The Glock in decline
Like I said, that claim is overstated. Glock is here to stay. But the follow up to yesterday’s piece is here. Glock does one thing and they do it well. And, so far, that’s all they seem to want to do. And if you want that one thing (a moderately priced, reliable handgun that requires little maintenance and still goes bang every time) then it’s still a great choice.
I will note that Richard is quite correct on one key thing: Glock has missed a lot of opportunities and these seem to come from failing to take the US market seriously. In the 1990s, a single stack 9mm Glock would have been fantastic. My understanding is that to get the engineers to make the single stack 45 was hard enough.
April 5th, 2011 at 9:09 am
I think Gaston’s attitude was/is as folows: “I invented the perfect gun. If you don’t like it, you are a fool. I needs no refinements whatsoever, but in order to keep you plebs happy, I will make some minor adjustments a couple of times a decade. Major changes are not allowed. Now fuck off.”
April 5th, 2011 at 9:52 am
I own several Glocks and have a good many mags for them.
I would happily swap the entire set of them for similar Springfield XDs, which seem much more ergonomically friendly.
April 5th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Reads more like a rant then a true analysis of decline and coming failure. Perhaps it would make a nice paper for a business 101 class, but its not a true real world assessment of what is really going on at the company.
I’ve said it over and over to my shooting buddies that I wished Glock would expand their gun line… Revolver, AR, Bolt action, etc etc… I mean Glock could have easily started the pocket .380 craze or at the very least completely neutered Ruger’s LCP market share if they would have brought out a pocket .380 of their own. BUT! They were busy selling the Gen 4 to Govt and LEOs and I would bet that they brought in much more money with those big contracts then they would have selling “GCPs” to the civilian market place.
I love Glocks, and I would definitely own an entire arsenal of Glocks if they just offered more. Yes, they are leaving money on the table (They have the brainpower, experience, property, plant & equipment to easily expand their product line) but they arent a business in decline.
Its also important to note that sales is only one half of the equation and sales to the civilian market segment is a very small part of that… They are a giant machine shop after all, and there are probably countless lean manufacturing as well as logistical improvements that Glock has made over the years which are propelling them forward and driving dollars straight to the bottom line.
April 5th, 2011 at 11:29 am
Gunmart,
I don’t think I was implying any impending doom for Glock. I know nothing of its finances. Rather, I was commenting on Glock’s attitude to design changes. It is not merely a logistics issue or even one pertaining to the LE/military business. The company, or at least the principals, look down on all other guns. They are by no means alone in that attitude, but they’ve got it. Glocks are excellent firearms, but they are not perfect by any means. Just don’t tell that to Gaston.
April 5th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Glock is the apple of the gun world? Go figure…
(Which makes the 1911 the Windows/MS of the gun world, I suppose. Though I’m sure disciples of JMB would object to comparing him to BillG)
April 5th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Ed-
I was referring to the article from the link… not your post.
April 5th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
The real problem is that Glock is not on the acendency. Much of the movement made in the plastic, striker fired pistol world as of late (the last 3 years) has been from S&W and Springfield. The fact that there is no public acknowledgement from the company concerning the problems with the Gen 4 shows that there is serious disconnect witrhin the company. I love Glock pistols, I have shot 100’s of rounds from my Gen 3 17 and would never part with it, but Glock is on the decline in the pistol world just from the simple fact that they are losing ground in the innovative arena. Seriously, the moves made by S&W since coming out with the M&P should be enough to give Glock ulcers. It is simply the truth.
April 5th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
S&W, sure. Springfield just bought HS2000s rights.
April 5th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
And i say that as a happy M&P and Glock owner.
April 5th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
OK, they do “something” real well. That doesn’t mean they should go into everything else, or that they would do everything else as well as what they do. Let them do what they do, and do it well. There are others that do the other things well. If these guys stop doing what they do well, then there’s an issue, but guess what? Someone else will come up to do it well. What’s the problem?
April 5th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
It’s been my opinion for years that Glock makes one gun. If you like that one gun: great, you’ve got your choice of caliber, barrel length, full-sized grip or compact grip. If you don’t: sorry, you’ll probably not like anything in their line.
The advantage of being a company that makes one gun is that they can focus on making it as good as possible. I wouldn’t expect anything less than excellence if you’re an established business with essentially one product.
On the flip side of the coin, I’ve seen many folks complain when feel that a company that has many products is focusing on stuff their not interested in (ex: Beretta focusing on high end shotguns instead of handguns).