences between the Generations of Glocks? Seems like that is pertinent information, and I didn't see anything on it in the article (though I only scanned through). Bobbfwed 17:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Disassembly

Would anyone be interested in a pictorial step-by-step of disassembling a glock? The steps listed herein are quite thorough, but it seems to me it would be much nicer with pictures. Avriette 02:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that would fall under the Wikipedia:Not, well, the disasembly guide does so already, no? Zerak-Tul 14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It does, so I removed it. If you want to write a wikibook on firearms maintenance and use, that's the place for it. Or just make a wikibook: Gun Guide: Glock and link it from the article with an interwiki box. Night Gyr 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The section mentions the ease of disassembly, but I found the "Glock grip" required to remove the slide from the reciever to be a bit awkward at first. Definately not as easy as my Sig. Though it's still better than guns that have bushings that need to be removed. I think the statement needs to be qualified somewhat. Izuko 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

A criticism of the Glock action is that the trigger must be depressed prior to disassembly or insertion into the original design of its storage case, which can result in an unintentional discharge if the operator is extremely negligent. I'm not 100% sure, but what the hell? Eject mag Slide the slide, hold it, check the chamber, empty, let go of the slide dry-shoot carry on. If the trigger needs to be depressed prior to disassembly in this scenario it cant be criticized, every firearm has this safety protocol. And I never had to depress the trigger to get the slide off. Any comments anyone? If someone does not agree he can take that part back up. Deleting for now. Youtube proof: http://youtube.com/watch?v=CN1QJDGinwE //Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.114.147.78 (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Excessive advertising?

The article mentions the low price of a Glock three times, throughout the article, which I think is excessive. There's a whole section on their popularity where it's appropriate to talk about it, but outside of that it does smell a bit of advertising, especially alongside the regular references to how popular it is in each section.

I'd rather we were neutral, not trying to sell them.

What do others think? Should we perhaps remove some of the duplication and leave it only in the popularity section?

This might be a case for editing [say, merging two of the mentions in the same section) but number of repetitions is not in itself advertising. Editorial neutrality is a matter of overall balance, not some sort of point-by-point bookkeeping. Tychocat 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

9mm

Can the GLOCKs be custom ordered in NATO 9mm Parabellum?70.109.72.185 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would they need to be "custom ordered"? There are several Glock models (17, 18, 19, 26, et al.) that are factory chambered for 9mm Parabellum.

I think he might be asking if Glocks are made for the standard NATO loads, or whether you can only use regular 9mm loads, or whether you can do other loads like +P. The answer, if that's the question, is that Glocks will handle just about anything you throw at them, including +P loads. Some people even use +P+, but it should be noted that this is not an official designation, and can vary between manufacturers. --UNHchabo 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Standard Issue Sidearm for Canadian Military?

This is not true. The standard issue sidearm for the Canadian Army is the Browning Hi-Power for the most part and the Sig 220 in certain cases. I changed this.

Is it true that the Glock is only sold to government officials(i.e. police,army,goevernment security etc...)?

Do you mean in Canada? Certainly that is not true in the US.

It's not true in canada either, glock sells to government, military, and the public. 220.239.88.91 11:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Switch

What is the switch looking thing above and forward of the trigger on all GLOCK models. DanMP5 16:44, 11 January

That's for take-down. Pull the slide slightly back, pull that switch down, slide comes off. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank's. DanMP5 21:52, 11 January

Cho Seung-Hui

Hui used a Glock in the Virginia Tech massacre. I think this bears mentioning in the article, as this shooting incident is the most deadly in American history. The criteria that to mention it here would require listing everyone who was killed by a Glock doesn't hold, I believe. This was an extremely important incident. Astruc 18:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no good reason to mention this tidbit in this article- the article about the shooting already mentions it. It's not relevant to an encyclopedic view of the company. Friday (talk) 18:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The article about Iver-Johnsons mentions RFK and William McKinely. It's not "sensationalist" to include it in in this article, I believe. The article is not about the company. It's about the gun. Astruc 18:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree, but you already knew that. You've now reverted at least two different editors on this issue, though. Friday (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And he will be blocked if he violates the 3 RR rule. He has already removed userpage warnings. CINEGroup 20:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not an appropriate place to bring up the VT massacre or Cho. PubliusFL 20:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree.--Semper Fi, Carry on DanMP5 | contribs 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And I also agree. Yaf 21:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. This is far and away the most infamous use of a Glock handgun. There is a section in this article about popularity. It seems fitting to include this.

