Talk:Glock pistol

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Firearms  (Rated B-Class) 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. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Military history WikiProject     (Rated B-Class) 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. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force WikiProject Austria This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Archives

1

Contents 1 Archive of old numbered model articles 2 Merger 3 Article sections for models 4 Uses? 5 Unmerged? 5.1 Improving the article 6 Glock 38 7 Discarding Plastic Pistol Info? 8 Generations 9 Put you money... 10 Field strip safety issue 11 Users getting out of hand: 12 Glock 38 separate entry 13 Full auto 14 Glock 18 (i) 15 Revision 15.1 Update 16 Pictures 17 Suggestion For New Section 18 Glock 18 (ii) 19 Magazine Capacity 20 Prototype glocks 21 In Service 1980? 22 "This design however does not allow the pistol to be decocked in case of a squib round."

[edit] Archive of old numbered model articles

The following is for quick reference:

Glock models
	Standard	Compact	Subcompact	Competition	Slimline
9mm	17 / 18	19	26	34	~
.40	22	23	27	24 / 35	~
.357	31	32	33	~	~
.380	~	25	28	~	~
10mm	20	~	29	~	~
.45	21	~	30	~	36
.45 GAP	37	38	39	~	~

[edit] Merger

I've merged the various articles per concensus and discussion. It lasted a month and lots of people had good stuff to say. Now, please put your money where your mouth is. Read the article and, if you think something is missing, put it in the article. Some examples are pictures and perhaps unique characeristics that were missed in the merge. For instance, newer Glocks have three pins instead of two. Instead of criticising, join the community and help improve. --Asams10 (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the generation info for individual Glocks is now missing. Probably should be added in. Perhaps some more pistol specific information should be added in as well. The charts are a little scanty on it.--LWF (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Spent a couple of hours today skimming those individual articles and could, quite literally, find NOTHING that I thought was unique or needed to go into this article that wasn't already there. This is a chance for those who brought that up to put in some time and effort and salvage what they though was unique. I didn't see it, but I'm not perfect either. --Asams10 (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This merge is an absolutely preposterous act for which I can think of no justification. A wealth of information has been lost for no conceivable reason. Congratulations. MalikCarr (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, cute comment from somebody who cares. I can tell, I know your edit history. Okay, I'll bite... WHAT information has been lost? Please lay it on the line. What information is gone? Oh, I'm waiting. I've read through the articles, have you? Preposterous? Not really. I'm begging you to defend your position. You've said that info is lost, tell me what the info is. --Asams10 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the article name should be Glock pistol, following the naming of articles like M1911 pistol as all Glocks are based on the same pattern. --Philip Laurence (talk) 14:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be for the move. The sooner, the better. I'd just not like to be the one who goes around and makes all the redirect edits. --Asams10 (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I can redirect them all if it's moved again. --Philip Laurence (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Asams10, I would encourage you to assume good faith on the part of dissenting parties - your comments above are skirting the lines civility in many ways. You can tell that I "care" based on my edit histories? Great. You know, there's an encyclopedia called Citizendium that may cater more to your tastes if you believe edit history and/or number of edits better qualifies one to have an opinion.

That said, here's just a few things that have been lost in this so-called "merge".

Okay, thanks for joining the firearms community over a month after the merge tags were placed. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Entire models have been replaced with a single sentence, which does not even indicate the model in question. For example, there is no mention of the cutout slide or reduced trigger pull of the Glock 34 and 35.

So add it. Is it that hard? You need an entire article to say what takes less than a sentence to say? --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Regarding the design history of some models. For instance, the reader would not be aware that there was a Glock 17L, and that it was discontinued when the Glock 34 and 35 were released, in the current iteration of things.

Cool, actually you'd know if you'd have spent your time improving the article rather than complaining as I said in my first post on this discussion page. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• A link was posted to the Glock corporate website for each pistol model at the end of the article. That information is now unavailable.

Wow, we could fix that in about 20 seconds. The article is, what, one day old and you spent more time adding this criticism than it would have taken to add the link to the article! --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Consistency. Why is there a Glock 18 page still? Because it has a feature for automatic fire? Because it was featured in the video game Counterstrike? Popular culture or "interesting factoids" shouldn't be, and are not, a factor for inclusion into Wikipedia. Instead, we have notability and verifiability, of which all Glock models demonstratively are.

The Glock 18 is a machine pistol and not a conventional pistol. It is therefore in another class. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Logical precedent. "All Glocks are the same except for dimensions and caliber, so they need to be merged." This is a recipe for an absolute train wreck on firearms families. The only major differences between the AKM and AK-74 are caliber and a muzzle brake, so why don't we merge those together? Or, the Browning Automatic Rifle and the wz.1928 of Polish manufacture are basically the same gun; the latter just has a different caliber and a pistol grip. Let's merge those together too. How about the AR-15 family? There's currently articles for the AR-10, AR-15, M16, M4 Carbine, and so on - they're all pretty similar, just some cosmetic differences, different calibers and accessories, these obviously aren't serving the interests of Wikipedians at large.

AKM's and AK-74's are different on numerous levels. Your ignorance of that basic fact doesn't help qualify your statements. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were a layman, and I heard someone mention "Glock 35" in conversation while passing them by on the street, what would I do to learn more about this? Either go to Google, or perhaps go straight to Wikipedia, the sum of all human knowledge. Instead of getting a concise and helpful article explaining the pistol's design history and unique faculties, with a table to show its year of introduction, production numbers, weight, dimensions, and a link to Glock's website, I'm sent to "Glock pistols" where there's a general overview of the Glock design. Great.

One would type "Glock 35" into the search box and up would pop the article that tells him everything the Glock 35 article did.--Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How have we improved the project? Created countless redirects, wasted valuable images and attributed entire handgun models to an entry on a table? Outstanding.

Nope, I've consolidated the entire Glock pistol story into one page rather than having 23 separate pages that have to say the same thing over and over again. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, if you're going to continue to be hostile and sardonic, I'll just be bold and revert the other Glock articles back into their previous functional formats. Wikipedia moves by consensus, not a majority vote, and I haven't seen a single opposition viewpoint represented in this so-called merge. MalikCarr (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your points are all interesting and I'd love to shoot them down one by one. Read above. --Asams10 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You still walk around act hostile to anyone who dissents on your opinion Asams10. I previously suggested you learn to calm down. Seems your still having hostility problems. Your comment about MalikCarr joining a monther after the tags were placed was nothing short of an active insult against him. You know better. Alyeska (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't even think about deleting this again Asams10. Your actions are not perceived as very pleasent. I am not the only one to make these comments. Going about and intentionaly deleting the comments is not appropriate. Alyeska (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Implying that there's more of a difference between the AKM and AK-74 than there are between various Glock models, then insulting my intelligence with it, has really undermined whatever argument you might have had in the first place. Some suggested reading for you:

• Assault Rifle, by Max Popenker
• Military Small Arms of the Twentieth Century, by Ian V. Hogg

I'm not going to suggest you don't know what you're talking about (when someone doesn't assume good faith, you're supposed to turn the other cheek), but I am now fairly certain that this merge was made in extremely poor fashion and has not at all benefited the project, even for a generalist encyclopedia. Anyway, in lieu of the "consensus" to merge having several caveats that have not been fulfilled (e.g. more than just a mention on a table for a given model), I'll be putting the individual Glock articles back up, with an added link to this article as a "general overview". If and when this article is ever as informative and encyclopedic as the others were, then those individual pages will be outmoded. Until then... MalikCarr (talk) 02:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I know Max, not personally but we've corresponded some. Why don't you ask him? Ian Hogg? You're trying to reference him, are you? Please. Try something by Ezell or Smith. Better yet, try building Glocks. Take the Armory course, play with piles of parts and get an idea of their interchangeability. Then, do the same thing for AK's. I've done both; I know; I've been there; you're wrong. I'm not insulting your intelligence nor am I trying to pull one over on you. You're stating lots of opinion and I disagree, however I've laid out my case clearly and completely and you didn't take part in the discussion until now. Please reread the discussion and reread the articles as they were, then feel free to join the community and try and improve this article. --Asams10 (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard Mr. Popenker is a swell guy in person; always wanted to meet him. Same goes for M. Kalashnikov, but he very rarely comes to the United States so that's doubtful. That said, I have dismantled a number of Kalashnikov actions before, in their original caliber, 5.45x39 and 5.56x45 chamberings (the Arsenal AKs are the best, if you ask me - the kind from RAA are just Saigas with AK-type furniture) - they're no different than the various Glocks are, especially if you consider aftermarket add-ons and what have you (compare to AK-74M with the integrated folding stock and smooth dust cover, vs. the older style ribbed model). I still fail to see any reason why we should have one Glock article and two Kalashnikov articles (or more if you include the regional variants; AMD-64, Rk.62, Maadi, the Romanian Garda ones, etc). MalikCarr (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article sections for models

I would like to propose that some (or possibly even all) Glock pistol models get their own section in the new, merged article. We could start by re-adding some of the material that was left behind in the merge, cutting out the parts that are already covered in the main article. The "Overview of models" table could have links from the model numbers to each section.

The resulting article might end up being quite long, but that's not a problem. Remember, it's okay, or even preferable, to include a lot of information in articles, as long as we're avoiding material that's totally irrelevant, or that's contrary to project guidelines, such as the use of guns in video games. It's also okay if some article sections are just a few sentences.

Here's what a section could look like. This one's for the Glock 19. I wrote it by taking the old Glock 19 article, here, removing the redundant material, and rearranging it somewhat. This is not intended to be the final word on a new Glock 19 section, it's just a general example to show what I'm talking about:

---

Begin proposed section example

Development of the Glock 19 started in 1988. In 1990 it entered service in the Swedish Army as the Pistol 88B (Pistol 88 is the designation for the Glock 17).

