Talk:Glock

Picture Concensus

Per an earlier discussion, I noticed that Koalorka had added a picture that was a functional equivelant of another picture. Two pictures of compacts. The best reading I had of the concensus was that we would have one high-quality pic that was representative. Externally, there is no difference in the Glock 19 and 23. The pictures were supposed to be high quality with a neutral background and of the side of the firearm. Should we delete the Glock 19 picture now? What had been happening was that everybody and their brother was taking their camera-phone and snapping pictures of their personal Glocks posed with knives, dogs, etc. This cluttered the article. Is this still the concensus? Any dissent in the ranks on this one? --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed that discussion. I threw in the Glock 23 image as there was a relatively large void in the page and the G23 photo seemed good (neutral background). If that violated somekind of earlier format decision, go ahead, reverse it. Koalorka (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Actually, we could tweak it some so the pictures are better spaced. Also could use one of the Glock 21 (Wow, I've got one... maybe I'll accomodate). --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad Lead Picture

The lead picture is squished side-to-side. It looks like whoever took it did a resize without keeping the original proportions. Can we get a better picture? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean my image? What's wrong with it? The aspect ratio was preserved. Koalorka (talk) 02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gotta admit I'm confused too. It looks fine to me. Perhaps your monitor settings? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine. Perhaps it was temporarily skewed, sometimes newly added images do that. By the way, can you add your field-stripped picture too Koalorka? Cheers, Hayden120 (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I lost it somehow. I'll make a new one. Koalorka (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can make a new one myself too, but I've got the "C" model. It's a newer one as well. When you take the picture, take it with a longer focal length too so it doesn't distort the picture as much. Maybe I'll hook one up this evening of that and the 21 as well. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it distorted? Koalorka (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly think it's fine, and I'd much rather a standard Glock 17 for the lead picture. If you are just nitpicking about distortion (which I can't notice), download PTLens and tweak with it. Edit: okay, I just fixed it myself. It might take a few minutes to update. Some people are incredibly fussy these days... Hayden120 (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not picky, but I do have minimum standards. I know, most people don't care, but I do. There are three types of distortion present in the original picture. Barrel distortion (already corrected), prespective distortion from being too close to the subject and tilting as the camera was below the centerline of the firearm. This picture has little of that (though it's not my best work. I compared them and, yep, I'm declaring mine better... but it's not good enough for the infobox being that it's a Glock 17C. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Now it's my turn to nitpick, the background looks better white! ;) Hayden120 (talk) 07:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but White also makes the exposure read wrong and under-expose the gun. Actually, I'd probably shoot with an 18% gray background and ambient light if I were shooting for publication. White looks okay, but you've got to be careful not to screw up everything else. This picture took me one minute to set up and one minute to process, I coulda done better with ten minutes to set up, I'm sure. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to the lead image, I managed to find a very nice picture of the early model 17 which I believe would make for a fantastic introduction for the article, which goes into the changes made to the design as it matured over the years. My photo (or the one provided by Nukes) can then be placed closer to the bottom of the "Design details" section. A decent image of the so-called gen 2 version would also be very welcome. Koalorka (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a gen 2 G17 several years ago, and I think I still have some pictures of it somewhere on a flash drive or something. If I find them I'll get them up here. I'm not sure if you can tell the difference between it and a 1st gen with a side view though, which I'm pretty sure is all I have. — DanMP5 03:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Magazine size

I'm noticing some listed Magazine sizes that don't match my experience with Glock pistols. For starters, where is this 17 round magazine comming from for the Glock22? I have a Glock22 and I've only ever encountered 15 round magazines. Now the 15s aren't even listed on the page. Did Glock recently revise their designs with larger magazines in the last year or two? Alyeska (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

17 round magazine for Glock 22 is a 15-round magazine with a factory +2 floorplate. The source for these capacities was the Glock Web Site. The 15 is indeed listed on the page as the standard capacity. And, no, Glock did not revise their magazines with larger capacity, they were already at maximum capacity as designed. Smith & Wesson at one time had 14-round magazines for their model 59 and these were increased to 15. Springfield recently increased the capacity on their XD IIRC. But Glock hasn't done a thing... can't. There's no room left. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Extra magazine plate, that makes sense. So a little added bulk for more capacity. Thanks for the information. Alyeska (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The Glock 18 uses a 32-round magazine, not 33-rounds as stated on the main page, unless it's referring to 32+1, but if that's the case, then it should say so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.160.63 (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Official Magazine Chart. --Winged Brick (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Standard and Compact