Should we mention in the Mobil Corporation article that Mobil gasoline was used by an arsonist? Should we mention that a Glock handgun was used by a police officer who stopped an assailant? Glock handguns are so common that there is nothing special about the fact that one was used in any specific incident. It is relevant to the specific article on the incident, but not here. I think some people are letting emotions drive their "thinking". — DAGwyn 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Dump the references to the mass murder. If it hadn't been a Glock, it would have just been another Walther. Bueller 007 11:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure many Glocks have been used in many murders. Just because this was on a large scale doesn't mean it's necessary to this article. The weapon used will doubtless be mentioned in the article regarding the massacre. Putting it here is redundant. Gamer Junkie 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If there was something specific about the Glock that enabled the shooter to commit murder on such a mass scale, then I would see a point in mentioning it. However, had Cho had a Beretta, Smith and Wesson, Sig Sauer, Springfield, Ruger...on and on...the results would have been identical. There is nothing special about the Glock that makes it more "deadly". No inclusion in article. --Gypsyjazzbo 16:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. For some reason it is ok to put a little NRA style "popular with defense-minded private citizens" blurb in the article but any mention of Cho is verboten. Of course Cho should be included, but at least modify the "defense-minded private citizens" thing to read "assault-minded, criminal-minded and defense-minded private citizens". Or remove the NRA style blurb.

Fixed. — DAGwyn 01:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Criminal minded people also wield kitchen knives, so perhaps we should add that to the necessary article. I'm no gun enthusiast, in fact, I support restrictions on weapons availability to the public, but this is a guilt tactic designed to make Glock feel bad about what they make and sell. How about next time you go to the McDonalds article and make them feel bad about selling junk food to people with a weight problem? How many people in the United States die of heart disease and high cholesterol? Whoever you are, pull your emotions into check and start behaving properly. Gamer Junkie 07:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the McDonalds article does have a long section about trans fats. It wasn't put there to "make McDonalds feel bad." About this article, I think the Glock should be mentioned. In the Wikipedia article about the biggest airline disaster in history, you will find a mention of the airplane's make and model. The disaster wasn't necessarily caused by the airplane. It was caused by poor maintenance. Still, the make and model of airplane appears in the article.Astruc 16:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

And I've already stated that in the article regarding the shooting you will find the brand and model of the gun used by Cho, which is absolutely fine, but that doesn't mean the massacre should be mentioned here. This article is about the Glock company and its products, not about every murder ever committed with a Glock pistol. Here in Australia, there was a horribly similar incident in 1996, in which a madman named Martin Bryant went on a rampage (the Port Arthur massacre) which ended in the deaths of 35 people with a further 37 suffering gunshot wounds. One of the primary weapons he used was an AR-15 assault rifle, yet there is no mention of the incident on the AR-15's respective article. Why? Because the article is about the weapon, not a murderer and not a massacre. The weapon is, of course, mentioned in the article regarding the incident, which is entirely appropriate. What does putting the Virginia Tech massacre here achieve? Is it supposed to tell us that Glock kills people? Glock make guns, guns kill, of course people will die by Glocks, as they will by Berettas, Walthers, Colts and SIGs. Gamer Junkie 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it is supposed to link to a related article, not mentioned in the text. Please assume good faith. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

And therein lies your problem, it's not a related article. The Virginia Tech massacre is a crime project article and it's related articles are Massacre, List of school massacres, etc. The Glock articles are about firearms. Related articles include other weapons and equipment manufactured by Glock and firearms articles of similar type. The Vtech massacre, while undoubtably horrific, is not the worst massacre in the United States and by far not the worst massacre in history. It's addition would not only be irrelevant, but without unique notability amongst even articles of its type. Gamer Junkie 03:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That last claim is an absolute falsehood. Look at the lead of Carcano, which mentions Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle. That's a long mention, with the greatest possible emphasis; this is the least possible evidence, enough merely to inform the reader that there is an article which relates here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In the Walther P22 discussion I said:

The problem is that people get emotional over such things, so reasonability suffers. What should be considered is the likely effect of a policy whereby notable misuses of firearms get included within the articles about the firearms themselves. Then should notable good uses (self defense, apprehension of criminals by law enforcement, etc.) be included also? How about including information about arsonist use of some brand of gasoline in the article about that oil company? Once you start going down this road, it leads to uninformative clutter. Therefore it would be bad as a general policy. If a particular model of firearm is nearly unknown except for its use in notorious crime, such as Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano rifle, or if it has special characteristics that played a major role, such as Thompson submachine guns in the Saint Valentine's Day massacre, then it seems worth mentioning in the article about that model. Otherwise, the information does indeed come under the catgeory of "trivia" and should be mentioned only in the article about the crime, if anywhere. — DAGwyn 03:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

For some reason, the majority of the reports I heard on the Virginia Tech massacre make mention of the Glock 19, but failed to include many details at all about the other weapon (I had to search for it, based on only one article I found that mentions it, it was a Walther, though it doesn't mention the model while it does say that the other was a Glock 19). If the same sort of information is to be included on the page for the other handgun manufacturer, then it would belong here too. But like the way the media seems to want to demonize Glock by constantly mentioning them and ignoring the manufacturer of the other handgun, we're looking to do the same - mention Cho Seung-Hui on the Glock page but not on the other page - I have a huge problem with that. Nolefan32 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Explosive Malfunction

Ok, we seem to be going around a bit here on the last line in the explosive malfunction section. The line says that "A contributing factor may be that, on some models at least, the slide return spring is not strong enough to ensure that the slide returns to full battery after a round is fired, when the shooter has a "limp wrist" instead of a firm grip.[1] This can be overcome by proper training."

• First of all, I agree that limp wristing can cause a jam
• Second, the source given also only talks about normal jams

I think this line needs to be removed until we have a source that directly shows that limp wristing causes explosive malfunctions --Chuck Sirloin 15:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The words "may be" were carefully chosen, since it is would be nearly impossible to determine the precise cause in such an instance. It is certainly true that the slide return spring is not strong enough on its own to ensure that the round is fully chambered, at least in the model 22s that I have seen (and this has been reported by others). I supposesomeone could perform some experiments to determine just how far out of battery the slide can be and still fire the round. Hasn't that been done? — DAGwyn 13:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can find a published report of that type of experiment, it would be great, but barring that, the 'may be' is just conjecture and really, without a source, is just original research. Again, I fully agree and could probably find sources for the fact that the slide spring can easily cause malfunctions, I just don't think we have any reason to say they can or might cause explosive malfunctions.--Chuck Sirloin 15:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that Catastrophic Failures with Glocks in 40 S&W are more of a result of a weakness in the cartridge case design, coupled with the unsupported chamber. As the case expands it gets the familiar bulge, when it's reloaded it goes through a resizing die and the case is straightened back out. The ass-end of the case gets thinner and thinner over time and multiple reloadings, when the conditions are right, it gives way and blows out where the chamber is unsupported (path of least resistance). Dremel some brass cases fired through a factory Glock and you'll see what I mean.--Mike Searson (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Misconceptions

I see this as unnecessary for this article. Almost any gun is used wrongly when portrayed onscreen. Adding such a section to this article is akin to adding content to, say, Chevy Cavalier which says "Contrary to depictions on the screen, Cavaliers do not typically fly up in the air, flip over, and explode when they are crashed into a parked car." Movies aren't real life. Friday (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The porcelain/plastic gun myth should still be discussed, as it was unique to Glocks. — DAGwyn 17:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree- I left that bit in there. Friday (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well, with both points. --Chuck Sirloin 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree (resentfully). Thanks Bruce Willis. >:-/ —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 11:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to add that this type of 'myth' was the same as many of them found in Firearm errors in media which just lost an AfD because none of them were sourced. I would like to say that the point the section was making was valid, but the way in which it was done was not. --Chuck Sirloin 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

@DAGwyn: I feel that it may be nessacary to add a comment on carbon-fiber bodies. While it dosen't strictly relate to the Glock (neither does the original sentence), carbon-fiber weapons have started to get an reputation for being undetectable. Neftaly 05:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Cavalier comment is a fine example. I think this section is/was tantamount to non-notable movie trivia. It should (and as of this writing did) go. The Die Hard "polcelain pistol" and "Glock 7" content is (unfortunately) fairly notable. It should stay. —Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 11:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why the Misconceptions section was added, removed, and re-added so many times. Aren't the guidelines clear enough that all statements must be sourced, and that if "someone's hard work" is deleted, then it should not be re-added without first obtaining consensus? Further, putting up unsourced statements, re-adding them after removal, and demanding that others add the references for you, seems to be in particularly bad form. Tragic romance 07:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If some text is accepted as probably/possibly true and the only issue is supporting references, then a "fact" (or "cn") tag should be used, and only if no reference appears after a substantial period should the disputed text be removed. There is far to much emphasis on citation as opposed to correctness. — DAGwyn 06:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Too many wiki links

