Talk:Glock 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] GLOCK vs Glock

I don't know Wikipedia's policy here, but the factoid about GLOCK in ALL CAPS seems redundant (on the GLOCK page already). Also, someone who has a clue ought to check a few facts on here:

  • "The slide and barrel are QPQ Tenifer? treated, a process that makes their steel as hard as diamond..." (hard to believe)
  • "The GLOCK 17 is the most widespread pistol used in law enforcement..." (True, or just a stereotype?)

I cleaned up this article a lot. Let me know how it works. --Twinxor 21:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)


It needed a lot more. It reads like a sales brochure, complete with nonsensical descriptions of "polymer" as a kind of "advanced plastic". Idiotic. I've removed a lot of droidspeak. Let's see if someone can fix it up. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
"Polymer" is the firearms industry term for plastic, because plastic has a host of negative connotations. And the GLOCK family of pistols is the most commonly issued firearm for US police (links on the main GLOCK page), though I am not sure if the 17, 19, or 22 is the most popular. Honestly, a lot of the stuff you've removed probably best belongs on the main GLOCK page.Attakmint 13:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I've heard that the plastic used in GLOCK frames is a variant of something called Nylon 6. Can anyone confirm this? --BobBQ
It is, its called PA6.6 polyamide 6.6, this type has a grade of moyster, it can also absorb steam, thats why you could damage the grip by store it first in water for a whil and then deep freeze ist.

Cannot affirm the above, but on the GLOCK 17 page, when mentioning the XM9 trials, the first few words are "The excellent GLOCK 17." Note the "excellent" I am removing that word, it seems a little biasing.

I'd like to see the format changed more to something like that of the M1911 page. Box on the side with major stats, etc.

I'm removing Counterstrike from the list of games. It's the Glock 18, it has burst fire mode. --UNHchabo 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia site for BLACK, it's the G19, not the 17. Anyone confirm one or the other? Honestly, I looked at the screenshots from the game, and the smaller pistol looked more influenced by the Beretta. --UNHchabo 16:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think that the claims of Glock pistols' reliability can be put in somewhere. That earlier sentence was an unsubstantiated claim, but we can make it NPOV with a little work. Glocks are popular because of simplicity, reliability, and price. Reliability is the only one of those three that could be considered subjective. As for simplicity, it's the simplest design possible. If there's a round in the chamber, pull the trigger and it'll fire. And for price, take a look at all the other pistol manufacturers. Glocks average $450 new, while Berettas are usually $600+, and Sigs and 1911s are usually at least $800.


Hostile Intent is a mod that is completely different from original Half-Life. It does not use the same weapons, or the same environment as the original game. Therefore my inclusion of this mod is unrelated to the original game, and was not advertising. That I know of, Hostile Intent is the only HL mod that uses the Glock 17. I'm putting it back in. --UNHchabo 21:27, 6 May 2006

[edit] Merge

Disagree I dont think the GLOCK 17A article shouldnt be merged as it is a different gun and the other variants of the 17 have the own pages (GLOCK 17L).

Agree A slightly different barrel length does not constitute separate gun. Go look at the H&K USP article. They have one model "USP" with all the different variants, this is the same thing. There should be a note about the 17A , why it was created, and new statistics (new gun length and barrel length), they way all the information is in the same place.

I agree with merging. The number of different GLOCK 17 models alone can become overwhelming if each has its own page (GLOCK 17, 17A, 17S, 17PRO, 17T, 17R, 17S, and so on). An example of this effect can be seen in the work this user- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deon_Steyn - has put into condensing down the number of Beretta pages. Go to the "Beretta" section of his page.

It should also be said, that the Glock pistols are mechanically identical, and the only variations are caliber-specific. This fact should be taken into consideration as well. Roundeyesamurai 05:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why should the 17L have its own page ???? (Unsigned)

When did I say that it should? Roundeyesamurai 19:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree the 17A article is a stub with a template Cannibalicious! 05:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I merged it. Seems the vote is agree. I agree too. So I "pulled the trigger". Thernlund 19:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why stop there? The same logic seemed to apply to the 17L so I merged that one too. Thernlund 19:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11/6/06 revert

I reverted the article for several reasons:

  1. The technical specs had been removed.
  2. Listing all departments in the U.S. that use the Glock 17 take forever. If you have an external link, fine. Put it in. If not, we can't make a list. It would take up more space than the entire rest of the article combined.
  3. The U.S. isn't the only country that has departments that issue the Glock 17. See WP:NPOV#Bias.
  4. We just got rid of all of the "in popular culture" stuff from the firearm articles. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture.

[edit] Glock 17 in Swedish use?

