Year of the Glock 2026!

[Socalcappy]

Do you know when Route 66 will have a Glock 19 Gen 6 available to rent?

july

Still think Route 66 will be have one to rent then?

 

[Colt Collector]

Still think Route 66 will be have one to rent then?

Yes I do. Why would he say July if he didn't have some inside info? He was right about the Staccato HD 3.6 and C4X so I tend to believe he has some idea of what's being submitted for approval for the roster.

 

[weaverftw]

Would you laugh if I told you the answer was two weeks?

View attachment 180432View attachment 180431

Ooo let’s hope the second bullet also applies…. GIVE US THE VOLUMINOUS AMOUNT OF SEPARATE AND DISTINCT RECORDS!!

 

[Socalcappy]

Yes I do. Why would he say July if he didn't have some inside info? He was right about the Staccato HD 3.6 and C4X so I tend to believe he has some idea of what's being submitted for approval for the roster.

I was not insinuating that he didn’t have info or that he was unreliable. It was a post from several months ago so I was asking a simple following up question.

 

[HongyiMC]

My money is in GTA 6 before CA compliant Glock Gen 6

 

[nakatomi]

Background: CA AB 1127 adds a new restriction that takes effect July 1st 2026 and it is codified in Penal Code sections 27595 and 16885. The key rule is simple: A dealer cannot sell what the law defines as a "machinegun-convertible pistol". So the entire issue comes down to how that term is defined in the statute.

Under Penal Code section 16885 a "machinegun-convertible pistol" is a semiautomatic pistol that can be readily converted into a machinegun by installing a pistol converter using hand or common household tools and without any additional engineering machining or modification. The law also defines a “pistol converter” in Penal Code section 17015 as a device that attaches to the rear of the slide and alters the firing mechanism so the pistol can fire more than one round with a single function of the trigger. That ties into existing law in Penal Code section 16880 where a machinegun is defined as any firearm that fires more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.

So compared to my previous inquiry ( https://caguns.net/threads/year-of-the-glock-2026.27036/post-131839 ) this is not about CLI, magazine disconnects or drop testing requirements. Those are separate roster issues. AB 1127 is focused specifically on whether the firearm design allows simple conversion into automatic fire using a rear mounted device and common tools without requiring any modification to the firearm itself.

Gen V and Gen 6 doesn't pass CA's requirements.

This leads to my specific question to any insiders here:

There has been discussion that a newer Glock might be added to the CA roster after July 1st 2026. Setting aside all other roster requirements the relevant issue under AB 1127 is whether the current design meets the definition in Penal Code section 16885.

In plain terms can a current generation Glock be readily converted into firing more than one round per trigger function using a rear mounted device and common tools without additional modification. If the answer is yes then it would fall within the restriction in section 27595.

For those familiar with the current designs the question is simple: Have the newer generations changed anything that would affect this definition or do they function the same way for purposes of section 16885? The way I see it? No.

This is not about opinions on the law just whether the current designs meet the exact statutory criteria.

 

[Pythonfan]

"The way I see it? No.

This is not about opinions on the law, just whether the current designs meet the exact statutory criteria."

That is contradictory. That's your opinion. California MAY determine that the current design does meet the statutory definition.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Background: CA AB 1127 adds a new restriction that takes effect July 1st 2026 and it is codified in Penal Code sections 27595 and 16885. The key rule is simple: A dealer cannot sell what the law defines as a "machinegun-convertible pistol". So the entire issue comes down to how that term is defined in the statute.

Under Penal Code section 16885 a "machinegun-convertible pistol" is a semiautomatic pistol that can be readily converted into a machinegun by installing a pistol converter using hand or common household tools and without any additional engineering machining or modification. The law also defines a “pistol converter” in Penal Code section 17015 as a device that attaches to the rear of the slide and alters the firing mechanism so the pistol can fire more than one round with a single function of the trigger. That ties into existing law in Penal Code section 16880 where a machinegun is defined as any firearm that fires more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.

