Talk:Glock/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)