Most law enforcement agencies that use the Glock 17 can also choose the Glock 19 for concealed carry. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) offers the Glock 19 with the "NY-2" 12 pound trigger pull as a service pistol. Israel's Shabak, uses a Glock 19C with extended slide stop, extended magazine release, Meprolight night sights and lighter 3.5 pound trigger. It is also used by USAF pilots as their personal defense weapon.^{[citation needed]}

The Glock 19 has undergone two major revisions since its introduction and therefore there are three generations commonly recognized:

• Gen 1: Non-checkered front grip and rear grip.
• Gen 2: Added checkering to the front of the grip as well as rear of grip.
• Gen 3: Added molded finger grooves on front grip, built in rail on frame for light/laser. Thumb reliefs molded into frame.

End proposed section example

---

— Mudwater 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate what I said before. There is nothing unique to the Glock 19 save that it is used by the Sweedish Army, Israel, etc. In fact, hundreds of agencies use the Glock 19 as can be said about any of the Glock models. The 'generation' discussion applies to all pistols. Glock has simply evolved the line over the years. --Asams10 (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather than a section for every model, I would suggest a simpler layout: A section discussing generations (I, II, III), and a section for operating mechanisms(recoil, blow back, and select-fire). The differences in size and caliber are handled better in a table, imo. --68.102.156.139 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about one section entitled Calibers, one entitled Sizes and a third entitled Production changes. The production changes can describe the generations and also other changes such as the three-pin and the differences in the mold and how the serial number is affixed. I think the difference of having blowback operated .380's is best discussed with a sentence under caliber. I don't think there needs to be a section on firing modes as the Glock 18 has its own article. Myself and a few other editors have said we'd write these sections. If I get some time tonight I'll write it up. --Asams10 (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and do some of this as well. By the way, this is the kind of thing I meant earlier when I mentioned more information on the individual models. Probably should have been clearer.--LWF (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Many newer pistols, the XD for exanmple, come in a wide range of sizes and calibers but they're all the same pistol. Also I think the Glock 18 should stay at it's own article because it's unique. --Philip Laurence (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Those new sections sound good. Thanks to those editors who suggested them, and to those who have worked hard on this article. But, I'm still wondering if there's a way to bring in more of the material about individual models from the old articles. If a section in the new article for each model is too extreme, how about a bulleted list of some or all of the models, either in the Variants section or in one new section? Here are bullet points for two of the models. I'm sure they could be improved by other editors, they're just intended as examples, again using material copied out of the old articles with little or no modification.

• Glock 19 — Development of the Glock 19 started in 1988. In 1990 it entered service in the Swedish Army as the Pistol 88B (Pistol 88 is the designation for the Glock 17). Most law enforcement agencies that use the Glock 17 can also choose the Glock 19 for concealed carry. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) offers the Glock 19 with the "NY-2" 12 pound trigger pull as a service pistol. Israel's Shabak, uses a Glock 19C with extended slide stop, extended magazine release, Meprolight night sights and lighter 3.5 pound trigger. It is also used by USAF pilots as their personal defense weapon.^{[citation needed]}
• Glock 21SF — Another revision hit the market in Spring 2007, in an attempt to make fullsize .45 Glock more appealing to shooters with smaller hands. Glock has released the model 21SF, which stands for "Short Frame".^[1] The pistol was originally designed to compete in the now cancelled US Military Trials that were searching for a .45 ACP pistol to replace the Beretta M9. The first 21SF's designed for the military included revisions such as ambidextrous magazine release and a M1913 Picatinny rail system (which replaces the standard universal rail system on other Glock pistols), along with the frame reduction designed to make the grip more universal. The grip reduction removed material mainly from the backstrap of the grip. Initial information is that only a limited number of 21SF's in full military spec will enter the public market, and that the company is going to mass produce a grip reduced model with the 1913 style frame rails. The 21SF is currently available with the 1913 rail and the Glock rail. Glock will be adding to the options a version available with the Glock rail and the original style magazine release (for those that prefer it over the ambidextrous release).

— Mudwater 02:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Glock 19 info is cool, but are we really going to get into having all the info from all the articles included in this article? The point is that for any one model, there are dozens to hundreds of agencies who use them. Listing each of these agencies would be a fools errand of monumenal proportions. Moving down that path is also an error as it's either everything, nothing, or a meaningless compromise. I don't think that a comprehensive list is possible or even the least bit adviseable.

The Glock 21SF deserves a paragraph, I believe, as it was a shot at a huge military contract and involved significant changes to the firearm to comply with the requirements of the bid. Why don't you just add the stuff and let others pare it down. Concensus by edit. --Asams10 (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could only list militaries that use the various models? It would keep the list far shorter, and in general a military using a particular firearm is more notable than an agency. Just a thought.--LWF (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus by edit" might be a good way to re-add the material. But, should the model info be in a bulleted list? And, should it be in the Variants section, or in a new section? — Mudwater 03:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, there are two charts already that cover the models completely. I like the idea of having the sections I already listed and then give a separate paragraph or sentence where needed. For instance, to say that the Glock 19 was developed for the Swiss? or whoever, great, say it under the subsection title under Sizes/compacts. Then, under Sizes/subcompacts, we put the info on the nested recoil springs. Under Calibers/.45, we'd add a paragraph about the Glock 21SF. If you have a bulleted list, it's just like having the separate articles only it lengthens this article needlessly when this article is intended to be a clarification and consolidation. The two tables are hugely helpful and answer 90% of the questions people would have about the model differences. I also see the point that was made earlier about not wanting to condense the article to a few simple tables. --Asams10 (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uses?

Hi, I'm having a very hard time finding information on Glock pistols' specific uses. I do not know much about pistols, and I am wondering why there are so many models of Glocks. I can see from the charts that there are different calibers, sizes and weights, but some calibers have several models of Glock and I was wondering what the difference was. Or, to put it in question form: why do shooters choose one Glock model over another? There does not seem to be any mention of the intended use for the various Glock pistol models, but maybe I am looking in the wrong place. Also, what does the term "(Gen 3)" or "3rd Gen" mean? It only occurs twice in the article, and both times it is under photos with no elaboration. If anyone can put me on the right track, I thank you. --MuséeRouge (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is still evolving. 3rd gen means 3rd Generation. In the gun forum and gun review world, they describe Glock pistol variations based on generations. Third generation guns have finger-groves on the front of the grip and rails on the dust cover (most models). --Asams10 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Hayden120 (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and, first of all, I am sorry for my imperfect English.

I think that most important feature of 3rd gen. Glocks is locking block axis (above and slightly rear the axis of trigger). This feature appeared firstly in models of .40, .45 and 10 mm calibers, and on Glock 25, subcompact model in 9x19 cal, in 1996, and after that was introduced in all 9x19 models, e. g. in Glock 17. This detail used for more rugginess of the pistol's frame. In full disassembly this detail should be removed firstly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.0.210.102 (talk) 07:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unmerged?

A user went through and reverted all of the individual articles. I've undone these. The discussion went through and was up for comment for a while. Objections were raised. In any crowd, you aren't going to get 100% support, but there was significant support in the firearms editing community, and their objections were heard. What little objection there was came from outside of the firearms editing community or from anon's/new/puppet accounts. The merge was done, now improve this article, please. --Asams10 (talk) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional point: I jumped the gun before I read the accusations in the latter part of your comment above. There's no meritocracy on Wikipedia - to implicate that "outside" views are any more or less valuable than those of a Wikiproject, even one as old and well-organized as Firearms, is simply irresponsible. Allegations of sockpuppetry aside (if you have them, why haven't you asked for a checkuser to be run yet?), we're all Wikipedians, and that's all that matters.

I, of course, assume that by "community" you mean "Wikiproject" - if not, please correct me. MalikCarr (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If by "heard" you mean "ignored" or "reported to administration for being personal attacks," then sure. A consensus is not a majority vote, in spite of what some Wikipedians would believe, and I fail to see the consensus that was established being carried on in this article.

At any rate, it's not as if I'm trying to have your article removed from Wikipedia or anything; in fact, I put a link to it in every page I reverted, so a Wikipedian who "isn't interested in the details of the individual models" [sic] can take a look at it. I believe that a positive flow of information is what Wikipedia should be about. If you believe that one article can suffice for over twenty, that's great - make it happen, then we'll remove the others that are no longer needed. The inverse should not be true, because it leaves an information deficit that is paid for by Wikipedia users.

I happen to believe the project is better served by an article for the individual models in question; some users agree with me. You believe one article will suffice (except for the Glock 18, which makes no sense whatsoever to me); some users agree with you. As the prime mover behind this merge, I doubt I'll be able to convince you of my point, but maybe you can convince me of yours. If one article is fine, then make it fine - I don't believe just taking your word on it would be doing a good service to Wikipedia. MalikCarr (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So, you're going unilaterally without voting or concensus building to revert everyting? All of the dissenting views were heard in the merger, you're just upset you didn't get your way. Stop your reverting and discuss it. Ask for admin intervention, but stop undoing everything unilaterally. --Asams10 (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The dissenting views were heard in the merger - patently false. At least one tentative support of the merger was placed in lieu of each gun not being relegated to an entry on a table, which has not happened.

• Yet.--Asams10 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reverting everything - maybe if this article was AfD'd right now this would be a point. It isn't, and none of your work has been removed from the project. Positive flow of information! It's a good thing!
• Discuss it - I did. You wrote off my complaints as if I were some kind of troll. Moving right along...