What are all the differences between the standard and compact pistols? I know that the compact has a 4" barrel instead of 4.5". I also know the compacts come with smaller magazines. Does that mean the pistol grip is shorter on the compacts? Meaning the compact isn't quite as tall a pistol as the full sized standards? Alyeska (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You can read the specs, but I believe the only changes are shorter barrel/slide/recoil spring and recoil spring guide as well as shorter grip/magazine. Subcompacts have more differences due to the nested recoil springs. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Sections at the Glock article

There is a discussion at Talk:Glock regarding two sections of that article and what should be done with them. One options is to merge them into this article. Please comment on the other tslk page to keep it in one place. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

It is very clear that Republic of Kosovo's police force uses the Glock 17 & Glock 19 as I have shown in a video and photos also the official website. But people like User talk:Koalorka who bring political and nationalistic propaganda are ruing the article by stupid remarks that Kosova is not a country. That is a whole different topic and has nothing to do with this, and maybe he should complain to the 50+ countries that recognize Kosova as a state. 82.35.32.75 (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA and stop edit warring. Kosova (your spelling) is not a country. Kosovo's status as a soveriegn state is disputed, not whether or not withing the province/country of Kosovo there are Glocks being used. You seem to be on one side of the dispute... whatever. Your argument for or against should not be made on this page. This article is about a pistol, not your political motivations. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 18:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Article protected for 3 days

Ok, this is a rather dumb edit war. Kosovo's status is not appropriate for fighting over here. I have full protected the page for 3 days.

While it's protected, parties who have been edit warring are asked to go find examples of where Kosovo is or isn't excluded from other national user / membership type lists elsewhere in Wikipedia, to determine if there's a larger community consensus. Please post the results of that survey here to justify your positions... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Include The assumption we're making is that the list of users should be limited to countries, or former countries. So, Kosovo is a gray area. It declared independence from Serbia about nine months ago. Many nations have recognized Kosovo as a country, and many haven't. Of course, we shouldn't expect it to be unanimous. For example, most nations have recognized Israel as a country, but several haven't, and we do accept Israel for being listed as a user country. Also, since this is the English language Wikipedia, I'm wondering if we should give more weight to what English speaking countries have done. I'm inclined to say yes, but a possible argument against that idea is that Wikipedia is supposed to be international, no matter what language it's written in. Looking at International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo, it says that 52 out of 192 United Nations members have formally recognized Kosovo. That includes the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia. New Zealand, like many other countries, has not formally declared either way. ("We will neither recognise nor not recognise.") As far as Western Europe, 22 out of 27 European Union members have recognized Kosovo, as have 22 out of 26 NATO members. I think it's a tough call, but, based on all that, it's my opinion that Kosovo should be included as a user in this article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 07:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: Because the issue should be determined by the wider community, it is outside of this project's scope. Koalorka (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. We should bring this question to the wider community. How about if I copy the discussion to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 16:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: This seems to be a back-door attempt to get this editor's political views accepted. This is not a political article, it's a technical article. Technically, Kosovo's status is not universally accepted, therefore the questioned content should be removed until such time as the status has been recognized at least by the WP community. --Winged Brick (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and raised this question at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Kosovo in lists of countries. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the Serbian province for now until the wider wiki community comes to a consensus.Koalorka (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Washington DC Police are issued the Glock 17...

Washington DC MPD (Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department) are issued the Glock 17 (and 19). The Glock 26 may be used for concealable off-duty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.216.88 (talk) 06:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

glock 18 as a 'minor sub variant'

(this is in reference to this diff: [[1]]) according to http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html, "The Glock 18 selective-fire automatic pistol was developed from the Glock 17" but "the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with those of the Glock 17." this does not seem like a 'minor sub variant' to me. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The Glock 18 really is just a variant of the Glock 17. The design is almost the same, the only reason the parts aren't interchangeable is to keep someone from converting a Glock 17 to fire full-auto. The actual design is the same, with some work done to make it so they're not interchangeable, and to allow full-auto. In addition, the Glock 18 is one model out of a large lineup, and was made in much smaller numbers, and is the only select-fire Glock. Calling the Glocks a line of semi-automatic and select-fire pistols isn't helpful, it's just confusing, making it sound like they're all available as semi-auto or select-fire firearms.--LWF (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

i agree it is confusing, so that is why i specified glock 18 as being the only select-fire model. if that were left out, it would be misleading. the fact is that they do make a select fire model along with their other semi autos. even though there is only one select fire, it's still part of the "family" of guns they make. as long as it's properly sourced and not ambiguous as to lead people onto thinking glock makes more than just the 18, there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. it's factual and sourced Theserialcomma (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely doesn't warrant a mention in the lead paragraph. It's almost a novelty item. Koalorka (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that my experience is that the vast majority of parts and all MAJOR parts for the Glock 18 interchange with the model 17. Janes gets it wrong as often as they get it right. At any rate, even if it did, it's an insignificant point to make as neither the firearms nor the parts are generally available to, well, anybody. Glock sells agencies the Model 18, but not very often. Nobody wants or needs them. Agree with Koalorka... a novelty. The only reason lots of people know about them is that kids that play video games think they are 'cool' or whatever term they use these days. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

