Older Glocks as "investments" and their value

[Plenty_Pack_556]

I doubt in my lifetime gen 3-5 will be worth much more than what MSRP is.
That being said, I would like to have a gen 1 17 because it's where it all started (fanboi)

It already happened during your lifetime.

During covid, glock prices were above msrp.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Gen 3 Glocks will always be classics. It seems unlikely they will increase in value however if the Gen V and beyond end up being objectively better guns, which considering they are brand new versus decades old design, is certainly a possibility.

P320 is a new design compared to decades old Glocks, and still lost in the military trials. The sole reason they won was due to costs.

P320 ended up being .

Decades old Glocks may be of old design, but they are still highly capable in the right hands.

If Glock Vag ends up having quality issues, firing issues, I'd bet the Glock Vag would be less sought after compared to Glocks people may be selling via 2nd hand markets.

Even if they limit certain internal upgrades for aftermarket parts, that would turn away some owners in my opinion.

 

[SomeOne]

I mean, gun violence is presumably the violence I need police officers to reduce the risk of experiencing I'm not sure I need the police protecting me from cat calls from ornry construction workers or pocket goblins

Gun violence is another newly invented political term, which shifts the responsibility from the criminals to an unanimated object. Nobody is pursuing any car manufacturer, if their car was used in crime. However, everyone is happy to go after SW if any explodes.

 

[SomeOne]

There is a reason Glocks are popular. They have a simple and efficient design. No BS. Yes, it looks blocky and ugly. But it shoots when the trigger is pulled, not when it sits in the holster.

 

[treelogger]

Ban guns, so nobody can easily use it. What happens next? Other tools become instrumental. Take the UK, for example. They are trying to ban pointy knives now. Do you see a problem with the approach?

But did banning guns there reduce crime and violence? If yes, how much? Was the tradeoff between less crime and fewer gun rights worth it? These are interesting questions, for which I don't know the answers. But just saying "they'll ban knives next" is not an argument in and of itself.

Some known gang member decided to use it, so let's punish the law abiding people.

And this is why I hate the fact that gun control / gun law has become a political football. Because the real answer is: Many known gang members and other criminals decided to use it. So let's try to (a) prevent that, and (b) screw with some people who are reliably republican voters.

Not yet, but do you have a slightest doubt it's coming up next?

(About a ban of possession or PPT of Glocks): Yes, I very much doubt it. California has only very rarely prohibited all transfers of a class of guns (that being assault weapons and 50BMG), and only once to my knowledge prohibited possession (meaning confiscated) guns, namely some SKS during the time Lundgren was California Attorney General. By the way, he was a republican.

Who is behing the anti-gun lobby? Again, the Dem party.

Nonsense. The DNC does not fund much of the anti-gun groups, if any. They are perfectly capable of funding themselves. By the way, the same is true on the other side: The republican party does not fund pro-gun groups. On the contrary: the NRA was historically one of the largest donors to republican campaigns, and one of the largest (or perhaps the single largest) grassroots group for delivering votes.

You can check that yourself; the form 990 (annual tax returns) for pro- and anti-gun groups are all online.

If anything, it's the opposite: Politicians on both sides and their parties are bought by lobbying groups, be it Giffords or NRA.

However, I yet to see one pro-2A Dem politician.

They do exist, but they are indeed becoming rare. Until about 10 years ago, there was a significant number of democrats that got an A rating from the NRA. At the same time, McCain (the republican presidential candidate!) got an F rating after introducing some bill the NRA particularly hated. But the NRA really has morphed from being a pro-gun organization to a republican campaign group (that's why they are jokingly called "National Republican Auxiliary"), so I'd expect that. In the midwest and the east coast, pro-gun democrats are not all that rare.

And if you look around, there are significant lobbying groups (such as the Liberal Gun Club and the Rifle Association) that organize democratic-leaning gun people.

Maybe in another 20 years. You well know the court dynamics in CA.

No case in California has gone on for 20 years. The longest I know of must be Nordyke or Duncan, which took maybe 6 or 8 years. And some gun rights cases are actually decided in months.

I am not making anyone an enemy.

Yes, you are clearly stating that your enemy are democrats (or democratic politicians or the Democratic Party). That's why we can't have nice things: As long as gun rights are seen by society at large as being an issue ONLY for republican voters, it's considered cool and useful to restrict gun rights when democrats are in power.

Gun violence problem is artificially made-up and blown out of proportion by the Democratic party.

That is also nonsense. The statistics about gun violence in different parts of the world and of the US maybe a bit inaccurate here and there, but the are mostly correct. And they are not artificially made up, in particular not by the Democratic Party. Did we just say something about "making enemies"?

 

[@Diag_Tech]

Just found this on GunBroker.

Current Bid is $2525.

 

[NorCALSpeed]

Hope so. Right now my 48 MOS is appreciating quicker than gold.

 

[pikachu]

Hope so. Right now my 48 MOS is appreciating quicker than gold.

Lol, the slimline glocks are the only models NOT discontinued.

Outside of their artificial scarcity in CA, there shouldn’t be any shortage of g48mos nationwide as glock continues producing them.

 

[NorCALSpeed]

Lol, the slimline glocks are the only models NOT discontinued.

Don't tell the people currently pricing theirs around town (I am not, I swear). People are listing them for SP-01 money.

 

[SomeOne]

But did banning guns there reduce crime and violence? If yes, how much? Was the tradeoff between less crime and fewer gun rights worth it?

It's your call if you want to rely on 911 or 1911. I want to have my options open.

