Glock 19 Obsolete?

[BEE]

Unprivileged California Glock owners, excluding law enforcement, of any Glocks that are not on the roster if are in need of a frame replacement through warranty are SOL.

In this case, your off roster Glock is pretty much obsolete. Russell Murphy, Warranty/Pistolsmith of Glock USA confirmed this with me this morning.

[SharedShots]

Unprivileged California Glock owners, excluding law enforcement, of any Glocks that are not on the roster if are in need of a frame replacement through warranty are SOL.

In this case, your off roster Glock is pretty much obsolete. Russell Murphy, Warranty/Pistolsmith of Glock USA confirmed this with me this morning.

What question did you ask to get such a confirmation?

"Subject to terms, conditions and limitations outlined below, GLOCK, Inc. guarantees its pistols against defects in materials and workmanship that adversely affect their operation for a period of one (1) year from the date of their original purchase by the initial consumer."

Why would Mr. Murphy confirm such a thing when any off-roster Glock is almost certainly no longer within the warranty period and even if you got it into California or purchased it from someone else that warranty no longer applies?

You buy an off-roster from someone - no warranty
You get one via immediate family transfer - no warranty
You buy one from LE: No warranty.

IOW unless you are the first and original owner Glocks have no warranty.

What warranty are you referring to? I think Mr. Murphy's information is what is obsolete.

[gun toting monkeyboy]

Guys, he was making a valid point, from a very specific point of view. I have 2 Glock 19s on my permit. I do carry them. But the added thickness sucks. As my go-to handgun, they are great. But they are HUGE compared to many of the CCW-oriented guns out there. The 19 wasn't really meant to be a concealed carry gun. It was meant to be a smaller version of their full-sized service pistol. The selling point was 15 rounds. Not how easy it was to stuff in your waistband. And from a developmental standpoint, it is 40 year old technology. Yes, it still works. And yes, lots of people are going to continue to use it. Hell, I certainly will. But compared to the more modern designs that are built from the ground up with concealed carry in mind? Nope. They are way behind the times. As for the S15 magazines and the metal mag release, there is not much difference in weight. The steel is pretty thin. ANd yes, they actually work quite well. Though if you are going that route, you may as well set that gun up to only run the steel mags to save on wear all around.

-Mb

[tuna quesadilla]

Guys, he was making a valid point, from a very specific point of view. I have 2 Glock 19s on my permit. I do carry them. But the added thickness sucks. As my go-to handgun, they are great. But they are HUGE compared to many of the CCW-oriented guns out there. The 19 wasn't really meant to be a concealed carry gun. It was meant to be a smaller version of their full-sized service pistol. The selling point was 15 rounds. Not how easy it was to stuff in your waistband. And from a developmental standpoint, it is 40 year old technology. Yes, it still works. And yes, lots of people are going to continue to use it. Hell, I certainly will. But compared to the more modern designs that are built from the ground up with concealed carry in mind? Nope. They are way behind the times. As for the S15 magazines and the metal mag release, there is not much difference in weight. The steel is pretty thin. ANd yes, they actually work quite well. Though if you are going that route, you may as well set that gun up to only run the steel mags to save on wear all around.

-Mb

That's the whole point of carrying a Glock 19 though, and the reason why it's one of the more common CCW guns you'll see on gun forums. The fact that it's a full-blown duty pistol which was made juuuust small enough to shove into your waistband is the entire reason why so many people love CCWing it and guns like it. Calling it "HUGE" in all caps is a little dramatic when it's in exactly the same size class as its competitors like the Sig P320 Compact, Walther PPQ M2, and CZ P-10C. It's only "HUGE" in all caps if you're comparing it to the pocket pistol class which is generally single-stack, 6-8 rounds, and not something you'd really want to use in a gunfight if you had your choice. At the present time I'm only aware of one pistol that carries 15rds in its factory configuration while measurably beating the G19/P320/PPQ M2/P-10C/etc in size--that would be the P365XL. Are there others I'm missing?

