Year of the Glock 2026!

[gorgothmog]

 

[gorgothmog]

 

[gorgothmog]

 

[gorgothmog]

If anyone here has time today to provide a summary, be my guest. I don't have any insights into how the Cal DoJ operates or thinks. All opinions are welcome.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

very interesting, that would be hilarious if the one guy that put a switch on the gen V ruined it for the whole state. We will see what happens!

 

[Deleted member 16735]

If anyone here has time today to provide a summary, be my guest. I don't have any insights into how the Cal DoJ operates or thinks. All opinions are welcome.

It's nothing too spicy and I don't feel like citing code but:

• Glock submitted their roster renewals late
• Part of the "Glock Ban" bill allowed pistols that were on roster Jan 1 to be updated to prevent Glock switches from being readily installed
• Glock submitted Gen V to be tested in late 2025
• DOJ says that gen V aren't on roster in the first place so couldn't be submitted as an updated version to gen 3 as-is without the updated "features" since it's a different gun.
• I believe DOJ is also saying they can't now submit and updated version of gen 3 because it wasn't on-roster on Jan 1 as the penal code requires as part of the exemption.
• They met a few days ago in person in Sacramento to discuss

Also if you want to read these they are in reverse chronological order, start at the bottom.

 

[DevinGlock]

GLOCK CPRA REQUEST UPDATE!

View attachment 190021View attachment 190022


View attachment 190023

Did you access the link?

 

[gorgothmog]

The fact that they're still referencing the Glock V, and that recently had an in-person meeting in Sacramento, with the July 1st deadline around the corner tells me a few things:

• Glock's timeline for getting anything back on store shelves is going to be long and difficult.
• Glock didn't mention anything about a LCI or magazine disconnect, which means they are trying their hardest to make the least amount of technical changes possible.
• A May 4th meeting is less than 2 months before the July 1st deadline, which is a blink of an eye when it comes to California gun regulation.
• It feels like Glock didn't act with enough realistic urgency, and now the Cal DoJ is dragging their heels to push Glock over the July 1st cliff.
• In the end it's just California gun owners that are going to suffer.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

The fact that they're still referencing the Glock V, and that recently had an in-person meeting in Sacramento, with the July 1st deadline around the corner tells me a few things:

• Glock's timeline for getting anything back on store shelves is going to be long and difficult.
• Glock didn't mention anything about a LCI or magazine disconnect, which means they are trying their hardest to make the least amount of technical changes possible.
• A May 4th meeting is less than 2 months before the July 1st deadline, which is a blink of an eye when it comes to California gun regulation.
• It feels like Glock didn't act with enough realistic urgency, and now the Cal DoJ is dragging their heels to push Glock over the July 1st cliff.
• In the end it's just California gun owners that are going to suffer.

One thing though is that Glock submitted Gen Vs in lat 2025 for evaluation of the ability to be converted only. Then Ca responded on Feb 2. I think Glock expected more guidance and also expected they wouldn't need to renew their old models . One policy I know is true for other state agencies is that they won't do the "work" for compliance and I think Glock expected them to. Instead Glock should have been proactive with a compliance plan that would be reviewed by DOJ long before the end of the year.

 

[gorgothmog]

Did you access the link?

Huh?

 

[DevinGlock]

Huh?

It says they provided it in the secure link?

 

[ikeo1]

Huh?

mismatch in expectations.

Glock thought they would be more helpful with the process. CA said ...

 

[gorgothmog]

One thing though is that Glock submitted Gen Vs in lat 2025 for evaluation of the ability to be converted only. Then Ca responded on Feb 2. I think Glock expected more guidance and also expected they wouldn't need to renew their old models . One policy I know is true for other state agencies is that they won't do the "work" for compliance and I think Glock expected them to. Instead Glock should have been proactive with a compliance plan that would be reviewed by DOJ long before the end of the year.

Yeah, my fourth bullet point addresses that, and the politicians at the Cal DoJ are gonna drag their feet past the July 1st deadline. Their goal is to get Glock off the roster no matter what, as it will be a huge psychological and feel good victory for the anti-gun lobby.