Did the Swedish military have these made under license or Glock supplied the pistols and called them P88s? 70.68.143.168 03:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

They were made by GLOCK. "P88" is merely their internal military designation for the pistol. Roundeyesamurai 08:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

i would like to add some of the P88´s have had to be retrofited with new sights becouse the all-polymer sights wear down becouse of the holster, is this only for the P88 or is it a comon problem with all the Glock 17 models ? might be worth adding this to the article since it affects preformance. --RaDeus 21:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

RaDeus:

The G17 polymer sights do experience accelerated wear when they the pistols are frequently un-holstered and re-holstered. This isn't really a performance issue, since GLOCK offers both steel and polymer sights with the pistols. It's a budget issue. Those organizations that purchase the polymer sights instead of the steel sights, to save a few dollars per pistol, end up needing them replaced after a period of time.

Note that GLOCK provides polymer sights as standard, because most of their customers don't frequently unholster and reholster their pistols, and those that do (particularly in parts of Europe) often utilize GLOCK-made holsters which are designed to not wear down the sights.

If this were described in the article as a "performance issue"- unless worded appropriately- it could give the impression that GLOCK produces inferior components, when this is patently untrue.

Roundeyesamurai 23:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

I just moved GLOCK 17 to Glock 17, per a move request, the discussion of which can be seen at Talk:Glock. This article was a redirect with a non-trivial edit history, so I swapped the histories, and the versions that were previously located at this title can now be found at GLOCK 17. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single-action

I'm not sure if I would call the Glock pistols "single-action". Single-action implies that the hammer is fully-cocked before firing, and the only action of the trigger is to release the hammer. Instead, Glock pistols, like other striker-fired pistols, requires the trigger to pull the striker back the rest of the way, and to release it. In it's ready-to-fire state, it's kind of half-cocked. As the article stated before, this is kind of a "semi-double-action". It's not DA cause the hammer/striker isn't fully forward, but it's not quite SA either. --UNHchabo 23:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree and made a change. Rough maybe. Check it out. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GLOCK vs. Glock

Discussion on this topic here. As of late there isn't much in the way of variety where the discussion participants are concernd, so I'm posting this as an FYI to those who maybe aren't watching the Glock article. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 23:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsensical Fraction in Barrel Length (17Pro)

Can someone clarify the line "Glock factory threaded barrel, about 1/1" longer than the standard one"? Shouldn't 1/1 be reduced to 1, or is this supposed to be 1.1 inches or something else altogether? Alvis 08:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be "1/2", but I haven't looked up the right figure. My rationale in not changing it is that with it so obviuosly wrong, maybe someone who knows will change it. Or I'll finally get around to looking it up and doing it myself. Basically, I don't want to change it without knowing what to change it to. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole list of Glock 17Pro differences is copied from here: http://www.sniperworld.com/books/gear_7.html and it says 1/1" there. In the pictures it looks like 0.5 inches. 88.112.107.97 02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The measurement in the sentence, "Glock factory threaded barrel, about 1/1" longer than the standard one" (under Variants heading) makes no sense. I presume the person meant to type 1/2" or something like that? Chris77xyz 05:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Googling reveals the threaded barrel is for attaching a silencer (suppressor). One guy commented it was for not disturbing one's neighbors. Not quite sure if that's a joke. Couldn't find out the extra length, though. Does look like 1/2in to me, from some of the pictures one finds floating around the Net. (My favorite thing I found was somebody calling Glocks "tactical Tupperware".) thundt 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Could the 1/1 have something to do with the twist in the barrel? (one inch longer, increased spin?) it seems to me that the twist would continue throu the extension of the barrel. I'm no expert but I thought I'd put this idea forward to those in the know might look in to it. 210.215.75.4 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)by Andrew.

[edit] "Philippine versions"

The "Mariner" and "Tactical" versions, if I understand correctly, are not produced by GLOCK. They are aftermarket modifications made by a single retailer, Urban Store of Shangri-la EDSA. They probably should not be included, or noted to reflect this fact. Roundeyesamurai 17:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a citation for the Filipino Glock models. The source site doesn't mention the distributor. Bayoublaster 05:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The GLOCK 17 is the most widespread pistol used in law enforcement

This claim is not true. Glocks, no matter what designation, are common in law enforcement. But this is due to 2 facts, first of all they are rather cheap to purchase. Second reason is that the purchasers are often not experienced weapon users, and thay do not appreciate what is actually needed. It´s not the actual specifications of a weapon that is most important, but the amount of protection against unwanted discharges that the weapon offer is. I agree, if one drops a glock, it won´t discharge when it hits the ground. But the lack of an "old-fashioned" safety catch makes Glocks entirely suitable for enforcement use. Because : If restraining a suspect turns into a fight, sometimes the suspect will try and grab the arresting officers weapon. And, sometime the suspect will actually manage to get hold of the weapon. If this happens with a Glock, due to the lack of safety catch, one may very well end up in an A&E or worse. If it happens with a traditional weapon, it´s pretty OK, as most likely the suspect won´t have a clue how to release the safety catch.

Then about the precision, then the Glocks are actually not all that they are hyped up to be. Single shot precision is OK, but when discharging more than 2 successive rounds, one can actually feel the center of gravity move forward along the weapon, as the cartridges are expelled. This will lead to the rounds falling increasingly short of target. I think that this factor pretty much cancels out any advantages of lugging a hi-capacity magazine around.