ETA: Here's a photo I was able to find by googling, which demonstrates what I'm talking about. Pictured are the P320 Compact, M&P Compact, P365 w/15rd factory mag, and a Glock 19. All very common CCW guns. I dare say that, just going on how this picture looks, Glock 19 is the second smallest gun in the group. Not so "HUGE" in all caps, is it?

[9Cal_OC]

Guys, he was making a valid point, from a very specific point of view. I have 2 Glock 19s on my permit. I do carry them. But the added thickness sucks. As my go-to handgun, they are great. But they are HUGE compared to many of the CCW-oriented guns out there. The 19 wasn't really meant to be a concealed carry gun. It was meant to be a smaller version of their full-sized service pistol. The selling point was 15 rounds. Not how easy it was to stuff in your waistband. And from a developmental standpoint, it is 40 year old technology. Yes, it still works. And yes, lots of people are going to continue to use it. Hell, I certainly will. But compared to the more modern designs that are built from the ground up with concealed carry in mind? Nope. They are way behind the times. As for the S15 magazines and the metal mag release, there is not much difference in weight. The steel is pretty thin. ANd yes, they actually work quite well. Though if you are going that route, you may as well set that gun up to only run the steel mags to save on wear all around.

-Mb

Carrying should be comforting, not necessarily comfortable.

[ScottsBad]

Article sponsored by? So is the:

1911 obsolete? YES

SKS or AK47 obsolete? SKS is obsolete

Armalite Rifle or M16/M4 obsolete? NO, not yet

M1 Garand or M14 obsolete? YES

Heck, Springfield 1903 or German Mauser obsolete? YES

It's the hits that count... if it's somewhat accurate, reliable, durable, mass produced or surplus chambered, has an abundance of parts available and puts rounds down range on target, I propose it is still relevant!

Let's revisit this after we repel the coming communist dynamic assault on America.... when we Americans, yet once again, regain our independence from tyranny. I bet money can't buy that gun review!

^^^ Obsolete doesn't mean that these guns have lost their usefulness. Only that there are better rifles that shoot the same or better, but with better ergonomics, reliability, capacity, and or accuracy.

Yeah, I agree these will be needed to turn back the WOKE COMMIE HORDES. LOL

[AFTII]

The problem isn't and never has been dealers gouging customers, ... .

I had the fortune of living in CA when there was literally a gun store on every other corner. The 1992 riots changed all that.

The person I was responding to ask a question that contained an inaccurate statement that G19s were sold out all over the US. They are not. The gunbroker.com link bears this out.

That said, since the 1990's MOST California gun dealers charge outrageous fees to accept an imported firearm from gunbroker.com - like $100. In free America, the charge is $25 to $35. That was my point.

[003]

[QUOTE=gun toting monkeyboy;25521109]Guys, he was making a valid point, from a very specific point of view. I have 2 Glock 19s on my permit. I do carry them. But the added thickness sucks. As my go-to handgun, they are great. But they are HUGE compared to many of the CCW-oriented guns out there. The 19 wasn't really meant to be a concealed carry gun. It was meant to be a smaller version of their full-sized service pistol. The selling point was 15 rounds. Not how easy it was to stuff in your waistband. And from a developmental standpoint, it is 40 year old technology. Yes, it still works. And yes, lots of people are going to continue to use it. Hell, I certainly will. But compared to the more modern designs that are built from the ground up with concealed carry in mind? Nope. They are way behind the times. As for the S15 magazines and the metal mag release, there is not much difference in weight. The steel is pretty thin. ANd yes, they actually work quite well. Though if you are going that route, you may as well set that gun up to only run the steel mags to save on wear all around.

I will never agree that the most important issue for a CCW gun is the size. Smaller is not always better. From a practical perspective, there is very little difference in concealing a Glock 19 or one of the smaller Glocks mentioned above.

If the only criteria one uses is size, then I have to ask the question, why are you carrying a gun in the first place. Effectively employing a gun in a life threatening situation should be the main criteria not size.

While I have read a number of comments where folks claim they are as effective and accurate shooting a sub compact as a mid size gun, that has not been my experience. I suspect the average shooter will be more accurate and have better control with a mid size or larger gun as opposed to a sub compact,

To each his own, but I have never heard anyone say that wish that had used a smaller lighter gun after they had to use their gun in self defense.

