The announcement of Gaston Glock's death last week, at the age of 94, has brought forth a wave of obituaries and reminiscences about "the way things used to be" in the firearms industry. Very few individuals can be said to have changed the way arms manufacturers designed, built and marketed their products. Glock stands tall in the most illustrious of that group, including inventors such as John Moses Browning, Samuel Colt and Hiram Maxim. He does so, not because he improved the technology in the market at the time, but because he drastically streamlined and improved the productivity of the industry. Since then, no-one's looked back.
Glock got into semi-auto pistol manufacturing in 1980 when by chance, he overheard two Austrian Army officers discussing the bidding process for a new service sidearm. Initially rebuffed by the military powers that be, because he'd never built a firearm before and they presumed him to be ignorant, he took his case to the Austrian Minister of Defense and gained permission to compete for the Army's handgun program. He won the contest, and - over the next couple of decades - the worldwide handgun market as well.
"That I knew nothing [about guns] was my advantage," Mr. Glock said in an interview. He bought a number of handguns and disassembled them in his workshop, examining each component for its function while weighing potential improvements. He made prototypes and test-fired them with his left hand; if he was maimed by an explosion, he could still draw blueprints with his right. The product of his efforts was a nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol that he designated the Glock 17 because it was his 17th invention.
Most notably, the frame of the new Glock pistol was built of industrial plastic, making it lighter and more resistant to corrosion than the conventional all-steel guns in use up to that time. The handgun's various parts were housed in separate subgroups, making them easy to remove and replace. There was no safety or decocking lever to confuse the user. (The safety was built right into the trigger.) All told, the Glock 17 was a revolutionary new version of a weapon that had remained largely unchanged for a century.
There's more at the link.
Glock was in the right place at the right time, with a thoroughly modern engineering approach to his work that defied older stereotypes. While more "traditional" manufacturers made each of their successive models an improvement over their predecessor, never differing that much from their forebears, Glock was willing to ask every time, "Why should this be done like that? Is there any good reason to uphold the status quo, or can we get rid of older, more time-consuming, more material-dependent processes and use modern engineering to come at the problem(s) in a completely new way?" To everyone's surprise, asking that question was the key to the handgun market; and Glock made very sure to grab hold of that key and retain it as long as he possibly could. Today, his firm dominates the handgun industry, with many clones of his designs available worldwide.
I liked the Glock from the first time I handled one. It was lighter than most of its early competitors, and had far fewer parts (34 of them in most full-size Glocks). That's a major step forward in simplicity. As one who'd seen combat in the worst terrain in Africa, where complex weapons systems tended to get chewed up and spat out by the surrounding landscape at the drop of a hat, I'd long been a believer in the old proverb, "Keep It Simple, Stupid!" (K.I.S.S.). In my personal firearms today, I continue to maintain that perspective, which is why I own more Glocks than any other brand of pistol. They may look and feel clunky compared to a race-tuned competition pistol, and lack all the little details that illustrate that a gun is a prized possession that's been "tweaked" to express its owner's pride of ownership; but they've never let out a "Click" instead of a "Bang!" when failure was not an option. That sort of reliability in a personal defense weapon is worth gold, and then some.
Well, Mr. Glock has now gone to his reward. I wonder if he was met with an honor guard of Glock-toting angels at the Pearly Gates? If ever a man deserved such an accolade, it's him.
Peter
12 comments:
I guess being ignorant of conventional gun manufacturing wisdom was a bit advantage for him. Gave him the advantage of thinking outside the box and creating a firearm that stood out from the crowd. The world has much to thank him for.
I know a lot of people hate the 'Tupperware Pistol' with a passion but the performance of them over 40 years is undeniable proof this is a choice well worth consideration.
Engraving on a fine shotgun is one thing, but I can't imagine engraving a Glock, though I am sure someone has.
Do you remember the panic about "untraceable plastic guns" that were invisible to metal detectors? If I recall his was not the first plastic frame handgun, but certainly the most widely distributed.
Ask the people who rent out guns at public firing ranges and I think they will agree as to the dependability of any firearm since they see thousands of rounds through various brands. I believe their experience will testify as to the Glock's dependability.
I still have the first one I bought in '86. It malfunctioned once due to a bad magazine. My go to now is the 19X.
Innovative? Not to denigrate Glock's obvious improvements on the concept, but HK introduced a polymer-framed, striker-fired, DAO, 18 round capacity 9mm with even fewer moving parts at least 12 years before the G17, with their VP70Z. It failed in the American market almost entirely because of it's long scratchy trigger pull and heavy blowback slide mass - the 2 big improvements that Glock made on the existing concept with a more traditional slide lockup that added parts but saved weight, and an innovative striker "pre-cock" and built-in safety that reduced the required trigger travel and effort. Glock made the idea sellable, but he was really just improving somebody elses concept.