This article is way over-linked. For example, everywhere that it says .45 ACP it contains the link. It would be good if someone had the time to try and clean this up to better match wiki style guidelines. Arthurrh 20:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed several double or unuseful wikilink --Boris Barowski 19:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 4, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: There are several major flaws in article which I estimate would take longer than a week to correct. In general, the article should be reviewed carefully to fit the Manual of Style.

• The introduction, per the guidelines of WP:LEAD, is severely lacking. A good intro should be an overview of the entire article and provide sufficient context on the subject; a simple definition is not sufficient. As a guideline for length, a 23 KiB article like Glock is recommended to have at least a paragraph, ideally two.
• There are single sentence paragraphs all over, including in the overview, the popularity section and others.

2. Factually accurate?: This is the central reason why I failed this article. The placement of cleanup tags (such as in Safety mechanisms) calling for additional sourcing are a part of the GA quick-fail criteria. There are a multitude of statements that are likely to be challenged that remain uncited. General sources for potentially controversial statements such as, "The Glock 22 is currently (as of mid-2006) the single most popular police sidearm in use in the United States." must be directly cited with either footnoting or Harvard referencing. Not directly sourcing with independent sources statements such as, "Glock reports sales of over 2.5 million handguns in more than 100 countries." is completely unacceptable. Passages like these are distinctly spam-like.

3. Broad in coverage?: Sections such as knives still need major expansion and improvement. The explosive malfunctions section fails to make it adequately clear with statistics how large this problem is. There is no substantial coverage of the manufacturing process, facilities and employment statistics of the company.

4. Neutral point of view?: Though there is no biased treatment of particular facts or events, the lack of proper citations and the overwhelming amount of praise for the company without accompanying criticism of any substance makes this article read like a brochure in parts. Focusing almost solely on the company's product lines rather than the facilities, history, employment record and other attributes is the central factor in this problem. Keep in mind that this is an article on the Glock company, not on Glock handguns.

5. Article stability? Does not seem to have been the subject of recent or on-going edit wars.

6. Images?: Images are of good quality and choice. Images of the the company's manufacturing process might be helpful.

Closing comments While it is customary to provide a hold period to fix problems present in an otherwise good article, I find that this article meets at least one of the quick-fail criteria and has other issues that will require more than a week's time to fix. Thus, I did not apply a hold. Please feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^(talk) 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Glock 21SF Model

Should be added to the table of models since it has different dimension then the G21?Gtstricky 20:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Firing pin safety

Glock calls the second safety mechanism "Firing pin safety", while the Wikipedia article calls it "Striker safety". Technically, I guess it's a striker since there is no hammer, but I'm tempted to change "striker" to "firing pin" nevertheless. Both because Glock calls it firing pin and because I think most people have a clue what a firing pin is but maybe not a striker.

Mr45acp 15:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen both terms used, by Glock and by others. Whatever the article calls this gizmo ought to be consistent. I would vote for "striker", but would not strongly oppose "firing pin", used consistently throughout the article. — DAGwyn 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Glock Guns -vs- Glock the Company

It seems that the article should be split into two sections: one for the company and one for the handguns. Or possibly, there should be two separate articles Glock (company) and Glock (gun). Any thoughts? Gtstricky 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going back and forth on this issue. Aside from a small line of knifes and a few other things, Glock is predominantly a producer of, well, Glocks. Because of this, were we to have one article on the company and one article on the gun, I think they'd be so much overlap that it may be better just to have it all in one article. Then again, if we had more info on the company, maybe we could split it up. 70.130.230.191 00:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Overview problem

The following sentence in the Overview makes no sense to me. If the Glock 22 is currently the most popular police sidearm, how can it be second to the Glock 17? This also looks like a run-on sentence.

"The Glock 22 is currently (as of mid-2005) the single most popular police sidearm in use in the United States, second only to its predecesor the Glock 17; because of their ease of use, reliability, and low price, Glock pistols in general are in use by over 60% of the police officers in the US. "

I agree; I had the same reaction to that sentence (no longer run-on). I edited out the "second only ..." since last I heard the 22 is now more popular among LE agencies. — DAGwyn 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

kB!