[AFTII]

[QUOTE=003;25523548]

Guys, he was making a valid point, from a very specific point of view. I have 2 Glock 19s on my permit. I do carry them. But the added thickness sucks. As my go-to handgun, they are great. But they are HUGE compared to many of the CCW-oriented guns out there. The 19 wasn't really meant to be a concealed carry gun. It was meant to be a smaller version of their full-sized service pistol. The selling point was 15 rounds. Not how easy it was to stuff in your waistband. And from a developmental standpoint, it is 40 year old technology. Yes, it still works. And yes, lots of people are going to continue to use it. Hell, I certainly will. But compared to the more modern designs that are built from the ground up with concealed carry in mind? Nope. They are way behind the times. As for the S15 magazines and the metal mag release, there is not much difference in weight. The steel is pretty thin. ANd yes, they actually work quite well. Though if you are going that route, you may as well set that gun up to only run the steel mags to save on wear all around.

I will never agree that the most important issue for a CCW gun is the size. Smaller is not always better. From a practical perspective, there is very little difference in concealing a Glock 19 or one of the smaller Glocks mentioned above.

If the only criteria one uses is size, then I have to ask the question, why are you carrying a gun in the first place. Effectively employing a gun in a life threatening situation should be the main criteria not size.

While I have read a number of comments where folks claim they are as effective and accurate shooting a sub compact as a mid size gun, that has not been my experience. I suspect the average shooter will be more accurate and have better control with a mid size or larger gun as opposed to a sub compact,

To each his own, but I have never heard anyone say that wish that had used a smaller lighter gun after they had to use their gun in self defense.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Size is not the most important aspect of a concealed carry gun. Besides being proficient with it, the most important criteria for a concealed carry gun is . . . wait for it . . . .

ACTUALLY CARRYING IT!!!!

You sound like a LEO, so you may have a different perspective than someone who is not a LEO. I'm not a LEO. I obtained my first CCW in CA by establishing "good cause" pre-Peruta. My IA initially didn't care what you carried as long as you qualified with it. But, upon my first renewal, my IA changed its policy and would not permit SSE guns. So, I had all the crappy roster choices just like every other civilian has.

Initially, I chose a G23. I had originally planned on carrying a G27. However, I found that, for me, the G27 provided NO appreciable difference from the G23 when concealing them. Both were clunky and uncomfortable to wear concealed on my body. Both were a PITA to drive with. So, I ended up carrying the G23 in a fanny pack - usually off body while in the car. Towards the end of my first CCW, I purchased and qualified a Sig P938. I ended up carrying that thing nearly every day and I never had to take it off - unless the law required that I take it off. Sometimes, I literally forgot I had it on.

When I was not able to renew the P938, I found myself going back to the G23 or even my LB Thunder Ranch. I was carrying less and carrying off body again. Eventually, I bought a P238. Even though it was a wimpy .380, at least I was carrying it on my body on a regular basis again.

Fast forward to today. I'm living in a free state. I could carry anything I want to any way I want to. I carry a P365 with a 12 rd magazine OWB concealed. With very few exceptions, I carry that thing everywhere I go. My jacket covers the gun in the winter. A tee shirt does the job in the summer. No one can tell if I am carrying the P365 - even if I just concealing with it under a tee shirt.

I own a boatload of other choices, including, but not limited to: S&W M&P9 2.0C; G27, G23, G19, G19X, and G45s. (I sold the P938s and 238s before leaving CA. I wish I still had a P938. It was a better pocket gun than the P365.) I've carried the M&P once - before I owned the P365. I carried the G45 with its RDS on a couple of occasions when I was having vision problems and couldn't see the front site clearly with my regular glasses. But, vision permitting, its the P365, 365 days a year.

Why? Because, IMO, its a better handgun than any Glock I own. (Note: I don't own any micro Glocks). It's grip is more natural than any of my Glocks so it points more naturally for me. Its trigger is fantastic compared all of my Glocks (though I'll admit that the Timney trigger is not bad). It goes bang when I pull the trigger, and its doesn't go bang when its not supposed to. I can't say that about all of my Glocks. I doesn't auto-eject magazines. And to top it all off, it's super easy to conceal.

