G17 or 17RTF

[JonInWA]

I always figured the Gen-4 was less aggressive because of negative feedback on the RTF.

Agreed, but I have the impression that it was negative feedback from civilian users as opposed to Glock's originally perceived primary market for the RTF2, i.e., LEO and military, for duty holster/gloved use.

I think that the Law of Unintended Consequences came into play, and that what may have transpired was that the largest group of actual purchasers of RTF2 Glocks were from the civilian commercial market, using concealed holsters for carry/competition, with a greater liklihood of uncomfortable receiver-to-skin (or receiver to concealment garnment) contact (and they're probably the most likely to loudly complain).

I also believe that in Europe the two options regarding polymid size were made concurrntly (or at least conceptually, in prototypes) available.

Also, the RTF2 in the G22 did nothing to address the more significant real/perceived issues with the G22 (longevity and use with attached rail lights) that the Gen4 does-and that Glock was coming out with the Gen4 to address these issues was fairly well known/rumored concurrent with the appearence of the Gen 3 Glocks with RTF2 available option.

My thought is that organizations may have adopted a "wait and see/wait and compare" attitude before making ultimate organizational acquisitions, particularly regarding G22s (and probably to a lesser extent, in this country at least, regarding G17s).

Best, Jon