Talk:Glock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Peer review Glock has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


This article is within the scope of the Firearms WikiProject, a project devoted to the improvement of firearms coverage on Wikipedia with an emphasis on civilian firearms.

If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] GLOCK vs. Glock debate

A long debate on this issue has been archived. At the time of achiving, the editor concensus was in favor of "Glock". Please visit the archive page to view opinions and arguments on the topic. If you wish to express an opinion, you please post in this section or start a new section. —Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overview problem

The following sentence in the Overview makes no sense to me. If the Glock 22 is currently the most popular police sidearm, how can it be second to the Glock 17? This also looks like a run-on sentence.

"The Glock 22 is currently (as of mid-2005) the single most popular police sidearm in use in the United States, second only to its predecesor the Glock 17; because of their ease of use, reliability, and low price, Glock pistols in general are in use by over 60% of the police officers in the US. "

I agree; I had the same reaction to that sentence (no longer run-on). I edited out the "second only ..." since last I heard the 22 is now more popular among LE agencies. — DAGwyn 20:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should be added

A section about GLOCK pistols in fiction and maybe a list over military/police forces using them would be nice. kallemax 18:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody have any information about the differences between the Generations of Glocks? Seems like that is pertinent information, and I didn't see anything on it in the article (though I only scanned through). Bobbfwed 17:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kB!

I looked around for a wikipedia entry on kB!s, and there wasn't any, but I felt odd putting it alone, so I stuck it with the article on Glocks (sorry if that irritates some of you). Also, I know that it is an issue with essentially any of the non-9mm models, but that it was most seriously affecting .40s. Is this just because they are far more widespread than their .357 SIG/10mm/.45 models? I also probably did a terrible job describing the case failure, so feel free to edit it for me.-- Wells
You are correct that it affects .40s more than other calibers. It's not just GLOCKs either, but GLOCKs get the most press (due to their widespread use). Most .40S&W pistols do not have fully supported chambers. The reason the .40 is affected most is that .40S&W is a very high pressure round, which is already operating on the threshold of safe pressures. Lord Bodak 12:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Right. I had never heard of S&Ws kb!ing (nor did I know they had the same unsupported chamber that glock has), though that is understandable as they aren't terribly popular to begin with, and certainly not among any community that would use them with enough frequency to notice a kB (ie, law enforcement or the military). However, wouldn't the 10mm models be even more suscept to kB, considering how hot 10mm is loaded? I have never handled anything in 10mm myself but I know that it's loaded pretty hot. oh, and thank you for the compliment B. Baldwin. -- Wells

I thought your contribution about kb's was well written, informative, and (importantly) impartial. This is the first time I have ever used wikipedia and I was very impressed at the detail in this article, most especially by the fact that kb's are discussed. -B.Baldwin

A reference source for it would be nice. Sorry, did I say nice? I meant necessary. -- Rogerborg 21:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Satisfactorily I hope. Granted they are all from one site, but I'll point out that a) that particular site is that of the terms originator; and b) the site is well sourced itself, acting as kind of a repositiory/clearing house for this sort of info. Comments? Complaint? Please advise. Otherwise, they we go. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 05:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disassembly

Would anyone be interested in a pictorial step-by-step of disassembling a glock? The steps listed herein are quite thorough, but it seems to me it would be much nicer with pictures. Avriette 02:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that would fall under the Wikipedia:Not, well, the disasembly guide does so already, no? Zerak-Tul 14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It does, so I removed it. If you want to write a wikibook on firearms maintenance and use, that's the place for it. Or just make a wikibook: Gun Guide: Glock and link it from the article with an interwiki box. Night Gyr 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The section mentions the ease of disassembly, but I found the "Glock grip" required to remove the slide from the reciever to be a bit awkward at first. Definately not as easy as my Sig. Though it's still better than guns that have bushings that need to be removed. I think the statement needs to be qualified somewhat. Izuko 01:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video

Changed the name on the video, as the gun showcased is not a G18, but rather a modified GLOCK (probably a G19).

[edit] Excessive advertising?

The article mentions the low price of a Glock three times, throughout the article, which I think is excessive. There's a whole section on their popularity where it's appropriate to talk about it, but outside of that it does smell a bit of advertising, especially alongside the regular references to how popular it is in each section.

I'd rather we were neutral, not trying to sell them.

What do others think? Should we perhaps remove some of the duplication and leave it only in the popularity section?

This might be a case for editing [say, merging two of the mentions in the same section) but number of repetitions is not in itself advertising. Editorial neutrality is a matter of overall balance, not some sort of point-by-point bookkeeping. Tychocat 07:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9mm

Can the GLOCKs be custom ordered in NATO 9mm Parabellum?70.109.72.185 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why would they need to be "custom ordered"? There are several Glock models (17, 18, 19, 26, et al.) that are factory chambered for 9mm Parabellum.
I think he might be asking if Glocks are made for the standard NATO loads, or whether you can only use regular 9mm loads, or whether you can do other loads like +P. The answer, if that's the question, is that Glocks will handle just about anything you throw at them, including +P loads. Some people even use +P+, but it should be noted that this is not an official designation, and can vary between manufacturers. --UNHchabo 23:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Standard Issue Sidearm for Canadian Military?

This is not true. The standard issue sidearm for the Canadian Army is the Browning Hi-Power for the most part and the Sig 220 in certain cases. I changed this.


Is it true that the Glock is only sold to government officials(i.e. police,army,goevernment security etc...)?

Do you mean in Canada? Certainly that is not true in the US.
It's not true in canada either, glock sells to government, military, and the public. 220.239.88.91 11:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Switch

What is the switch looking thing above and forward of the trigger on all GLOCK models. DanMP5 16:44, 11 January

That's for take-down. Pull the slide slightly back, pull that switch down, slide comes off. Thernlund (Talk | Contribs) 19:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank's. DanMP5 21:52, 11 January

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/o/Talk%7EGlock_6cb6.html"