Talk:Glock/Archive 6

"For Security Reasons" edit war
As I said in my edit summary, the term "For Security Reasons" is ambiguous and not properly established in the source. Further, it is unnecessary. You'd have to have a crystal ball to know why they did it and, as I said earlier, Janes is not perfect. The reason that all the other MG manufacturers alter their parts so they don't interchange is because the US BATFE makes them do it. Suddenly, Glock is different? Yeah, I guess that's just like Glock compensated pistols not acting like any other compensated pistol. I wonder if they actually shoot bullets? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * we shouldn't pick and choose which half of a sentence we are going to believe in a reliable source that we have established as reliable. 'for security reasons' is one half of the sentence on the janes.com source, and its interchangeability is the other half. it's unjustifiable to edit war over removing 'for security reasons' in light of this. if you have outside info about the US BATFE, provide a source for it, and add it to the article so it's not ambiguous. per wikipedia policy, your outside knowledge does not trump or justify removing half of anything considered reliable unless you provide another, more reliable source as evidence. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * on another note, http://glockstore.com/blog_detail/74_Compensated_vs_Ported_Barrels is not a reliable source and should be removed. it's a blog. are you going to fight it if i remove it? Theserialcomma (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you're dodging the bottom line. The term, "For secruity reasons" is not a supportable statement.  It implies that they knew what Glock was THINKING when they brought it out.  I don't either, but my conjecture is just as good as Janes'.  Now, that makes the statement unsupportable and calls the source into question.


 * Second, are you SERIOUSLY calling one of five sources provided into question when it agreed with the other four? I believe that this is a case for you to bring up with the WP community board, not here.  If the other four are reliable, and this single source agrees with them, it's reliable also, eh?  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To respond to your second point: No. an unreliable source that agrees with other sources does not become reliable. never. never ever. sorry. to respond to your first point: "for security reasons" is supportable because it's exactly what the reliable source says. end of story. if you have a source that can expand on what 'for security reasons' implies, please provide it. until then, rejecting one half a sentence and accepting the other half of a source is just ridiculous. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is a bit much. Insisting that Janes' exact wording must be used in the article, when it's in fact confusing wording for normal people, is abusive policy legalism here. Serialcomma, there is a significant difference between "A reliable source said this and we must quote it verbatim" (what you're asserting) and "A reliable source indicated this, so we're going to assume it's correct but paraphrase it in the most unambiguous for non-experts manner that we can" which is what Wikipedia RS and V are all about, really.

Knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comma said, "No. an unreliable source that agrees with other sources does not become reliable. never. never ever. sorry." Perhaps I was not explaining my point in enough detail.  The source is only there to confirm what the other four sources (provided at your demand) also corroborate.  Therefore, the information being used for that source is reliable even though it does not necessarily meet your litmus test for what a reliable source is.  That's my point as it was in the previous reference I gave for the Glock 18 interchangeability.  That point is one you conceded and I'm using the same logic to refute your argument in this case as well. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Poping in from the RS noticeboard... If you have four good sources, there is no need to back them up or confirm them with one that is unreliable... Just take out the glockstore.com ref and rely on the others. Blueboar (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is, Serialcomma apparently thinks that four sources aren't enough. —  Dan MP5  14:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * the problem is, serialcomma thinks four sources are too many Theserialcomma (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to be Serialcomma nitpicking after having his/her wiki-ego shattered, bogging editors down in a petty competition of wit instead of actually improving the article. Serialcomma should seriously re-evaluate his/her priorities. Koalorka (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * that's your opinion. my opinion is that some people who edit this article are too emotionally involved in gun culture and advocacy, so much to the point where even questioning a blog as a source becomes an edit war, because it's somehow perceived as an attack on guns. i have no vested interest or emotional attachment to this article or its content. i'm just trying to remove bad sources and make sure the current sources that are good are actually relevant to what is said. nothing to do with ego or wit, just trying to follow wikipedia policies, regardless of whether the status quo is affected. a good encyclopedia is more important to me than an individual editor's fear of their guns being taken away because i removed a link to a blog. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think this edit war started because we thought you were "attacking guns" and "taking our guns away", then you have some serious problems minor issues. This edit war started because you were reverting referenced common knowledge material, and IMHO, abusing policy's and guidelines. —  Dan MP5  21:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop attacking Serialcomma. This is not useful or constructive. Serialcomma, I believe you're in the wrong on the merits on this one, but you don't deserve those attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * a real problem here is that we are all conflating 4 different, muddled issues. this is partially my fault. one issue is that the glockstore is a blog and not a reliable source, which has been resolved. another is "for security reasons" which i argued against removing, but others disagreed, so that is done with. i'm not arguing that anymore. another is whether a compensated barrel reduces "perceived" recoil with one reference about 'perceived' recoil, vs my argument that it's just recoil, and perceived recoil is ORish. that's multiple issues all muddled into one. sorry that it's gotten so confusing. in the future, i am going to make totally new topics about each new point of contention so that this doesn't happen again Theserialcomma (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A good read of WP:Wikilawyering, WP:AGF, and WP:SOAP might yield some insights. Just tossing it out there.  AGF means that you should assume that there is no cabal of gun-article editors who are all cowering in the corner of their cabin in Pennsylvania clinging to their guns.  You should also not nit-pick the rules to the point where you are demanding the exact wording in the references YOU provide yet not allowing references that don't meet your standards.  Finally, if you have some anti-gun or "neutral" attitudes towards your presumed philosophy about those who edit firearms articles, it could mean that you are editing to prove points, therefore the "Soapbox" that I speak of. You are editing a single firearms article and, frankly, I'm not sure how much good you are accomplishing - right, wrong, or indifferent - with your tactics in the matter. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I know this has been long resolved, but just wanted to chime in on the 'perceived recoil' issue. Theserialcomma contended that a compensated barrel reduces recoil, and that stating that a compensated barrel reduces perceived recoil is unsourced OR. This is completely opposite from the truth. The amount of recoil produced by a specific firearms cartridge is a static number. You are sending a certain amount of mass (the bullet) down the barrel at a certain speed (the muzzle velocity). Doing so requires a certain amount of force. From basic physics, we know that every action has an equal an opposite reaction. The reaction of accelerating the bullet up to its muzzle velocity is recoil. Hence, the total amount of recoil does not change because of a compensated barrel. You are still creating an equal action, and hence an equal reaction is produced.


 * Compensated barrels do in fact reduce perceived recoil. Redirecting the gases upwards does not reduce the total amount of recoil produced by firing the cartridge. That remains the same. Redirecting the gases upwards does however help reduce the amount of recoil actually felt by the shooter. So it reduces perceived recoil, but not actual recoil, which is exactly the opposite of the argument presented by Theserialcomma. In fact, the total amount of recoil does not change at all, even in different guns that fire the same cartridge. That cartridge is going to generate the same amount of recoil regardless of the weight of the weapon or the length of the barrel. But heavier guns with longer barrels feel like they have less recoil. But it is the perceived recoil that is reduced by this, not the actual recoil produced by the cartridge. Jersey emt (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sort of like a Cutts Compensator, if you will... right? --Dave1185 (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

poorly written sentence
anyone want to rewrite  "The firing pin safety is only pushed upward to release the firing pin for firing when the trigger is actuated and the safety is pushed up through the backward movement of the trigger bar, the second, drop safety guides the trigger bar in a precision safety ramp that is only released when a shot is triggered by pulling the trigger right back." the "second, drop safety guides the trigger" part, more specifically, which needs at least a semicolon to separate the independent clauses. but maybe they should be two sentences Theserialcomma (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comma issues
When I went to grammar school, they taught me how to use commas. A comma is appropriate after the and as it was written and as I've reverted here:. Your edit has been reverted, Serialcomma, please discuss it to a consensus here. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No. the sentence you are edit warring over is  "The ILS is a manually activated lock that is located in the back of the pistol's grip. It is cylindrical in design and, according to Glock, each key is unique. " but according to [], and the english language, commas after and should only be used if it precedes a conditional or subjunctive clause (in this case, it doesn't). an example of correct usage in the case you're arguing would be "john would go to the restaurant and, if it were possible, he'd also go to the bar" because and precedes a clause that is in the imperfect subjunctive "if it were." please don't edit war over this further. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not edit warring. You made the edit, I challenged it and started a healthy, productive discussion on the talk page.  It is incumbant upon you to engage in this discussion so we can reach a consensus on the comma. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Subjunctive clause. The sentence reads fine without that portion separated by commas.  Please reconsult your MLA.  Then again, I didn't have to.  Maybe I should ask for an outside opinion since we disagree. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * while any outside opinion on the grammar is welcome, i am still reporting you for edit warring. i don't have to tolerate your attempted retribution for reporting you for sockpuppetry. enough is enough. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see from my edit history and the history of this article, I have been editing this article a long time. Frankly, if you're going to report me for everything I do, I don't see any reason to change my editing style under threat of reports. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * already reported. check http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_would_you_use_a_comma_after_a_conjunction for more evidence you are wrong. stop frustrating the editing process, stop edit warring, and fix the grammatical error please. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted you for removing valid albeit unsourced information. It's pretty obvious that when a design undergoes military trials, the outcome is determined by its performance during these trials. Glock, having won, can be assumed to have passed the endurance and reliability tests. If you'd like to help improve the article, perhaps you could find a source to confirm this very plausible information? Koalorka (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your time in reporting this, Theserialcomma, but your report has been resolved: . The decision was that it stays the status quo. You promptly appealed that decision.  This comma is quite important to you, I realize, and its placement is quite the quandry. I'm awaiting your appeal of this decision. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, uh, I might be wrong, but the wikianswers answer you posted seems to support my position. Then again, I'm thinking of reporting your reference to the reliable sources board... don't know why though because it agrees with me.  Now, what would be the point of reporting a source that is right and agrees with reliable sources somewhere?  The question is, of course, very important.  Nah, I won't report it.  As important as this comma is to me, I understand that in the spirit of consensus, I'll agree with the reference, the status quo, and the result of your report.  It's enough to know that I generally know how to use a comma. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Not one to rest on your losses, you again reported this situation to... oh I give up. If anybody cares, go here: . To sum it up, it also says that the status quo was just fine.  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, now your edit warring over the placement of a comma, serialcomma? I was thinking your next one would be about the Glock not being a pistol or something despite fifty references, but seriously, a comma? It is becoming clear that all you are doing here is starting edit wars and trying to get the editors that disagree with you blocked. I mean look, the last 5 sections on this talk page are from you starting edit wars, how many more must we go through? This is not productive and is wasting the time of editors that could actually be improving articles if not for being mired down in this mess.