I looked around for a wikipedia entry on kB!s, and there wasn't any, but I felt odd putting it alone, so I stuck it with the article on Glocks (sorry if that irritates some of you). Also, I know that it is an issue with essentially any of the non-9mm models, but that it was most seriously affecting .40s. Is this just because they are far more widespread than their .357 SIG/10mm/.45 models? I also probably did a terrible job describing the case failure, so feel free to edit it for me.-- Wells

You are correct that it affects .40s more than other calibers. It's not just GLOCKs either, but GLOCKs get the most press (due to their widespread use). Most .40S&W pistols do not have fully supported chambers. The reason the .40 is affected most is that .40S&W is a very high pressure round, which is already operating on the threshold of safe pressures. Lord Bodak 12:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Right. I had never heard of S&Ws kb!ing (nor did I know they had the same unsupported chamber that glock has), though that is understandable as they aren't terribly popular to begin with, and certainly not among any community that would use them with enough frequency to notice a kB (ie, law enforcement or the military). However, wouldn't the 10mm models be even more suscept to kB, considering how hot 10mm is loaded? I have never handled anything in 10mm myself but I know that it's loaded pretty hot. oh, and thank you for the compliment B. Baldwin. -- Wells

I don't think that 10mm kb! are as common for a couple of reason. First, there just are not that many out there. Also when the FBI frist created the round was too hot for most agents to handle. Therefore a lot of manufactures started downloading the round. It is my understanding that most 10mm target loads have about the same balistics as their 40cal siblings, only coming from a large casing, thus meaning that the pressure is lower. -- Eagle —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC).

I thought your contribution about kb's was well written, informative, and (importantly) impartial. This is the first time I have ever used wikipedia and I was very impressed at the detail in this article, most especially by the fact that kb's are discussed. -B.Baldwin

A reference source for it would be nice. Sorry, did I say nice? I meant necessary. -- Rogerborg 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Satisfactorily I hope. Granted they are all from one site, but I'll point out that a) that particular site is that of the terms originator; and b) the site is well sourced itself, acting as kind of a repositiory/clearing house for this sort of info. Comments? Complaint? Please advise. Otherwise, they we go. Thernlund ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 05:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Term "Glock 40" limited to one youtube video

The following sentence is in the models section: "There is no "Glock 40" model, but the term is sometimes used to refer to models chambered in .40 S&W." This sentence is ambiguous. The term "Glock 40" is not used to describe Glock models chambered in .40 S&W with the exception of this video depicting a DEA agent shooting himself. Because of the popularity of this video, I can see the value in correcting this misconception of the Glock 40. However, because this misconception of the the fabled "Glock 40" stems directly from this popular video, the sentence would be more descriptive if it referenced the video. MeToday 23 November 2007

Agreed. I removed it completely as I am not sure a reference to the video is appropriate for the article and it should be fairly obvious that there is not Glock 40 since it is not in the list of models. Gtstricky (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good; it is probably best just to remove it. MeToday 02 December, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.230.191 (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Plastic pistol" myths and Explosive malfunctions sections

Looking for consensus on where (or if) these sections should be. The options are keep them here in the article on the manufacturer, move them over to Glock pistol an article on the guns, or delete them entirely. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Against move First, the 'plastic pistol myths' have nothing to do with the Glock Pistol, they are merely a media hyped fiction. They belong under the Company article because they are fiction and hype, not facts regarding the pistol. Further, the Explosive malfuctions discussion needs to be deleted, not moved. This was fanboy crap that appeared on Glock Talk and other forums as a response to a few incidents of retards shooting soft lead bullets through their pistols and creating extreme pressure explosions. It's a retarded discussion on a debunked myth that, again, has nothing to do with a factual article. Keep this stuff on the conspiracy theory boards, the forums, and the BLOGs. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you said except for the plastic myth section. Anyone looking for information on it would look in the Glock pistol article. However, I think one sentence is all that is needed. Not a whole section. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose the move. We've worked pretty hard to rid the Glock pistol page from trivia and popular culture myths. Koalorka (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sections from this article as they place to much weight on the negative aspect of the companies product when the article should be about the company, especially given that we have a detailed article on the products. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)