MalikCarr (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, if it was a troll, it worked. Good job. --Asams10 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, the bottom line is that Wikipedia Firearms guidelines, which you had nothing to do with, call for keeping variations that are caliber changes, target models, and barrel length differences within the parent article. The main reason for having all of these different articles was vanity. Whoever owned one of these guns wanted their particular model number to have its own article. Which Glock do you own? At any rate, that's not anywhere near a good enough reason to have 23 separate articles for the same gun. Nor does the merger of articles that shouldn't have been separate require a unanimous vote or even a concensus. It's enforcing the Firearms project policy. --Asams10 (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

How were my objections outside the firearms editing community, Asams10? I've created quite a bit of content here...

I believe that you are asserting a consensus that didn't actually exist here. There's nothing wrong with doing something boldly ... "Bold, Revert, Discuss" is a Wikipedia unofficial guideline, after all. But someone reverted, and so it should go back to discussion.

The three revert rule applies to you just as much as it applies to MalikCarr. Beyond the strict three reverts limit, it's intended to prevent edit warring - it's not an entitlement to make three reverts per article, but a hard limit of "No more than...". The two revert cycles on the articles that you two have done so far, given the number of articles, qualifies as an edit war. I could probably justify 24 hr blocks for both your accounts for this behavior to date, even though no single article is at 3RR yet.

Both of you, please stop the reverts right now. Please go back to discussing here. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Concensus was already built in the Wikiproject Firearms community. That's what I've been getting at. Building a concensus on the Glock 17 discussion page was not required, the discussion was about how to get the Glock pages to conform to the Wikiproject firearms concensus. --Asams10 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the consensus on the Wikiproject Firearms

• Doesn't say what you said it says ("significant redesign went into model" - Lee Enfield Jungle Carbine vs Lee Enfield Rifle as two separate articles as the stated example). It supports that a merge might be a good idea - it does not mandate one.
• Even if it did mandate one, Wikiprojects do not make policy on Wikipedia. Guidelines on those pages do not trump normal article improvement policy. They're given deference as the normal consensus of those most specifically interested in a topic, but they do not form enforcable Wikipedia policy.

You cannot fall back from failing to get legitimate consensus here to a Wikiproject guideline, whose interpretation is not even clearly supporting what you claim it does. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. For my reasons, reread everything I said in the first two discussions on this matter. --Asams10 (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a "I'm right you're wrong" response - this is a "We're not at the point that this is settled in your favor". They're not settled in the non-merge favor either, and there's a lot of support for merging, but I don't see a consensus. Given that someone cared enough to push back on the merge, and lacking clear consensus here, we talk more here. Perhaps that talk gives you consensus here to merge, in another few days. But that has to happen. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of support for a merge, no matter how much I think it is a bad idea. What I object to, to the point of "unilaterally" bringing the old articles back (they call this being bold in terms of policy), is a merge that is really more of a "brief mention" - merging implies that information is preserved, which it isn't. An entry on a chart or a passing mention on a bullet point is rubbish compared to a sourced and factual article. If a merge can be done that results in no net loss of information, I'm all for it. Until such a time arises, I believe Wikipedia is better served with the individual articles, and will let WP:IAR be my guide. Make a real merge and I'll be more than happy to drop this annoying business entirely. Just because I've been involved in revert wars for months on end doesn't mean I like doing it. MalikCarr (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you object to doing what you're doing. Instead of improving this article, as LWF and I are suggesting, you are bringing back the old articles, killing all the redirects, and refusing to help this article. Play nice. You were warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert and, less than an hour later, you continued on your edit warring rampage. Talk out of one side of the mouth and edit against your own words on the other side of the mouth. You're really ignoring all rules, aren't you? --Asams10 (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have issued a 3-hour block on MalikCarr's account for edit warring (re-reverting changes after the warning to stop last night). I also am going to give Asams10 a warning for personal attacks in the comment above and being uncivil. The tone of this conversation has to return to reasonable polite discussion and not further edit warring, on both sides, or further sanctions will be forthcoming. You both know better. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I find this to be ridiculous - if you're going to be assertive about policy violations, you should really be more proactive in administering appropriate recourse based on the nature of the violation in question. I'm not going to try and tell you how to do your job, but I do protest at the current handling of things. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Koalorka and User:Librarianofages have both been warned to stop edit warring on this or face blocks as well. Everyone: Please stop and discuss. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the article

Ok, how about for now we all focus on improving this article, rather than all of this debate. I personally think that editing the article to add more of the information that we have agreed is lacking would be more productive in this case.--LWF (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is getting out of hand, I too am now being threatened for the arbitrary and destructive actions of MalikCarr. I assure you, I am working on a comprehensive overhaul of the article, and NO information will be lost in the process. We have a database of older splinter Glock articles which we will occasionally draw information from to preserve all the unique and useful content. WRT to the reasoning behind the merge, Asams10 has presented the argument rather effectively, no one has been able to refute it. The integration will proceed forward. Koalorka (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Destructive actions"? After all the work you and I did on the SVD article, I'd figure you'd have been more understanding than to make such an accusation. Believing in a positive flow of information is destructive? A poorly-executed merge that leaves sloughs of information lost to the page history (or histories) is destructive. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are my concerns:

1. Significant information was lost when the merge happened. Given the time available, this was not good - everything should have been left alone and content merged into the central article here until everyone at least agreed that it had reached full content parity first. Blasting the other articles then merging info in to the central one is very bad process.

Agreed. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The central argument for merging - that the pistols are more alike than different - is unresolved. At least two of us believe rather strongly that the written policy on the Firearms wikiproject page doesn't support doing a merge - that the models are different enough to justify different articles. Asams10 and I have had some rather interesting arguments about the degree of similarity, which never got resolved. My position is that some models have some parts interchangabilty, but most don't; the designs are clearly all based on the same basic design, with size scaling for cartridge size requirements and detail changes here and there such as subcompact recoil spring guides. I think this is enough variation to justify different model articles (per Lee Enfield rifle and Jungle Carbine having separate articles, per the wikiproject page).

Or the AR10, AR15, M16 family and M4 family. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1. We do not have a solid enough sense of how many people support a merge at this time versus how many oppose. A poll would be useful to gather a better sense of things and get more people on the record for merge/don't merge/somewhere in the middle.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

A quick glance at a few of the articles that were merged to form this article does not seem to back the claims of 'information is being lost'. The former articles that I viewed had very little material that was supported by WP:RS. I would favor this single article as a place to gather material that meets WP sourcing guidelines with spin off sections getting their own articles as they acquire enough sourced materials to merit notability for individual coverage.GundamsRus (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're ridiculous, GundamsRus. I thought you were only putting me on edit probation on fiction articles? I'm just going to have this account deleted and make a new one so you'll stop following me and supporting every argument I don't on every article I edit. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand the charge of "being ridiculous." Was my sampling skewed and I only saw the few articles that had no WP:RS and if I had sampled others there were many sourced pieces of information that did not make it into the merged article? Can you point them out? GundamsRus (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This is difficult for me to fathom because this conversation took place already and the concensus was built. A discussion went back and forth and people voiced their opinions:

1. There was no significant information loss. I explained this when I merged. I went through all the articles for unique information and there was none. The few examples that have been presented were bunk.

It's bunk because you say it is? MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Their beliefs and the arguments muddy the truth. The truth is that there is not only a high degree of interchangeability but that where parts aren't interchangeable, it's because of unique caliber differences. For instance, of course the barrel and magazines don't interchange between the .40 and the 9mm. The information on the subcompact springs takes up about a sentence, "With the shorter barrel came nested recoil springs for reliable function."

See AR10/AR15/etc rationale above. MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

1. This has been going on since the 4th of December. I'm reminded of an old political addage I heard, "If you're in the minority, talk. If you're in the majority, vote. If you're not a politician, ACT!" That means that those in the minority will continue to talk until they're blue in the face because they don't want the action. This fillibuster has gone on plenty long enough. We built this article separately as part of the concensus and people stopped editing it. It wasn't and isn't perfect, let's stop talking, start acting and improve the article we have. I utterly fail to see how ANY of the separate articles had any info that can't be seamlessly integrated into this article. --Asams10 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus, not a majority vote, and it has been unequivocally proven that there is not a consensus to destroy information. I reiterate, if you believe a merge is warranted, preserve information and consolidate pages - a table or chart is not a substitute for a well-written article MalikCarr (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand both sides of the issue here. I know why Asams10 conducted the merge. By and large they are the same pistol. Do we have a seperate entry on Wikipedia for the SAXD 9, SAXD 40, and the compact and sub compact and target models? No, we do not. At the same time I fully understand what MalikCarr is talking about. We do have seperate pages for guns that have differences that are comparable to a Glock 26 and a Glock 22. My personal opinion on this is such. The articles by and large should be merged. That said, the merge that was conducted is poorly done. Asams10 conducted the Merge then told everyone else it was their responsibility to add the lost information. This is absurd. The Glock pistol page should have all information added, then redirect the old pages. We can't loose information here. For starters, the Glock 22 page has a great deal of information about just the Glock 22. What does the Glock pistol page have? A single sentence describing that there is a full sized .40cal pistol. With that said, we are left with something of a problem here. The Glock pistol page might become extremely large if we include every minute detail. Then again, these details shouldn't necessarily be lost. And pages are split when they become too large. As I said from the begining, I fully understand both sides of the coin on this issue. Alyeska (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Glock 22 page had lots of information that the Glock 17 page didn't? Really? REALLY??? I just re-Re-RE-looked at the page and saw the same thing I saw the last three times. It has an incorrect list of agencies that use the pistol. Incorrect? Why? It's missing two. That's off the top of my head. It's actually missing about 2-300 by my recollection. So, it's an incomplete list of agencies that use the Glock 22 you're looking for? First, I don't think you're getting a complete list of agencies EVER. I've already, about 10 times, argued this point and all the nay-sayers sorta gloss over that little fact. Now, look at the rest of the Glock 22 article. Go ahead, I'll wait... Now, paragraph by paragraph:

1. The Glock 22 is a pistol manufactured by Glock. It is a Glock 17 modified to fire .40 S&W ammunition. It uses a modified slide, frame, .40 S&W barrel and magazine but is otherwise near identical in looks to the Glock 17. It has a 10, 15, or 17 round magazine capacity. Anything new?
2. The Glock 22 has undergone three major revisions since its introduction in 1990 and current models are called 3rd generation Glock 22s. The Glock 22C is a version of the Glock 22 that has a ported barrel and slide to reduce muzzle climb while shooting the pistol. Ooohhhh, a generations sentence.
3. The Glock 22 is one of the most popular law enforcement pistols in the United States, and compares favorably to other .40 S&W pistols. Wow, shockingly unique info here.
4. One notable feature of the Glock 22, and indeed many modern .40 S&W pistols, is the ability to change the caliber to .357 Sig with a simple barrel swap. Really? I thought they weren't interchangeable?
5. This is possible due to the similar operating pressures of both rounds, and the fact that the .357 Sig is based on a .40 S&W case, necked down to accept .355 inch bullets. Cool, but this is a discussion about the .40 model right?