Libertyman, I remember that, and that they were going to ban Glocks, although I don't think they ever mentioned it by name when talking about bans.
Scott, You are assuming he'd seen an HK. He might not have if they weren't particularly popular.
The one bad thing about the Glock I use for work is that you have to pull the trigger to disassemble the thing. Since I'm pretty careful, I haven't had a problem, but some of my colleagues have had...issues.
Even so, it's a very reliable and accurate piece, and I like it otherwise.
I never thought Glocks were bad guns, but I have never owned one as I shoot them poorly compared to the several other brands of pistols I own. I don't know why, just differences in people I guess.
Mr Glock revolutionized the handgun industry. I will admit Glocks are not for everyone but if you follow excellent gun safety protocols with proper holsters it is the best tool for those people. History has proved it to be a gold standard for handguns. I like 1911 and S&W revolvers but at night where I sleep I park a Glock 19 close by. In 1873 I would have had a single action Colt by the end of 21st Century I'm sure another gold standard will arise.
heresolong:
You can be sure that Her Glock was familiar with H&K, and with their plastic pistol especially. Some of Glock's designs were for military use, and he was adept at making traditional equipment with plastic parts to replace wood or metal. H&K was located in Germany, right next door to Austria, and he probably ran into H&K personnel while dealing with military procurement systems. That he would have acquired one of those pistols for examination would be a given, being as it was not popular with users, and would be a good example of what NOT to do.
It's possible that one other thing he did acquire from H&K was their manner of dealing with purchasers and end users. Prickly would be the most polite term that comes to mind. The H&K position is somewhere along the way of dying in a fire, and we hate you, or similar. Glock is less verbal, more like getting the message/attitude from a mime, perhaps.
Scott, did ever actually pull the trigger on the HK?
It wasn’t just a long scratchy trigger pull that was heavier than hell, it was an abomination of a trigger pull!
The WORST milspec AR triggers are WONDERFUL compared to that POS. A friend had one, he showed it to me and after clearing it I tried the trigger.
Throwing the damn thing would have been better.
I was participating in a GSSF* event in Kentucky. and at the second stage I pulled the trigger and nothing happened. I withdrew and went to the event headquarters where a Glock armorer was set up. He replaced the trigger spring in about three minutes and I was back in the game. (IMO *Great* customer service!) He also gave me a helpful hint in the unlikely event I should face a similar situation in a SHTF event: Mash down on the trigger as hard as you can while manually operating the slide, let up on the trigger just until the group resets, then fire; wash, rinse, repeat. Granted, you waste every other remaining round in the magazine but you're still in the fight. +
The group conducting the event permitted me to re-enter and complete the stages, and I actually had my best showing ever. If I'd shot 6/10ths of a second slower, I would have won a gun as I would have been the top shooter in the second bracket (At the time, GSSF divided shooters into three brackets with appropriate prizes for the winners.
* GSSF = Glock Sport Shooting Foundation.
+ Great argument for the carrying of backup weapons.
first comment
First... I hated the first glock I ever shot, a rental at a range.. it was to me at the time the most uncomfortable gun I had ever shot from the feel of the recoil and the trigger.. It was a Glock 27. However I shot such small groups with it that it matched my best groups with guns I had used for years with 5 and 6 inch barrels and it was the first time I had ever shot one. I seriously had some mental dissonance of the disparity between hating the feel of it and how well I shot it. That model is now my daily and after getting used to it I'm more than happy with it.
Years latter I got another .40 the glock 35 I bought it used supposedly in mint condition a police trade in. I was so mad at what they shipped me. It had so much wear on the frame all the rubbing edges were silver from use and holster wear. It was so dirty that you could see buildup of carbon that could have been measured with a caliper for depth. The barrel where it went through the front opening in the slide was worn completely through the nitrated finish and was also silver. I have glocks with thousands of rounds through them that look factory new. I cant even imagine how many rounds through that gun to show that amount of wear. I made one of the best decisions ever when I calmed down on opening it at the FFL it was delivered to and said let me try it on the gun range before I threw a fit over the internet to the seller (a gunstore). I is my favorite pistol ever. Smooth as silk in all respects and with it I can hit a 8 inch steel 80% of the time at 100 yards. That much wear on the gun simply made it the equivalent of any of the fully tuned race guns I had ever tried. Maybe better in my opinion. Because of it I have never purchased a new glock again. As I know that even with 10's of thousands of rounds through them they will just keep going. They make the energizer bunny look weak.
Everything above is just my personal opinion and worth every dollar you paid me.
Post a Comment