So compared to my previous inquiry ( https://caguns.net/threads/year-of-the-glock-2026.27036/post-131839 ) this is not about CLI, magazine disconnects or drop testing requirements. Those are separate roster issues. AB 1127 is focused specifically on whether the firearm design allows simple conversion into automatic fire using a rear mounted device and common tools without requiring any modification to the firearm itself.

Gen V and Gen 6 doesn't pass CA's requirements.

This leads to my specific question to any insiders here:

There has been discussion that a newer Glock might be added to the CA roster after July 1st 2026. Setting aside all other roster requirements the relevant issue under AB 1127 is whether the current design meets the definition in Penal Code section 16885.

In plain terms can a current generation Glock be readily converted into firing more than one round per trigger function using a rear mounted device and common tools without additional modification. If the answer is yes then it would fall within the restriction in section 27595.

For those familiar with the current designs the question is simple: Have the newer generations changed anything that would affect this definition or do they function the same way for purposes of section 16885? The way I see it? No.

This is not about opinions on the law just whether the current designs meet the exact statutory criteria.

​

You missed an important part, the definition of "common household tools":

16885.​

(a) As used in this part, “machinegun-convertible pistol” means any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools, as defined in Section 4082 of Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations, into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter as a replacement for the slide’s backplate without any additional engineering, machining, or modification of the pistol’s trigger mechanism.


(d) "Common household tools" means screwdrivers (8 to 10 inches in length, flathead or phillips, flathead sizes up to 5/8 inches), pipe wrenches (9 1/2 to 10 inches in length), vice grip pliers (9 1/2 to 10 inches in length), other pliers (9 1/2 to 10 inches arch joint, 6 to 6 1/2 -inch slip joint, 6 to 6 1/2 -inch long nose), hacksaws (12-inch standard carbon steel blade), crowbars (16-inch), electric/cordless drills ( 1/3 horsepower corded/9.6 volt cordless), hammers (16-ounce), chisels ( 1/4 -inch to 1-inch blade width wood chisels), and crescent wrenches (10-inch).

the Gen V and 6 require removing metal which presumably wouldn't be practical with this list of common household tools, gen 5 blocked the switch but it was with plastic so it would not be allowed under the 16855 because it could be removed much easier. So as long as the Gen 6 they submit for the roster has an LCI and mag disconnect it should be allowed.

 

[nakatomi]

"The way I see it? No.

This is not about opinions on the law, just whether the current designs meet the exact statutory criteria."

That is contradictory. That's your opinion. California MAY determine that the current design does meet the statutory definition.

@Pythonfan calling it just my opinion sidesteps the issue. The statute has a specific test which is readily convertible w common tools and no trigger-mechanism modification. My question is whether Gen V/Gen 6 designs still meet that definition.

What’s your take on that?

You missed an important part, the definition of "common household tools":

16885.​

(a) As used in this part, “machinegun-convertible pistol” means any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools, as defined in Section 4082 of Title 11 of the California Code of Regulations, into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter as a replacement for the slide’s backplate without any additional engineering, machining, or modification of the pistol’s trigger mechanism.

(d) "Common household tools" means screwdrivers (8 to 10 inches in length, flathead or phillips, flathead sizes up to 5/8 inches), pipe wrenches (9 1/2 to 10 inches in length), vice grip pliers (9 1/2 to 10 inches in length), other pliers (9 1/2 to 10 inches arch joint, 6 to 6 1/2 -inch slip joint, 6 to 6 1/2 -inch long nose), hacksaws (12-inch standard carbon steel blade), crowbars (16-inch), electric/cordless drills ( 1/3 horsepower corded/9.6 volt cordless), hammers (16-ounce), chisels ( 1/4 -inch to 1-inch blade width wood chisels), and crescent wrenches (10-inch).

the Gen V and 6 require removing metal which presumably wouldn't be practical with this list of common household tools, gen 5 blocked the switch but it was with plastic so it would not be allowed under the 16855 because it could be removed much easier. So as long as the Gen 6 they submit for the roster has an LCI and mag disconnect it should be allowed.

