True, but I still bend over to pick up money off the ground. Making a 1911 angle grip taking all the same parts wouldn’t even be hard for Glock. They probably already have the molds/programs/whatever. Zev sells them for 62 bucks a pop. Glock could sell it for that or less and own the market. Hell I would buy one just for tinkering sake.
Posts: 7540 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 18, 2005
Well, coming at it from another angle, Glock sells every gun they make.
I worked for a manufacturer of a different product that also sold every unit we built. One time, I brought up an idea for something that I figured would sell like crazy. It eventually did, but when I brought it up, my production manager asked me if I didn't have enough work to keep up with. It was a conversation, but "controlled growth" is the term that stuck with me. I don't think Glock is hurting for business in any way that has them caring about 1911 grip angles.This message has been edited. Last edited by: P220 Smudge,
______________________________________________ “There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too.”
I find it hard to believe that in a mature market Glock has no excess manufacturing capacity. We are talking about a plastic grip with some metal rails.
They don't want to do it, I agree with you there, yet they found the spare capacity to continue to make the 42 and 44 which I bet aren't massive sellers anymore.
Beretta just introduced the BOX though and HK thinks a micro striker is just what we need so clearly I don't understand the market. At all.
Posts: 7540 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 18, 2005
Well, a number of people on this forum sold their 42’s when the 43 came out to “upgrade,” and now we’re seeing threads where some who did just that have migrated back. The 42 is a fantastic little gun for what it is. I’ve shot a number of .380’s and it handily smokes them all so far. It may not be Glock’s biggest seller, but I’m willing to bet it sells steadily.
______________________________________________ “There are plenty of good reasons for fighting, but no good reason ever to hate without reservation, to imagine that God Almighty Himself hates with you, too.”
But, why would Glock want to? As it was mentioned, they sell every gun they make. The plant in GA has stayed at least a half million guns back since 2014.
People complain when SIG does what is being proposed that Glock do here. When it makes no sense. They own most of the market.
HK and Beretta shoot themselves in the feet so often that they constantly grab defeat from the jaws of victory. Beretta seems to be throwing shit at a wall, and HK will be hurting once the Tier 1 guys all jump ship on the 416. Which you can listen and hear those footsteps coming....
Retain existing customers who are spending money on aftermarket guns that resemble or are based on Glocks. Entice new customers who have money but don't buy Glock products. Maintain leading market share, show consumers that they have the ability to innovate and adapt to market trends such as MOS, 22lr, Front serrations.
They innovate now, Glock has 5 generations of the same pistol design if they took the attitude of "we sell all we make" then we'd only have Gen 1 or 2 G17's.
Those type of upgrades and Gucci products are not for everyone, but, there is a market for higher priced value firearms and better performing systems, the fact that Glock is now selling a factory performance trigger assembly shows they are watching that segment of the industry.
Posts: 24664 | Location: Gunshine State | Registered: November 07, 2008
Yup. It sounds like you are saying Glock thinks they are making enough money. Hmmmm.
The market is already there. Guaranteed Glock has dabbled in these waters already in their laboratories.
Beretta is shooting themselves in the foot. SAO 92 with a frame mounted safety = good. Redoing an 84 with a pic rail and goofy optics cut and no supplied plate for 800 bones = bad.
Posts: 7540 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 18, 2005
While you’re at it, ask him why he threw away all that money by not releasing the PCC in the mid 90s they had prototyped. They would have owned that market, and it still would be a great seller today.
Originally posted by pedropcola: Beretta is shooting themselves in the foot. SAO 92 with a frame mounted safety = good. Redoing an 84 with a pic rail and goofy optics cut and no supplied plate for 800 bones = bad.
What's funny is according to the Youtube comments, we've got it backwards.
Posts: 4610 | Location: Kansas City, MO | Registered: May 28, 2004