if janes is not a reliable source, that is one thing. but speculating about how often the gun is sold to government/military agencies, whether it's a novelty, or if kids know about the gun from video games, is all original research, and not really useful to building an encyclopedia. please provide some reliable sources for your claims, and that way the article can be amended properly. opinions and speculation about something without reliable sources doesn't really help. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• since Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, we need sources for our assertions. you claim that your experience is that the majority of parts and major parts are interchangeable with the glock 17. Well, that type of personal experience is inadmissible evidence on wikipedia, because we can't just take people's words for it, even if they are correct. we need third party sources. according to http://www.gunslot.com/guns/glock-18 : "Due to the fully automatic mode, the internal infrastructure of the Glock 18 is markedly different from the Glock 17, and the parts are not interchangeable. This was purposefully performed by Glock in order to ensure that the Glock 17 was not a semi automatic version of the Glock 18, however the two would be considered separate and distinct pistols." according to janes http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html: "For security reasons, the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with those of the Glock 17." does anyone have any sources to counter these claims? if not, it shouldn't be removed from the article. please see WP:VTheserialcomma (talk) 08:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

A quick check yielded the following: My Glock 17 slide fits on a Glock 18 lower, however the opposite is not the case. As for the parts list for what we stock, there are a handful that don't interchange. We don't stock the lower receiver of course, nor did we have a number for the slide. My point is not lost that it's immaterial I've just had Janes say some pretty untrue things about my units and our firearms over the years. I'll leave it at that. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT

the first sentence of the lede currently states "Glock is the name of a family of semi-automatic pistols designed and produced by the Austrian company Glock GmbH." Now, isn't the glock 18 designed and produced by Glock? Yes, it is. Isn't it selective fire? Yes, it is. So if Glock designed and produces a pistol that is selective fire -- which is a fact --, wouldn't it be inaccurate to only mention their semi automatic pistols? Just because someone thinks the glock 18 is only popular due to video games, or it's not widely available to the public, or it shoots inaccurately, or it's 'basically a glock 17', or it's too expensive, or whatever other original research and opinions someone can come up with, this is still Wikipedia. Wikipedia has rules. One of the fundamental rules involves proper sourcing and verifiability through third party sources. Right now, none of the objections presented as to why it should not be mentioned in the lede have been valid. someone mentioned that Janes might not be a reliable source, for example. if Janes truly isn't a reliable source, then it should not be used, and that would be valid grounds for removal. But janes appears to be a reliable source to me, as it's used in hundreds of other wikipedia articles as a source, including many articles on guns. for example [[2]] [[3]][[4]] handgun: [[5]] [[6]] [[7]] submachine gun: [[8]] [[9]]. so please clarify your argument into something that is acceptable for wikipedia's standards, as i don't want to edit war. "i don't like it," "i think it's a trivial product," or "i know that it's too similar to a glock 17 to be considered distinct" without proper sourcing is not acceptable. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, you've had 3 heavyweight WP:Firearms editors contradict your attempt at giving undue attention to this insignificant variant. Did you expect us to find a source stating that the model 18 is a "novelty" variant? Where we supposed to find this revelation, in Glock marketing material perhaps? Indeed, it's made by Glock and its selective fire capabilities are also stated. What more would you like? Did you know that Glock also makes a 17 Pro model for the Finnish shooting market? It has a threaded barrel not found in any other model. Why is that not included in the lead paragraph, it's made by Glock isn't it? There's also a training pistol variant... etc. It comes down to common sense sometimes, and you lack it. You've mired 3 editors in an irrelevant debate, please don't be a liability, stop wasting our time. We'd rather you contribute. Koalorka (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, I think the point you're raising here is whether or not the lead sentence of the article should say that Glock is the name of a group of semi-automatic pistols, or a group of semi-automatic and selective-fire pistols. It's true that the model 18 is a selective fire pistol, no one's d*isputing that, and of course it's discussed in the article itself, in the Variants section. But, in my opinion, it's better not to mention it in the lead. Per Wikipedia:Lead section, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article.... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources...." So, yes, there's a selective-fire Glock, and that's significant, but the vast majority of Glocks are semi-automatic, and in my view the lead sentence should reflect that. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with Koalorka and Mudwater. The G18 is almost insignificant when compared to the other models, and doesn't warrant making the lead section so confusing to the average reader. — DanMP5 16:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

