TexasCHLforum.com

I have seen some reliable and non-reliable info on the new Glocks to be intruoduced at the 2010 SHOT Show. The changes I have heard are as follows:

Replaceable back straps
Ambidextrous mag release
different grip texture
Single stack for pocket carry (not from a reliable source)

Do any of you have any additional info on the new models? I am trying to decide if I should get a 19 now, or wait for the new model.

If you aren't in a rush to buy then why not wait to see what the new generation brings. Just think how bummed you will be if you buy now and REALLY like th new gen better!

Or my favorite option is if money is not a problem buy your 19 and then buy a new gen if you like it!

I would probably buy the 19 now and either trade on the new model (if I like it) or buy the new model as a second 19 ..... one should never delay being protected.

Call me old fashion or a little adverse to change with some things but I like my Glocks just the way they are. Probably will not buy any 4th generation Glocks, but I don't need any more anyway (i think). Maybe I just picked up my last Glock day before yesterday (G29).

I would probably trade my full-size in for a sub-compact 4th generation. I just use it for target-shooting anyway.

I might be convinced to get a single-stack Glock 9mm subcompact... G26-type but sub-1" thickness would be a winner. We can hope.

mr.72 wrote:I might be convinced to get a single-stack Glock 9mm subcompact... G26-type but sub-1" thickness would be a winner. We can hope.

I'll second that. If it happens and this is the year Glock FINALLY gives the "thin Glock" crowd what we want, I'll have a Walther PPS for sale.

Here is a link to the most information I have been able to find......Best of luck!
http://www.gunsholstersandgear.com/2009 ... -features/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I hope they get rid of the finger grooves and go back to a normal frontstrap.

I read that the 4th Gen. will not have the goofy looking fish gills. Don't think we will see a "thin Glock" next year but I think Glock will have to do one down the road. But hey, I already have one - G36.

stash wrote: Don't think we will see a "thin Glock" next year but I think Glock will have to do one down the road. But hey, I already have one - G36.

Not exactly.

Glock's single-stack subcompact .45 G36 compared with a Kahr PM45...
A "thin Glock" would have to be in the range of dimensions with other "thin" pistols, which is <1" thick for a 9mm. A G26-style 9mm at 0.9" thick would be a serious contender in the slim pistol market.

mr.72 - you are right, especially comparing it to the Kahr. My 36 feels thin to me when comparing to G30.

stash wrote:mr.72 - you are right, especially comparing it to the Kahr. My 36 feels thin to me when comparing to G30.

No doubt about that!!

I shot a friend's G36. That was a pretty cool .45. A bit big for me to carry. I suspect the thickness of a double-stack Glock .45 is just big enough to demand that Glock make a single-stack. The PM45 from Kahr is much bigger than their PM9. You just have to put that extra .1" of cartridge width somewhere.

Just a note that different manufacturers measure their guns in different ways, so it's sometimes difficult to compare apples to apples. Kahr is heavily marketing "thin is sexy," and I believe they are opting to report the dimensions of their pistols accordingly. For example, the spec sheet for the PM9 explicitly says the slide width is 0.9" but doesn't attempt to give a dimension at the widest point. I just checked my PM9, and the maximum, total width--due to the slide stop--is about 1.12".

My primary carry, a Kimber CDP in .45 ACP, also has a 0.9" slide. However, Kimber reports the pistol to be 1.28" wide, which is precisely what I measure it to be at its widest point, from side-to-side of the ambi-safety. I have slim-line grips on my Kimber, and if I ignore the safety and measure to the next-widest overall point, it's about 1.03".

I don't own a PM45 or a G36, but again the Kahr spec sheet for their pistol specifically states the slide width is 1.01". If the additional total slide width matches up to the spec sheet claim and the actual measured width of my PM9, the PM45 would be about 1.23" wide.

Judging from a quick check of the three stock Glocks I have, I'd say Glock is reporting the overall, total width, as does Kimber. They claim the G36 is 1.13" wide, and I suspect that is about right...especially considering stock Glocks have a pretty tiny slide release.

If owners of each of the two pistols could grab a pair of calipers and measure at the overall widest points, we could be sure. But I'll bet the G36 is no wider--measuring that way--than the PM45.

Height would be the second-most important dimension for concealability, and there the G36 and PM45 differ by only 0.27", something I'd think would be hardly noticeable. However, the Kahr has a capacity of 5+1, and the Glock 6+1.

Just an FYI and YMMV.

Good points, Skippr!

However I would say, the slide width is probably a more important measurement than the overall width, considering that the slide has to be concealed along the entire length of the gun but the slide stop/release lever does not have to be concealed along the whole length of the gun.

My Sigma has a sheet metal slide release that does not noticeably increase the width of the gun but that low-profile slide release does not aid at all in making it compact to carry or conceal. The total width may be the same or very close to my Kahr, but the concealability is night and day.

It would be easy to make a low-profile slide release for a Kahr.

I also should say that the slide release (big and bulky as it is) on my Kahr is much easier to use than the little one on my Sigma.