Walther has been in the mix for number of years, as has Beretta. Also Steyr, Springfield, S&W, SIG, Ruger, FN...I don't think that the relatively recent addition of the H&K offerings is going to change a lot for the market in terms of creating a price war. What it (hopefully) may create is a push by some manufacturers to smooth out their striker fired triggers and offer features that shooter actually want - like the adjustable grip and texture of the VP9.With the addition of HK, Beretta, and Walther, to the striker party, it looks like Glock is quickly becoming a commodity, and the fight will soon devolve to a price war.
Agree. They are sleek and simple in appearance, compared to some like an XD or this new HK that looks like they were crapped out of Ben Grimms body."Glock Perfection" in my opinion is derived from the notion that less is more, that simple beats complex. Hard to compete with less is more, especially when Glock is about as lean as you can get. The new kids on the block go the other direction thinking more is more. Depends on what you want. The longer I think about it, the more Glock makes sense. Hard to appreciate fully starting out.
In some ways, Glock is way underpriced regardless of how cheap they are to make. They have perfected simplicity.
Walther sure has figured out that trigger. They also had the interchangeable back strap in the late 90's. Then they ushered in the new craze in sexy slim with the PPS (not the first, just turned the buying craze from hi cap 9mm). Glock finally added adjustable grips and a slim 9mm (just not in the same gun lol).I agree, prices are for the most part just fine (The VP9 notwithstanding since its quality is well below its price IMHO). Everybody needs to have a Walther PPQ M2 trigger as far as I'm concerned, and they all need to include extra backstraps like the Glock and a few others. Do that for me and don't be a jam-o-matic or ammo sensitive, and I'll have an awfully hard time choosing one over the other.
If you assume reliability is derived from simplicity and fewer moving parts, and if you assume reliability is king, then the innovator who comes up with the simplest reliable design deserves a higher price point. You are paying for the guaranteed result, not what it costs to build it. If it's patented up, maybe no one can duplicate it without making it more complex (in reality not duplicating it). Takes great engineering to simplify. Takes less engineering to makes things more complex, as backwards as that sounds.I don't really get that logic.
That's a poor assumption. A smaller number of parts in no way implies greater reliability, and therefore does not imply added value.If you assume reliability is derived from simplicity and fewer moving parts...
That's debatable, and mostly subjective. I have an XD-SC that would be classed with a G26 as a subcompact 9mm. The XD holds three more rounds, while the G26 is more concealable. Which is better? The answer depends entirely on the needs of each particular user.What you get is what counts, round count, concealability, dependability, and you get them at the top of the class in each category.
How is a Glock simpler to build, maintain, repair, modify, use, or cheaper to outfit or replace than a P320? The retail price for P320's has so far been on line with or slightly less than comparable Glocks. The entire design is modular. MSRP on new frames for a P320 is $45, which I doubt you'll find Glock frames for, and buying one doesn't require a 4473.If the Sig 320 can convert to multiple calibers but at the cost of rounds per pound or the high cost of new frames, is it any better than a Glock that is simpler to build, maintain, repair, modify, use, and cheaper to outfit and replace?
There is something to that, though again the value is subjective. It depends on what a particular user wants for additional gear and how likely they are to sell the gun.They deserve a high price also for their market share which helps them dominate in after market gear and resell value.
It certainly was for the first 25 years it was around. It's not today, when you can say the same thing about (at the very least) M&P's and XD's, and probably a number of other options. It remains to be seen about this HK, of course.The biggest difference is the trust you have in buying a Glock. You know it will go bang everytime (essentially) without costly break-in ammo. It's basically a sure bet. That's worth a significant premium to their build costs.