Now that I'm done with that rant... There is nothing wrong with the current grammer, per the two threads you started on WP:AN3 and WP:RD/L. —  Dan MP5  18:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It has become quite clear that the Serialcomma is here to disrupt the article and bicker endlessly over punctuation. I've decided to go ahead and report TheSerialComma to the Arbitration Commitee for a lack of chocloate sprinkles and poor cosmic harmony, if my request is succesful, the controversial editor shall be barred from the internet. Koalorka (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, i will always report abusive editors who blatantly violate policy. so don't be abusive, and i won't report it. cheers. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note, I replaced a serial comma (not THE Serial Comma) that was removed by Theserialcomma. Gosh, I really enjoyed writing that sentence. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I commend in you in your efforts in removing that serial comma. Teehee. Koalorka (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

according to wikipedia's manual of style, a serial comma isn't required; however, if an article uses serial commas, then the rest of the article should match the style. and vice versa. Theserialcomma (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I stopped counting at 10 serial commas. Ran out of fingers.  Your comma was removed against wikipedia policy.  Your edit has been noted and will be forwarded to the CS (chocolate sprinkles) committee as evidence of your disruptive editing behavior. Wait, are you for or against serial commas?  You know, if you'd provide a reference for each and every edit you make in your edit comment, that would help.  So, where's the ANI report on me?  --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * i'm sorry if you can't figure out whether i'm for or against serial commas. but let's now try to keep this discussion about improving the article, and not about the specific editors. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That might prove somewhat difficult considering one specific editor has generated 400 kilobytes worth of text without a single improvement to the article. Koalorka (talk) 03:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * well, you're the one who got warned by admins for threatening physical violence and personal attacks. maybe we can now concentrate on editing the article and you can stop attacking other editors? terrific. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference requirements
There are now six references that state that the Austrians actually tested their pistol before adopting it. Further, four of them state specifically the nature of the tests. Unfortunately, none of them has the exact verbage required by Theserialcomma for inclusion of any statement in this article. I challenge other editors to plagarize some combination of the provided references so it reads verbatim out of the reference but somehow doesn't violate international copyright laws. It's a a tough row to hoe and, no, before you get any ideas, I am not calling anybody any kind of names with that expression. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lest anyone think I am adding references and speaking "Tongue-in-cheek", please refer to this healthy discussion: as well as this report:  and, oh yeah, this one too: .  I couldn't make this stuff up if I tried. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I started to say take some of them out, that five was way too much. But after thinking about it, don't bother, there probably won't be two left by tomorrow. —  Dan MP5  04:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Banned from Importation"
I erroneously marked "RVV" on my revert of the individual who stated that the .380 Glocks were banned from importation because of their size. Please explain yourself. A reference would be nice. It is dubious, to me, that the Glock .380's would not meet the "Points" requirement of the GCA of 1968 (of which "size" is only one factor). --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By my quick calculations, the G25 is ~4 points short of the 75 points required for importation, even if the adjustable sights were fitted. The lack of a locked breech and its caliber costs the G25 12 points versus the G19.  The G26 barely squeaks by, so the G28 has no chance.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thumb rests? Hehehe. Where did you find the point scale?  I had a good reference but can't find it again. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there are some pretty generous interpretation of features. My Google-Fu is failing me as I can't seem to find a .gov source, but there is a copy of the point factors here.  It pretty much agrees with what I remember from "dead tree" media predating the Web.  In addition, there is a copy of Patrick Sweeney's Glock book on Google Books.  He addresses the points issue around pages 80-81.  He also agrees with my caculation of 71 points for the G25 if the new style extractor is counted as a loaded chamber indicator.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a source for ATF Form 4590 outlining the import "factoring criteria". It appears to be an older version of the form, but for the most part, agrees with the other citation.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, that puts the Glock 28 at 7 points short and the Glock 25 about 4 points short. Hmmm, tungsten guide rod, tungsten grip plug, thick stainless steel magazine... it's there. Here's a post where somebody already did the leg work: --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen a reference for the Glock 25 and Glock 28 being banned from importation because of size. I don't have it on hand to check personally, but it was The Complete Encyclopedia of Pistols and Revolvers; Hartink, A.E.--LWF (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind our original research policy - We should find and refer to that source, not use anyone's unpublished calculations on the ATF form (though I generally agree with the above...) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, George. I reverted the content originally not because of any reference issues though that is certainly an issue as well.  The revert was due to the wording that presupposed that "Size" was the determining factor.  In fact, it is one of a dozen factors the most weight, in my opinion, is given to caliber, not size.  Losing 7 points for caliber vs. 1 point for each 1/4".  Also forgot to mention in my OR above that without a locking mechanism, the Glock 28 actually falls short by 5 points (that it immediately makes up for with a loaded chamber indicator they are now equipped with. No wonder there's a rule against OR! I suck at this. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Info on Glock Mariner/Tactical
Should we include it? It's a variant of the basic Glock pistol. Ominae (talk) 10:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are references to other variants designed for specific geographic markets (e.g. Glock 17DK, Glock 17Pro), so it might be valuable to have a brief description. We'll need reliable sources, of course. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 17:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How rapidly can a Glock 17 handgun be fired?
How rapidly can a Glock 17 handgun be fired? Will you please tell me how many rounds can be fired in a second when handled by an expert shooter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.239.96.202 (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The practical rate of fire is approximately 40 rounds per minute. This is only from one source: http://www.enemyforces.net/firearms/glock17.htm . As with all pistols it completely depends on the shooter. Paying no attention whatsoever to muzzle rise, the health of one's arm muscles, etc - I, personally, could probably get through a magazine (17 rounds) in 10 seconds. 1.7 rounds per second, though that would be very inaccurate. This is all just personal advice, don't have any facts to back it up.  Pump me  up  08:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is not a discussion forum. Koalorka (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Third generation photo in the infobox
The photo at the top of the page, in the infobox, should reflect a current production (third generation) Glock pistol, not the first generation version that is no longer produced.

The first generation Glock pistol photo belongs in the History section, which now shows a clear progression of the revisions made over the years.

Jersey emt (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No. The lead photo should be the original production model. The articles also flow in accordance with the pistol's development. Koalorka (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please revert only when necessary and do not revert due to "no consensus". You cannot revert edits just because you do not agree with them.


 * Also, your claim in the edit log that the 3rd generation is no longer the current model is incorrect. The RTF models are a separate model line; the 3rd generation Glock pistols are still produced and are still available new.


 * The lead photo should be the current design, and models no longer in production belong in History. This is also reflected on other articles, such as the Beretta 92 article, which displays the current model (Beretta 92FS). If you disagree with this, please obtain consensus here before repeatedly reverting edits.


 * Jersey emt (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I support jersey emt's position and think koalorka is being hostile and disruptive


 * I can absolutely contest and revert any edit that is inconsistent with standards or simply incorrect. Don't misrepresent policy for your own purposes, that indicates bad faith.


 * The RTF is in fact considered the newest production model, its production parallels the so-called 3rd gen. Also referring to generations of the pistol is simply incorrect and used out of convenience. Glock does not recognize the generations as you know them.


 * Wikipedia maintains a chronological article structure, this single page is not an exception. The Beretta 92 page simply lacks quality images, and the FS model was most likely selected for its aesthetic merits, rather than consistency. I can change that too, thank you for pointing out the irregularity. If you disagree with this, please obtain consensus here before repeatedly reverting edits. Your ignorance does not absolve you from Wikipedia procedures. If you look back into the article's history, there has been a debate before and it was determined to use this current sequence of photos. You're welcome to debate it. But at this point, you'll probably only be arguing to save face. Please don't waste my time. Koalorka (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can contest an edit you disagree with, but not revert it. My edit is not inconsistent with standards; showing the current production model of any product IS the general standard. You further claim that my edit is 'incorrect' because Glock does not internally refer to '1st generation', '2nd generation', etc., when your 'correct' version does the same exact thing by referring to it as '1st generation'.


 * I can find no debate or consensus in this discussion page as to using a historical photograph to lead an article on a current product. Threatening me with 3RR is moot since it is you who have reverted my edit three times, and if you do so once more, you have violated that rule. The process is, if you disagree with a good-faith edit, to discuss it on the Talk page for that article and reach a consensus in that discussion. If, at that time, the edit is determined to be incorrect, only then is it to be reverted. Jersey emt (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As you have reverted my good-faith edit four times, you are in violation of 3RR and have been reported. Jersey emt (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it's not the general standard. It's the exact OPPOSITE. What is your malfunction? What part of chronology don't you understand? Would you like me to draw you a linear bitmap with a scale? You are being obtuse and petty because you didn't get your proverbial lolipop. You're editing in violation of policy, you're not reasoning at all and you've violated 3RR. I have no other choice but to assume you are a vandal or have some other nefarious intentions since your disruptive edits have not helped develop this page AT ALL. What have you contributed? Nothing. You're wasting time. You're costing man hours, and now an admin's time to investigate your confused ignorant defiance.
 * It looks like your style of interaction here is the problem. Considering your previous blocks, I'm suspending your editing rights for a week. Tom Harrison Talk 23:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edit was incorrect and reverted, your subsequent reversions of an INCORRECT edit indicate BAD FAITH, therefore, I am correct in removing vandalism. And you will be reverted every time unless you convince the entire project to sacrifice accuracy for appearance and your ego. Good luck with that. Koalorka (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My edit was made to improve the flow of the article. Just because an edit does not add or modify content (words) does not make it incorrect, or vandalism. With my edit, the three 'generations' of Glock pistols are clearly shown in a single section of the article (History). And the current model of a Glock pistol -- the one that a buyer would find available today at a retail gun shop -- is the lead photo of the article. That simply makes logical sense, which is why I made the edit.


 * By reverting my edit without discussion, threatening me, and calling me a vandal, even after another user had expressed agreement with my edit, I do not feel it is a 'waste of man hours' for an administrator to review the situation. If you had simply started discussion as to why you feel my edit is 'worthless', all this could have been avoided. Jersey emt (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think your edit has helped improve the article. I don't claim ownership of the page, but I also won't deny being the greatest contributor and investing far too much time into it. I welcome new content or improvements as you will notice browsing through the page history. I don't know if you've actually read the main body of the article, but as you may notice, it too follows the historical sequence of the pistol's development. It then progresses into the evolution of the pistol over the years, describing revisions and new additions to the base design. The first thing a visitor of this page notices is the obvious infobox image (depending of course on the user's screen size and resolution and such), a glance at the so-called "1st gen" model installs this image into the reader's mind, allowing him/her to easily comprehend the subsequent modifications to the pistol over the years. It provides for easier comprehension of the "generations" and doesn't require any conscious effort or re-reading to determine. Whereas starting with an arbitrary image of a 3rd gen Glock (and I say arbitrary because we're now in 2009 with the RTF series and new ambidextrous models due out next year) reverting back to 1st gen, then duplicating 3rd gen and newer just distorts the gist and logical flow of the article. Please consider this.