And that's all you got? That's what you've got? That's your argument for keeping this a separate article? It says, "The Glock 22 is a Glock 17 in .40 caliber and you can change the barrel to .357 Sig." Wow. I'm floored. Actually, I'm not. I'm confused. I think that there are a few people who gloss over the article, see lots of content, and think, "wow, it'd suck to lose all of that content." But, when you go over the articles, there is no real content there. It's all fluff, conjecture, and analysis of changes in dimension. Those items that are not this account to about four or five paragraphs in this article, that's it. Go to 23 different articles and try to sort it out or go to one and figure it out quickly. It's a tangled web of confusion otherwise. --Asams10 (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My earlier comments about you acting overly hostile and insulting stand. I guess you missed the part where I said ultimately I agree with you. You just had an argument with yourself. Alyeska (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with me, eh? My response was to this statement you made, "For starters, the Glock 22 page has a great deal of information about just the Glock 22." My point was that it doesn't. You might have come to the same conclusion, but you were espousing the incorrect views of others to get there. I'm not willing to concede the point that there is significant volumes of information in any of the old articles. I'm glad that you agree, but I was nailing down the same point you were. Perhaps I jumped into my diatribe without analizing the content of your post. If so, mea culpa. --Asams10 (talk) 20:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't concede anything. So your opinion is meaningless to me. On the other hand Koalorka agreed that information from previous pages needs to be integrated. Alyeska (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice to hear you're keeping an open mind. Why should I concede a point if I disagree. I don't debate if I agree, there's no need to. Here's how it works: I make a point. You disagree and make a counter-point. If I am swayed by your point, I concede that your argument was stronger than mine and we move on. The reason I don't concede is that I disagree with your points. We might agree on some level; however the point you hoped that I'd concede was central to my counter-argument. It follows that since there is little unique information in the individual articles, they should not be listed separately. If I agree with you that there is significant information in the individual articles, then it weakens my whole argument. Maybe it's my debate background that's getting the best of me. I'm engaging you in a debate and rather than disagreeing with me and responding, you're saying that I'm being hostile. If you consider disagreement with you "hostility," I don't know where to go from there. If your intent is to sway me, you're not going to have very much luck. I've laid my case out and it's rock solid. Feel free to counter me now. That's how it's done. --Asams10 (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your trying to cloud the issue now. You are openly hostile and insulting to other people. Your reporting me to admins is an example. You treat others like dirt, but cry foul when people call you on it. You've been repeatedly warned by administrators over this issue. Stop hiding behind your opinions. Alyeska (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what does that have to do with your argument? I'm not being hostile towards other people. I may tear apart their arguments, but please don't confuse that with hostility. Instead of countering my arguments, you're attacking me (AGAIN) personally. It's a shameful debate tactic. You assert that I'm hostile and further assert that others think I'm hostile and therefore my arguments are invalid. To use your terminology, you're ignoring my points and attacking me. How many times now have you said I'm hostile? Read poisoning the well if you don't understand where I'm coming from on this one. How can I cloud the issue by engaging you in this side-argument about whether or not you feel I'm being hostile towards you? --Asams10 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring your points? I said I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE MERGE. That is the ultimate topic at hand. Your throwing out red herrings left and right. I am again pointing out your agressive, hostile, unwanted attitudes in these discussions. Your attitude that only you are right. Back in the M1 Carbine thread you managed to get the page protected all because you refused to accept group consensus. You need to learn how to work with people, not belittle them. Alyeska (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You hit the proverbial nail on the head. Most of the derivative articles are worthless gun-babble, irrelevant half-truths and some photos from peoples personal collections. Not one effective argument has been presented for their preservation. Those that argue to maintain the current setup have contributed little or nothing to the Glock series. As promised I am working on the main Glock page and every single variant will be mentioned in greater detail with a higher accuracy than any of the splinter articles ever did. This will occur most likely over the weekend. Koalorka (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hit the nail on the head? I agreed with him and he argued with me about it. He has a hard time grasping what people say. Alyeska (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, not alluding to the exchange between the both of you, that is also my perception of most of the Glock derivative articles. I agreed to integrate unique and relevant content, so no valuable information is lost. Koalorka (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Merged again? The last time I came here was to find information on a specific triad organisation, only to find that the article regarding the group in question had been merged into an "all-encompassing" article about triad organisations in general. Completely useless as a research tool when it came down to it. At least they had the good sense to change it back. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm the only person who actually uses Wikipedia for research, as any others in my place would also surely be wondering what sort of encyclopedia removes information from its articles. Can somebody please direct me to a website where I can find a more detailed analysis of the Glock 19? A paragraph of description and a general overview of Glock pistol history is of little use to me. Like looking up "Excalibur" and being redirected to "Sword". 203.221.33.238 (talk) 06:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Following your diatribe, it's difficult to take you seriously. Still, the Glock 19 is just a shorter verision of the Glock 17, that is why it was merged here. It's like a knife and then the same knife with a slightly shorter blade and handle... no significant difference in history. Still, you can see what Wikipedia HAD before the merger at the top of the page. Either that or, uh, maybe do a Google search like the rest of us? Wikipedia is NOT a good place to do research, though it can certainly point you in the right direction. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 10:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite the vitriol and sarcasm, I believe there was actually an attempt at helpful advice in there. Thanks, I suppose, but I've already tried a Google search and turned up nothing that wasn't pushing a selling point. I'm somewhat surprised that you've told me not to rely on Wikipedia as a research tool. It's something I'd expect to hear from the site's detractors rather than it's registered editors. Might I ask the point of the Wikipedia project if the ultimate goal is not to create a valuable tool for research? 203.220.81.20 (talk) 09:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Around this article, IP's and anon's tend to be sock puppets. I could care less what Wikipedia's ultimate goal is, I'm just stating the facts. WP is not a research tool. You criticized the merger, why? You're not just an anonomous guy coming along to toss accusations and claim he knows how to do things better. Then you say that the editors that supported and/or nurtured the merger (as I did) lacked good sense? You then criticize my reply? So, what do you have to add? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, it seems. Sounds like you've got me figured as a sock puppet, so there wouldn't be much point anyway. I didn't come here to argue with you. I came here for information. I do believe the merger lacks good sense, and I've already stated why. It's right there in my diatribe. 203.220.81.20 (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glock 38

I have re-reverted Glock 38 to it's original unmerged form, please do not re-revert, if you do so, what you are doing is tantamount to deleting a page without taking it to AFD. If you want this to be done, you will have to take this to AFD, achieve consensus after arguing that this product does not by itself meet notability guidelines per wp:product, then you may delete and redirect. If you wish to reply, reply here and not on my talk page. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The link you have provided to wp:product counters your claim that the article should not be merged. There currently is no source provided that shows this particular product has had any outside material written specifically about it.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I can actually read. I'll put article in progress tag on Glock 38 I'll do some work on it, but right this second i'm strapped for time. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're strapped for time, why is it you're thwarting the concensus and efforts of those who are trying to add the two sentences of uniqueness that the .45 GAP pistols have to THIS article? --Asams10 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's removed anything or impeded anything on this article. The idea that there should be a separate article per-model is not diametrically opposed from the central Glock pistol article having the info, too. It might not be a bad idea to have both the per-model and a strong central article, in fact. It's not like we're running Wikipedia out of diskspace. If there's anything missing here now, please by all means add it! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you've noticed, when I revert the other Glock models to their original intact formats, I included a link to this central page so that a user could have it however they so desire. I think that is the best course of action until such a time as this article can suffice for the needs of Wikipedia as relevant to this firearms family, if it ever develops to that point. I am opposed to a merge, but will not rebel against it if the merge is actually that (as opposed to the sad state of the article now; consolidate then redirect, not the other way around!). MalikCarr (talk) 04:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

re User:Librarianofages "Don't worry, I can actually read." I did not question your ability to read, but I do question your interpretation of a guideline that says, essentially, "If a specific product doesn't have independent sources written about it, the article should probably be merged into an article about mulitple products the company produces" as somehow supporting this product having a seperate article when you had included no independent sources in that article.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly now, if we were to remain with the spider-web format for the Glock and its variants each of the variants would be no longer than a few sentences mentioning ported barrels, different springs and smaller/larger slides/grips. It's ridiculous, and I'm astounded that even an admin would subscribe to this misinformed irrational view. If you've ever handled a Glock pistol you would know. People opposing the integration have either contributed photos of their pistols in the derivative Glocks or draw their experience from Counter-Strike or Metal Gear Solid. Koalorka (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

0H Y4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! d1d 1 5@y c0un73r57r1k3 p|4y3r 700!!!!!!!!!!!! oO -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Koalorka, I invite you politely (once) to go read the discussions up above from before the merge actually happened. I am an engineer, have been the owner of a number of Glock firearms over the years, and have both measured and performed fit/function tests on interchangability of parts between models. Your assertion is unfounded. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you owned a Glock, it would be supplied with a manual, which on page 17 would reveal the following statement: "GLOCK pistols (note, plural) consist of similar/identical components. Those identical/similar components have the same functions as illustrated on the attached exploded drawing". As one example of the near identical commonality. Sorry to say, but you are completely out to lunch on this one. And I heave read this page in its entirety. Obviously if you measure the chamber or bore of a Glock 21 and 17, you will have differences.... Koalorka (talk) 03:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The gen-2 Glock 19 photo that formerly was on the Glock 19 page was one I took of one of my weapons. I formerly owned a 21C and 26, and have had extensive access to (I think) everything but the .380s and .45 GAP and Glock 18 models. I do firearms engineering in my spare time and, as I said, have measured and test-fit a number of parts interchanges, for my own curiosity.

