Talk:Glock/Archive 4

Pictures
Hey, can we get some sort of concensus on what pictures we put here? Maybe a gallery entry and selected pictures to describe different models plus some pictures of features and accessories in the main article. One each of all the frame styles would be sufficient. One full-size, one compact, one subcompact, one competition, and a slimline. No need for the SF models as they appear identical in the pictures. A few accessory shots. Maybe a light, compensated model, extended slide release, and keyed safety. Comments? --Asams10 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I could go for the gallery idea. Perhaps one full-size, one compact, one sub-compact, one competition, and some of the ones you mentioned.--LWF (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. I can supply a picture of my Glock 22 and its grip.  Any other member created photos might go nicely. Alyeska (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can get shots of the Glock 17C ports, adjustable sights, flashlight/laser combo. Let me clarify that by accessories I mean factory accessories. I realize there are HUNDREDS of different accessories available. --Asams10 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please, photograph your Glocks with no accessories (aftermarket or factory) attached. Maybe a shot or two showing how your Glock can be accessorised, but not every picture. People would rather see what you get straight from the factory. Also, just photos of the side of the handgun on a light coloured background are the best. Please don't make them decorative with cartridges or magazines stacked around them either. Hayden120 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I already did that, but my Glock 19 pictures were supplanted by a third-gen model pics. *sniff*  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Variety is our best option. Some stock pictures, some with one or two accessories, and some with lots of accessories.  If we could get a picture of a tan grip Glock, that would be nice. Alyeska (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes variety is good, but pictures of the stock versions are preferable for starting something like this.--LWF (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So, representative model pictures should be one-each of the representative frame sizes. Maybe a Glock 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 30, 34, 36, and one of the .45 GAP models to illustrate the slide changes. That's about 9 stock pictures. Then some option or accessory shots. One each for the light, ported barrel, adjustable and night sights (same picture, side-by-side), etc. Lead photo should be a Glock 17. We've got some of these pictures already, it'll just take some effort to put it all in a coherant order. --Asams10 (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, one representative model per frame size. Perhaps one of the safety equipped models as well. Any others? Some of the tan or OD colored models could be good.--LWF (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a safety equipped model? --Asams10 (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See 'users', Tasmania (Australia) had a special safety equipped model made for their police forces. See the reference for pictures. Hayden120 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

i have some pictures of my glock 17, an original second generation purchased in 1980, with the original box and the (2) seventeen round magazines. would it help if i gave you guys some more pictures to add to this article? the only real difference is that there are no rails and the grip does not have the finger molds that newer glocks have and i have the original high cap mags. if anyone wants them leave me a message on my talk.Killkola (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion For New Section
I think there should be a section toward the bottom of this page devoted to aftermarket support for Glocks. Agree or Disagree? ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree. This is a no brainer. I cannot imagine a section like this being anything but a hodge-podge list of ninja-additions akin to Glock forums.  There are web sites devoted to this. --Asams10 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Glock 18 (ii)
I could go out and buy a glock 18 right now. I would have to register a passport size photo with my local sheriff department and the ATF and I think get permission from my local police department. Not 100% on the requirements but I know I can get one. I can also get a confirmation and the EXACT process if you would like.