 * I won't comment on Dave11838-something, but I've never had any interaction with him and he seems to pop up almost at random as soon as I become mired in a dispute with a third party, so his support is at best induced by other motivations... He's not relevant to this debate or the content of this page. Koalorka (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, this latest comment by you isn't nice. Knock it off~! I can't stop you from thinking that I'm stalking you, neither can I stop you from name callings of other editors and I most certainly cannot stop you from not assuming good faith. If I chance upon the article while reading another, does it make me of a wikistalker when the constant changing of images made me wonder what was happening on the article page in the first place? FYI, there are a lot of people doing RCP, I just happened to be reading that particular article when you two got into edit warring over the image and I merely stated my opinion, so don't drag me into your own quagmire if you cannot handle the heat. Yes, I may have sided with J_E but does that make me a felon? Just because someone does not agree with you doesn't mean that yoou should't AGF, right? This will be my first and only statement here, since according to you: "I am not relevant to this page", please take note of that much-to-be-desired attitude of yours. Out. --Dave1185 (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Koalorka, four different users (myself included), support my edit to the article. One of those (Dave1185) is an established editor and neutral third party as described in Wikipedia:Consensus/Consensus-building.


 * Your argument about a 3rd generation photo for the lead image being 'arbitrary' has already been shown to be irrelevant. The RTF models ('Rough-Texture Frame', for those reading this who are unfamiliar), often incorrectly attributed as being a '4th generation Glock', are a separate line, produced alongside the '3rd generation' models. The reference to the ambidextrous models, currently limited to the 'SF' ('Short Frame') models, also is irrelevant, as the 'standard' Glock pistol -- the Glock 17 -- is not currently offered as an 'SF', and the ambidextrous model (the 17MB) is a separate model as well.


 * The truth is that the '3rd generation' pistols are the most popular currently produced version of the Glock pistol, which supports its placement as the lead image, as well as the placement of a historical image in the History section. The RTF models have not had enough exposure yet, and even if there was a free-use image of an RTF model similar in quality to the images of the 1st generation, 2nd generation, and 3rd generation models, the 3rd generation image still belongs in the lead.


 * Of course, should production of the '3rd generation' models be stopped at some point in the future, leaving only the RTF models (which then could correctly be informally referred to as '4th generation' models), certainly, the edit I made placing the '3rd generation' image in the lead would become out-of-date. At that time, replacing the lead image with a high-quality, free-use image of an RTF model, would be appropriate.


 * As consensus has supported my decision to move the '1st generation' image into the History section and replacing the lead image with the current '3rd generation' image, that decision should hold, unless new consensus in the future determines otherwise, at which time I will gladly make the edit placing an original '1st generation' Glock pistol as the lead image of this article myself.
 * -Jersey emt (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late, but here's my two cents: The infobox, along with the lead section, briefly summarizes the article. In firearms articles, it should have a good quality image that clearly represents the standard model of that firearm. 1st Gen Glocks have been out of production for almost 20 years and are rarely encountered. The 3rd Gen has been the standard production Glock pistol since ~ 1998 and is by far the most common generation. Therefore, I support moving the third generation image to the infobox.

I may have to bring this up at WP:GUNS and see about creating a new image guideline someday. —  Dan MP5  19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still disputing this. The Glock 20 there seems to defy all of the previous points made by all parties involved this debate. It's just random. Koalorka (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about the G20, but I don't really think the 1st Gen image in the infobox is debatable.


 * Per WP:LEAD, "The lead [of which the infobox is part of] serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.", The lead "should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.", "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic", and finally "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article."


 * I do not believe the lead could stand on its own with an image of a 20 year old version of the design, which has been superseded by two more generations (four if you include the SF and RTF). The 3rd generation, which has been standard production for over ten years, has become much more relevant today than the 1st Gen.  And, as WP:LEAD put it, I believe we would be "teasing" readers by showing them a 1st gen image in the infobox, only for them to learn a few paragraphs later that it hasn't been produced in 20 years.  Also, the lead and infobox shouldn't be part of the chronological order of the rest of page.


 * Imagine a user completely unfamiliar with the Glock reading something about it on another page. They click on the link, intending to read only the brief description in the lead and see a representational image of the Glock in the infobox. They then see a design that has been out of production for 20 years, which they will likely never see in real life, has been replaced by two more generations, and say; 'Oh, so that's what a Glock looks like', and never read the rest of the article. This is why the lead and infobox should be able to stand alone, and the only way it can do that effectively is with a 3rd gen image  in the infobox. —  Dan  MP5  04:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: I asked Ken Lunde, who created the photo of the Glock 20 that is currently in the infobox, if he could take a photo of a 3rd gen Glock 17 for us. He came through with a great photo, and has emailed it to me. I am just waiting to hear back from him on whether he would like to upload it himself using his account, or if I should upload it and mark him as the author.

We will soon have a proper image of a black, 3rd gen Glock 17 for the infobox that is not a repeat of the image used further down in the article. I'll make the edit as soon as the photo is uploaded to Commons. Jersey emt (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The image has been uploaded and placed in the article. Jersey emt (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good! Except as pointed out by Francis Flinch, it isn't a current 3rd Gen model; but I don't think it'll be a big deal. —  Dan MP5  21:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't even catch the missing crosspin in the photo. I agree that it's not a big deal. It still shows a black, 3rd generation Glock 17 which is exactly what we were looking for. Jersey emt (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Page locked
Please work out your differences on the talk page. Tom Harrison Talk 12:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected. Tom Harrison Talk 23:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --Dave1185 (talk) 06:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Introduction updates
The introduction to this article was marked as too short. I have updated the introduction, improving on the general overview of the article.

Any comments or suggested changes or improvements would be appreciated.

-Jersey emt (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, looks better now... although I did pitch in a wee bit to help in that section. Happy editing~! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also edited the first sentence to be more consistent with similar articles and removed reference to the Glock 18 (we had a long debate a couple of sections up as to whether it was notable enough for the lead, and agreed it wasn't). —  Dan MP5  19:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks for the info. 'Series of' instead of 'any of a number of' is a much clearer phrase too. Jersey emt (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

'Repeating' 3rd generation image in the history section
IMO, removing the 3rd generation image from the history section was not a good idea.

The photo of the 3rd generation Glock in the history section (which was at the time, the same as the lead image) was retained there because it clearly showed the design changes through the generations.

This was one of the most important parts of my edit to place the 3rd generation photo as the lead image. The caption in the 'repeated' image gave the identifying characteristics of the 3rd generation Glock pistols. And having all three generations as thumbnail images in the History section made it easy for the user to follow the changes made over the years.

I have replaced the lead image with another high-quality image of a current ('3rd generation') Glock, in case there is a strict rule that states that images cannot be included twice in the same article (despite that they serve different functions in each placement).

I thought that there might be issues with using the same image twice, even though they are used for two very different purposes -- the lead image to illustrate a 'typical' current Glock pistol, and the image in the History section to show the progression of a single model Glock pistol over the years.

So I will leave it up for a consensus to be made on choosing one of the following options (click on each to view them):

1. Keep the article as it was before the 3rd generation Glock 17 image was removed from the History section due to it being a duplicate of the lead image;

2. Keep the article as it was after the 3rd generation Glock 17 image was removed from the History section due to it being a duplicate of the lead image;

3. Keep the article as it is now with my latest edit, with a different 3rd generation photo as the lead image, and the 3rd generation Glock 17 image placed back in the History section below the 1st and 2nd generation photos.

Personally, I'm fine with #1 or #3, with #3 being my top choice. I'm not OK with #2. -Jersey emt (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd rather see the older second generation Glock in the lead. Not that I really care so much as to argue, but the original Glock is still the original Glock. I own an original First/Second generation G17. Older serial number produced in 1984. Best firearm I have ever owned. - 4twenty42o (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See two sections up, that would be doubly-wrong. —  Dan MP5  15:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was originally going to find another image for the history section when I removed the duplicate, but was unable to find one of sufficient quality on commons. So I agree with option #3. However, it does deviate from having the 'standard' model (the G17 in this case) in the infobox, even though it is a better image. —  Dan MP5  15:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly...it's a tricky situation. After thinking about it a bit more, I would say that the best option would be to leave it as-is (with the photo of the full-size Glock 20 in perspective view) until a similar image of the 'standard' Glock 17 is available for use. I'll do some searching. I'm sure there is a good image of a 3rd generation Glock 17 out there by a user of one of the various firearms forums, who would be willing to give permission to use their image here. -Jersey emt (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * im sorry but this layout makes little sense. Gen 3 Glock 20 (10mm Auto? The msot obscure caliber maybe except for .380 ACP) which then goes to gen 1, gen 2, and again gen 3, but 9mm model. there is no order. what happened here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.107.165 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As discussed directly above, the lead photo was a 3rd generation Glock 17, but it was a duplicate of the image in the History section. As neither myself nor DanMP5 were able to, as of yet, locate a high-quality free image of a 3rd generation Glock 17 that is not a duplicate of the one in the History section, the image of the 3rd generation Glock 20 was placed in the infobox. The infoxbox is intended to give the user an idea of a 'typical' Glock pistol, which means a 3rd generation model. The Glock 20 is very marginally different in appearance to the Glock 17 -- the Glock 20 just is a couple millimeters larger -- so it functions well in the infobox. Once a similar-quality free image of a Glock 17 is located, it will be placed in the infobox. Have one? Great, then upload it and place it in the infobox. -Jersey emt (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still going to fight for a proper image configuration here. What you did makes no sense. We went from a ordered chronological distribution to something that really looks just hastily thrown together. I would like to hear why the original Glock 17 is not the best choice for the article lead. It spawned the whole series of variants and differs very little from the pistols being assembled today. Even the aesthetic merits of the Gen 1 image make it more suitable for a lead. Clear side profile view on a neutral background. Koalorka (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am in agreement with Koalorka, with regards to the article lead. 4twenty42o (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, as stated before, having an original '1st generation' Glock as the lead image is not the best choice because it has been out of production for nearly 2 decades and is rarely encountered nowadays. Even the '2nd generation' Glocks have been out of production for almost 10 years. The lead article should show a Glock pistol that is typical of what would be seen today, which means a '3rd generation' model.


 * Now, I do agree with you in that the lead image should show the 'standard' model, which would of course be the Glock 17. But the issue brought up by DanMP5 of having the same image twice in the same article sort of throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing, as there are no free-use images of high enough quality of a 3rd generation Glock 17 other than the one of yours.