82.35.23.167 19:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Pesu

Absolutely all of this is pure opinion on your part, and completely unfit for an encyclopaedia entry, not to mention that no portion of your statement has anything to do with the title of this section or your first sentence. What exactly is the point of this post, other than to "impress" us with your "firearms prowess"? Roundeyesamurai 06:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Generation 4

The article lists the 3 current generations of Glock pistols, Gen 1, Gen 2, and the current Generation 3.

The list also lists "Generation 4" stating:

Gen 4: As Gen 3 but with the addition of an ambidextrous magazine catch.

I have not seen any proof that Glock is selling a 4th Generation pistol at this time. Aso of now, the only Glock with an ambidextrous magazine release is the Glock 21SF. I have seen speculation in magazines that the Glock 21SF's ambidextrious mag release will be added to other Glock products, but as far as I can tell, it is only speculation.

Can someone cite a source for the Gen 4 comment, or should it be removed, at least for a little while?Yelruh 22:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any discussion, so I deleted reference to "generation 4". If someone can cite a source, put it back. Yelruh 00:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidation of Glock model articles

  • Final opinion tally was 6 in support, 2 in opposition. Anybody up to running the redirects, pulling the tags? I'm going to go ahead and start the process. The new article is up and has been running, the old content will still be there. Try and put a note in the talk page. If you are in love with any content from these other pages, merely go back in the history, pull the content, and integrate it with the article.--Asams10 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
It looks to me like the current count is 7 in favor of merging, 6 opposed, and 1 in favor of merging into multiple articles by caliber. I'm basing this on reading through all the comments in this talk page section and the next one. In favor of merging: Asams10, Koalorka, Nick, Esskater11, Boris Barowski, Hayden120, Gtstricky. Opposed to merging: Beanerschnitzel, Georgewilliamherbert, 71.228.145.62, Crizzly, MalikCarr, Glock19 girl. In favor of merging into several articles: LWF. So it seems that opinion is pretty evenly divided on whether this is a good idea or not. — Mudwater 15:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how you're counting or why people weren't voting, however I tally'd the bold 'oppose' and 'supports' to get my total. You're also counting anons and people with one or a handfull of posts. Not sure who ANY of the opposed were as I'd not seen ANY of the names as members of the firearms project or come across them editing any of the scores of firearms related articles I frequent. Not community members, in other words whereas many of those who supported the merger are... all maybe? Maybe not. --Asams10 (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I arrived at that count by reading through what people wrote on this talk page, in this section and the following section. I believe you are also suggesting that the opinions of some editors should count for more than others, because they are official members of WikiProject Firearms, because they have edited more articles, or because they're not anonymous. (One of the 14 editors stating a preference here was anonymous.) That's probably a discussion worth having, but the point I was making was that, if you review everyone's remarks, you will find that the count of editors stating a clear preference (strong, weak, or in-between) is 7-6-1, not 6-2, which is a pretty evenly divided tally, not a consensus. — Mudwater 17:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Firearms Project has a convention for variations that calls for listing model variations under a parent article. Currently there are 23 separate articles for the various Glock model numbers. We're going to consolidate all of those articles into this article as they are all subvariants in size and/or caliber to the Glock 17. We're also merging sections of the Glock company article into this article. If you've got objections, please voice them here for consideration. If you'd like to help, please allow some time for comments below prior to taking any action. Thank you. --Asams10 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - Makes no sense whatsoever to have these separately. Glock is a family of weapons all based on the G17. Koalorka 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak support - Combining the text and images from all 23 pages could cause navigation and load time to be an issue - I'd hate to see a glock 17 article with 22 extra images thrown onto the end. Currently the articles are organized by caliber and size with a nice table, and I'd like to see that stay. Nick (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we should combine all the Glock pistol articles together because it would be an oversized article and each pistol deserves their own page and equal amount of information. However, I would consider combining certain Glock models together such as the whole 9mm family and etc. Or instead of separating the articles by caliber, I would be ok with separating the articles by size...either is fine. I just don't think it would be a very good idea to combine all the Glock models together. User:Beanerschnitzel 17:00, 4 December 2007 (Pacific Time)
I personally think that in the case of the Glocks, it would be best to do them by caliber, for example 17/18/19 together, and 20/29 together. Most redesign work went into the various caliber changes, and the others were fundamentally shortened versions with little to no redesign work. I also believe navigation would be far easier this way. This way we could consolidate them without as much difficulty.--LWF (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, there is virtually no difference and virtually all parts interchange. Those parts that don't interchange are different in dimensions only. The slide on the Glock 17 fits on the Glock 18, 19, 22, 23, 26, 27, etc. The Glock 36 is the most unique of te Glocks currently produced but even that gun has numerous interchangeable parts with a standard glock and, other than the single-column magazine, is identical in design. Even the single-column magazine differs only in shape. What I said earlier applies best, even Glock prides theirselves on the fact that they are that interchangeable. --Asams10 (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that the 17 and 18 slides are interchangable, though I've never dissassembled an 18 (hard to get in California...). You most certainly can't safely operate a 26 with the slide off a 17 or 19. I haven't tried between the .40 and 9mm models. I believe that their external and interface dimensions are the same, but the recoil spring guide interface with the barrel and frame differ within the 9mm models, and I suspect on quick visual impression with the .40 models.
There's a difference between "they're all pretty similar" and "they're the same thing". Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Uber support I defintly agree with LWF on this one, Most of these things dont deserve there own articles. Half are fundemently the same gun on differnt firing modes and other random things. Esskater11 02:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you mean Asams10, I had a similar but different idea as an alternative, although I fully support this one as well.--LWF (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
"Firing mode" is not a technical term in firearms; they're different slide/barrel and grip lengths. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That's the point, though, they're different only in length and caliber, the core of the operating system is either identical and interchangeable or directly scaled up.--Asams10 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
they're different only in length and caliber - this is categorically not true.
They are of identical rail/slide interface (cross section) within a given caliber, and identical barrel chamber/slide fitup at the chamber end, but the barrel/recoil spring carrier interface differs, the recoil spring/slide interface differs, and you can't just mix and match the parts (at least in earlier generations; I don't know if the latest generations made them all identical).