Just so I'm clear, I agree with your premise 100%. I would not carry a gun just because its small. (I even mentioned the fact that when I was having sight issues, I switched to a G45 MOS with a RDS for a while, because what good is carrying a gun if you can't see the front sight?) But, I am a heck of a lot more likely to carry a competent carry gun all the time, if it's not a PITA to conceal and I ditched the G45 the second my eyesight improved.

So we primarily differ in that you believe that the micro compacts are not easier to conceal than a compact handgun like the Glock G19. I suggest that you test your theory by wearing my CCW rig for a few days (Sig P365 with either a pinky extension or 12 rd mag (even a blue gun would work for the test) and a Simply Rugged Cuda OWB holster.) If you tell me what rig you are using for EDC, I'll pick up that holster and try it out. I have a butt load of G19s, so that part won't be a problem for me. Afterwards, we can compare notes.

[OCEquestrian]

That said, since the 1990's MOST California gun dealers charge outrageous fees to accept an imported firearm from gunbroker.com - like $100. In free America, the charge is $25 to $35. That was my point.

And what's wrong with the LGS charging for the time, effort and liability it put your gun on his books, store it securely for you DROS it to you ?

Your contention is that is should be done for free or a price YOU deem appropriate? unfortunately for people living in countries where prices are dictated to store owners, guns can't be purchased.

I have no problem with a local gun store charging me a fee for services provided. If I disagreed with the fee I won't do business with them. Every business owner is entitled to a profit that they deem sufficient and the market seems fair.

Another point: don't forget that it's a lot cheaper and easier to be a gun store owner and do business in free American than it is in the peoples Republic of California.

[static2126]

I am personally not a fan of owb.

That said I carry a G48 in a Phlster Enigma with the Phlster Pro holster and sleep in it all the time. I do carry a g19 once in a while (like 20% of the time)

Have also grappled in it, done yoga and pilates too. Eventually will do bouldering in it

[static2126]

And what's wrong with the LGS charging for the time, effort and liability it put your gun on his books, store it securely for you DROS it to you ?

Your contention is that is should be done for free or a price YOU deem appropriate? unfortunately for people living in countries where prices are dictated to store owners, guns can't be purchased.

I have no problem with a local gun store charging me a fee for services provided. If I disagreed with the fee I won't do business with them. Every business owner is entitled to a profit that they deem sufficient and the market seems fair.

Another point: don't forget that it's a lot cheaper and easier to be a gun store owner and do business in free American than it is in the peoples Republic of California.

Truth

[tuna quesadilla]

And what's wrong with the LGS charging for the time, effort and liability it put your gun on his books, store it securely for you DROS it to you ?

Your contention is that is should be done for free or a price YOU deem appropriate? unfortunately for people living in countries where prices are dictated to store owners, guns can't be purchased.

I have no problem with a local gun store charging me a fee for services provided. If I disagreed with the fee I won't do business with them. Every business owner is entitled to a profit that they deem sufficient and the market seems fair.

Another point: don't forget that it's a lot cheaper and easier to be a gun store owner and do business in free American than it is in the peoples Republic of California.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a big chunk of the transfer fee is actually just a DROS fee that is going straight to the State.

Riflegear says on their websites they do transfers for $60+DROS/Taxes. That makes for a total fee of around $100, which seems high yeah, but when you consider 40% of that is just the dang government taking their share... it's not Riflegear's fault.

Meanwhile, my local FFL here in the Midwest charges $50 for Title I firearms and $100 for Title II.

When you compare the cost of living and the doing business in CA vs the Midwest, Riflegear's transfer fee is actually a way better deal than my FFL.

[JWil]

So the G19 was made to be a smaller version of the duty pistol so it would be easier to carry, and still retain a high round count?

So, basically any smaller option in the same caliber with a comparable round count makes it obsolete for CCW use.

[JWil]

I would rather one of the smaller sigs for ccw. Or my 442. I'm not walking a tough beat, I'm going to Safeway.