 * As per whether a image with a side profile view on a neutral background is more suitable for a lead, I can definitely understand your reasoning. And I would be fine with this type of image being placed in the lead, as long of course as it is a '3rd generation' Glock 17 for the reasons previously stated. But I don't feel that images giving a perspective view are unsuitable for a lead image. In fact, a slight perspective view could function even better as a lead image because it gives a more realistic (3-dimensional) view. Straight-on profile view images function better in showing the changes over the years like in the History section. Ideally, I would like to see a 3rd generation Glock 17 with a slight perspective view and a neutral background in the lead -- something along the lines of what is seen here. Jersey emt (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I just had a thought. Why not simply swap the placement of the G20 and 3rd gen G17 images? With the G17 in the infobox and the G20 in History? This could be a better solution until we get a better image. Surely of the thousands of people with 3rd gen G17s somebody will upload a good quality image for the infobox soon though. —  Dan  MP5  04:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's definitely a viable option, but I feel the side profile views function much better in clearly showing the changes made throughout the generations. I think the best option for the time being (until a suitable photo of a 3rd generation Glock 17 is found for the lead) would be to have the image repeated. Jersey emt (talk) 18:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Models grouped by caliber in the 'Variants' section.
I went ahead and grouped together the various Glock models by caliber. This was done to group together models that are related. For example, the Glock 17, Glock 19, and Glock 26 (and others) are all models in the same 'family', of 9x19mm Parabellum pistols. It is a more logical grouping, as parts such as magazines from the Glock 17 can be used in other 9x19mm models.

The calibers are listed in the order which models were released -- 9x19mm Parabellum (original Glock 17), 10mm Auto (first introduced in the Glock 20), .45 ACP (first introduced in the Glock 21), .40 S&W (Glock 22), .380 ACP (Glock 25), .357 Sig (Glock 31), .45 GAP (Glock 37). This was done to ensure that any references to models that were derived from previous models have already been listed. For example, the Glock 38 is derived from the Glock 19, and the Glock 19 is described in the article before the Glock 38.

This is a pretty major change, but as per WP:BOLD, I went ahead and made it, as I feel that it groups the models together more logically, and separates the models more clearly (previously, all the models were in a bulleted list, one after the other, and variants of the same model -- specifically, variants of the Glock 17 like the Glock 17C and Glock 17S -- were given equal emphasis to models that are actually different in caliber or frame size).

Personally, I feel it is a large improvement to the article. Of course, should you disagree with this grouping, please discuss it here. If consensus decides that the old way is more logical, then that's the way it should be. -Jersey emt (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the new reorganization has improved the article. Mvialt (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Another possible change, but I'm not certain on this one, so I'd like to hear other peoples' comments first. Should thespecific variants' -- near the bottom, right before the 'Other variants' section? Should they be moved right into the 'Other variants' section?


 * As these models are variants of the Glock 17 only, depending on how you view things, they could either 'belong' in with the Glock 17, or they 'belong' after the other models -- as they are fairly obscure, being region-specific. Jersey emt (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That should help. The region-oriented subsection would probably serve the article best. Koalorka (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Great. I've moved all the region-specific models into a 'Regional variants' section. That left the only two models still listed under 'Other variants' to be the 17T and 17P -- both training models -- so that section has been renamed 'Training variants'. Jersey emt (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apply for A-class status and/or GA status?
Currently, this article has attained B-class status. After we sort out the lead image -- currently being discussed above, would attaining A-class status and/or GA status be feasible? The article now has a strong introduction, is well-written, well-sourced, etc. I feel that it meets the requirements.

If you do not agree, what would you say needs to be added, removed, or worked on to meet or exceed the standards for a higher status?

Jersey emt (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Update 2010-05-06: Does anyone have any input or comments concerning this?
 * Jersey emt (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * While switching to a table format for the Users section, you duplicated some of the citations that applied to multiple entries. For example, all three entries for Portugal use the same citation but they are listed in references as being three different links. These citations with duplicates should be given names, to reduce clutter in the reference list. If you need an example to follow, some of the text references from Kasler use names. Overall the article is in good enough shape for a GA nomination. Any remaining issues can be worked out in the process. ROG5728 (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: The reference issue has been fixed by Rjwilmsi. ROG5728 (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul of "Users" section
I did a complete overhaul on the "Users" section, placing all information in a tabular format that is much cleaner and easier to read. It is a bit more difficult to add, remove, or edit entries, but it is pretty straightforward even if you have never used tables here on Wikipedia. This might have a positive effect by helping to reduce the large amount of uncited/unsourced additions we tend to get in this section.

I went through and double-checked the information in the new table compared to the information that was there previously (simple list). I'd appreciate it if one or more persons could do another quick check to verify that no data is missing or incorrect.

You can see the old revision with the list format at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glock_pistol&oldid=349580486.

You can see my new version with the table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock_pistol?oldid=349658972

Also, if anyone has any comments, concerns, or suggestions for the overhaul of the "Users" section please discuss below.

Jersey emt (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The users table could be improved with an additional column for designations given to the weapon by users, or an additional column for the number purchased. ROG5728 (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of information appears to have been lost, including local names and designations. I also find it visually more "busy" than before. Fallschirmjägergewehr 42 (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What information has been lost? I went over it several times looking for any lost info when I made the change, and others have gone over it as well. I just did another comparison and could not find any information that was present in the old list that was not transferred to the new table.
 * As per it being more "busy" than before, that is of course your own opinion, and I have no issues with going back to the list format if consensus is reached. I believe that the table format is much cleaner, and much less busy than the list format where everything was clumped together with no real organization or structure. Jersey emt (talk) 15:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

possible user
I read this off a magazine (Commando) that Indonesia's BRIMOB (Mobile Brigade) uses Glock pistols. Not sure which models though, looks like a G17... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinoesef (talk • contribs) 14:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You can add this if you properly cite the source. If the specific model is not explicitly stated in the article text, leave that part blank. The photo may just be a stock photo and not properly identify the exact model(s) used by BRIMOB. If you have any questions on how to do this, please let us know.
 * Jersey emt (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

the pakistani police direct commissioned officers are also given Glock pistols. although i am not aware of any sites that will hold this information. but it could be confirmed from the pakistani police top command.


 * There needs to be a published, verifiable source in order to add this information. Jersey emt (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Two safety issues
I'm not a gun person, so the two key features of the Glock I've been aware of are: (1) "It's made of Plastic", and (2) The lack of a traditional safety. Both have received widespread news coverage outside the gun world. Whatever the benefits of the "Safe Action", it is decidedly not a traditional safety, and imho this needs to be stated clearly (as per my recent change - now reverted).

Second, if the "Internal Locking System (ILS)" ever came out it seems to have died. Wikipedia seem to be the only place it exists - what's the story? Snori (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article already stated that Glock pistols do not have a traditional manual safety. The main advantage is operational simplicity. Under the extreme stress of having to use a firearm to defend life, it is quite possible that the user will forget to disengage a manual safety. In these situations, fine motor skills are also greatly diminished, so even if the user does not forget about it, a manual safety can be difficult to manipulate. The automatic safety mechanisms on a Glock pistol will prevent discharge unless direct rearward pressure is applied to the trigger.


 * The locking system is described on the Glock website, under the "Safety Pack" link at the top. It is an option that can be ordered from the factory.


 * Jersey emt (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Glock essentially has no safety. You pull the trigger, and it fires.  Everyone who's into Glocks seems to like to dance around this simple fact.  I certainly would like to see the article state it clearly without all the doublespeak.  Instead, just like the company's own marketing does, the article tries to make it sound like the Glock not only has a safety, but it's safer from accidental firing than other guns. 98.248.74.209 (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Glock pistols do contain safety mechanisms, and with the proper handling that should be done with all firearms (regardless of the presence or lack of any safety devices), are protected against true accidental discharges. While personal viewpoints on whether a Glock pistol is any "less safe" or "safer" than other designs do not belong in the article, I do see how what was written there could be seen as potentially biased. I slightly reworded the section to be more neutral. Jersey emt (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a double-action only pistol with a bad trigger and no safety. The Glock safety boils down to "don't pull the trigger". That doesn't make it bad but you should know what you're getting into. This is why they are so popular with law enforcement. Management wants to dumb down the guns they issue officers. Almost as if they don't trust them to be competent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.31 (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Redirects from model numbers
The redirects from the model numbers -- Glock 17, Glock 19, Glock 21, etc., etc. -- are messed up now. They should point to this article, Glock pistol, and they did until recently, but now they point to the article about the company, Glock. I think this occurred because Xqbot was reacting to recent changes in one or more other redirects -- see for example this. At any rate, I'm thinking that it will be necessary for one or more editors to manually change all the model number redirects to point to Glock pistol again. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to use the "undo" function for restoring the 14:14, 25 June 2010 renaming operation by user Thumperward. The later changes to the Glock pistol article seem not to be very significant.--Francis Flinch (talk) 12:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If I understand what happened, that's already been done. Glock pistol is the article about the series of pistols, Glock is the article about the company, and Glock (brand) is a redirect to Glock.  That's all good, but in the meantime, the bot changed the redirects from the model numbers, and I think they all need to be changed back, to say "#REDIRECT Glock pistol" instead of "#REDIRECT Glock" (without the quotes).


 * This was an oversight on my part. The 'Glock pistol' article was moved to 'Glock (brand)' by Thumperward. I moved it back to 'Glock pistol', and then edited 'Glock (brand)' to redirect to Glock. This, without me realizing it until it was brought up here, broke the redirects for the model numbers. I'm fixing them all now. Jersey emt (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've finished fixing the model number redirects. They all now properly point to Glock pistol. Jersey emt (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I need opinions!
I have been thinking that glock pistols should perhaps have their own articles,more info can be found to fill them to a satisfactory length,at least for most.a fuller version is at my talk page,as well.if nothing shows up as a reasonable objection with good background and reason,within whatever time seems long enough,i may carry it out myself.with such an objection,contact my talk page by clicking the link on my signeture.Keserman (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the past, each Glock pistol model had their own, separate article. It was decided to merge them all into a single article for several reasons. Put simply, all of the Glock pistols (with only 3 exceptions) are essentially the same basic design, the only major differences being chambering and physical size. The 3 exceptions are of course the Glock 18 (the selective fire version of the Glock 17), and the Glock 25 and 28 (the .380 ACP models which use simple blowback operation instead of the short-recoil operation required by more powerful cartridges). Rather than repeat the same information over 20 times, it is better to have a single article, and explain what's different about the 3 "misfits". (This message has also been posted on the your talk page.) Jersey emt (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many photos?
Let's face it guys, except for the differences between Full-size, Compact, and Sub-compact, the profiles of Glock pistols are identical. The intricacies are not really visible from a side view. With this in mind, shouldn't we, in order to make a more succinct page, remove all pics that are virtually identical? Calhoun.93 (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Most pictures illustrate externally visible differences between models or variants, though some need more than a first glance to see them. Often the added text helps to see these variations more easily. I saw 1 info box image, 5 images showing the product evolution, 1 image of a field stripped pistol, 1 image showing the sight line, 1 image showing an accessory, 1 image showing the full auto variant, 2 images showing compact and sub compact variants, 1 image showing a slim frame variant, 1 image showing the olive drab frame, 1 image showing a long barrel competition variant. The pictures of the Glock 29 and 33 do not add a lot of information.--Francis Flinch (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