In short; I agree with the statement that the Glock 18 is available to only select civilians. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are no disagreements with this, I will change the article back in one week. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, not really. Don't believe there are transferrable.  The statement was incorrect.  Civilians can register as Class IV or Class III dealers and obtain Glock 18's for demonstration purposes with some pretty simple paperwork, incorporation, etc.  It's kindof stupid to say that it's not available to civilians as laws differ WILDLY from country to country. --Asams10 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. I can register as owning a full auto if I want.  I'll go ahead and see what I need to do and how that is possible.  I'll let you know if I make any progress on that (may take a day or two). ProtektYaNeck (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what I have so far. Not really a reliable source (in my opinion) so I will keep looking, but here you go. Class3Guns ProtektYaNeck (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Machinegun manufacture for civilian sales was banned in 1986. Glock 18 was introduced in 1987... so unless you have a time machine... --Asams10 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * They started meking the Glock 18 in 1986 just before the ban in may. There are 3 transferrable Glock 18s in the U.S. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, then there are three people who can own these three guns. But, properly registered dealers with demonstration letters and three lucky individuals are not 'available to the general public' even in the US. --Asams10 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. . . Unless anyone has any disagreements, I will change the date on the Glock 18 section to 1986 to reflect the true date that they started manufacturing it. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already announced that I was changing this date, but some people here feel like just reverting my edits instead of discussing them. I have a source: http://www.glockfaq.com/generalinfo.htm#timeline  Not too reliable but I have also gotten the same answer from the people at fullautos.com  I'll keep looking for more reliable information but unless anyone discusses reasons not to make this change, I will make it as there is no source that says 1987 that I have found.  ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Found a better source: http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bin/res.pl?keyword=Glock+18&offset=0 I will once again make the change tomorrow unless there is a discussion.  ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure... PROVIDE A RELIABLE SOURCE and you can change it, until then, it's 1987. There are transferable Glock 17's in the country that were converted prior to the ban, however those aren't Glock 18's... they may look identical as the parts that change are not physically attached to the frame (the registered item) but that does not make them genuine Glock 18's.  Again you didn't provide anything to support your position that can't be shot down with a few keystrokes.  We'd already discussed this and your argument fell short. What more discussion did you want?  You didn't bring anything else to the table! Checked both of those, and they are no better than your first one. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure... PROVIDE A RELIABLE SOURCE and you can change it, until then, it's 1987. There are transferable Glock 17's in the country that were converted prior to the ban, however those aren't Glock 18's... they may look identical as the parts that change are not physically attached to the frame (the registered item) but that does not make them genuine Glock 18's.  Again you didn't provide anything to support your position that can't be shot down with a few keystrokes.  We'd already discussed this and your argument fell short. What more discussion did you want?  You didn't bring anything else to the table! Checked both of those, and they are no better than your first one. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Where are your sources? ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, everything else on the internet! I'm not the one trying to change the article, though. I'm too lazy to look it up now, but you're using a debate tactic that rarely succeeds.  I'm not saying the article is right, I'm saying that before you go changing it, you need to provide a reliable source.  --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow how could I be so dumb as to choose my sources over your forums? Anyway, this doesn't prove anything about when it started production but I just thought it was interesting.  http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4539889  They got the patent in 1985 after filing in 82.  ProtektYaNeck (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, read WP:NPA and then lay off a bit. Nobody is saying that the patent was issued in 1987, only that it was introduced in 1987, not 1986.  Now, find a decent source so you can make the article accurate or disprove your "Theory" as to the date it was introduced. I'm not going to hunt down items to disprove your unproven theory unless you find a good enough source to in the first place.  --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you ever considered that just because some were made in 1986 doesn't mean they were introduced in 1986? It is possible they were a pre-production run prior to introduction for demonstrations or something of that nature.--LWF (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a pretty good point. I'll be sure to ask that.  I just talked to the Glock people at the Smyrna, GA headquarters and they said the first one that they had sent into America through them was in 1988.  I still have to talk to the people in Austria to see when they were manufactured and introduced.  Thanks for pointing that out though. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone here able to call Austria? I have no idea what my phone company will charge me for that.  If anyone is able, the number is +43 (0) 2247 - 90300-0  I don't even know how to dial that anyway.  Thank you.  ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Read WP:OR as even a phone call on your part would not help the situation. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. No correct information.  Got it.  I give up.  ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's the spirit. It's not what you know, it's what you can reference.  I know for a fact that Bill Clinton killed Ron Brown and Vince Foster, but I can't prove it.  Does that mean that I can put it into Wikipedia?  Heck, I can even find references that support my position. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Should the 1987 statement be in there then, since it is also unverified? ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't you all just stick to the facts. I am seeing this wiki elitist crap more and more here. Just because the statement that it was introduced in 1987 was there before, and appeals more to some 'hollier than thou' editor, doesn't mean it is correct. Like ProtektYaNeck, I challenge you to find a more reliable source for that disputed fact. Otherwise, everyone stick to the known and agreed upon facts. Patent in 1985, first produced in 1986, and introduced in the US in 1988. Since the whole world does not revolve around the US - as hard to believe as it may - the introduction date for the US should not be used as the universal introduction date. Infact I see no reason for it on wiki at all even, just put the date of first production of the line, 1986. Pink Princess (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that the Glock 18 section of the article says the weapon was "developed" in 1987 which is a complete fallacy as proven by the source: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4539889 How can something be patented before it is even developed?  ProtektYaNeck (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I completely disagree that a patent PROVES anything in the way of a date in this case, I don't think that listing any one date or even year would be appropriate. --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ProtektYaNeck definately has logic on his side, you can't put a patent on something if you don't know what it is. It's like me patenting a future invension before I even know what I'm talking about. And I am Asamuel, I agree that with these normally very secretive military weapons crap, puting exact dates is useless - so why not remove the statement saying the Glock 18 was introduced in 1988? Also is it not US-centric for you to place a date on it's introduction into the US as the ONLY date concerning it? There were Glock 18's coming of production lines and going God knows where way before 1988, just not into the US, and I believe a global introduction date/premier is much more important than that of a country with 5% of the global population. So please remove the 1988 date, and either replace with the global premier of 1986 or whatever, just not state one untill we agree, or even better place a general period like mid-1980's - if you manage to agree on that even! Pink Princess (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Magazine Capacity
There now seems to be a dozen or so mentions of various magazine capacities in the text of the article. I've done a rough count (and I'll correct the table) but there seems to be nearly 90 different magazine/pistol capacity combinations. I think the table is where these capacities should be. The magazine capacity of a particular pistol is tedious and redundant in most cases. I'd say that having maybe four mentions or so would be appropriate. One that says the original capacity of 17 rounds, one that mentions the 33-rd capacity of the Glock 18, one that talks about the single-stack magazine, and one about the limited capacity 10-rd magazines that are available for legal reasons in places. --Asams10 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Prototype glocks
At the IWA 2008 there were several prototypes with an extra rough texture for improved grip and handling. If anyone finds a good news source for this (I can only say what I saw :p) It could maybe be included as "future generations" or "new developments" etc? -- Boris Barowski (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In Service 1980?