These are interesting questions, for which I don't know the answers. But just saying "they'll ban knives next" is not an argument in and of itself.

I am sure this is what they used to say in the U.K. Not anymore.

And this is why I hate the fact that gun control / gun law has become a political football. Because the real answer is: Many known gang members and other criminals decided to use it. So let's try to (a) prevent that, and (b) screw with some people who are reliably republican voters.

I am sure no bank heist could go without a runaway car. I don't see a wave of prohibiting fast cars.

(About a ban of possession or PPT of Glocks): Yes, I very much doubt it.

I am sure this is what you would've answered 10 year ago, if I projected the GLOCK ban. Now, we are living it. So, think again.

California has only very rarely prohibited all transfers of a class of guns (that being assault weapons and 50BMG), and only once to my knowledge prohibited possession (meaning confiscated) guns, namely some SKS during the time Lundgren was California Attorney General. By the way, he was a republican.

An assault weapon is an artificial definition made up by the DNC. Argue that. And yes, AR-15 in the configuration acceptable in the vast majority of the U.S. can't be transferred in CA.

Nonsense. The DNC does not fund much of the anti-gun groups, if any.

The same people who dump millions into DNC support the gun control. I know, there is no correlation here. It's a pure coincidence. The fact the gun control benefactors happen to be very prominent Democrats is another coincedense.

They are perfectly capable of funding themselves.

Yup. By the prominent Democratic sponsors.

They do exist, but they are indeed becoming rare.

Which means they don't exist in the political arena. Those who are sort of sympathetic to 2A prefer to keep the mouth shut and vote the party line.

And if you look around, there are significant lobbying groups (such as the Liberal Gun Club and the Rifle Association) that organize democratic-leaning gun people.

Don't you feel it's kinda awkward? Vote for a prominent anti-2A politician, and they lobby them to not push out anti-2A agenda? I have a better word for it, but I won't say it.

No case in California has gone on for 20 years. The longest I know of must be Nordyke or Duncan, which took maybe 6 or 8 years. And some gun rights cases are actually decided in months.

Remind me of a gun control law that was completely stricken down in 6-8 month>

Yes, you are clearly stating that your enemy are democrats (or democratic politicians or the Democratic Party). That's why we can't have nice things: As long as gun rights are seen by society at large as being an issue ONLY for republican voters, it's considered cool and useful to restrict gun rights when democrats are in power.

I very clearly and openly call the root cause of 2A infringement in CA and nationwide. I would love to be convinced otherwise. Tell me, GOP is behind at least a half of the recent CA gun control bills. Convince me, Feinstein's tireless attempts to ban rifles nationwide were actually inspired by GOP. Tell me, that Harris and Newsom are avid gun supporters.

 

[DanielS01!]

They won't go up in value in any significant way. Maybe before Gen V was announced they might have went up due to no more new supply and the overall popularity of Glocks but if you can walk into a store and get a new Gen V glock for $500-$600 no one is going to be paying big money for used gen 3 stuff. In fact I'd bet the off roster Gen 4 and Gen 5 stuff going for $1k+ on the PPT market here are going to go down in value a little since by all accounts so far a Gen V is mostly a Gen 5.

In California the gen v Glocks are law enforcement only

 

[CaptainLevi]

Will older Gen Glocks (5 and older) increase in price/value? Of course, most people aren't interested owning a Glock for the purposes of slapping on a Glock switch, but we know how human nature is. If something is banned for it's capabilities, people want to own it, even if they have no intention of owning it for "switch" purposes.

Will these older Glocks be a good investment? Are people "panick buying" Glocks? Are you guys? I'm considering getting two Glocks for this reason alone. Worst case scenario is I sell them at a later date for what I paid for them in the first place.

But with just HOW many Glocks there are in circulation, I also think not much will change unless people hold onto their old Glocks and demand silly prices (we also know this is how the gun world works).

And this goes for the entire nation, not just CA since Glock is changing their ENTIRE line up. The pre-V Glocks will be known as the "full auto capable" Glocks. Surely that street wording alone can increase their $$$ value? Unless a new style switch is made for the new V version

Just wanted to hear your guy's thoughts on the matter.

Gen3s will not be as valuable as Gen 4, 5, 6. Trust. Buying a Glock is not an investment; its not like rolex where it goes up in value every year, but if its not a 3, you won't have difficulty reselling it if you decide you don't want it anymore.

 

[wajalama]

I didn't buy my Gen 3's for investments and don't plan on their value going up, I bought them because they're good pistols with unmatched support from vendors.

 

[calgunner01]

The only reason I would want a Glock is if it came with rarer parts that are also discontinued. I personally think the factory comped models and the long slides will fetch the highest price.

 

[safetyfirstont]

Glocks are really nice cheep guns. The only problem is that they are overpriced.

Facts

 

[safetyfirstont]

P320 is a new design compared to decades old Glocks, and still lost in the military trials. The sole reason they won was due to costs.

P320 ended up being .

Decades old Glocks may be of old design, but they are still highly capable in the right hands.

If Glock Vag ends up having quality issues, firing issues, I'd bet the Glock Vag would be less sought after compared to Glocks people may be selling via 2nd hand markets.

Even if they limit certain internal upgrades for aftermarket parts, that would turn away some owners in my opinion.

Also facts

 

[H. Bowman]

You're way better off buying a share of VOO instead of a glock, if you're looking to invest.

 

[MattB]

If you have a boxed Gen 1 Glock 17 or one of the extremely rare 19s, then yeah it might be worth something. Other than that…no.