weight : Walther P38 VS Glock pistol
The weight of the Walther P38 is 800g (predecessor), what about the Glock pistol ? Yug (talk)  07:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Glock 17 weighs 625 grams, making it 22% lighter than the Walther P38 while having a twice the capacity (17+1 rounds in the Glock 17 and 8+1 rounds in the P38). Jersey emt (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jared Laughner
Per recent edits -- the users list is a list of organizations (either military or law enforcement) using the Glock pistol. An individual murderer does not qualify for inclusion in the list. ROG5728 (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur. There was a rise in sales after Loughner's alleged shooting, hence the 9mm Glock 19 at least is currently notorious.  Some of the information in this article might be judiciously incorporated into Wikipedia, though.  http://www.slate.com/id/2280829/  kencf0618 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree, Seung-Hui Cho used a Glock 19 and for a time it cast a negative light on the brand. I hardly think it merits inclusion on this list. J.Rly (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Tip
13.01.2010, Businessweek had a long feature on Glock - might be useful. NVO (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

it was nice and anti gun too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.143.169 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Article name
Earlier today, this article was renamed from "Glock pistol" to "Glock Safe Action Pistol". In my opinion the name should be changed back. The name of a Wikipedia article should generally be the name of the subject that is most commonly used, which in this case is "Glock pistol". See WP:NAMINGCRITERIA for the guidelines on article naming. Also, renaming an article is a pretty major change, that usually should be discussed first on an article's talk page, and I don't see any discussion like that here, till now that is. Thoughts? — Mudwater (Talk) 00:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. The move was done without consensus and against naming policy. The moves need to be undone. Manufacturer brand names may be noted but do not take priority over common names. I notice that the manufacturer uses both terms interchangeably in the manual. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  01:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After seeing that the mover botched up and left behind six pages of archives, I have moved the pages back to the consensus version and restored the archive links. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  01:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The opinions of two people with less than 24 hours of discussion does not indicate consensus. The "use common name" policy would not seem to apply here, because that would simply be "Glock", not "Glock pistol". In this case, the official name is Glock Safe Action pistol, and is a better fit for this article name. Unless of course we can agree on "Glock".


 * My view is simple. Either use the true common name, or the official name. "Glock pistol" is neither. Jersey emt (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Glock pistol is an effective compromise. As i'm am not willing to move war, you can always do an Request for comment. Also, for a common name, I have never heard of a "Glock Safe Action pistol" But I have hear of a "Glock Pistol".-- intelati  talk  04:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Article renames of a controversial or debatable nature, such as this one, should be discussed on the talk page before they are made, not after. I am therefore putting the article name back the way it was, to "Glock pistol", for now. Once we've reached a consensus on what the article name should be, it can be renamed if necessary. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There should have been a discussion and consensus, before any move. "True common name" is a misnomer.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't it just be at Glock, per COMMON? That page just redirects here, so it sounds like "pistol" is unneeded disambiguation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't think the move was controversial, because "Glock pistol" is neither the common name nor the actual name of the product. In common usage, pistols produced by Glock are commonly referred to as either the "Glock ", "G", or simply a "Glock". "Glock pistol" is redundant, because in common usage, Glock (the company) only makes pistols. Of course they make other products, such as knives and shovels, but mention "Glock" to the average person and they immediately think of the "plastic pistol".
 * In this article's case, articles for all of the individual Glock models were merged with consensus, leaving "Glock" the only remaining common-use name. The article should use either the title "Glock" (the common name) or "Glock Safe Action Pistol" (the true name of the product line as per the manufacturer). Jersey emt (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Upon further review, I agree with Peregrine Fisher and Jersey emt when they say that "Glock" and not "Glock pistol" is the common name for this gun (or series of guns). So I think the article should be renamed "Glock".  But we're seeing a few different opinions here, and this discussion has only been going on for two days.  I think we need to wait until a week or two has gone by before we see if there's a consensus about this. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

(redent) It sounds like pistol was just a result of the merging of the individual articles, so it should just be Glock. That said, waiting a week is good idea in case someone cares. On the other hand, the quickest way to see who care is to be bold, as we've seen here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The article's been called "Glock pistol" for a long time, another week or two won't hurt. So, let's wait and see what other editors say.  It's generally best to discuss big changes like this first and see what people think. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I could go with calling it Glock but then I believe the correct naming convention would be Glock (pistol) and then just call it a Glock in the article. That would leave the Glock page available as a disambiguation page when & if the need arises. I did some searches regarding the common names and found that there are a number of notable people with the last name of Glock. Those people are what kept "Glock" from being an effective search term in the ngram viewer. Between Glock pistol and Glock Safe Action pistol, there is no contest about which one is the most common in publications. See the ngram results. Btw, Glock-VBR 7.92 pistol may need renaming.  ⋙–Ber<b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  15:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think people at the "Glock" page would so overwhelmingly be looking for this article, that dabing should be done at "Glock (disambiguation)". Not that it matters that much either way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. At WP:PRIMARYTOPIC it says "A topic is primary for a term if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box." I think the pistol is a primary topic, so by that line of reasoning, this article should be called "Glock" and the disambiguation page should be called "Glock (disambiguation)", which in fact it already is. — Mudwater (Talk) 19:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. I didn't realize that the dab page already existed. Support moving this article to Glock. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  20:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I should have used the square brackets. I also support using just Glock per our rules. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would also toss my hat into the Glock ring. <sup style="color:red;">Avic <sub style="color:blue;">ennasis @ 20:04, 13 Elul 5771 / 20:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to Glock -- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to Glock. Jersey emt (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While I understand why there's the desire to rename/move the article to Glock, I also view this change as being structurally/organizationally significant. Is Glock about the company or is it about the guns? How would this be any different than the SIG Sauer article? Monoblocks (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposal is to have Glock be about the guns. Glock Ges.m.b.H. is about the company. The difference between this and the SIG Sauer article is that in common usage, "Glock" refers to the line of polymer-framed pistols that the company is known for. Most people, even many firearms owners and enthusiasts, do not even know that Glock makes other products such as knives and shovels -- they only know about the Glock pistols. SIG Sauer is widely known to have many different product lines, such as the P-series pistols, 1911 pistols, and many different semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles. The point being, mention "Glock" to the average person, and they immediately think of the "plastic pistol". Mention "SIG Sauer", and there is no single defining product for the brand. Jersey emt (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As there seems to be a consensus for the move and we have allowed a few weeks for people to comment, I will go ahead and make the moves and adjust the archiving. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  15:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see that I can't and it requires an admin so I've made the request at Requested moves. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  15:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Completed by Favonian. <b style="color:#00C">⋙–Ber</b><b style="color:#66f">ean–Hun</b><b style="color:#00C">ter—►</b>  19:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Pennsylvania State Police
Just wanted to say that the Pennsylvania State Police uses the Glock 37 as their primary handgun, but is not included on this list. :) I tried adding it but couldnt get the format quite right. ah, correct again! (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Added it. Feel free to tweak it.  Gtstricky Talk or C 18:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

serrated vs smooth trigger face photo
Would like to add a smooth vs serrated trigger face photo. When I purchased my first compact, I was dismayed to find a serrated trigger. I have since changed it out, but would have been nice to know ahead of time. I see http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q25/redrider02/ammo%20n%20stuff/113_0529.jpg has a very nice depiction of the difference. I would like to contact the photobucket user for permission to use the image, but don't know how to find his contact information. --RichardMills65 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Article name, part 2
With this edit, the article has been renamed, from "Glock" to "Glock pistol", and Glock is now a redirect to the article about the company, Glock Ges.m.b.H.. But in the section above, there was general agreement to rename the article from "Glock pistol" to "Glock", so this change would seem to go against consensus. Changing it back now will require admin assistance -- see Requested moves -- because "Glock" is now a redirect with an edit history. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have requested the move back to "Glock".jersey_emt (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Move has been completed by Anthony Appleyard. Thank you! jersey_emt (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Naming the article simply "Glock" is most uninformative and unhelpful to readers. Those who are not experts in firearms assume that an article simply titled "Glock" is about the company. In fact, even those who are familiar with firearms make this mistake, as I did yesterday when I tried to place the corporate logo into the infobox only to discover this article is about a product, not a company. I own a 1st gen Model 21. Naming this article "Glock" is akin to naming the article on the M1911 pistol simply "Browning", or the article on the Ferrari 308 GTB/GTS series simply "Ferrari". Night Ranger (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read the entire section above, to see what other editors have said about this.  I actually didn't think that "Glock pistol" was such a bad name for the article, but most editors, including me, preferred "Glock" -- partly because it's the common name of the subject (as in, "I was going to buy a Sig P226, but I ended up getting a Glock instead", not "I ended up getting a Glock pistol instead") and partly because it's the primary topic (although you're disagreeing about that).  Anyway, check out the previous discussion, it's not that long and it's an interesting read. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * "Those who are not experts in firearms assume that an article simply titled "Glock" is about the company." I disagree with this, which is why I requested the move back to "Glock" after your move. The common name of any of the models of Glock semi-automatic pistols is simply "Glock", as in "I'm having trouble deciding between the Springfield XDm and the Glock".
 * I am the one who first suggested the move from "Glock pistol" to "Glock". You can read my comments above, but in a nutshell, my reasoning was that if you mention "Glock" to the average person, they think about the "plastic pistol". Many people without knowledge of firearms do not even know that there is a company called "Glock", they think that "Glock" is the model name for a pistol.
 * You are of course free to contest this issue here on the talk page, but please do not move the article unless a new consensus is made. jersey_emt (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That' is a rationale, but I don't really agree with it. People use certain common names for things but they aren't necessarily the most descriptive for an encyclopedic article. If you're trying to decide between buying a BMW M3 or an Audi A6, you'd probably say "I'm trying to decide between the BMW and the Audi" but you wouldn't move an article about models that those companies build to simply "BMW" or "Audi". Night Ranger (talk) 23:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Shooting ?
I suggest the inclusion of some lines about the Virginia Tech massacre and 2011 Tucson shooting. The Glock cheap price and widespread access made it a convenient weapon for shootings. Yug (talk)  19:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are pistols available (not to mention pistols on the used market)that can be bought for less than a Glock pistol. Common sense must be employed before suggesting a change to a Wikipedia article. -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.37.100  (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose not relevant. Any gun can be used in a crime, and like the previous person suggested, some used handguns can be had for cheaper. Do we need to add notes to the pages on all of the various makes/models of guns used in crimes? Furthermore, I don't get the idea that the inclusion of such a section would be without bias.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Completely irrelevant. Should we mention in the Kershaw article that one of their utility knives was used as a murder weapon? How about in the Zippo article about a lighter being used by an arsonist? There is nothing particularly special about a Glock pistol that makes it "more deadly" or more suitable for lunatics to commit mass murder with compared to a Smith & Wesson, Ruger, SIG Sauer, Beretta, or any other common brand of handgun. Also, a Glock pistol is by no means cheap -- there are many other handguns that cost much less (even brand new). jersey_emt (talk) 06:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Irrelevant. This is an article regarding a (hand)gun not regarding crimes committed with it. If someone feels Wikipedia needs an article that keeps up with what type of guns were used by (war) criminals he or she should create such an article.--Francis Flinch (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Tenifer finish correction
I corrected a couple of things regarding the Tenifer (ferric nitrocarburizing) finish. The article originally stated the depth to be between 0.4mm and 0.5mm, which is far thicker than is actually utilized. I changed this to 0.04mm to 0.05mm, a more likely figure. The wikipedia article on the Tenifer process [] also states the depth to be between 0.04mm and 0.05mm, although it gives no reference for this figure. The website of Durferrit, which licenses this technology, yields a chart in Figure 4 of [] that denotes the relationship between temperature, time, and thickness of the treatment. Next to the figure is the passage "The data shown in Fig. 4 were determined in a TF 1 bath at 580°C. With the usual treating durations of 60-120 minutes, the compound layer obtained was 10-20 µm thick on most qualities of material." Given that 20µm is 0.02mm, a thickness of 0.4mm to 0.5mm is inaccurate and likely impossible.