I have never claimed that the models don't have the same design concept. Other than the .380s, they clearly are all the same configuration with appropriate slide width / barrel width scaling for the caliber and slide and barrel and recoil scaling for the barrel length.

All M1911 models are the same basic design too. But we do in fact have articles for a number of variants of those. And the guideline you and Asams10 point to shows the Enfield Rifle vs Jungle Carbine articles as being different, despite the fact that the changes there are nearly entirely cosmetic.

Blowing me off by trying to make it sound like all I am is a gamer dork is not going to work. I understand that the operating mechanism and design configurations are all identical on everything but the blowback .380s. I don't particularly feel like letting overly broad assertions about identical parts slide given the context here.

The reason that there isn't consensus is that you, and Asams10 before you, blew off my concerns and the concerns of others. If you would like to actually try talking to me we might get somewhere. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What then are your concerns? Is it your intention to create a couple dozen splinter articles with a personal photo of each of your Glocks to illustrate it and have a sentence or two stating that it is chambered in something other than 9x19mm and has a longer/shorter barrel, longer/shorter grip/frame and has a compensator or not? What is it you're trying to achieve. We're simply attempting to enforce some standards and bring some ordnung to the gamer-inspired chaos. My Counter-Strike comments were directed at MalikCarr who seems to specialize in Manga/Anime... Koalorka (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

When did you become so hostile towards non-project members? It's true, my area of expertise is in fiction, but it's not like that should be of any consideration when it comes to how or why I edit things. Gamer-inspired chaos? Ugh... I don't own a Glock (11+ capacity magazines are illegal in California, and why get a handgun with no external safety if the chief benefit of a large magazine capacity is denied to you?), but I am a firearms owner, thank you kindly. Is it always in vogue to have such bad faith of dissenting views on WP:Firearms-related articles?

Incidentally, if you really want to get down to gamer accusations, I made the first one in relevance to the Glock 18 having its own article. Now that we've all accused each other of being Counterstrike fanboys, can we move along? MalikCarr (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We had a couple dozen articles for each of the separate models. Each one went into some greater or lesser depth into that specific models' characteristics and usage.

Your comment about "a personal photo of each of your Glocks" is inappropriate. If you want me to take you seriously, please communicate in an adult manner.

Implying that gamers led to the proliferation of model articles is silly. Most of the Glock models don't appear in games. Most of the articles were created by owners of those specific models, and went through a common clean up a couple of years ago to make them moderately consistent.

The standards you're asking to enforce are all fine and good, but they don't necessarily say what you're asserting they do. Why does Colt Commander have a separate article from M1911 pistol? Why does the Lee Enfiled Mk 5 Jungle Carbine have its own article separate from Lee-Enfield, which is even listed as an example in the Variants guideline from Wikiproject:Firearms?

There was in fact a decent discussion about how many articles should we really have, whether grouping by length (standard, compact, subcompact) or caliber (9mm, .40, 10mm, .45, .357 SIG, .380, .45 GAP) or some other configuration made sense. LWF and others and I discussed quite a bit, to some consternation as I think we determined that all the ideas had problems.

If you are going to charge into this asserting the guideline and trying to assert a consensus or policy here that doesn't hold up looking back up at the record, then you aren't helping. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why the Colt Commander or Jungle carbine exist on their own. I have not stumbled into those pages, yet.. But they do require some attention. Most errors of this nature that persist on Wikipedia are simply out of convenience, or some fanboy having an irrational interest in one particular model. So you're now familiar with our intentions, what do you propose? Maintain the status quo? Koalorka (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Koalorka, The Jungle Carbine article is the exception bounding the variants guideline listed in the guideline itself. How can you possibly argue that we should delete a variant article that's part of the guideline on what variants to keep and what to unify??? As I said, the Wikiproject:Firearms guidelines on what is supposed to happen with Firearms articles don't even entirely support what you're saying here, and you appear unfamiliar with them. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

George, IIRC, the reason that the Jungle Carbine article was given as an example was because the discussion at that time was focused on that as a dissenting view. The editor who wanted it kept separate made enough of a fuss that the example was used. I, for one, think it's a horrible example. The Jungle Carbine is a simple variant so, mechanically, it's a bad example. Operationally, it had a distinguished history, though nothing more than a paragraph or so is necessary.

I think a better example would be the Ruger P series. This article, I feel, is a great (though still a bit crude) example of how the Glock article should be done. The layout is clear, models that are significantly different are given enough space. Everything is clear and you can find what you need when you need it. --Asams10 (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I have been considering changing the wording. When I actually took a very close look at Jungle Carbine looking for the differences I discovered that they weren't very significant. I'll look for a better example of the guideline's intent.--LWF (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Another example - why is there a Browning BDA article? It's only a DA version of the High Power, otherwise the same size/dimensions/etc, right? And look who created it... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

A merge has already been proposed.--LWF (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And yet none for Colt Delta Elite, Colt Commander into M1911 ? And the MEU(SOC) pistol, Ballester-Molina, Kongsberg Colt, Kimber Custom, Kimber Eclipse, Kimber Aegis ... ? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it's considered a different firearm using a tilting barrel/locked breech mechanism and does not interchange with the HP. It was designed from the ground-up by FN in 1983 to compete for the American 9 mm service pistol competition with significant ergonomic improvements, influenced obviously by the HP, it spawned it's own line of variants. That's a poor example, as was your reasoning with the Jungle Carbine. If it were an HP variant I would have included it in the browning HP article.... So I ask you. What do you propose? Koalorka (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose that that actually be mentioned in Browning BDA. When I read the article it made it sound like a double-action Hi-Power. What you just said about the tilting barrel/locked breech mechanism is no where to be found in it. If it had said it operated off of different principles, and was only based off of the Hi-Power, I wouldn't have proposed.--LWF (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of the other merges, I will say this, I am tired, and need to sleep. I'll look at those tomorrow. Although I will point out that many of those are made by different manufacturers, which is a different case entirely.--LWF (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Picking this up tomorrow is fine by me. I will leave with a comment, though... I don't see how the same (parts interchangeable) gun from different manufacturers justifies multiple articles, when different guns (parts not interchangeable) from the same manufacturer don't. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, I should have expanded the article when I created it, but other "priorities" arose. I will do so over the weekend. George, I don't understand your comment about parts interchangeability. The BDA is different altogether but is based on the HP operating principle and design layout. The HP and BDA are both made by the same manufacturer (FN) and are treated by them as different firearms, and not just for the sake of marketing. Koalorka (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if that was unclear - We have two unrelated article sets in discussion, the "interchangeable parts" discussion is referring to the proliferation of Colt M1911 variant articles that I listed above. I don't have a BDA to take apart and compare with a High Power, and I'm not familiar with it generally, so I have no idea in the technical engineering specifications/design sense how it relates or doesn't to the High Power. I had made an assumption based on the wording in the BDA article earlier, but I don't have outside knowledge on that point, and if the article was unclear in a way that misled me, that the BDA is not a High Power minor variant (trigger mechanism changes only) then I agree the article should be fixed to be properly clear, and not merged. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think for the sake of openness we should move all the debate that isn't directly pertinent to the Glocks to WT:GUNS. That way we can get more people to weigh in on this and come to a consensus.--LWF (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How interesting. So it would appear that there is no real consensus "on the ground" regarding issues similar to this one. At any rate, I stand by my actions to prevent the loss of information until such a time (if ever) as this article can replace the "spiderweb" of other models. Consolidate then redirect, people. MalikCarr (talk) 10:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Again I will ask you to substantiate your claim that there is material that is being lost. I have not seen any information that was sourced per WP:RS that did not make the merger. And anything not substantiated by RS should probably be deleted anyway or at least tagged for refernces.GundamsRus (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two different discussion points here that should not be mixed together. One is whether or not any material was left behind in the merge. The answer is definitely yes, so, assuming the merge is still on, it should be copied to the new article. The second question is whether some of the material did not have references. Definitely yes to that also, but in general on Wikipedia, unsourced material that is known to be true should be left in, and references should be added if possible. Also, specific to the Glock 38, how's this for a reference? — Mudwater 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discarding Plastic Pistol Info?

