Firearms

Glock Releases Two New Pistols for 2016!

Glock G17 Gen4 MOS

Good news Glock fans! Glock just released the news that it will be debuting two new Glocks this week. The details are rather thin as of now, but The Shooter’s Log‘s editors and writers are headed to the range for a little field testing. We will have our first impressions and perhaps a video or two of the Glock 17 MOS and Glock 19 MOS in action later today, so keep checking back. Until then, here is what Glock had to say:

Glock G17 Gen4 MOS
Glock G17 Gen4 MOS
Today, Glock, Inc., announced the release of two new pistols to join the Modular Optic System (MOS) series, the G17 Gen4 in MOS and the G19 Gen4 in MOS. Now, two of Glock’s best selling pistols are available with milled slides designed specifically to be adaptable to multiple optic systems without costly customization. The G17 Gen4 MOS and G19 Gen4 MOS are the ideal addition to the series as the market continues to trend toward optic-ready everyday carry and defense. “We’re seeing more and more professional trainers recommend the use of optics for primary and defensive use,” stated Josh Dorsey, vice president at Glock. “Optic ready pistols will enable faster target acquisition when a reflex sight is mounted.” Both pistols are chambered in .9mm and do not differ in specifications from their respective standard models. Other MOS pistols, introduced in January of 2015, are the G34 Gen4 MOS, G35 Gen4 MOS, G41 Gen4 MOS, and the G40 Gen4 MOS. The new models were unveiled today at the Range Day for SHOT Show and will be on display at the Glock booth (#12254) throughout the week. The pistols will be available for purchase at retailers in the following weeks.

Glock G19 Gen4 MOS
Glock G19 Gen4 MOS
[dave]

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (10)

  1. I was always a .45 ACP guy as well. I have a Cougar as well as a few 1911’s in my inventory. However, my wife decided to get her CCW so I bought her a Ruger LC9. After shooting it a few times, I realized that it wasn’t so bad. Went down and bought a second one and a month after I received it, California banned them from public sale and only law enforcement can by them now (I heard it’s because of their size, but the Libbies here are still full of s$$t!!)

  2. Red dots have a place but they are not the panacea to all sighting issues. When you draw the gun it is not uncommon to have to wobble it around in a figure 8 until you can acquire the dot. And this is often only done after you align the iron sights. This effect is common enough that it has even been given a name . . the IPSC Wobble, and it is also why many manufacturers that offer a red dot ready handgun equip it with taller iron sights to facilitate using the sights to acquire the red dot.

    I’m not saying red dots are a bad idea, but they require a lot of training and practice for shooters to be able to make the most of them. My advice? Learn to shoot competently with plain old iron sights BEFORE you move on to gee whiz systems like red dots or lasers. Basic skills like sight alignment, trigger control and grip will never be replaced by these types of additions.

    1. Mikail,
      Could not agree more. Can’t recall a short, succinct, spot on post with which I agree so completely.

  3. Probably a good marketing move for Glock but I am old enough to remember that before we had all the new whiz bang bullets which allegedly make an otherwise anemic round into a contender, in some people’s eyes. Many people like it. But, a whole lot of people voted for Barrack Obama. How’s that working out for you? Barrack Obama was supposed to be the political equivalent of a new, whiz bang, just like super bullets are supposed to make what used to not even be a major power factor round when I first shot IPSC into a wonderful thing — the salvation for people who refuse to train to handle the .45 or the .40. Lets have more people who depend on some new technology to make up for their own short comings in the training department.
    I do not expect everyone, or even very many to agree with me, but that’s what makes for a great country — I am entitled to my opinion, just as much as you are entitled to yours. After all, you may have voted for Obama and really like the job he has done. As for me, I voted for McCain and Romney, both losers on the national stage, drive a 3/4 ton diesel pickup and live in a remote home surrounded by large fences and an iron gate across the entrance. Perhaps you do not share my life experiences and concerns about the goodness of your fellowman or the local meth addicts.

    1. So your point is that anyone using a 9mm is doing so because of their own training shortcomings? What about people that just don’t need the extra power and greater recoil of larger calibers? 9mm is cheap and easy shooting, that doesn’t mean I can’t shoot 45.

    2. @Matt

      I am a pretty much .45ACP kind of guy. But I got a Jericho 9mm for Christmas that is the sweetest, smoothest, most accurate gun I have ever shot . . . and I’ve shot a lot. After a few trips to the range, my wife (who shoots both 9mm and.45 very well) said that the way that Jericho shoots, I don’t need a .45. I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I would be completely confident with my Jericho as my EDC, 9mm or not. That gun has made me a 9mm believer!