Furthermore, I removed the comparison of Glock's 64 Rockwell C hardness to diamond, as this is meaningless. The Rockwell C hardness test uses a diamond cone to create the indentation on the material to be tested. A diamond on diamond test would have no meaning, given that they are made of the same material and have the same hardness. Likewise, the HRC test requires a plastic deformation of the material being tested, which diamond is incapable of. Therefore, while diamond may have a hardness rating gauged by other methodologies, by definition diamond cannot have a Rockwell Hardness C rating. For a good discussion of this, please see []

This is my first non-minor edit, so I hope I did it right.

0seeker0 (talk) 03:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Upward barrel tilt"?
The Glock has no "upward barrel tilt" as stated in the caption to one image. The barrel only tilts when the slide is to the rear. This is characteristic of all Browning-Petter system pistol designs, to include locked-breech designs such as the M1911, HP35, various SIGs, all pre-dating the Glock 17. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.221.121 (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Details of Individual/Non-Official Uses
I suggest that there is no principled basis, nor is it a matter of general policy, for official, legal uses of firearms to be the only uses mentioned in this or similar articles.

In support of this view I would point out the following:

Firstly, a firearm's broader cultural or public associations are a common feature in articles about firearms. For example:

i) the Smith & Wesson article mentions the appearance of Smith & Wesson firearms in Clint Eastwood films;

ii) the Ruger Mini-14 article mentions the appearance of the firearm on the television series 'the A-team';

iii) the Stoeger Coach Gun article mentions the appearance of this weapon in the 'Evil Dead' film trilogy;

iv) the AK-47 article includes a subsection on 'cultural influence' which discusses the appearance of the weapon on numerous nations' coats of arms.

These associations are included because they are part of what has made a weapon famous. Individual, illicit use of a firearm may make a weapon infamous. Moreover, such uses are no less a part of what shapes the cultural perception of a firearm. There is therefore no reason for omitting mentions of such uses if issues around a firearm's reputation, perception or cultural status are generally considered relevant.

Secondly, though in previous discussions on this issue (in this feed in particular) it has been objected that one particular firearm is no more deadly, and so no more relevantly part of a particular illicit use, than any other, this is not always true. It may be the case that a particular firearm has features which, coupled with its availability to (at least licensed members of) the public, make it a more likely candidate for illicit misuse; and which therefore make that public availability a significant and controversial fact. For instance, the fact that Australian mass murderer Martin Bryant was able to obtain and subsequently use an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle was considered relevant to the number of casualties he was able to inflict, and led to Australia-wide restrictions on semi-automatic centre-fire rifles, high-capacity repeating shotguns and high-capacity rifle magazines. Importantly, the illicit individual use of the AR-15 in the Port Arthur Massacre is mentioned in the AR-15 article.

Thirdly, it is very common in articles about individual unofficial or illicit usage of firearms - whether they concern homocide or, for instance, licit uses such as sports shooting - to mention particular makes of firearm and links to articles for individual makes of weapon. There is no reason why these articles should not have reciprocal links and information.

It is not for individual users to decide that mentions of a weapon's use, because they might cast that weapon in a negative light, should be excluded. Readers can decide for themselves whether the individual, illicit use of a firearm is relevant to that particular firearm or not. If we are to preclude edits of articles about firearms (or other weapons) which mention illegal uses by individuals, there needs to be a stronger and more neutral basis on which to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpwm (talk • contribs) 13:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a lot that can be said on this subject, but for now I'll just point out that there's at least one guideline about such matters. At WikiProject Firearms, it says, "In order for a criminal use to be notable enough for inclusion in the article on the gun used, it must meet some criteria. For instance, legislation being passed as a result of the gun's usage (ex. ban on mail-order of firearms after use of the Carcano in JFK's assassination would qualify). Similarly, if its notoriety greatly increased (ex. the Intratec TEC-DC9 became infamous as a direct result of Columbine). As per WP:UNDUE, editors "should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject"." — Mudwater (Talk) 14:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See the WP:GUNS project guidelines. The Glock pistol definitely was not made famous (or infamous) by its use in the Norway shooting. Its notoriety was not significantly increased by the incident. ROG5728 (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing me to the guideline. Several points above - with respect to (i) the cheapness and availability of guns like the glock being a relevant factor in their use; (ii) users deciding for themselves whether a particular illicit use (which in the case of Breivik, was the worst atrocity in Norway since World War II) is relevant to a particular gun or not; and (iii) reciprocal links - have not been addressed. It is not sufficient simply gesture to a piece of policy without explaining its rationale. I would go so far as to say that there's an agenda here of pro-gun users suppressing negative associations with firearms; and that this suppression discredits these articles. Did the use of the Stoeger in the Evil Dead films, or of the Ruger in the 'A-Team', have any significant bearing on the notoriety of these weapons? I suggest it didn't. The difference is not one of degree, but kind; these are neutral or positive associations whereas the Breivik massacre is a very negative one. Johnpwm(Talk) 2:04PM EST, 24 April 2012


 * Movies and TV shows fall under a different guideline. That's WikiProject Firearms instead of WikiProject Firearms.  The difference of course is that pop culture is for works of fiction or entertainment, and criminal use is about real life.  I've seen both guidelines used to remove many edits from Wikipedia articles.  (I don't have an opinion about whether the material in the Evil Dead or A-Team articles meets the popular culture guideline or not.)  As far as positive or negative associations, with an article like Glock, there could be many stories about police officers using Glocks to catch criminals or protect law-abiding citizens, or about people using them to defend their homes, but those would not be appropriate for the article either.  (That's not criminal use but I would argue that it should fall under that guideline.)  Slightly off topic, Glock pistols are not inexpensive, and, while popular, they're not particularly more available than other guns. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

.40 Glocks
Do they have complete case head support? Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.40_S%26W#Case_failure_reports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.186.128 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

they do not and are prone to "kabooms" especially with reloaded ammo because of the loose chamber specs ... should be added, shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.186.128 (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Complete case head support is almost impossible to achieve in fire arms breeches that use feed ramps. A more accurate way to compare pistol designs in this regard is to establish which design features more or less case head support over the feed ramp. The older Glock .40 S&W models where derived from 9mm Parabellum models. The oldest 9mm Parabellum Glock models where optimized for reliable functioning, since there were designed as service pistols for the Austrian military. Glock chose to adapt this design for feeding dimensionally larger .40 S&W cartridges instead of creating a new somewhat larger design. When semi automatic service pistols are optimized for military field use, tight tolerances in the dirt ingress sensitive feed ramp chamber mouth area are often consciously sacrificed to achieve extra reliability. Since Glock produced several generations of pistols it can not be ruled out that Glock through time changed their design somewhat regarding the balance between reliability and case head support for their .40 S&W models. I think that before adding such information more referenced information is required.--Francis Flinch (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong date under Second Generation.
I think it should say 1998 and not 1988. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.42.13.204 (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"User" Section Criteria
Is there some criteria for inclusion in the "Users" section? An archive search reveals that this has come up before, but i am unable to find any conclusion. The US section is currently an odd mish-mash of federal agencies, one state agency, and four local jurisdictions (one, a little Pennsylvania Township). There was discussion in the archives about a separate page listing all US departments documented using Glocks. I don’t see a need for this, as there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of agencies that use Glocks in some form, and this is changing all the time. Should the US section list only federal agencies? Maybe federal and state agencies. That would be a reasonably stable/manageable list. Perhaps a single line entry in addition to the federal/state stuff saying something like “Numerous local agencies”. Any thoughts? BeadleB (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 December 2012
I request that this page be made "unprotected" in order that disambiguous portions may be redirected to there appropriate places.

Freebird1st (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Padlock-dash2.svg Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Requests for page protection. RudolfRed (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