I just noticed that in the info-box it says that the G17 entered service in 1980, while that was also the year it was designed. I read the article and it says that it was first accepted into service with the Austrian Military in 1982. Just thought I'd point that out, as it seems like a mistake, and sounds contradictory. Also I doubt it was designed and entered service in the same year. Pink Princess (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"This design however does not allow the pistol to be decocked in case of a squib round."
According to the squib load article, a squib round is an improperly loaded round with little or no powder, which leaves the projectile stuck in the barrel instead of exiting it. I fail to see how decocking would have anything to do with this, or why one would want to decock in the case of a squib round (it should be decocked already anyway, because it was fired and the action didn't cycle because there was not enough power in the round to do so). Given the nature of the striker-fired Glock design, I think the intent here is something along the lines of "This design, however, does not allow the pistol to be recocked in case of a dud round." On hammer-fired designs, if a round is a dud you can cock the hammer again (manually or, in the case of a double-action pistol, by pulling the trigger) and re-fire. A striker-fired design like the Glock cannot be re-cocked without manipulating the slide and ejecting the dud round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.155.240 (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I was thinking of a dud, I will change squib to "misfire". Koalorka (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Austrian Police
Maybe someone wants to add that the austrian Police uses also the Glock? i only see in the Article that the Bundesheer (Military) is listed.

Greetings from Vienna --86.33.137.37 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can provide a link to an official source confirming this or a piece of literature that documents this fact, I will do so. Koalorka (talk) 16:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I had added that, but someone removed it quickly, because I hadn't added a citation. This doesn't seem to be a problem for several other countries and services. But here's a citation: Or are wikipedia's Austrian Police experts not good enough?! Should I create a webpage that states the obvious, so that wikipedia can link there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.23.79.112 (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is that your reference is a Wikipedia article. That article lists the Glock 17 as being used by the Austrian police. However, this statement in that article is unreferenced. You need to obtain a verifiable externally-sourced reference before it can be added. Creating a web page yourself that states this is not good enough either, as that would not be verifiable. Jersey emt (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Variants
I made a contribition about the S.D.N. Glock 25 variant that was undone, and i dont understand why because it was the real information, the information that is on the article is wrong because what you call SDN Glock 25 version is not for mexican law enforcement but to be sell to civilians because the very cartrige restrictive gun law, mexicans are not allowed to own a gun above .38 Special or .380 ACP, anything higher is punished by many years of prision, between 8 and 12 depending on the caliber.