I noticed that Koalorka is considering discarding the info aboyt the plastic pistol myth. Couldn't this info be kept in some form. I know that there are a lot of misconception floating around about the gun being made entirely of plastic and not setting off airport metal detectors. I think these misconceptions should be addressed in some form in the article. Sf46 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but even mentioning these ridiculous myths only propagates the misinformation and keeps it entrenched in the collective public imgaination. Eradicate it altogether and watch it disappear. If anything, the Die Hard page should include a list of trivia and mention the inaccuracy. Some irrelevant Hollywood flick should not influence opinion about one of the most popular semi pistols in the world. That's how I see it anyway. Koalorka (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Including information about well known but false myths is important on Wikipedia. We cannot significantly help eradicate the meme. We can fight it with correct information. Deleting it is a bad idea. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with you that those quotes might be better placed on those respective movie articles, but to think that Hollywood doesn't shape people's thoughts is not very realistic. Wikipedia (in my understanding) is here to provide information, not hide it. Hiding the information will allow people to believe Hollywood's mistakes. Putting some type of info, no matter how small and short into the article will help to dispel these inaccuracies. Sf46 (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hide it? No, just place it where it belongs. In the trivia section on the Die Harder page. :D Koalorka (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for including the "Plastic Pistol Myth" in this article. It's a WP:NOTE thing. Though most of us clearly understand there is no such thing as a "Glock 7", the general public will be looking for the "Glock 7" and not finding it here. Better they be eductated, methinks. I don't think the section needs to be that long or include lines from the movie, but it's relevant, methinks. --Asams10 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I say create a Glock 7 page and have it redirect to Die Harder trivia section that will mention it. Koalorka (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

People are going to be looking for the 'Glock pistol' in general and will then find the plastic myths within this article. This myth isn't just related to this particular film, it is a quite widespread misconception. Hayden120 (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The myth existed in many movie and perception of the public in general, the fact that it went as high as the US government for debate is notable fact. That they talk about in die hard might not be important, but the fact that a lot off people thought its was invisible to X-ray is, as said before, its important too clarify it here, good info is better than none —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.122.12 (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

My Vote, keep it in but place it under the corporation issue. It was a corporate issue since Glock, the Company, was slandered and not any one product or pistol. --Asams10 (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable. Koalorka (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Generations

I for one am not an expert in the differnces between the generations. When someone throws out the term 1st generation or 3rd generation I don't knwo the difference. Why not keep the information? Is it covered somewhere else in the article that I don't see? Sf46 (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really mean anything. Just a different checker pattern on the grip in what is called gen 2 and finger grooves and a Universal rail on what is known as gen 3. These are in no way official classifications. Koalorka (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and, first of all, I am sorry for my imperfect English.

As I wrote in section "Uses", the most important feature of 3rd gen. Glocks is locking block axis (above and slightly rear the axis of trigger). This feature appeared firstly in models of .40, .45 and 10 mm calibers, and on Glock 25, subcompact model in 9x19 cal, in 1996, and after that was introduced in all 9x19 models, e. g. in Glock 17. This detail used for more rugginess of the pistol's frame. In full disassembly this detail should be removed firstly.

Second important feature of 3rd generation Glocks is extractor, which has extended ridge, used as loaded chamber indicator. It is mandatory to check the chamber before stripping the gun, and as important, as pointing the gun in safe direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.0.210.102 (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Put you money...

I'm starting a fresh, uncluttered section challenging those who say that information is being lost in this merger to put their money where their mouths are. Please, take that information and put it in the article. I've made it easy by linking the old articles at the top of the page. Just point and click and you get the old article in its last/best pre-merger form. Grab this wealth of information you keep talking about and place it in the article where it belongs. I'm starting this discussion in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek manner as I know there isn't much substantial yet to put in. I'd like to close this end of the debate once and for all. If you don't add it to the article, it wasn't important. --Asams10 (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it's better to re-add the material than to keep talking about it. That was already done for the Glock 21, and for the details of the three generations. I just copied in the Glock 38 material from the old article, and added a new reference, with this edit. If any editor thinks this should be moved to a different part of the article, or improved, you know what to do. — Mudwater 22:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally think these should be in numerical order more like 17-18-19. So if we did it numerically the Glock 38 would go at the end of what we have so far. Any thoughts?--LWF (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Numerically sounds good to me. — Mudwater 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking more of a historical hierarchy, as the models were introduced, which does follow a numerical sequence for the most part. If I find the time, I will slowly start pulling all this together. Koalorka (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we should have a section for each pistol, or if we should put for example: Glock 21, 30, 36 in the same section. One quick question Koalorka, would that mean Glock 21SF would be separated from Glock 21? Or do you mean when the baseline model was introduced, which is numeric.--LWF (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The latter. I.e. I'd start off with the G21 and any sub-variants that it may have spawned (G21C and G21SF) and then continue with the Glock 22, 22C Glock 23, 23C, Glock 24 etc etc. Koalorka (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Could someone figure out how to separate the design section? At the moment I think it should start out with an overview of design and features of all Glocks, then proceed into the individual model's design and history. The only problem is that I can't find a good way of doing this.--LWF (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, perhaps we should put a gallery in at the bottom with pictures of each model in it.--LWF (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Design should be left alone. These features listed there are common to all Glocks. It's the variant section that will contain the plethora of derivative models. Koalorka (talk) 01:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the subsections for each model be moved from "Design details" to "Variants"? — Mudwater 13:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Affirm. Koalorka (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, should we have section headings for each variant? Something like ===Glock 17=== and ===Glock 18===. I do rather like the extra separation they give between them that helps each section focus on the variant it describes, and I think would make for a more distinct transition between the variants.--LWF (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well we did have it like that, but apparently Koalorka doesn't like section headings so he puts it all in a big block of text. I honestly can't be bothered arguing the fact because it will turn into a revert war, so I'll leave it for now. Hayden120 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I too think it would be better with the subsection headers, although it's still pretty readable without them. Also, {{Glock pistols}}, which is the little "Glock models" table, was removed with this edit. I hope that putting it back in is part of the plan, I liked it a lot. — Mudwater 03:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We actually need that chart because it's the only one that puts the models into their specific sizes (full size, compact, etc.) Hayden120 (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your concerns, but the subheading for each individual model creates unnecessary visual clutter. This version has every newly mentioned model in bold and the main chart is placed below to help the reader alleviate any remaining doubt he/she may have had in categorizing the individual variants. I think it's pretty effective. Koalorka (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think all of them need their own separate heading, for example 37, 38, and 39 could go under one heading. I just think that maybe major groups should have a heading.--LWF (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking into grouping into model sizes. I did that with the Glock 19; I put all other variants of the same size but different caliber into the title (Glock 19, 23, 25, 32, and 38). The problem with this is they would be slightly out of order. Hayden120 (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the expanded chart would seem like the best idea. Koalorka (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The new chart should be modified to include the actual sizes of the pistols, similar to the older chart. Maybe something similar to what the Germans have done.[1] Hayden120 (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be the best solution. I have no idea how to do it... Can the author of the original chart chip in? Koalorka (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Asams10 is the author of the chart, but you could always try having a fiddle with it here yourself. It might take a while to change however. I would try but I'm a bit busy at the moment. Hayden120 (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll let him do it. I've put in my share for this project. Koalorka (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys, family life is keeping me occupied. I'm not the author of the Chart, I just played with it lots.... I don't think I'm the author at least? I'm getting concerned with all the duplicate information in there. It'd take me a few hours, but I think I can condense the whole variants section by about 1/2 to 2/3 of what it is now. I like the idea of grouping it like Glock does, by standard, compact, subcompact, and competition with a note under the subcompact for slimline guns. The chart tells you most of what you need to know so I think the only thing that needs to go in these sections is little differences such as what the "C" means on a compensated gun or the differences to the slide on a GAP model, etc. This variants section is HUGE and, looking through it, I saw three 'variant' entries in a row and EACH one said what the compensated model was. That information is not unique to the model or class. That's exactly why we're merging, to get rid of the redundancy. --Asams10 (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Before I removed all the extra mentions of the "C" version and had just a couple of sentences in the design section. Now almost every single variant has it. It's really not necessary, if you just mention the pistols that come in "C" models in the design section it would cut the article down a lot. Also, a couple of subheadings in the Design details section to break it up would be a lot easier on the eyes. If anyone knows how to modify the chart, could you please indicate the size of each model; Standard, Compact, Subcompact, Competition, and Slimline? Hayden120 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if I have time tonight I'll try to add that column Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I just got done adding the "Size" column to the table of Glock models. — Mudwater 01:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We're looking pretty decent now... Good work people. Koalorka (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Field strip safety issue

I think it would important to mention the fact that you have to press the trigger to field strip the weapon wich is a safety hazard (everyone saw the DEA guys shoot himself in the foot on youtube) , Even though most off you know you have to clear the weapon before striping the pistol, for the golck its even more important becaus you would fire the round if there is one inside, contrary to others like the walther p99, the smith & wesson M&P or even an M9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk • contribs)

True. There are, however, other pistols that require this and some even less safe practices. For me, you'd almost have to show that this was an issue. DEA guy shoots his foot? You violate three cardinal rules to shoot yourself in the foot. 1) treat every guy as if it were loaded. 2) always point the gun in a safe direction. 3) keep your finger off the trigger until you are read to fire. Yeah, Glock makes you violate one, but that didn't get anybody shot in the foot. --Asams10 (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I know that if you do your safety precaution like your supossed to do, there's no problem with any gun, but some are dumb proof, like the sig p226 or the M&P, and even with a round in the chamber, stripping it won't fire it. Yes a well trained operator won't have problem with this, but police and and some army don't have the same amount off training as some individual. I know a police departement that didn't took the glock mainly due to this feature compared to other modern design. I don't say we should an whole section about it, just maybe make a sentence or too about this in the safety section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.246.255.3 (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Users getting out of hand:

I'd like to propose that the 'users' section be pared down to a reference to the users section in the Userbox. Also, since probably a thousand or so agencies use the Glock, we should have some sort of standard for what goes in the Users list. Alternately, we should have another article and let people go to town there and list EVERY agency they can VALIDATE! --Asams10 (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the infobox is getting congested, I'll link that section to the bottom of the page. Koalorka (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Create a seperate article: List of Agencies that use GLOCK pistols? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to create a separate article for the agencies? Comments? --Asams10 (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Koalorka (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glock 38 separate entry

I don't know if you are aware but apparently someone (User:The Librarian) has chosen to revive the separate Glock 38 article and refuses to allow it to be merged. He stalled the first merge by promising to expand it, then did not nothing, and now is trying another delaying action by attempting to start a discussion about the validity of the action. Can I get some support here? Koalorka (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've redirected that and a handful of other articles that were reverted. They'll get reverted again and again by the naysayers. I don't generally check in on them because, frankly, there are so darned many articles. That's why they were merged in the first place. --Asams10 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to track those articles and revert every time they get moved. I can be stubborn too. Ordnung muss sein! Koalorka (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full auto

yes, this pages mentions the G18 but should it mention the FSSG and all the other ways people have converted normal glocks to FA? 68.0.149.121 (talk) 21:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think individual basement conversions of questionable legal status should be included. Koalorka (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

FSSG switches are legal post samples. http://www.fireselectorsystem.com/ 68.0.149.121 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting feature but I believe it falls under the category of aftermarket add-on. If you could describe how this device interfaces with the pistol we could possibly mention it somewhere in the page. Koalorka (talk) 03:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

U.S. Patent 5,705,763  could be added to the bottom of the page? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glock 18 (i)

Why is the Glock 18 directed towards this page? It was agreed that the G18 is not the same as the other pistols and is functionaly different enough to warrant its own page. Alyeska (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Why not ask for a concensus here instead of reverting the Glock 18 page. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We had a consensus here already that the Glock 18 page should stay separate. That wasn't good enough for Koalorka. Alyeska (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a variant with a lever selector, auto sear and some cuts milled into the slide Already mentioned here. What kind of startling and unique information does the Glock 18 page have? It's status according to the NFA? Koalorka (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more material should be copied in from the old Glock 18 article. For example, this paragraph, or some variation on it, might be worthwhile: "The Glock 18 appears identical to the Glock 17, with the addition of the fire selector. However, the internal dimensions of the main parts of the Glock 18 are slightly different from the Glock 17, and are not interchangeable. This was done by Glock so that the Glock 17 could not be considered a semi-automatic version of the Glock 18; rather they are two separate pistols. Some countries and jurisdictions have laws that place special restrictions on semi-automatic versions of fully automatic weapons, and if the Glock 18 were identical to a Glock 17, the Glock 17 would fall under those laws and be unavailable in those jurisdictions." I like this part also: "There are no transferable Glock 18s privately owned in accordance with the National Firearms Act. The Glock 18 was first manufactured in 1986, after the close of the NFA registry." — Mudwater 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What this page and the Glock 18 page is irrelevant. The Glock 18 should be a seperate page because the pistol is not the same as other Glock pistols. Your arguing that because the Glock 18 is already covered somewhat on this page that it shouldn't have its own. This ignores the fact that the reason the Glock 18 should have its own page is because of its differences from the other pistols. Furthermore, if you insist on merging, you can't delete information. If you start deleting information saying that the Glock pistol page is getting too large, you just proved that the Glock 18 deserves its own page as your trimming information on the combined page. And I notice your ignoring the issue that other machine pistols of similar nature keep their own page. Why does the Beretta 93 get its own page when the Glock 18 does not? Alyeska (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, that's just my two cents. I think the Glock 18 is similiar enough to be mentioned here in this article. Since all of the other Glock models are mentioned (and covered) here, I think the Glock 18 should be as well. Sf46 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So because the Glock 18 has a mention here, it doesn't deserve its own page? The Glock 18 is a mechanicaly different weapon from the other Glock pistols. Outside of visual similarities, its primary parts aren't even interchangable with a Glock 17. This page is about the Glock pistol family, which the Glock 18 is not a part of. Alyeska (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And it is still only a selective-fire variant.... Koalorka (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Glock 18 is a Machine Pistol which is not the same thing as a pistol. Just writing it off as a "select fire" is dishonest. The Glock 18 is significantly different enough that it doesn't even have interchangable internals. With an AR-15 you can swap out internals with a M4 or M16. This is not possible with the Glock 18. It was intentionaly made different enough to make such things not possible. In essence the Glock 18 is a different weapon, no less a different class then the rest of the Glock pistols. Alyeska (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded the portion of the article covering the Glock 18. Does this help any? The information does come from the old Glock 18 article, and I think that we have recovered any information lost in the merge.--LWF (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be merged in the first place. The Glock 18 is a machine pistol, the others are not. The Glock 18 cannot exchange parts with other 9mm pistols. It is a separate weapon that is visually similar to other Glocks. Alyeska (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You can say the same about all Glocks; they look visually the same but can't all exchange parts. It's still the Glock design though. Hayden120 (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The other Glocks use the same action and the same design. The Glock 18 was changed to be incompatible with the Glock 17 specificaly to make it impossible to make it fully auto. This also ignores that the Glock 18 is a Machine Pistol. That is not the same thing as a pistol. Alyeska (talk) 06:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I went about revising the article to condense and reorder it. Koalorka, I undid your revision because your reason implied that you hadn't read the revision. I did lots of cutting and pasting, but I tried hard not to remove info, I only reworded and reordered it for clarity. For instance, I kept accessories and options together and described the safety mechanisms in a more coherant manner. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and none of it was necessary. If you have new and insightful information please feel free to contribute, but do not scramble people's contributions to what you consider ideal. Koalorka (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what was lost? I made a concerted effort to ensure that if it was removed, it was either redundant, a cut-and-paste description from GLOCK as the safety discussion was, or it was incorrect. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the design details was cut + paste I assure you. Koalorka (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The current article is too long and is in one big block of text. Nukes4Tots' edits simplified the article, and grouped the variants in a manner that allowed them to be found easily. And also, many good edits have been made like the size templates with metric and imperial measurements. We need to find away to keep this new setup without losing any information. Hayden120 (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

O I agree, the variants edit was useful as were the units. But he removed unique information about the 34/35 competition models and a few more. That's why it was reverted.Koalorka (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please replace my version then and add the info back. I don't think you kill the baby if it has a cold, do you? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll bring the variants back. Koalorka (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How about we return to the new layout, and then we can put back anything that was lost? Hayden120 (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not new to WIKI here, but that was frustrating. Read through the whole discussion and didn't imagine anybody would object. I thought I was going with the flow. I agree, yes, keep my baby. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The only part that I found was lost was the paragraph about the compensated models, there was no other mention in the new revision. I'm not quite sure what Koalorka is concerned about; as far as I can see it's all there in just fewer words. Hayden120 (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I took that out because it's already discussed under the variants section below. It didn't belong under description because it's a variant. My original edits were shredded. Please bring them back. I see that you made an attempt to bring some stuff back, but my changes were extensive and not limited to formatting. I really feel like I'm not getting a chance here. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It only had a small mention and didn't go into much detail. It also didn't mention which size Glocks can have this feature. Sorry that your edits have been treated roughly; I'm trying hard to keep both sides happy. Hayden120 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Okay, so I went through the variants section and, sentence by sentence, ensured that no information was lost. Some sections look shorter, but that is because I removed redundant stuff and magazine capacity once or twice. I left mag capacity in the Glock 36 entry though as it seemed to be important. I also added inch measurements by cutting and pasting the templates from the box at the top. One thing I see that needs to be changed is that Newtons need to be converted into pounds. I don't know what a newton is, except for the fig kind. How many fig newtons to a pound? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I solved your newton problem and fixed some of your inaccuracies. --Asams10 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain why you removed the recently expanded information from the Glock 18 portion? Was that just a reversion, or was there a deliberate purpose for removing that?--LWF (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Glock 18 info at the bottom of the article was incorrect. The Glock 18 does not have different dimmensions. The trigger bar is different and there is an auto-sear surface on the left. Also, there is a selector that engages the auto sear when it's engaged and the trigger block has a filler where the selector raceway would be. It's also unnecessary gobblygook about American laws. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Hey, can we get some sort of concensus on what pictures we put here? Maybe a gallery entry and selected pictures to describe different models plus some pictures of features and accessories in the main article. One each of all the frame styles would be sufficient. One full-size, one compact, one subcompact, one competition, and a slimline. No need for the SF models as they appear identical in the pictures. A few accessory shots. Maybe a light, compensated model, extended slide release, and keyed safety. Comments? --Asams10 (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I could go for the gallery idea. Perhaps one full-size, one compact, one sub-compact, one competition, and some of the ones you mentioned.--LWF (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. I can supply a picture of my Glock 22 and its grip. Any other member created photos might go nicely. Alyeska (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I can get shots of the Glock 17C ports, adjustable sights, flashlight/laser combo. Let me clarify that by accessories I mean factory accessories. I realize there are HUNDREDS of different accessories available. --Asams10 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, photograph your Glocks with no accessories (aftermarket or factory) attached. Maybe a shot or two showing how your Glock can be accessorised, but not every picture. People would rather see what you get straight from the factory. Also, just photos of the side of the handgun on a light coloured background are the best. Please don't make them decorative with cartridges or magazines stacked around them either. Hayden120 (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I already did that, but my Glock 19 pictures were supplanted by a third-gen model pics. *sniff* Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Variety is our best option. Some stock pictures, some with one or two accessories, and some with lots of accessories. If we could get a picture of a tan grip Glock, that would be nice. Alyeska (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes variety is good, but pictures of the stock versions are preferable for starting something like this.--LWF (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So, representative model pictures should be one-each of the representative frame sizes. Maybe a Glock 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 30, 34, 36, and one of the .45 GAP models to illustrate the slide changes. That's about 9 stock pictures. Then some option or accessory shots. One each for the light, ported barrel, adjustable and night sights (same picture, side-by-side), etc. Lead photo should be a Glock 17. We've got some of these pictures already, it'll just take some effort to put it all in a coherant order. --Asams10 (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, one representative model per frame size. Perhaps one of the safety equipped models as well. Any others? Some of the tan or OD colored models could be good.--LWF (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a safety equipped model? --Asams10 (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