 

[pancakes]

You think at this point glock would just make CA versions of gen 6 just to win the battle. I was right when i said if anything wwas coming to CA it was the V models. They will probably just throw the V internals into the 3 and call it a day. If they were smart it would be a great time to set a FCU gen 3 then everything else is add ons. Grips , slides, barrels

 

[ReaperCustom45]

So unless I'm misreading this, Glock tried to submit the V as an "update" to the rostered gen 3, DOJ said no because it's a different model that was never on the roster, not just an update. Glock then submitted the 17V for roster approval and met to explain why the V changes comply with their "not machine gun convertible" requirement. Weird that they only submitted the 17V for roster testing if that's the case, and also weird that they'd submit the V at all when the gen 6 was coming a month later. I think at the time they submitted the 17V, we already had leaked photos of the Gen 6 going around, so it's not like they didn't have one they could submit yet. Strange, but I also kinda get the impression from this that DOJ isn't going to approve the V for the roster, seeing as they cited that people in other states have already converted them with switches. As far as I know, I haven't seen any switches on Gen 6 Glocks yet, so maybe there's hope those have a chance of getting added at some point. Considering how slow DOJ moves though, I'd assume we'd be lucky to have a Glock on roster by the end of the year at this rate.

 

[gorgothmog]

It says they provided it in the secure link?

I didn't see a link for me to access any extra material.

 

[pancakes]

So unless I'm misreading this, Glock tried to submit the V as an "update" to the rostered gen 3, DOJ said no because it's a different model that was never on the roster, not just an update. Glock then submitted the 17V for roster approval and met to explain why the V changes comply with their "not machine gun convertible" requirement. Weird that they only submitted the 17V for roster testing if that's the case, and also weird that they'd submit the V at all when the gen 6 was coming a month later. I think at the time they submitted the 17V, we already had leaked photos of the Gen 6 going around, so it's not like they didn't have one they could submit yet. Strange, but I also kinda get the impression from this that DOJ isn't going to approve the V for the roster, seeing as they cited that people in other states have already converted them with switches. As far as I know, I haven't seen any switches on Gen 6 Glocks yet, so maybe there's hope those have a chance of getting added at some point. Considering how slow DOJ moves though, I'd assume we'd be lucky to have a Glock on roster by the end of the year at this rate.

i would assume they were trying to have a few machines make CA guns(The V model) while shutting down gen 3 lines. Making a V was really just a modified gen 5 so would be easy to get up and running. Making a 6 CA model would require lots of work. But also cost saving by being able to keep pushin out gen 5 V models

 

[otatop]

Glock then submitted the 17V for roster approval and met to explain why the V changes comply with their "not machine gun convertible" requirement. Weird that they only submitted the 17V for roster testing if that's the case, and also weird that they'd submit the V at all when the gen 6 was coming a month later.

It looks like they sent a 17V for CADOJ to confirm that the changes they made to it would fit the "not machinegun convertible" definition in the law, and then if CADOJ confirmed that they were going to submit a bunch of updated gen 3s with only the V model changes to the roster to take advantage of the loophole letting them keep existing approved guns on the roster if the only changes they made were to block switches.

 

[ReaperCustom45]

i would assume they were trying to have a few machines make CA guns(The V model) while shutting down gen 3 lines. Making a V was really just a modified gen 5 so would be easy to get up and running. Making a 6 CA model would require lots of work. But also cost saving by being able to keep pushin out gen 5 V models

Maybe, but it kinda seemed like the V was just a temporary line they were essentially using to get rid of the rest of their Gen 5 parts before completely switching to the Gen 6. Realistically, it makes no sense for them to continue the V line once they run out of parts, pretty much everyone will just be wanting a Gen 6 from now on. This kinda feels like the wrong move on their part. As far as I know, V and Gen 6 parts are not interchangeable, which means they'd have to produce 2 whole separate lines of pistols, plus separate slides/frames for CA model Vs, instead of just producing Gen 6 parts and then doing CA specific LCI slides and mag disconnect frames.

 

[ReaperCustom45]

It looks like they sent a 17V for CADOJ to confirm that the changes they made to it would fit the "not machinegun convertible" definition in the law, and then if CADOJ confirmed that they were going to submit a bunch of updated gen 3s with only the V model changes to the roster to take advantage of the loophole letting them keep existing approved guns on the roster if the only changes they made were to block switches.

Gotcha, that makes more sense. I wonder if that meeting actually took place on the 4th and how it went.