Is A Limited Run Of Glock 35s A Good Idea?

[dirtypool40]

nope, sorry dude, there's a major difference between effective markting and giving a crap.

Kimber and Glock are both tops at the first and WAY back in the pack on the second.

[Kimberkid]

I gotta agree that Glock definetly DOES give a crap. They give away more stuff than any other manufacturer, least as far as I can tell. They advertise everywhere. They have always offered the lowest ratio of cost to performance and have improved some parts, though not all, of their design over the years.

I dig that there is a difference between quality marketing and actual support, but I see it tough to argue that they dont do both.

[Flexmoney]

I know there have been Glock certificates at the Nationals table.

[Middle Man]

Love their product or hate it, Glock is one of the more successful, astute gun makers around in regards to production, management, and marketing. They wisely support USPSA and recreational shooting in general. Additionally, they sponsor a minor league stock car team. Glock knows its target audience and markets to them well. Glock however, moves slowly and is extremely tight-lipped about product development. The average gun manufacturer puts the advertising cart before the production horse.

Myself and several of my cohorts here in the office are of the mind that the Glock 21 Slim Frame is their first slow response to the mammoth sales of XD 45 pistols and the growing sales of M&P pistols (look for the M&P45 in April). The shelved JCP project spawned a great deal of innovation among handgun manufactures. Springfield had already been planning on a .45 acp polymer before JCP to meet the market demand for a better polymer frame .45. Smith's new owners/management wanted a better polymer frame platform to regain market share (and maybe some of their lost glory) in the LE market in particular and semi-auto market in general.

However, given their predilection for stock, unmodified guns and the fact that USPSA shooters represent such a small percentage of the overall market I doubt Glock would choose to expend any very valuable production resources on a product aimed only at the small niche of USPSA Glock shooters. Besides, history is an excellent guide in such matters and history says such special runs are slow moving, poor selling items.

But what do I know, selling guns for a living

[driver8M3]

it's not quite the same since GSSF is their own game, but they've had special runs of GSSF G17s (GSSF stamped on the slide...no other mods). i own one. i think they sold about 1,000 of them on the last run ($400, i think) to GSSF members.

[Nik Habicht]

Grip angle is the ONLY reason I don't have a Glock....

Don't get me started on grip angle, I'm wishing for things that might actually be fixed if they gave a $HIT. I already posted about why they felt they had to change grip angle from everything else on the planet and it just got me flamed.

There's a solution to the grip angle dilemna ---- pick one (a Glock that is) and practice. After about 4 weeks of daily dry-fire, it ought to point right for you.....

Then you'll need arched mainspring housings on everything else, so you'll at least be able to see the tip of the front sight.....

Seriously --- I hear you! I've sold off almost everything that isn't a Glock, simply because nothing else comes up on target as easily for me. Some days I miss the Sigs, 1911s, and S&Ws......

Oh, and for the record, there's a Glock I can't shoot well: The G17.....

[zhunter]

Glock has long been seen as an innovator in polymer gun world. Have been VERY successful!!

But they have rested on their past success's and have left the door open to competition, i.e. Springfield XD's and S&W M&P's specifically.

Time will tell if the two newcomers make inroads into the LEO and Military sales. If they do, it is ONLY due to the arrogance of resting on their laurels and not continuing to be innovative.

Time will tell.

[Nik Habicht]

Glock has long been seen as an innovator in polymer gun world. Have been VERY successful!!

But they have rested on their past success's and have left the door open to competition, i.e. Springfield XD's and S&W M&P's specifically.

Time will tell if the two newcomers make inroads into the LEO and Military sales. If they do, it is ONLY due to the arrogance of resting on their laurels and not continuing to be innovative.

Time will tell.

Competition might push them in that direction --- improving the product. In the absence of said competition though, there's no financial motive for innovation in an industry.....

I don't blame Glock for their approach --- I'm sure it's paid off. Five years from now, their business model might have changed....

Back in the mid 1980s, when viable autofocus came to the SLR world, Canon took a hit by changing their lensmount totally, rendering all older manual focus lenses incompatible with the new AF cameras. Canon made the move, because they saw real benefits in terms of lens design flexibility and AF speed by making the switch. That decision hurt them --- but only in the short run, as a number of people switched to Nikon, only to return to Canon later for the significantly better AF system.

Nikon chose to modify the legendary F mount, first created in 1959 --- and spent the next decade trying to catch up in the development of useable Autofocus for non-stationary subjects. At least in the Sports photography area, that decision has cost them....

[zhunter]

As stated above, competition among suppliers is gonna only help us, the consumer!!

[skeeter]

love the grip angle, could use a longer beavertail.

[Glockster35]

If Glock were to make a Dave Sevigny Glock, and actually do it some justice (added length to teh beavertail area, custom parts here and there) I would definately buy one (maybe two).

I think it is a shame they haven't done or announced they are tooling up for something special to commemorate Dave's win. It is a BIG DEAL!

As I se eit, in today's USPSA there are only two big dogs in the gun department, Glocks and 1911 derivatives (sp?).