See 'users', Tasmania (Australia) had a special safety equipped model made for their police forces. See the reference for pictures. Hayden120 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

i have some pictures of my glock 17, an original second generation purchased in 1980, with the original box and the (2) seventeen round magazines. would it help if i gave you guys some more pictures to add to this article? the only real difference is that there are no rails and the grip does not have the finger molds that newer glocks have and i have the original high cap mags. if anyone wants them leave me a message on my talk.Killkola (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion For New Section

I think there should be a section toward the bottom of this page devoted to aftermarket support for Glocks. Agree or Disagree? ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree. This is a no brainer. I cannot imagine a section like this being anything but a hodge-podge list of ninja-additions akin to Glock forums. There are web sites devoted to this. --Asams10 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glock 18 (ii)

I could go out and buy a glock 18 right now. I would have to register a passport size photo with my local sheriff department and the ATF and I think get permission from my local police department. Not 100% on the requirements but I know I can get one. I can also get a confirmation and the EXACT process if you would like.

In short; I agree with the statement that the Glock 18 is available to only select civilians. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

If there are no disagreements with this, I will change the article back in one week. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, not really. Don't believe there are transferrable. The statement was incorrect. Civilians can register as Class IV or Class III dealers and obtain Glock 18's for demonstration purposes with some pretty simple paperwork, incorporation, etc. It's kindof stupid to say that it's not available to civilians as laws differ WILDLY from country to country. --Asams10 (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I can register as owning a full auto if I want. I'll go ahead and see what I need to do and how that is possible. I'll let you know if I make any progress on that (may take a day or two). ProtektYaNeck (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This is what I have so far. Not really a reliable source (in my opinion) so I will keep looking, but here you go. Class3Guns ProtektYaNeck (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Machinegun manufacture for civilian sales was banned in 1986. Glock 18 was introduced in 1987... so unless you have a time machine... --Asams10 (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

They started meking the Glock 18 in 1986 just before the ban in may. There are 3 transferrable Glock 18s in the U.S. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then there are three people who can own these three guns. But, properly registered dealers with demonstration letters and three lucky individuals are not 'available to the general public' even in the US. --Asams10 (talk) 15:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. . . Unless anyone has any disagreements, I will change the date on the Glock 18 section to 1986 to reflect the true date that they started manufacturing it. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have already announced that I was changing this date, but some people here feel like just reverting my edits instead of discussing them. I have a source: http://www.glockfaq.com/generalinfo.htm#timeline Not too reliable but I have also gotten the same answer from the people at fullautos.com I'll keep looking for more reliable information but unless anyone discusses reasons not to make this change, I will make it as there is no source that says 1987 that I have found. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Found a better source: http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bin/res.pl?keyword=Glock+18&offset=0 I will once again make the change tomorrow unless there is a discussion. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure... PROVIDE A RELIABLE SOURCE and you can change it, until then, it's 1987. There are transferable Glock 17's in the country that were converted prior to the ban, however those aren't Glock 18's... they may look identical as the parts that change are not physically attached to the frame (the registered item) but that does not make them genuine Glock 18's. Again you didn't provide anything to support your position that can't be shot down with a few keystrokes. We'd already discussed this and your argument fell short. What more discussion did you want? You didn't bring anything else to the table! Checked both of those, and they are no better than your first one. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Where are your sources? ProtektYaNeck (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, everything else on the internet! I'm not the one trying to change the article, though. I'm too lazy to look it up now, but you're using a debate tactic that rarely succeeds. I'm not saying the article is right, I'm saying that before you go changing it, you need to provide a reliable source. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow how could I be so dumb as to choose my sources over your forums? Anyway, this doesn't prove anything about when it started production but I just thought it was interesting. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4539889 They got the patent in 1985 after filing in 82. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 16:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, read WP:NPA and then lay off a bit. Nobody is saying that the patent was issued in 1987, only that it was introduced in 1987, not 1986. Now, find a decent source so you can make the article accurate or disprove your "Theory" as to the date it was introduced. I'm not going to hunt down items to disprove your unproven theory unless you find a good enough source to in the first place. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that just because some were made in 1986 doesn't mean they were introduced in 1986? It is possible they were a pre-production run prior to introduction for demonstrations or something of that nature.--LWF (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That is a pretty good point. I'll be sure to ask that. I just talked to the Glock people at the Smyrna, GA headquarters and they said the first one that they had sent into America through them was in 1988. I still have to talk to the people in Austria to see when they were manufactured and introduced. Thanks for pointing that out though. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone here able to call Austria? I have no idea what my phone company will charge me for that. If anyone is able, the number is +43 (0) 2247 - 90300-0 I don't even know how to dial that anyway. Thank you. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:OR as even a phone call on your part would not help the situation. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay. No correct information. Got it. I give up. ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the spirit. It's not what you know, it's what you can reference. I know for a fact that Bill Clinton killed Ron Brown and Vince Foster, but I can't prove it. Does that mean that I can put it into Wikipedia? Heck, I can even find references that support my position. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Should the 1987 statement be in there then, since it is also unverified? ProtektYaNeck (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't you all just stick to the facts. I am seeing this wiki elitist crap more and more here. Just because the statement that it was introduced in 1987 was there before, and appeals more to some 'hollier than thou' editor, doesn't mean it is correct. Like ProtektYaNeck, I challenge you to find a more reliable source for that disputed fact. Otherwise, everyone stick to the known and agreed upon facts. Patent in 1985, first produced in 1986, and introduced in the US in 1988. Since the whole world does not revolve around the US - as hard to believe as it may - the introduction date for the US should not be used as the universal introduction date. Infact I see no reason for it on wiki at all even, just put the date of first production of the line, 1986. Pink Princess (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that the Glock 18 section of the article says the weapon was "developed" in 1987 which is a complete fallacy as proven by the source: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4539889 How can something be patented before it is even developed? ProtektYaNeck (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

While I completely disagree that a patent PROVES anything in the way of a date in this case, I don't think that listing any one date or even year would be appropriate. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ProtektYaNeck definately has logic on his side, you can't put a patent on something if you don't know what it is. It's like me patenting a future invension before I even know what I'm talking about. And I am Asamuel, I agree that with these normally very secretive military weapons crap, puting exact dates is useless - so why not remove the statement saying the Glock 18 was introduced in 1988? Also is it not US-centric for you to place a date on it's introduction into the US as the ONLY date concerning it? There were Glock 18's coming of production lines and going God knows where way before 1988, just not into the US, and I believe a global introduction date/premier is much more important than that of a country with 5% of the global population. So please remove the 1988 date, and either replace with the global premier of 1986 or whatever, just not state one untill we agree, or even better place a general period like mid-1980's - if you manage to agree on that even! Pink Princess (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magazine Capacity

There now seems to be a dozen or so mentions of various magazine capacities in the text of the article. I've done a rough count (and I'll correct the table) but there seems to be nearly 90 different magazine/pistol capacity combinations. I think the table is where these capacities should be. The magazine capacity of a particular pistol is tedious and redundant in most cases. I'd say that having maybe four mentions or so would be appropriate. One that says the original capacity of 17 rounds, one that mentions the 33-rd capacity of the Glock 18, one that talks about the single-stack magazine, and one about the limited capacity 10-rd magazines that are available for legal reasons in places. --Asams10 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prototype glocks

At the IWA 2008 there were several prototypes with an extra rough texture for improved grip and handling. If anyone finds a good news source for this (I can only say what I saw :p) It could maybe be included as "future generations" or "new developments" etc? -- Boris Barowski (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In Service 1980?

I just noticed that in the info-box it says that the G17 entered service in 1980, while that was also the year it was designed. I read the article and it says that it was first accepted into service with the Austrian Military in 1982. Just thought I'd point that out, as it seems like a mistake, and sounds contradictory. Also I doubt it was designed and entered service in the same year. Pink Princess (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "This design however does not allow the pistol to be decocked in case of a squib round."

According to the squib load article, a squib round is an improperly loaded round with little or no powder, which leaves the projectile stuck in the barrel instead of exiting it. I fail to see how decocking would have anything to do with this, or why one would want to decock in the case of a squib round (it should be decocked already anyway, because it was fired and the action didn't cycle because there was not enough power in the round to do so). Given the nature of the striker-fired Glock design, I think the intent here is something along the lines of "This design, however, does not allow the pistol to be recocked in case of a dud round." On hammer-fired designs, if a round is a dud you can cock the hammer again (manually or, in the case of a double-action pistol, by pulling the trigger) and re-fire. A striker-fired design like the Glock cannot be re-cocked without manipulating the slide and ejecting the dud round. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.69.155.240 (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, I was thinking of a dud, I will change squib to "misfire". Koalorka (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)