semi
the glock is great gun but they do  they come as acp  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.250.62.1 (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's already covered in the article -- see Glock. — Mudwater (Talk) 09:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Violence Policy Center / Mass Murder addition
Per recent edits, see the prior consensus at Talk:Glock/Archive_6. The recent additions in this article are not noteworthy per the WP:GUNS criminal use guidelines, or prior consensus on the talk page here. This is all discussed in detail every time there is a mass shooting involving the Glock pistol, and so far the consensus every time has been that it does not belong in the article. Not to mention, Violence Policy Center is a gun control group, so using their slanted talking points in this article is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. ROG5728 (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:GUNS does not specify the criteria for labelling a shooting incident as "notable"; the language is very vague there. Your claims that the additions are "not noteworthy per the WP:GUNS" is unsubstantiated in view of WP:GUNS wording.
 * 2. Inclusion of notable massacres where a particular type of weapon was included is fully justified. For example, it would be unencyclopaedic to remove from Sarin the list of attacks where this weapon was used, nor not to mention, under nuclear bomb, that it was used on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
 * 3. Can you link to those discussions "in detail every time there is a mass shooting" that led to "consensus"? Consensus is quite a sacred idea on Wikipedia, and it would be good to read the relevant discussion instead of just a brief list of opinions of 6 contributors on a single occasion.
 * 4. You seem to confuse Wikipedia's NPOV with the sources' neutrality. Sources do not have, and never had, to be neutral. Indeed, it would have been crazy to prohibit Wikipedia from using sources that have a point of view. As per: Verifiability: "Sources themselves do not need to maintain a neutral point of view. Indeed, many reliable sources are not neutral. Our job as editors is simply to summarize what the reliable sources say."
 * You have reverted a certain edit by a number of editors already several times, hope you understand that this might be a violation of WP:3RV. <span style="font-family: 'Candara', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: #AAAAFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class: texhtml"> kashmiri 23:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, here are several previous discussions on this subject:
 * Talk:Glock/Archive 1
 * Talk:Glock/Archive 6
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms/Archive 3
 * Talk:Glock 19/Archive 1
 * Talk:Walther P22/Virginia Tech massacre dispute archive
 * Talk:Walther P22
 * — Mudwater (Talk) 00:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. WP:GUNS does indeed specify criteria for including criminal use. Please go back and read it. It says that in order for criminal use to be included it must result in legislation being passed, or must result in "greatly increased notoriety" for the weapon in question. None of these incidents involving use of the Glock pistol resulted in either legislation being passed against the weapon OR greatly increased notoriety for the weapon, so the notability criteria is not met.
 * 2. Wikipedia does not operate by precedent, so the fact that someone decided to talk about Sarin attacks in the Sarin article has no bearing on this discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFF.
 * 3. I already linked to the most recent discussion on this topic and, as I pointed out, consensus was against including this material in the article. Talk:Glock/Archive_6.
 * 4. I'm not confused about Wikipedia policy on neutrality. Quoting a gun control group on mass murder incidents in a gun article is an obvious violation of that policy, especially when no opposing viewpoints are presented. The claim that the Glock's "capabilities" have anything to do with it being used in mass shootings is completely false, by the way, and only someone with no knowledge of firearms would make such an absurd claim. Glocks are semi-automatic pistols chambered in common calibers, and their basic function and "killing power" is no different from any of the millions of other semi-automatic pistols in existence. Please don't edit gun articles if you don't know anything about them.
 * 5. Your edits go against consensus here, so unless that changes they will continue to be reverted. ROG5728 (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. You conveniently skipped the words "for instance" that appear in WP:GUNS. Trying to bend the meaning?
 * 2. Wikipedia operates by consistency. If certain level of detail is included, it can be included across the board.
 * 3. You conveniently linked to the only thread (thanks Mudwater for other links!) - and a very short one - that did not list an opposing voice. In all other linked discussions I do not see anything even remotely resembling consensus. Nor there was a consensus as regards changing the wording in the (archived discussion in the) Firearms Project.
 * 4. You are possibly correct with the word "capabilities", thanks to come up with a better expression. As to your worry that only one point of view is presented, you are most welcome to add an opposite view - this would only enrich the article.
 * 5. If there was anything like "consensus" about the subject, this talk page would look very differently; also, you wouldn't do 7 reverts in 2 days. Repeating "consensus" 20 times won't change the reality.
 * Finally, take a good read of WP:PRESERVE. <span style="font-family: 'Candara', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: #AAAAFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class: texhtml"> kashmiri 01:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously he doesn't care what the rules are. You've put a perfect, reasoned position that also quotes the official rules of Wikipedia and he still won't let it go. I can't believe this is actually allowed to happen.He's done the same thing to me.Lbrad2001 (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WA_2000

The meaning of WP:GUNS is quite clear. Please go back and read it. It says that in order for criminal use to be included it must result in legislation being passed, or must result in "greatly increased notoriety" for the weapon in question. None of these incidents involving use of the Glock pistol resulted in either legislation being passed against the weapon OR greatly increased notoriety for the weapon, so the notability criteria is not met. Wikipedia does not operate by precedent or by "consistency." Content in one article is not justification for adding junk to another article. We are concerned with policies and consensus, and your edits ignore both. The recent discussion I linked came to the consensus that this content didn't belong in the article. All of the other discussions linked by Mudwater also came to the same consensus, and that is why it was not included previously. You don't seem to understand the definition of consensus. The fact that you (or one or two others) want the material included in the article does not mean there isn't a consensus, it just means you don't agree with the consensus. Like I said, your addition is also a violation of WP:NPOV; and the anti-gun comments by the Violence Policy Center regarding the Glock's "capabilities" are also factually incorrect comments. Aside from the anonymous IP user, you are actually the only editor inserting this nonsense into the article. You're editing against consensus and policy. ROG5728 (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and for the record, the only published account of the shooter using a Glock in CT was when that cowardly pussy suckstarted the barrel when he saw the police coming for him.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with points raised by kashmiri above. There are parts of articles on Wikipedia I don't agree with, I don't just delete them. This is an 8000 word article with 20 pictures about Glocks, I think there is room for a section on criminal use. Timteka (talk) 09:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I am, to say, astonished to see that a small group of editors wants to keep certain WP:FACTS from an article. Never Boeing company censored the information that their airplanes have been used for criminal activity, nor makers of pesticides or chemical agents remove information that these compounds have also been used in violation of the law. This article is about a weapon AND its use, and this use includes several very notable and well-publicised incidents. As you know, the intended use of Boeing 767 aircrafts does not include ramming them into skyscrapers; however, as such incidents have happened and were all well-publicised, respective Wikipedia articles include relevant information. Thus, aircrafts aside, it is more than astonishing that those writing on lethal weapons want to censor information that these weapons have had use in well-publicised illegal activity. And they call this NPOV? <span style="font-family: 'Candara', sans-serif; font-weight: bold; text-shadow: #AAAAFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class: texhtml"> kashmiri 11:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to mention it in the articles about the criminal acts, that is one thing. However, mentioning those acts has no place in this article. If someone drove a Toyota Prius into a crowd of people, killing 20...that information goes in the article about that incident. Not in the article about the Prius. If Glocks are outlawed from civilian sales in the US like the guncontrol nuts want to do, then it would be worth mentioning here. Would you edit the knife article to include the weirdo that stabbed 20 children with a knife in China two weeks ago?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The reality is that discussing the criminal use of your average mass market pistol falls into much the same category as discussing the chemical weapon properties of Phosgene. Its been used for that and we talk about it. That it can be used for a whole bunch of other stuff and that most of it is used in industry doesn't negate that. As for WP:GUNS I rarely pay much attention to attempts at ownership by wikiprojects particularly when they project coordinators describe the activities of those they dissagree with as ah "faggotry".©Geni 23:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, because there isn't a national debate revolving around that subject (Phosgene). Guns, on the other hand, are a completely different subject, and that's why parroting gun control organizations in a gun article violates Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. See also, WP:OTHERSTUFF -- just because you see trivia in one article does not mean you're justified in adding trivia to another article (let alone, slanted trivia from the VPC). Furthermore, from a notability standpoint, virtually every object (from knives to baseball bats to hammers) sees "some use in crime." None of that is notable, though. ROG5728 (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There's an international debate about phosgene however that is of no more relevance than a national debate. I didn't parrot gun control organisations. I was simply digging up fairly non controversial statistics. Describing phosgene's use as a chemical weapon as trivia is an ah interesting approach but again thats not particularly relevant. The fact is criminals are a large enough group to be considered notable if it can be shown that they use the Glock. Since it can be that should included along with data as to how popular (somewhat but not massively so by the look of it).©Geni 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * On parroting gun control organizations I was referring to the earlier edits, but yours aren't much better. The statistics advance an agenda by talking about criminal use, but they don't do much else. They don't actually contribute to the article in any way. Like I said, no one needs to be told that "Glock pistols see some use in crime." Of course they do. That's pointless trivia. ROG5728 (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't they need to be told? Is it a secret? Remember many guns don't see much use in crime either due to issues of availability or practicality. Providing information on use across various sectors of society isn't trivia.©Geni 00:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

No one needs to be told that "Glock pistols see some use in crime" because it goes without saying. Virtually every object (from knives to baseball bats to hammers) sees "some use in crime" but that's not relevant or noteworthy. It's mundane trivia. ROG5728 (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Virtually every object? That aside If it goes without saying why were you objecting to it on political grounds? If it goes without saying their can't really be any politics connected to it can there?©Geni 00:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said, because it's a pointless statement that serves to advance an agenda and nothing more. It doesn't actually contribute to the article in any way, because it's a redundant trivia statement. ROG5728 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * redundant? are you claiming the information is already in the article? As for trivia the numbers don't support you. There are far more members of the set "US criminals" (since they are the only ones I can find stats for) than there are in say the set "Slædepatruljen Sirius special forces".©Geni 00:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, redundant. Do you not know the meaning of that word? Here are some synonyms for you: superfluous, unnecessary, needless. Any of those describe the content you're wanting to add to this article. It wouldn't actually contribute to the article in any way, so there's no reason to include it. ROG5728 (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is redundant, because this particular gun has been used in many high profile, high body count killings. And there are reliable sources to back this up eg. Violence Policy Center, which by wikipedia rules do not need to be non-neutral. So maybe everyone knows that guns can be used by criminals, but information on this particular gun should not be censored. So it informs on the gun control debate. I mean there is a level somewhere between no guns and everyone being able to have grenades/ak47s/rockets. Timteka (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We already went over that. Again, quoting a gun control group on mass murder incidents in a gun article is an obvious violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and the VPC is not a reliable source anyway; the statements by them are patently false garbage. The gun control debate does not belong in this article anyway, because it's not relevant here. There are separate articles for gun control, Violence Policy Center, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, etc. ROG5728 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You might want to see Redundancy (engineering). The rest of your statement is just an argument by assertion logical fallacy.©Geni 22:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You're having a hard time with this, so let's go over it again. Virtually every object (from knives to baseball bats to hammers) sees "some use in crime." Therefore it is not notable that the Glock pistol "sees some use in crime." It's only common sense that the gun does, and therefore it goes without saying. In other words, it doesn't need to be stated in the article because it's something that goes without saying. Period. That's not an argument by assertion. Actually, you're the only one repeating nonsense over and over without addressing the argument itself. ROG5728 (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Virtually every object (from knives to hammers to abstract mathematical theories) sees some use in war. Its only common sense that say Phosgene does therefor it goes without saying. Except we do mention it. Incidentally if you have evidence of a SBBL 32 pounder being used in criminal activity could you produce it please?
 * The whole "Users" section makes it pretty clear that we do think that the question of who uses the gun is relevant and the reality is that the gun sees more use with criminals than some of the groups listed. Therefor it would appear to be that use by criminals is significant enough to be mentioned.©Geni 02:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The users section refers to "Official Users" as in military and police forces that issue Glocks. For example, as a US Marine I was issued an M16A2 and a Beretta M9. However, I carried my personally owned Colt Python on a deployment. I was a Marine using a Colt Python, but the Colt Python was not used by Marines as an "official use" item. Does that make sense?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The word "official" doesn't appear in the article other than in the references and external links section. As a consumer product in at least some parts of the world statistics on purchasing trends and analysis of marketing approaches would be reasonable to include in the article.©Geni 03:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia does not operate by precedent so it doesn't matter what someone else did in some other article. The fact that some other article contains something does not mean this one should too. I pointed that out to you earlier when you brought up Phosgene, and here you go again with your "argument by assertion." As for the Users section in this article, I do agree that the users table probably needs to be trimmed a bit because it's massive and it could definitely be more succinct and relevant if some smaller users weren't mentioned. However, that's a completely separate issue, and again just because there may be some unnecessary content in this article doesn't mean we should add more unnecessary content. ROG5728 (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking for wikipedia operate by precedent (although of course by your attempt to cite a wikiproject you are) I'm asking for you to be logically consistent. If you honestly think your augments are valid you should have no problem applying them across a range of cases. The claim that part of the article I'm suggesting adding content to is a "completely separate issue" seems rather strange. At the end of the day users are users.©Geni 03:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Citing a Wikiproject is actually completely different because those are created by community consensus and are meant to apply to the specific articles in their scope. You, on the other hand, have been citing what someone did in some article on a subject (Phosgene) that has nothing at all to do with Glock pistols. Different subject matter and different article content; either way, we don't need to mimic it here. As for users, to mention that the Glock pistol is used by a major organization like the FBI is not at all comparable to saying that the Glock pistol "sees some use in crime." One statement is superfluous and goes without saying, and the other actually contributes useful information. ROG5728 (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticisms
This section appears to be less-than-neutral, as well as being original. The given definition of external safety appears to have been created to justify the claim. My suggestion is as follows: "Carry Condition -- Many Glock enthusiasts carry in Condition-1 since Glock has demonstrated that the trigger safety works as a traditional external safety. But others claim that one possible expectation of an external safety is to prevent the firing of a weapon in the event of an inadvertent trigger pull. Since the Glock trigger safety does not meet this narrow definition, they claim it does not have an external safety and thus cannot be carried in Condition-1, despite the fact that many law-enforcement & military Glocks around the world are carried in Condition-1. Although it is possible to put a Glock in Condition-2, that requires the disassembly of the firearm, and manually putting a cartridge into the barrel prior to reassembling it. But since this could result in the firing pin resting against the primer of the cartridge, it would be less-safe to carry a Glock in this condition."Steve8394 (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not only less-than-neutral and OR, some of it is outright dangerous and stupid with its talk of disassembling a pistol in order to load a round in the chamber while the striker is in the forward position. It's very obvious to anyone who has ever actually used a Glock pistol that this "Condition 2" silliness would be pointless and unsafe.