    3. Matt,
      Perhaps it is a case of old dog and new tricks, but it is not a matter of my view of a person’s training when I do not know the person or anything of his training.
      I am 74 and when I was young and just learning a bit about shooting in the military, no one considered the 9mm as anything more than some whacko European idea — except for the British who had the .455 Webley. We did not have modern bullets and everyone shot FMJ and 9mm standard loadings with a FMJ was anemic.
      We have learned a great deal and vast progress has been made in bullet, powder and ballistic development. But, I still look at the 9mm as a small bullet with too much penetration for the round. I am old and grew up believing no pistol round was better than the .45, and the US was the best country in the world.
      Now, our President trots all over the world, bowing and scraping to the petty dictators of this world and the 9mm is the greatest thing since sliced bread — unless you like the .380 better, or course. It is awfully hard for me to adjust my thinking to this more modern time. I was happy when things were simpler.
      No, I have no knowledge of and no right to question your training. Perhaps the 9mm is everything so many people say it is. But, then, people said that Obama was going to be the best president we ever had. I know that they are not the same thing — but the point is in both cases, people thought they knew what was right and best. I fear that both are matters of opinion and not fact.
      I try to stay with the tried and true and avoid speculation based upon opinion. For over 100 years, the .45 has been adequate. For about 80 or so of those years, the 9mm was not. It couldn’t even make high power when I was shooting IPSC. That may have all changed and what was lacking the power to qualify as a respectable hand gun cartridge then may be the best thing since sliced bread now. On the other hand, maybe it is an agenda of a bunch of gun writers promoting something and not collecting evidence. I consider the possibility that maybe there is an agenda at work here that has nothing to do with the facts of the matter and is more about promoting a new cartridge to make more money. After all the .45 had just about run its course as far as development was concerned and so the gun companies needed something new and inspiring to make a new market.
      For a long time, the 9mm was not nearly enough to kill, but only to wound — which was one reason it was developed in the first place. It took a lot more in the way of resources to tend a wounded man than dispose of a dead one and that was one reason the European nations favored it.
      On the other hand, the .45 was meant to knock down permanently instead of leaving a swath of wounded behind. But, things do change.
      However, I remember when McNamara and his whiz kids chose the 9mm for the DOD and the reasons given: 1) since it used a lot less material, it was cheaper to manufacture; 2) since it weighted a lot less than the .45, it was a lot less expensive to ship; 3) since it weighted a lot less, soldiers could carry a lot more and that meant that they could shoot a lot more; and 4) since it was physically smaller, it could be put into a smaller package and people with smaller hands could shoot it better — it made it more viable for women. None of those reasons for ditching the .45 in favor of the 9mm were that it was a superior Personal Defense Weapon when it came to downing an enemy combatant permanently.
      That may have all changed and I could be incorrect thinking that what always worked is no longer necessary and can be replaced with something that did not work in the past — but now does because it has a new whiz bang bullet.
      Maybe so, but I want to reserve judgement until I see another 20 or 30 years of evidence.
      But, that is me and has nothing to do with you or your training. I know nothing of either. I try to stick to what I do know and not what I might determine based solely on opinion, or what someone tells me or on what I want to be the situation. If that worked, Obama would never have become President, and our military would still be shooting a .30 caliber rifle and a .45 pistol. If people could not handle them, then they did not have a place in the military.
      So, if I offended you, I apologize. You are just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

    4. My point is that your comment about an article on new Glock 9mm handguns that come optics-ready from the factory turned into insulting anyone that likes 9mm and a rant about your obsession with Obama.

      Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but so are the millions of people shooting 9mm and 38 super in competitions.

      Nobody is going to use these guns for defensive carry with big holo sights on top. Not every gun needs to be a man-stopper. You even went all the way back to McNamara, I mean really?? It’s just the same broken record with you guys. ON EVERY ARTICLE.

    5. @MacII

      That was very well said. And as I said above, I do love my Jericho 9mm but I still carry my G21 everyday. The 9mm has made some major advances in the past decades to make it a more effective round, but I simply don’t like it as much as my .45ACP.

      But, there are readers here who swear by the 10mm, the .40, the .380 and on and on. Used to be the 30-06 was the premier long range round, then the .308 and now that’s even a has-been in favor Lapua. There’s always something newer and “better.” I look at it all and if it works or even appeals to me, i use it. otherwise, I ignore it.

Leave a Reply to Mikial Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.