The design concept and most of the engineering and tooling are the same. Many of the components are substantially similar, differing primarily only in length. But it's not that simple. I've owned multiple models in the 9mm range before and done fit testing; The 17 I borrowed and 19 I own are interchangable slide/barrel/recoil spring assembly. The 26 wasn't interchangable with either. There were detail fit changes in the recoil spring / barrel interface which meant that those components were not interchangable. The details of the barrel/slide interface shaping are different for the different lengths.
One can put a 17 barrel in a 19. One can't put a Gen 2 19 barrel or 17 barrel in a 26, because the recoil spring interface to the barrel is different. You can assemble it into the gun, but there's not a snug fit and the recoil spring assembly parts will rattle around and probably break if fired repeatedly. You'd have to machine the 17/19 barrel a bit to seat the 26 recoil spring properly.
They could have made them truly identical other than just length. That's not what they actually did.
They look close to identical other than length, but the detail changes are significant, and the parts aren't nearly as interchangable as you suggest. If you go by actual testing and fitup, as opposed to "eyeball guess" by people who haven't put the components together, you get negative results across many of the combinations. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
You're pointing out nitpicky differences. Are there differences to warrant 23 separate articles? Are you going to break them down by caliber, frame size, length, or what? None of these is a perfect solution and having 23 articles is definitely NOT the solution. They are clearly different caliber versions of the same gun. The Short Action model 70 Winchester doesn't have its own article, therefore the Glock 20/21 should not. Nor should any separate glock save the Glock 18 IMO. --Asams10 (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Mild Support I agree that the glock pages are too fragmented, but I am against bundling them into the Glock page. I am for a separate page ("glock pistols" of "glock models" for example, which is linked to from the Glock mainpage, and each glock pistol article redirects to the appropriate section in the glock pistols page). Glock is about the company itself, and it would make the page too long I think. I would not bundle it in Glock 17, because although it is the original pistol, it now is only one of many. Boris Barowski (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Possibly seperate articles for full sized Glocks, compact Glocks, subcompact Glocks, and competition Glocks. Hayden120 (talk) 05:39, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Current concensus: I'm reading the concensus that they should be combined into one article or multiple articles by caliber or by frame size or, alternately. I'm of the opinion that no combination of articles would be appropriate as both are imperfect. Let me suggest that including a color-coded chart with frame size across the top, caliber along the side. Glock does it this way here on their website. We could then write subsections with short sections describing the various frame types. Short, sweet, and no information is missing. --Asams10 (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Objections considered: As I see it, the objections seem to center around the size of the article and possible loss of content. Glock's web page, again, can provide some guidance. Somebody who is more gifted than I am with tables can insert thumbnails of the various frame sizes in the various articles and include it on our 'master' table. As for loss of content, I've been through the pages and there is very little original content that can't be included in a master article. Again, my main objection for multiple pages is that even Glock categoriezes five (5) types. What's the point of making five articles, why not five small sections to describe the differences under a master article? The issue here is that when one wants to go to a pistol article, they'll type in "Glock 21" for example and it'll pull up IDENTICAL content on either the 'Large frame' article or the "45 ACP" article. Neither is a perfect solution. Putting the identical content at the top of the page and having "Glock 21" redirect to an article that'll list both the other caliber .45 pistols and the other large frame pistols seems to me to be the more workable and more elegant solution. --Asams10 (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah good idea Asams10, best putting them all in one article. There really aren't enough differences besides caliber and dimensions to justify seperate articles for any of the Glocks. Hayden120 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - Koalorka said "Makes no sense whatsoever to have these separately.". That's your opinion. In my opinion, it makes no sense whatsoever to combine all Glock articles into one. Don't you people understand that these are all different firearms which come in vastly different sizes and different calibers? Many of the weapons have several variations, as well as a unique history of usage. If someone is trying to look up a .45 ACP, Full-size Glock 21, why should they be brought to a page that talks about a subcompact 9mm (Glock 27)? There is clearly enough information for each weapon to justify each one having it's own page. Why remove useful content that's already there? This is nonsense. Consolidating them all into one page would be incorrect. I guess it won't be surprising if this happens though, the people who "run the show" at Wikipedia have always been known for their extreme lack of common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.145.62 (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Being a 'Sacred Cardinal, Second Level' of the Wikipedia Firearms Cabal, I'll sumarilly dismiss your points one by one:
  1. "That's your opinion." Yes, but he and everybody else has qualified their opinions at length.
  2. "In my opinion..." but you failed to back up yours.
  3. "Don't people understand..." No, I don't understand how a rifle with a shorter barrel is included in the parent article but a pistol with the same is not. Glock names their models the way they do, that doesn't mean that a Glock 27 is not a subvariation of the model 17 because it has a different name. The Glock 27 different from a Glock 17 in fewer ways than a .308 Remington 700 is different from a .30-06 Remington 700, for your information.
  4. "There is clearly enough information..." Uh, isn't that YOUR opinion?
  5. "Why remove useful content?" Well, we wouldn't be. As was stated before in the discussion that you're not really paying attention to, the dupicate information will be consolidated, the unique infromation will be incorporated in sub-sections.
  6. "...always been known for extreme lack of common sense." Hmmm, you've made 5 edits and you're welcome to join the community and participate. Until then, your opinions will be noted and we'll move on. --Asams10 (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't understand how a rifle with a shorter barrel is included in the parent article but a pistol with the same is not. Glock names their models the way they do, that doesn't mean that a Glock 27 is not a subvariation of the model 17 because it has a different name. The Glock 27 different from a Glock 17 in fewer ways than a .308 Remington 700 is different from a .30-06 Remington 700, for your information.
I woudn't say they were subvariants of the 17, they are more handguns of the same design, of which the 17 happens to be the first. The 17 was maybe the first, but I wouldn't use it collectively for all pistols. --Boris Barowski (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
It's all semantecs. Glock chose to launch their pistol as the model "17" beause it had a 17-round magazine capacity, simple as that. Each subsequent model has been numbered sequentially for whatever reason. As has been mentioned, the concensus is leaning towards Glock pistols which is already in works. --Asams10 (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
According to this article Asams, it says, "The designation 17 is derived from the gun's being Gaston Glock's 17th patent, rather than its magazine capacity." Hayden120 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, but dubious. I've heard it both ways, but this source says what everybody knows and the Sales Reps in the 80's told everybody... it's the capacity. Glock also has an issue with wanting its name spelled out in capital letters, with wanting each minor dimension change to warrant a new number, etc. --Asams10 (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
huu... if you read carefully your source, you'll see that is its because of its the 17 patent of Gaston Glock, i'll even quote it for you "Company and gave it the name GLOCK 17 which was dominating the seventeenth patent of the company" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk • contribs)
