I received this email yesterday and thought that some here might be interested:
We are happy to announce that we will be shipping product at the end of this month.
First to be shipped will be Stainless Frames, for the G17/17L/22/24/31/34/35 & 37 models followed by aluminum for the G17/22/24/34 & 35 in mid to late February.
We do want to thank you for your patience in this extended wait.
At your convenience, if you will call your order in over the next two weeks, we will take the order but will not process it until we have the frames packaged, ready for shipment.
The slide is not the gun so as far as I know Glock does not have issues with that. The lower Larry is making IS the gun. Now if he was smart and made his own internal parts that were different from Glock’s, it might be ok.
Gaston gets a little cranky when parts from other Guns work in his(case in point, Sigma). He does not care about the aftermarket parts industry, to quote Gaston “My gun is prefect and those parts just bastardize my gun”. But then if the engineers at Glock make Gaston believe he thought of it first then it is ok to put that part on his gun(i.e. extended slide stop, extended mag catch, NS, +2).
Now I have not talked with anyone at Glock in 5-6 months and they MAY have taken a different position since then so we will just wait and see.
What’s the Sigma got to do with it? Do Glock parts work in the Sigmas and SV40E s and such? We had a guy in the shop using a .40 version to practice qualifying for a job at the mill. He couldn’t get confident because of the 8 pound trigger pull. If we can make his pistol better by swapping in Glock parts, it would be nice.
Someone said 8# trigger pull for the Sigma? I guess they improved on the trigger pull over the years. An old boss of mine had one, his was 12# if it was an ounce. He also had to cut the front sight in half to get the elevation where it needed to be.
Of course, he insisted that it was as good as my Glock at 1/2 the price.:rolleyes:
#1. I thought that Glock’s problem with the Sigma was that he/they felt that S&W had infringed on their patent(s).
#2. IMLTHO, if Glock had frames with multiple sized backstraps like the M&P and some other handguns, there would be limited interest in the CCR frames. I’d have no interest in them.
My statement was poorly worded. I know that the barrel was interchangeable and the take down was identical to the GLOCK but I’m not sure if, nor have I ever heard of, other parts being interchangeable. My bad. :o
Actually it was a trivia question. Many parts were interchangeable and will function in a Glock. That is why Glock sued and won. Court docs were sealed but besides a HUGE settlement, rumor is when S&W sells one Glock gets a ck.
I was at SHOT when the suit was going on and in the Glock booth they had a 7’ to 8’ tall cardboard cutout of a G22. Gaston had the employees put black tape over the S&W logo on the slide. Now you know why the S&W, ACP, SIG logo no longer appear on the slides.
Care to take a guess as to how many parts interchange?
Well, we will see if these frames are worth their salt. Got a SS frame on order now. Hopefully, it will arrive before Glock’s legal department finds Richmond.
