Glock - Gen 6 Revealed!

[Tere_Hanges]

Agreed. Not to mention the V did not eliminate the evil Cruciform Trigger Bar which was specifically called out in the bill. What strikes me is the G6 does not have said Cruciform Trigger Bar

This is a common misinterpretation of the law. A cruciform trigger bar in and of itself is not banned. The law requires both a cruciform bar and that the pistol be readily convertible into a "machine gun" by installing a pistol converter as a backplate replacement without additional engineering or machining. If the Gen 6 cannot accept a converter, it fails the “readily convertible” provision and therefore would not meet the definition of a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

 

[cali_jazz]

This is a common misinterpretation of the law. A cruciform trigger bar in and of itself is not banned. The law requires both a cruciform bar and that the pistol be readily convertible into a "machine gun" by installing a pistol converter as a backplate replacement without additional engineering or machining. If the Gen 6 cannot accept a converter, it fails the “readily convertible” provision and therefore would not meet the definition of a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

Yes, thanks for the clarification. So in your opinion Glock could have left out the other engineering changes to the V and thus qualified for the exception built into the law but chose not to? Do you believe then they intend to release a CA Compliant version of G6?

 

[Ron Swanson]

I thought they're selling the Gen V in CA?

I'm no authority on anything, I just speculate and wish for things. I have no idea on what Gen V is for. Close release of gen 6 makes that more confusing.

 

[Ron Swanson]

This is a common misinterpretation of the law. A cruciform trigger bar in and of itself is not banned. The law requires both a cruciform bar and that the pistol be readily convertible into a "machine gun" by installing a pistol converter as a backplate replacement without additional engineering or machining. If the Gen 6 cannot accept a converter, it fails the “readily convertible” provision and therefore would not meet the definition of a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

I recall in the past reading about how a gun could have sights and grips changed and not be required to re-certify for roster. I think for grips the intent may have been referring to metal frames where you can just screw in a different color or material. Makes me wonder if, what Tere says is correct, that glock is trying to use the grip change exemption (if that exists, just trying to recall) for gen V for CA. They didn't do MOS, and maybe that's too much change for the exemption.

Again I'm just speculating and wishing....

 

[Tere_Hanges]

Yes, thanks for the clarification. So in your opinion Glock could have left out the other engineering changes to the V and thus qualified for the exception built into the law but chose not to? Do you believe then they intend to release a CA Compliant version of G6?

I think Glock would have to modify the Gen 3 into a "Gen III" to qualify for the exception, not the Gen V, since it is based on the Gen 5, which was never on the roster. I have no insight into what Glock is planning, if anything, but just from what I've heard from an FFL on this forum, it sounds like Glock is working towards a CA-compliant model of some type sometime next year. Just pure speculation, but I would hope, since they are completely shut out of the CA market now, that it is a real possibility they bring a new model to CA. Glock may still be planning a CA-compliant "Gen III," but I doubt it. I think it might make more sense for them to just modify the Gen 6 by adding an MDM and CLI to get it on the roster. Right now, any hope that Glock brings some type of AB1127 and or roster compliant model to CA is pure wishful thinking. We hope it will happen but who knows if it is something Glock is even considering.

 

[wtf_calguns_migration]

Here are your sales numbers: https://www.desertsun.com/story/new...-gun-sales-gun-owners-per-capita/74371843007/

340,903 of all types in the first four months of 2024 in California. 1,043,402 in all of 2023. In raw numbers, that's second only to Texas. Based on what I see at the range, more than a few of those are Glocks. As someone noted above, it's probably more than they sell in many entire countries.

The other shoe that drops will be pushing out product that is highly visible to LE and Mil.
Two things we can count on when working on data driven systems:

#1 The person/people that directly benefit from sales become your best friend bc you are to champion their %.
#2 The person/people that are directly tasked with taking market share, opening new channels, exploiting existing segments invte you to parties and dinners. Again, bc you champion their cause when you can take #s that influence #1 so they can identify foothold for an all out assault on their competitors.

Then it spins around in a fun circle until they push a new gen of whatever. Then start the behaviors up again with lessons learned.

Been working systems that push a $billion plus around the world per continent/Region/individual offer. Feels like never ending poker game whose sole point is to keep playing to stack the streams together, then go eat other companies to get their stack.

Sig is going to have a massive target on their back.
If it was me, Id start making arguments to supply rifles in future to open the door to creating more carnage.
That movement will get you invited to some interesting places.

 

[cali_jazz]

I think Glock would have to modify the Gen 3 into a "Gen III" to qualify for the exception, not the Gen V, since it is based on the Gen 5, which was never on the roster. I have no insight into what Glock is planning, if anything, but just from what I've heard from an FFL on this forum, it sounds like Glock is working towards a CA-compliant model of some type sometime next year. Just pure speculation, but I would hope, since they are completely shut out of the CA market now, that it is a real possibility they bring a new model to CA. Glock may still be planning a CA-compliant "Gen III," but I doubt it. I think it might make more sense for them to just modify the Gen 6 by adding an MDM and CLI to get it on the roster. Right now, any hope that Glock brings some type of AB1127 and or roster compliant model to CA is pure wishful thinking. We hope it will happen but who knows if it is something Glock is even considering.

Here's what ChatGPT thinks FWIW:

Here are the key reasons why a CA-compliant Gen 6 is improbable:

• Gen 6 is an "Entirely New Pistol": The Gen 6 features substantial ergonomic changes (palm swell, new grip textures, flat-faced trigger) in addition to the V-Series anti-conversion internal changes. Under California law, these numerous changes mean the Gen 6 would be considered a new model and subject to all current roster requirements.
• Mandatory "Safety" Features are Unpopular: To be added to the roster as a new model, the Gen 6 would require a physical, compliant Loaded Chamber Indicator (LCI) and a Magazine Disconnect Mechanism (MDM). These features require significant redesign of the frame and slide and are generally disliked by LEO customers and general consumers outside of California. Glock has historically refused to add these features to its standard models.
• Global Strategy vs. Niche Market: Glock's primary goal with the V-Series and now the Gen 6 is to future-proof its entire product line against multi-state lawsuits and potential federal legislation. Creating a bespoke, California-only model goes against this business strategy and the desire for streamlined manufacturing.