Yes, then it goes on to say, "However the people largely knew that it was named so because of its magazines capacity of 17 rounds of bullets." Don't gotcha me without some ammo, please. You don't make yourself look good. --Asams10 (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But you said yourself that it was the reason they chose to launch their pistol as the model 17 because of its capacity, wich you prooved yourself with your source wasn't true, they marketed that way maybe, but that's not why its called a model 17, its because everyone where saying this that its true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a compromise we could merge them by caliber. Rather than having all in one, all of the 9mm Glocks could be in one article, titled Glock 17 as that is the parent of the 9mm Glocks, all the .40s in one article, named for the first, and so on.--LWF (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Or by size... all the subcompacts, compacts, normal size, long slide.
The problem is, there's no external way to decide "this is the best grouping". I think people object to "Glock pistols" as one article; other firearms makers have separate articles for major variants. There are separate articles for the Walther PP and PPK, which are just shorter/longer versions of the same thing. There are separate articles for the Smith and Wesson 59 and 5900 series (second and third generation), and 69 and 6900 series (second and third generation, compact) - 4 separate articles there. There are Myriad articles on Beretta models. Separate articles for the Colt M1911 series, the Combat Commander (shorter), and Delta Elite (longer, tactical), though not on a caliber-by-caliber basis.
The groups which people are suggesting are ones for which other manufacturers' guns generally get separate articles. Either caliber or length usually qualifies as separate, though things like vented barrels and sights and finish and so forth usually don't.
That's pretty much where the Glock articles stand now.
If we're going to be consistent, perhaps the best option is just to admit that there are a lot more Glock distinct major models for sale than other vendors' semiautomatic pistols, and that as such more articles on Wikipedia is the right solution. If that offends you, you can try and get Glock to cut down their model line, but that seems unlikely to succeed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Given other manufacturers have a parent page, and subsequent model pages, I can't possibly see why we would want to stray from the established format.--Crizzly (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You're under the mistaken impression that there is a difference between, say, the Glock 17 and Glock 36. There is only a dimensional difference... that's it. The established format is that variations in caliber and size do not warrant another article.--Asams10 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
In short, I concur that there are more differences than similarities between the models...and if you don't believe that, compare (perhaps with a magnifying glass and/or a micrometer) the components side by side and/or check the part numbers. Compatibility (of a part or two - ie: G17 mag in a G26, etc) should not be confused with interchangeability (of any ol' part - ie: G17 barrel in a G26, etc).--Crizzly (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Uh, as was already stated, the differences are almost entirely dimensional. --Asams10 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If the main issue is that we want to show a little more clearly the similarities between the distinct models {ie: not 24/24C, but 22/27 or 26/29}, perhaps we can include on the parent page the same grid that is on the bottom of all of the model pages (perhaps with basic thumbnails for relative model shape/sizing along the top row -- like GLOCK used to have on the old version of their webpage). Heck, perhaps we simply make pages for each row AND column heading in that grid, and actually see how the average wikipedia user actually uses the parent page. Wouldn't that be much more valuable than all our expert user musings? {of course, that's not really feasible/practical/possible, so I would want to err on the side of "no matter how the user wants to access the data, they can"}--Crizzly (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That's not the issue. That's already clear. The issue is that when you're looking for data on a Glock 32, 99% of that information is identical to the information for the Glock 17. You don't have a separate aricle for 12 penny nails and 10 penny nails, do you?--Asams10 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
If anything, the parent page should be made "more accessible" to address any "aren't they really all the same?" dilemmas. The grid format really does wonders to show the families and formats at a glance. There may be some room to link the more strongly linked products into a single page (like how the 21 and 30 were made by scaling the 20 and 29 into .45acp), but the linkage would have to be extremely strong and a single step.--Crizzly (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're arguing against an assertation YOU made. But... why have the main page direct to the model 21 and model 39 when you're getting 99% of the same info on that page as any other page?--Asams10 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Example: the 20 was designed as a beefed up version of the 17 to handle the 10mm... the 21 was a downscaled 20 to handle the .45acp {in a "hey, lets take this uber-strong frame and use it for the larger, less punishing .45acp as well" positive sort of way} ... the 30 was a shortened version taking advantage of the 10rnd magazine limits and inherently increasing concealability. Does that really make the 30 a variant of the 17, or is the separation far enough removed? Admittedly, this is quickly risking becoming a "how many parts can you replace on a car before it's not the original car anymore" argument...the only difference being the changes in design are being made by the manufacturer and declared as something wholly distinct, thus given it's own model number. One could surmise GLOCK's decision to not call (amongst many other examples) the 24 a "22L" as their realisation that it truly is a distinct model deserving it's own model name/number. Otherwise wouldn't we just have a list of "17L"-style model numbers instead? --Crizzly (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll reiterate the example of the Remington 700. It has one article with a table of calibers and barrel lengths. Odd. How about Ruger P series pistols? If you're willing to argue that the differences between the Glock 17 and 36 are greater than those of the P85 and P97 Rugers, you're not going to find many people to support you. --Asams10 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The Ruger P series should have 2 articles, for the aluminum frame and polymer frame models, which differ both in material and in link design, significant changes even if the slide and barrel are basically the same.
The Remington 700 has only one major mechanical variation (short or long mag...).
The differences between the Glock models are more extensive than that, sorry. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Really? Name them? Extensive? Name them? Your arguments suggest you fall into the group of editors who believe that there are more differences and/or those differences are more significant than they really are. --Asams10 (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I named them above in an earlier post in the discussion, Asams. Well before this discussion started, I have both physically tested parts fit and measured dimensions and tolerances on various model Glocks, and I already stated the results of that analysis. I've also done this with other pistol families, various rifles including different calibers of the same base gun (Remington 700, Winchester Model 70 (modern), etc).
I strongly object to the wholy technically inaccurate oversimplification that they're all the same. It's just not true. Very similar is not the same as the same.
A consensus conclusion that the differences are minor enough, considering those differences in a rational and technically reasonable and accurate manner, is fine with me. You are not doing that - you're rejecting any claims to the contrary to try and drive through your preconceived vision of what to do with the articles.
If you did not keep trying to base your arguments for your vision on factually false technical claims, I would not keep pointing out that you're wrong.
Please knock it off. The discussion can and should focus on grouping logic and article quality rather than technical feature claims which apparently nobody here but me has ever measured or tested. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