 * Said "Condition x" discussion was removed since it is both original research and is completely lacking (for very good reason) any citation from competent authority.


 * Meanwhile, back on planet Earth, Glocks are carried with rounds chambered based on both the instructions provided by Glock and the standard operating procedures of hundreds of police departments, military forces and firearms training schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.56.198 (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Question
Hi there, I see that Francis Flick has reverted my edits where I tried to add notable users to the article. I am new here so I don't really know the rules but now I see there is a rule that only organisations can be listed.

Who gets to make these rules? I am just curious because I'm new and I really don't know.

Thanks!

Bbeeebboo (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  12:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The appropriate guideline is WP:Firearms. With all due respect, your approach is off target for writing good articles. You don't try to list everyone that is notable and married into the article on marriage right? You don't try to list everyone who is notable and owns a Corvette into that that article nor do you try to list every accident or case where they were involved in vehicular manslaughter. With the latter, it might belong in some article on Wikipedia but they wouldn't go into the article on the vehicle, right? That is why they don't belong listed in articles here.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Glock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080406092513/http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf to http://www.dstan.mod.uk/data/05/101/01000100.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090213084320/http://www.janes.com:80/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html to http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080104024222/http://glockfaq.com:80/models.htm to http://www.glockfaq.com/models.htm#discontinued

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 13:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Glock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090214211359/http://glockfaq.com:80/guide.htm to http://www.glockfaq.com/guide.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080111003651/http://www.glockfaq.com:80/rare.htm to http://www.glockfaq.com/rare.htm#g17s

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 12:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Glock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110811145254/http://app-stg.nscc.gov.sg/data/2004_04_05_Fearsome%20Force.doc to http://app-stg.nscc.gov.sg/data/2004_04_05_Fearsome%20Force.doc
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726115641/http://www.psni.police.uk/...nnual_report_2003-2004-text.doc to http://www.psni.police.uk/...nnual_report_2003-2004-text.doc
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120125061712/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7149078.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7149078.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 17:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Glock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101208011649/http://www.glock.com:80/english/index_magazines.htm to http://www.glock.com/english/index_magazines.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080209114038/http://www.ibtimes.com:80/prnews/20080202/ga-glock-30-sf-45.htm to http://www.ibtimes.com/prnews/20080202/ga-glock-30-sf-45.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120823093049/http://www.afp.gov.au/about-the-afp/~/media/afp/pdf/ips-foi-documents/ips/publication-list/PC00003%20-%20Use%20of%20Force%20CO3%2020MAY11.ashx to http://www.afp.gov.au/about-the-afp/~/media/afp/pdf/ips-foi-documents/ips/publication-list/PC00003%20-%20Use%20of%20Force%20CO3%2020MAY11.ashx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.armadainternational.com/09-6/article-full_09_6_Combat_Pistols.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100523150138/http://www.arrestatieteam.nl:80/eenhedenbuitenland/sie.php to http://www.arrestatieteam.nl/eenhedenbuitenland/sie.php
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5l7wscAut?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astynomia.gr%2Fimages%2Fstories%2FDOCS%2FAttachment11480_ENHMEROTIKO_EKAM_ENGL.pdf to http://www.astynomia.gr/images/stories/DOCS/Attachment11480_ENHMEROTIKO_EKAM_ENGL.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Is-Force-1-good-enough/Article1-463389.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720110506/http://www.armee.lu/materiel/armement.php to http://www.armee.lu/materiel/armement.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722161231/http://www.usp.lu/armement-pistolets-fr.php to http://www.usp.lu/armement-pistolets-fr.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722160041/http://www.usp.lu/media/raids.pdf to http://www.usp.lu/media/raids.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513205333/http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/ to http://www.defence.pk/pakistan-army/
 * Added tag to http://www.drc.ohio.gov.gov

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on Glock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141014115656/http://lundestudio.com/glocks.html to http://lundestudio.com/glocks.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100609073128/http://lundestudio.com/2010SHOTShow/ to http://lundestudio.com/2010SHOTShow/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090223104347/http://www.handgunsmag.com/featured_handguns/glock38_112805/index.html to http://www.handgunsmag.com/featured_handguns/glock38_112805/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126115853/http://policensw.com/info/gen/e5.html to http://www.policensw.com/info/gen/e5.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111228180621/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/73576/customs-officers-to-be-armed-at-ports to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/73576/customs-officers-to-be-armed-at-ports
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141123215922/http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cos/100years/1980/index.html to http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cos/100years/1980/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.astynomia.gr/images/stories/DOCS/Attachment11480_ENHMEROTIKO_EKAM_ENGL.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.logreglukonur.is/greinasafn.php?subaction=showfull&id=1175185763&archive=&start_from=&ucat=2&
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722022617/http://www.logreglan.is/upload/files/20-1-2003-4474.pdf to http://www.logreglan.is/upload/files/20-1-2003-4474.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630185313/http://mbl.is/mm/mogginn/blad_dagsins/bl_grein.html?radnr=803269 to http://mbl.is/mm/mogginn/blad_dagsins/bl_grein.html?radnr=803269
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705043746/http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/spotlight/country/eu_pdf/europe-kosovo-2006.pdf to http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/spotlight/country/eu_pdf/europe-kosovo-2006.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://mod.gov.lv/upload/nbsfakti.anglu.gala.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090630083227/http://soj.lt/ginklai_technika/Glock-17/ to http://soj.lt/ginklai_technika/Glock-17/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402121531/http://58.26.13.195/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1698&Itemid=275&lang=ms to http://58.26.13.195/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1698&Itemid=275&lang=ms
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914184432/http://www.arrestatieteam.nl/artikelen/glockvoorats.php to http://www.arrestatieteam.nl/artikelen/glockvoorats.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111001010549/http://www.defensie.nl/landmacht/materieel/bewapening_en_geleide_wapens/%28hand-%29vuurwapens/glock_17 to http://www.defensie.nl/landmacht/materieel/bewapening_en_geleide_wapens/%28hand-%29vuurwapens/glock_17
 * Added tag to http://www.topglock.com/Content.aspx?cKey=Glock_Flash
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718130213/http://www.policja.pl/portal.php?serwis=pol&dzial=1&id=8085&search=394 to http://www.policja.pl/portal.php?serwis=pol&dzial=1&id=8085&search=394
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100301192043/http://www.mvd.ru/news/35604 to http://www.mvd.ru/news/35604/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090503165027/http://www.boinasverdes.org/militaria/uoes/uei.htm to http://www.boinasverdes.org/militaria/uoes/uei.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010174257/http://www.mil.se/sv/Materiel-och-teknik/Vapen/Pistol-88/ to http://www.mil.se/sv/Materiel-och-teknik/Vapen/Pistol-88/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091014235450/http://www.geneve.ch/police/nos-services/gendarmerie/pri/ to http://www.geneve.ch/police/nos-services/gendarmerie/pri/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090905024146/http://www.met.police.uk/co19/armed_response.htm to http://www.met.police.uk/co19/armed_response.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100801101059/http://www.baltimorepolice.org/join-the-team/become-an-officer/physical-requirements to http://www.baltimorepolice.org/join-the-team/become-an-officer/physical-requirements

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor Edit
It's nice to see the family under one roof, but a lot is lost in detail that way; I'd recommend under each model including at minimum barrel length and standard magazine capacity. (I honestly don't know most of these; I only know that the 22 is 4.49 in. (114 mm) at 15+1 and that the 27 is 3.42 in.(87 mm) at 9+1.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.85.167 (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Glock pistols
Template:Glock pistols has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — xaosflux  Talk 17:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Glock. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208152215/http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_c-models.htm to http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_c-models.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080206053823/http://www.glockfaq.com/models.htm to http://www.glockfaq.com/models.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416073113/http://www.glockfaq.com/nonus.htm to http://glockfaq.com/nonus.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205232711/http://cominolli.com/images/Glock_Safety_Page2.pdf to http://www.cominolli.com/images/Glock_Safety_Page2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160822133844/http://www.gazetaexpress.com/web/index.php/artikujt/lexo/24626/C4/C16/ to http://www.gazetaexpress.com/web/index.php/artikujt/lexo/24626/C4/C16
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725010743/http://www.u.tv/News/New-guns-to-be-issued-to-PSNI/0ffe9630-0fec-4129-9708-0b4fdcbbbbd4 to http://www.u.tv/News/New-guns-to-be-issued-to-PSNI/0ffe9630-0fec-4129-9708-0b4fdcbbbbd4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714061829/http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/training_nypd/firearm_tatics.shtml to http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/training_nypd/firearm_tatics.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit
I don't see a recent discussion on the criminal use as alluded to here; I will restore the edit. Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To address one issue raised here (see edit summary), perhaps "used in the following crimes" could be changed to "used in the following notable crimes" or something similar? If you think it's unnecessary that's fine, just wanted to throw the idea out there. - Mr.1032 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * This content does also have many of its own articles devoted to it. Should it not all just be merely in a see also or perhaps in certain circumstances main article at such and such. -72bikers (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's appropriate to include a few words explaining the context of the link and the weapon used, since this article covers several models. I don't see a way to pare it down any further without losing that context. –dlthewave ☎ 18:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)