This thread will probably generate little interest. However, I was reading a book called “Irrationality” and it was talking about how, under stress, the simplest possible controls are probably best. We all know this, but it bears repeating. Further, it was talking about how complex systems, even ones that are made of the best possible materials/designs, are usually much more likely to fail than simple systems. Blah blah.
Anyway, I was wondering what could be done to further simplify the modern autoloading handgun. I think it is safe to say that most of them are essentially the same (i.e. Glock derivatives). And I have to say that Glock has done well with their highly simplified design.
If you were an engineer tasked with further simplifying the Glock 19, what would you do?
Perhaps how to make a weapon more durable and reliable is a better question. Glocks are pretty simple. If they could add a steel reinforcement or chassis like the M&P, detachable frame rails to easily remedy breakages, and a stronger locking block, then you’re talking. Or, you could just get an M&P or a more recent HK design.
simplify the mechanics of the gun? or simplify the operation?
i think glock has done well with both.
somethign like an HK p7 is very easy to operate, but quite complicated internally.
assuming all goes well with a glock style handgun all you have to do is point and pull the trigger. doesn’t get easier than that. “What could be done to make it easier to reload or clear malfunctions?” would be my next thought.
See, as big a fan of the HK and, to a lesser degree, the S&W as I am, I don’t really see them as a serious improvement on the Glock. More like tinkering. The steel frame thing seems to be a waste of time. The Glocks are reliable enough without introducing a subchassis (which I think was done first on the Steyr). And the HKs seem to have a lot of extra parts (why is their a rubber doo-dad in the slide?).
I am wondering how the guns could be simplified (without compromise). I suspect the Glock’s trigger trigger (I refuse to call it a safety) could be deleted.
But I think you guys are right, there just isn’t much that can be done to simplify the Glock. Damn.
The “trigger trigger” is the one thing I think could maybe go away without really impacting much. Beyond that…most anything would also change the way you manipulate the gun or compromise functionality.
I suppose the slide-lock takedown lever could be replaced with some sort of pin to be pushed out to take the gun down, which would eliminate a movable part and a spring.
Hands-down the most thought provoking question today
If you had asked this question about my current vehicle, I could have written a dissertation on the headlight/bulb assembly alone.
However, I think the Glock 19 is about as simple as you’re going to get with a striker-fired autoloader. Perhaps more parts could be integrated into a single unit, however I think this would be counterproductive. It’s simpler to replace small parts, than an entire assembly, in many cases; especially, with wear items.
And there’s also the issue of preference. Some like different connectors and spring combinations than others, different sights, etc.
the firing pin safety could probably be deleted. i find it unlikely that the striker could free itself from the mechanism by accident. that said, i like having the firing pin safety for peace of mind. you’d need something to hold the extractor in anyway… so maybe that would gain you nothing in reducing complication.
the glock pistol really is an incredible piece of design work.
There is no credible evidence an M&P or USP is more durable than a G19/G17. More people have probably put more rounds through them than USP’s and M&P’s combined. How many 9mm Glocks have been shot to the point they’re not repairable? I’d probably put my money on the Glock.
I honestly can’t think of any ways they can make a Glock simpler (except maybe discontinue the Gen4’s for the G17. The Gen4 G22 dual recoil spring though was a necessary improvment). In fact some people in all their so called “wisdom” think Glocks are too simple and too plain and want them to be more complex or “interesting” in their eyes. Hence some of the excitement over the Gen4’s and designs like the M&P.
The M&P certainly has better lines. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong, however I don’t think it’s noticeably more complex mechanically than the Glock design if at all.
There won’t be further simplification of small arms until there’s greater development in alternative forms of ammunition. Caseless cartridges, electronic ignition, etc, will be the next big impetus in small arms design changes.
Of course, each will bring it’s own inherent complexities in need of simplification, but we are where we’ll be until then.
Afterthought: I’m no engineer, but what criteria would be use to define and quantify “complexity”? Is it the total number of parts? Moving parts? Tolerances overall? Tolerances between moving parts? Mass of material? Manufacturing method?
I would look at the “guts” and see what could be replaced. It is most likely that you cannot make it much better, but taking 48 parts and getting the job done with 35 wouldnt hurt. Currently, every part in the Glock serves a purpose. Define that parts function and identify ways other parts could take on its function. This may or may not work. The next step would be to identify which parts are most modified by the end user, ie what do people polish and how are those parts made. What can be done to those parts to negate the need (desire really) to do any of that. Then identify any known early replace items and extend the life of those, if possible.
Honestly, it has been a few years since I had a Glock tore down completely in front of me, but I dont recall too many things that could have been reduced. The M&P is a little different, I would produce a few parts differently myself, but that is for another thread.
4th generation perfection is hard to argue with, even if you cant stand to shoot them you must recognize that they got something right.