You're claiming significant differences beyond dimensional. BS. This is pure bullshit. Beyond the two examples of the Glock 18 and the nested recoil springs on the subcompacts. ALL GLOCKS ARE SCALED DOWN OR UP FROM THE BASIC MODEL 17. Denial of this basic fact doesn't mean it's not true. Get whatever micrometer you want out, but THOSE PARTS THAT DO NOT INTERCHANGE DIFFER ONLY IN DIMENSIONS, NOT IN SHAPE OR DESIGN! You're denying the facts and it really does not help your stance. --Asams10 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I have never claimed or asserted that the design is fundamentally different, other than details such as the recoil springs (assembly, and barrel interface) on the subcompacts. Please calm down and re-read what I said. You've been asserting that a lot of things are identical (as in, interchange) that do not and can not. "Merely" scaling them in some dimention renders them incompatible in many cases.
Yes, they're all the same design concept. But so are the AR-15 series and AR-10 series, and M-1 Garand and M-14 rifles, and G-44 / CETME / H&K roller-locked rifles (G3, G33, etc) are all another same-basic-design-concept series as well. We have separate articles for all those. We have separate articles for the basic Colt 1911, the Commander, and Delta Elite, even though those differ only in some dimensions and caliber. We have separate articles for the Beretta 92 and 93, and the Beretta 92G-SD/96G-SD are off on another one as well. The Glock articles are not the only ones where a single design concept ends up with separate articles. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Please stop patronizing me. Most parts DO interchange. Current Glock models 17, 22, 24, 31, 34, and 37 use identical frames with the exception of the ejector. The slides are different only in those few dimensions required for caliber such as breech face, extractor, etc. The magazines differ in the dimensions of the liner, follower, and feed lips only much as any different caliber would require for any pistol. You're making a HUGE deal out of your assertion that they are different enough to warrant more than one article and yet your assertions don't hold weight under scrutiny. Calm the Fu$& down and stop taking it personally. It's an academic exercise, not a personal afront to your flawed arguments. --Asams10 (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Only one person in this discussion is using all-caps shouting or any form (obfuscated or not) of swear words; I don't see as I'm the one that needs to calm down at the moment.
I have never disputed that most parts do interchange within general size classes.
The same can be said of other weapons for which we have separate articles, however - Colt Commander is (other than slide and barrel) interchangable with equivalent 1911 series, etc.
The barrel widths are not identical between calibers (.40 wider than 9mm). There's more than just breechface differences in the slide from the 17 to 22.
There have been pistols in the past for which caliber conversions were literally just a magazine and barrel swap. For the Glocks, other than .40 / .357 SIG models where the cartridge outer dimensions and breechface are identical, there are more extensive changes than that. You can't put a 17 barrel in a 22, or visa versa. You can put a 17 barrel and slide on a 22 (moderately tested, not extensively). The frames, in a size class, seem to be generally dimensionally and fit compatible.
I'm making a deal about this because you keep oversimplifying the technical situation, and because I think the proposed merge is a bad idea. These are separate issues. There's no reason for you to keep making overly broad and imprecise technical claims that aren't factually true. It's not helping the discussion about merging or not merging.
You can argue for merging from the precis that they're similar enough. Nobody's disagreeing that they're significantly similar, both in design concept and dimensions across the model ranges. I disagree with the merge, I think they are sufficiently different and that the arguments that they should be unified aren't strong enough, but it's not wrong to merge. It's wrong to call them identical when anyone with a micrometer, or simply doing cross-model fit tests, can see that they aren't.
The academic exercise of how to organize the encyclopedia has no experimentally testable right answer. The gun component dimensions and fit are experimentally testable. I've done some of those tests and measurements, as an enthusiast and sometimes gunsmith and firearms engineer. It's not up for negotiation that the parts differ. That's an input to the discussion on merging the articles, but not a determining one.
Can we please focus on the part that matters - whether it's better for readers of an encyclopedia if the articles are one article, or separate ones per model? Do we end up with a more readable encyclopedia, more consistent, technically accurate one way or the other? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Walther PP redirects to Walther PPK. And my rational for merging by caliber is simple, since the most redesign work between the different models was for the caliber changes, the ones in the same caliber are very similar internally, with relatively minor changes. But you bring up a good point, if we didn't merge them all into one, which might not be the best solution, how would we divide them up?
By the way Asams10, I think you meant WP:GUNS#Variants, not WP:GUNS#Naming, right?--LWF (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I did mean the variants section. Dividing them up creates more of a problem than having 23 articles. Dividing by any standard his means duplicating over half the article and breaking the variants guidline. As I've stated numerous times, these pistols differ very little and most parts will interchange. Those that don't interchange differ only in dimensional size with only one exception, the nested recoil springs on the subcompacts. Look at the schematics at Brownells. You'll note that they have one schematic for the entire line. Whatever way you do it, dividing involves saying exactly the same thing with slightly different dimensions.
Say you've got an article for the subcompacts. The only thing unique you can say is that they have nested recoil springs. Everything else would be fluff. Hmmm, they have shorter frames, barrels, and slides. So? Do the nested springs and the slight modification to the locking block really justify a whole separate article?
Say you've got an article for the 9mm models. Great, what's different? Some dimensional differences in some of the parts? That's it? Yep.
Let me say that I believe the only resistance most editors have to the consolidation of these articles is that they might own one or another of the guns, may have contributed some time and editing effort they don't want to see removed, or are just plain ignorant of the level of commonality they share. It's not really a tough choice for me, but I think that the resistance out there does not override the facts. --Asams10 (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
That is a legitimate concern; if hard-to-come-by information is removed during this process a lot of people will be unhappy. I assume that duplicate information will be consolidated, but I haven't heard anyone complain about that. At any rate I'd like to hear more about your plan. It sounds like a single "Glock models" page is still what you had in mind, and that is something that can be worked on (and previewed / discussed) without changing the current setup. Organization and load time could be tweaked there too (my 2 biggest concerns) Nick (talk) 18:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sandbox: Ok here is a place that we can use to work on the layout. What I've done looks awfully long - particularly since it contains no actual content. We'll definitely want to minimize the amount of thumbnails on the page, thus linking to photos more often than not (in order to reduce load time). Please go nuts on the layout and add content as you see fit. Lets get a (mostly) functional prototype in place so we can have a more hands-on discussion. Nick (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we'll need a subheading for every single variant, otherwise the page will be too long. I think just a chart similar to the one on Glock will be fine. The actual aesthetics, design, and action are almost identical to each model. The sections that are suggested to merge should also be included. Hayden120 (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right. It looks better without them. - Nick (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