@Deleted member 16735 Good point and thanks for citing the common household tools details. The key issue is whether Gen V/Gen 6 Glock pistols can still be converted using a true drop-in switch w only common tools and no trigger-mechanism modification. If that capability still exists the design would likely meet the statute’s "readily convertible" standard. If the current design instead requires material removal or other modification beyond what the statute allows, then your argument (which is a good one) holds.

 

[Pythonfan]

My opinion is that it's 50/50 on whether the gen v/6 meet the statute in the eyes of CALDOJ.

minister put it well, all comes down to "common house hold tools" because most if not all, semi autos CAN be converted to full auto in some form or fashion.

And if gen v/6 do not meet statute, my opinion is that Glock will offer something else to us in California.....timeline....who knows. Maybe a glock performance trigger LIKE set up.

I'll add that prior to Gaston passing away, I doubt Glock would have done anything for California. Now, I think they are chomping at the bit. I read here, that prior to AB 1127, Glock already had or was close to having a mag disconnect and LCI for us.

I'd imagine had 1127 not come up, then we would already have new glock models in California.

 

[gorgothmog]

Are they teasing us? I mean if Glock Inc is purchasing ads on THIS site, specifically for California, they must have plans for us. These are ads they paid for directly to you from Glock, or are they just random @ikeo1 ?

 

[ikeo1]

Are they teasing us? I mean if Glock Inc is purchasing ads on THIS site, specifically for California, they must have plans for us. These are ads they paid for directly to you from Glock, or are they just random @ikeo1 ?

View attachment 182273

Not directly to me, no

 

[californiashooter]

yes

I had a dream about this

 

[weaverftw]

I had a dream about this

I had a dream last night that a cow walked up to me and started rubbing the side of its head all over me and purring, but that doesn’t mean cows are cats.

…but I hope you’re right

 

[gorgothmog]

Not directly to me, no

So you're not denying the first half of my question, you wascawy wabbit! Uhuhuhuhuhuhuhuh....

 

[DevinGlock]

So apparently tomorrow well get public information on what glock has tested in california for approval.

 

[gorgothmog]

So apparently tomorrow well get public information on what glock has tested in california for approval.

I certainly hope so. @Route66ShootingSportsPark you know anything we don't already know? Heard anything from Glock, recently?

 

[HiveMed]

Are they teasing us? I mean if Glock Inc is purchasing ads on THIS site, specifically for California, they must have plans for us. These are ads they paid for directly to you from Glock, or are they just random @ikeo1 ?

View attachment 182273

I wouldn’t read into ads. There have been adds for suppressors and hell would freeze over before CA would allow us to have those.

 

[DevinGlock]

I certainly hope so. @Route66ShootingSportsPark you know anything we don't already know? Heard anything from Glock, recently?

Yea just following up on the document u posted. Been paying close attention. But i also just bought gen 6 45 and g47. So if it is revealed that full sizes have been tested all the gen 6 prices as of late will drop and the market will close down to people that are seeking no lci and disconnect from factory even tho it can be removed from a cheaper version of the same gun.

But r66 did DIRECTLY say 43x and 48 is coming as a gen 6. Which to me makes the most sense. They just released 15rd mags. So to update the slimline to gen 6 makes sense. Plus California is a ccw state so it would make sense to give us the concealed glocks. Hopefully that way the CA glock market doesnt just go flat

 

[nakatomi]

Kind of interesting that Route66ShootingSportsPark hasn’t said anything about this yet.

My guess is Glock hasn’t submitted anything for CA testing. Even with the Gen V and Gen 6 updates, they still use the same cruciform trigger bar design, which is the key issue under AB 1127.

It’s not just about whether the design is “new” or “updated.” It comes down to whether it can still be readily converted using basic tools. If that can be done without major modification, then it likely does not meet the requirement, regardless of whatever incremental changes Glock made. That's my bet.

The same issue is already affecting other modernized Glock-clone pistols (eg Shadow Systems DR920P, XR920, MR920). So unless Glock fundamentally changes that part of the system (they won't), it is hard to see how Gen V or Gen 6 would be considered compliant.

Curious if anyone has seen anything that suggests otherwise?