Printable View
:smt033I wish they would come out with one of these....... They are a great manufacture just fallen behind the rest of the others. They need something new and they really need to do it quick to stay in with the comp because they are fallen behind and before too long they will be too far gone.
They have sold well over 2 million firearms. Probably most carried weapon by law enforcement, so, I think they are doing ok without the revolver. Besides, I don't think that's Gaston's thing.
I don't think Glock wants to take profits and start something new. On the other hand I think Ruger could make a ton of money if they would listen to their customers a little more.
I dunno...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...Bard/grevl.jpg
Most would prefer...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ltWeapon-1.jpg
:anim_lol:
Let me get this straight. Glock is "falling behind" by not producing a comparatively inefficient design that has basically been obsolete for at least the last two decades? You are aware that it was the Glock pistol (combined with the Beretta 92) that put the final nails in the coffin of the police "service revolver," right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Theprofessor
Revolvers are great for hunting and knocking around the woods. But those American markets are tiny and insignificant compared to the worldwide market for fighting pistols.
Small revolvers make decent concealment guns, though I don't think they are better than some autos (at least for trained people). I will tell you that over the last ten years, Galco has sold far more holsters for baby Glocks than any other gun, including J-frame revolvers. This is a major indication of their respective popularity as carry guns.
I don't think Glock is missing much of their market by not making revolvers, and they are certainly in no dangerous of going out of business.
you're not making much sense professor.the cigar face emoticon makes no sense at the beginning of this paragraph either,and im not even a glock fan.:rolleyes:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...ltWeapon-1.jpg
:anim_lol:[/QUOTE]
Thats funny, I have that exact same picture in my photobucket and was thinking of making a thread about it, not 30 seconds ago!!
:watching:
You do realize that the Revolver is a rather old weapon right? This is not some "new item" that they have to keep up with. Glock does what it does, and does it fairly well based on the sales figures I've seen. 318,000 pistols in 2006 seems to say they are doing alright.
Ender
Glock is in no danger of going out of business. Besides, who would buy a Glock revolver anyway? :mrgreen:
I was reading a book a while back about the Oklahoma City federal building bombing by an author who was, shall we say, firearms knowledge challenged.
When I got to the part where he said that when Tim McVeigh was arrested, he was carrying a .45 caliber Glock revolver, I gave up and stopped reading it.
I was shocked back in the 80's when Beretta got the Military sidearm contract. I just could not understand why they did not go with Glock and still do. I think it had to do with no external safeties. Does anyone know why they did not go with Glock? It took a long time for the other major manufactures to come out with a polymer pistol.
I think it was this forum, but it may not have been, where someone posted a story about Ted Nuggent and the interviewer made mention of the fact that Ted was carrying his Glock revolver. Makes you wonder why they don't bother asking what the gun is. Hey, I was taught to verify everything in journalism school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Crunch
The deal goes to the lowest bidder. :mrgreen:Quote:
Originally Posted by spacedoggy
The deal actually went to the country where we wanted to place missiles during the Cold War.Quote:
Originally Posted by SuckLead
The Glock was introduced while the tests were being conducted, and anyway didn't meet the JSSAP criteria of double action with a decocker/manual safety.