Picture Concensus
Per an earlier discussion, I noticed that Koalorka had added a picture that was a functional equivelant of another picture. Two pictures of compacts. The best reading I had of the concensus was that we would have one high-quality pic that was representative. Externally, there is no difference in the Glock 19 and 23. The pictures were supposed to be high quality with a neutral background and of the side of the firearm. Should we delete the Glock 19 picture now? What had been happening was that everybody and their brother was taking their camera-phone and snapping pictures of their personal Glocks posed with knives, dogs, etc. This cluttered the article. Is this still the concensus? Any dissent in the ranks on this one? --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I must have missed that discussion. I threw in the Glock 23 image as there was a relatively large void in the page and the G23 photo seemed good (neutral background). If that violated somekind of earlier format decision, go ahead, reverse it. Koalorka (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Actually, we could tweak it some so the pictures are better spaced.  Also could use one of the Glock 21 (Wow, I've got one... maybe I'll accomodate). --&#39;&#39;&#39;I am Asamuel&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Lead Picture
The lead picture is squished side-to-side. It looks like whoever took it did a resize without keeping the original proportions. Can we get a better picture? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You mean my image? What's wrong with it? The aspect ratio was preserved. Koalorka (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotta admit I'm confused too. It looks fine to me. Perhaps your monitor settings? — BQZip01 —  talk 05:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. Perhaps it was temporarily skewed, sometimes newly added images do that. By the way, can you add your field-stripped picture too Koalorka? Cheers, Hayden120 (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I lost it somehow. I'll make a new one. Koalorka (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I can make a new one myself too, but I've got the "C" model. It's a newer one as well.  When you take the picture, take it with a longer focal length too so it doesn't distort the picture as much.  Maybe I'll hook one up this evening of that and the 21 as well. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is it distorted? Koalorka (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I honestly think it's fine, and I'd much rather a standard Glock 17 for the lead picture. If you are just nitpicking about distortion (which I can't notice), download PTLens and tweak with it. Edit: okay, I just fixed it myself. It might take a few minutes to update. Some people are incredibly fussy these days... Hayden120 (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not picky, but I do have minimum standards. I know, most people don't care, but I do.  There are three types of distortion present in the original picture.  Barrel distortion (already corrected), prespective distortion from being too close to the subject and tilting as the camera was below the centerline of the firearm.  This picture has little of that (though it's not my best work.  I compared them and, yep, I'm declaring mine better... but it's not good enough for the infobox being that it's a Glock 17C.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Now it's my turn to nitpick, the background looks better white! ;) Hayden120 (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, but White also makes the exposure read wrong and under-expose the gun. Actually, I'd probably shoot with an 18% gray background and ambient light if I were shooting for publication.  White looks okay, but you've got to be careful not to screw up everything else.  This picture took me one minute to set up and one minute to process, I coulda done better with ten minutes to set up, I'm sure. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the lead image, I managed to find a very nice picture of the early model 17 which I believe would make for a fantastic introduction for the article, which goes into the changes made to the design as it matured over the years. My photo (or the one provided by Nukes) can then be placed closer to the bottom of the "Design details" section. A decent image of the so-called gen 2 version would also be very welcome. Koalorka (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a gen 2 G17 several years ago, and I think I still have some pictures of it somewhere on a flash drive or something. If I find them I'll get them up here. I'm not sure if you can tell the difference between it and a 1st gen with a side view though, which I'm pretty sure is all I have. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  03:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Magazine size
I'm noticing some listed Magazine sizes that don't match my experience with Glock pistols. For starters, where is this 17 round magazine comming from for the Glock22? I have a Glock22 and I've only ever encountered 15 round magazines. Now the 15s aren't even listed on the page. Did Glock recently revise their designs with larger magazines in the last year or two? Alyeska (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 17 round magazine for Glock 22 is a 15-round magazine with a factory +2 floorplate. The source for these capacities was the Glock Web Site. The 15 is indeed listed on the page as the standard capacity. And, no, Glock did not revise their magazines with larger capacity, they were already at maximum capacity as designed.  Smith & Wesson at one time had 14-round magazines for their model 59 and these were increased to 15.  Springfield recently increased the capacity on their XD IIRC.  But Glock hasn't done a thing... can't.  There's no room left. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Extra magazine plate, that makes sense. So a little added bulk for more capacity.  Thanks for the information. Alyeska (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Glock 18 uses a 32-round magazine, not 33-rounds as stated on the main page, unless it's referring to 32+1, but if that's the case, then it should say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.160.63 (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. Official Magazine Chart. --Winged Brick (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Standard and Compact
What are all the differences between the standard and compact pistols? I know that the compact has a 4" barrel instead of 4.5". I also know the compacts come with smaller magazines. Does that mean the pistol grip is shorter on the compacts? Meaning the compact isn't quite as tall a pistol as the full sized standards? Alyeska (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You can read the specs, but I believe the only changes are shorter barrel/slide/recoil spring and recoil spring guide as well as shorter grip/magazine. Subcompacts have more differences due to the nested recoil springs. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Sections at the Glock article
There is a discussion at Talk:Glock regarding two sections of that article and what should be done with them. One options is to merge them into this article. Please comment on the other tslk page to keep it in one place.  Gtstricky Talk or C 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)