That makes four heavy-hitters that disagree. Of course, I was on the side of making the Glock 18 a separate article for the very reasons being brought up here but as bull-headed as I am, I conceded the point. Feel free to dredge up that discussion again. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

it's irrelevant to me if you are a 'heavy hitter' on this article, a complete newbie, or a flying unicorn made out of magical puppy kisses. the relevant aspect to wikipedia is not the editor's 'heavy hitting' dedication to the topic, but the sources involved, verifiability, and consensus. because there is no consensus to make the changes i am proposing, then the changes will not be made. that is the only result that is relevant to wikipedia's policies, and i won't try to make amendments against consensus. that is why i came to the talk page, to discuss. i suggest all "heavy hitters" and those who use the "heavy hitter" fallacy to read WP:OWN. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You've obviously agree that there needs to be a concensus, maybe YOU should have read WP:OWN before you got in a revert war. It took me about two seconds and a Google search to find a reference that supported my reversion. It says, "The frame rails on the Glock 18 have been raised slightly, as have the slots for them in the slide to prevent interchangeability between the frames and slides of Glock 17s and 18s." WP:OWN doesn't apply when everybody but you disagrees with you. What you should be reading is WP:Concensus which is what we have now. Thanks for playing. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask for a policy, look at WP:LEAD as already referenced, and WP:UNDUE. To give one model that has a unique characteristic a position in the lead equal to that of 24 other base models (this isn't counting 'C's, 'L's, 'SF's, and all of the other variants on the baselines) is quite clearly giving that one model undue weight. To quote WP:UNDUE directly, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

In regards to all the dispute about interchangeability, that seems to depend on how you define major. One could call the slide, frame, and certain fire-control parts major to the Glock 18, as they are what allow fully-automatic fire, which is the point of the Glock 18, making them essential to the design, otherwise it wouldn't be a different design.--LWF (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

nukes, you removed a sourced sentence to revert to no source at all. you are the one who is edit warring. the so-called reliable source that you claim counters jane's (but you did not actually provide in the article) is 1. probably not a reliable source, as 'cybershooters.org deactivated gun collector's association' does not appear to have the editorial oversight and reputation of jane's. just compare the amount of times janes is cited on wikipedia to cybershooters.org: janes.com is cited 21265 times according to [[10]], whereas cybershooters.org is cited on wikipedia 2 times. [[11]]. In short, do not remove reliably referenced sentences unless you have a new and better source, actually provide it, and justify why you believe it to be a better source. please see WP:RS. also, you may ask the reliable source notice board if cybershooters.org (or, in this case, no source at all) is acceptable to replace janes.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. you might not like their answer, though. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you weren't paying attention, my claim didn't COUNTER Janes, it clarified it. I don't give a fuck how many times Janes is cited on Wikipedia, I just don't think they are reliable on firearms. Also, if you weren't paying attention, I already said once that I was wrong about major components. Here, I'll say it again in case you're just looking for a Mia Culpa. I was wrong. The Glock 18 is not generally interchangeable with the Glock 17, 19, 34, or any other 9mm Glock. Two major components, the slide and the frame, are not interchangeable by design. There, good enough for you? Do you plan on gathering your buddies together and proving how smart you were that you proved my failing memory was somewhat unreliable in this one instance or would you like to continue to use this talk page as your personal gloat blog? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

i really have no idea what you are having a meltdown over. i am just looking for the article to have reliable sources for its claims, and that the claims are accurately buttressed by the source. that's all. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, would you please use the shift key. Meltdown, my ass. Throw a fucking cuss word out once or twice and people who can't use a fucking keyboard freak out. So, two fucking sources and my personal expert opinion combined don't mean shit to you? What do you want? How the fuck am I attacking you? An attack would be me calling you a fucking moron. I do not believe you are either a moron or a fucking moron. Asking you to use proper grammar is just a request. Saying you can't use a keyboard is an observation. See how cool that was? You say I'm having a meltdown and I say you're freaking out. Toss a few explictives and you're convinced. Problem is, none of this is really happening. I'm here at my easy chair typing on a laptop watching a show on Anartic core sampling, sipping a cup of cold water. Just 1's and 0's dude, not enough to get my dander up. Here you are fantasizing about some Arlo Guthrie song that I'll quote for you to ponder:

"And I went up there, I said, "Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I

wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and

guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill,

KILL, KILL." And I started jumpin up and down yelling, "KILL, KILL," and

he started jumpin up and down with me and we was both jumping up and down

yelling, "KILL, KILL." And the sargent came over, pinned a medal on me,

sent me down the hall, said, "You're our boy."

--Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)