If all the Glock pistol articles are consolidated, along with material from the "Glock" article, how long would the one new article be? According to Wikipedia:Article size, as a general guideline it's better if articles do not exceed 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose, and are not longer than 10 pages when printed. Would a combined article be longer than that? There should also be room for expansion, as more material, possibly a lot more, is added to the article(s) later. I don't know the answer, but this seems like a question that's relevant to this discussion. — Mudwater 02:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a legitemate question. The information unique to the individual models really just fits in a table. There may need to be a paragraph or two about the compacts, maybe one for the subcompacts, one for the large-frame 45 and 10's, another for the small frame 45's. Should be well within the 10,000 words. Not sure you realize, but I don't think the readable content in all of the raw Glock articles combined is that much, and consolidation would trim about 95% of that bulk.--Asams10 (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Makes about as much sense as combining the AR-10/AR-15/M-16 articles together. MalikCarr (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Two different firearms, same design schematic Malik. I would prefer to see the article named Glock 17, just imagine this as a single unified term and disregard the numerical designation. That's what it is. Then come the sequentially numbered variants. I would also like to see a standard infobox included in the article like any other firearm page, perhaps with just the specs of the G17, with the main table detailing the numerous variants below the main body. What I propose, in keeping with our attempts at emulating an actual encyclopedia would be to employ the following format for the article:

  • Brief introduction - self explanatory.
  • Development - History origin and users.
  • Design details - detailed technical description, method of operation, function and placement of various mechanisms.
  • Variants - listing the derivative models and any unique information that accompanies them.

Koalorka (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we hurry up and make a decision on what we are going to do? The article has been sitting still with tags all over it for at least a month. We need to add up who supports and who is against the merge. Then we need someone to be bold and make the change happen. Hayden120 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support - I have no real objection to the merger if:

Every model has more then just a listing in a table. At least a sentence or two.
The title is not Glock 17. The page should be titled Glock Pistols and all the current model pages should redirect there.

GtstrickyTalk or C 14:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. Can We formulate pollquestions now so we can come closer to a conclusion?
--Boris Barowski (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opposed To Merge On Grounds of Apples To Oranges....

Whoever said that it would be like merging AR-15's with M-16's said it best. More like lumping the M-60 in with a Charter Arms .38 - the two are completely different.

All GLOCK's are similar in appearance, this is true. I could see combining information about the 26, 17 and the 19 - they are basically the same exact gun only in different sizes. That would make sense. The GLOCK 17 and 18 are similar only in the way they look - and that's to an inexperienced gun owner. Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of firearms (especially Class III) could see the obvious difference, and that is that semi-auto pistols don't have selector switches. In that respect alone, there should be a differentiation between the two guns.

GLOCK has taken steps to prevent the 17 and the 18 from being confused with one another, so why would Wikipedia - a site that is viewed by so many people as "the place" for information - cause further confusion by combining the two topics? Given the influence that this site has on web travelers in general, I think it's less a matter of opinion and more a matter of responsibility to keep these two entries seperate.

SFA0125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glock19 girl (talk • contribs) 06:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I mean, while we're at it, why don't we merge the AK-47 and AK-74 together? They're very similar - the furniture and caliber is different, but the operating system is the same. Or, say, how about the AR-18 and G36? The G36 is very different on the outside, but it still uses the same Stoner operating system with the added benefit of a simpler bolt and extractor as well as a gas piston.
All this talk of merging is patently silly. Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and unlike the fiction articles I usually edit and get into disputes about, hot-selling handguns aren't "non-notable" enough to merit a merge by any stretch of the imagination, even if they're very similar. MalikCarr (talk) 08:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)