I think GLOCK seriously screwed up with the Gen 5 .40 S&W guns.

[Miami_JBT]

A Gen 5 G23 (Left) compared to a Gen 5 G19 (Right)

Nope.... not interested at all. The thickness will kill it like what happened to the .45 GAP chambered G37, G38, and G39. When GLOCK was promoting the .45 GAP, the biggest thing they were telling agencies at the time that if they had 9mm and .40 S&W GLOCKs was that they don't need to swap out duty holsters since the guns were the same sizes. Well, when they actually released the thing. That didn't happen. All the hard shell plastic holsters like a Safariland SSIII or Raptor for a G17/G22 wouldn't fit a G37 since the slide was thicker. Leather holsters didn't fit. I had to wet and stretch one of my Bianchi leather holsters when a agency I worked for swapped over to the G37.

I've carried a Gen 2 G22, Gen 3 G22, and Gen 4 G22 on duty and shot thousands upon thousands of rounds through them and they all worked fine. Never had an issue with frame or slide damage.

GLOCK going back to the two pin frame and thickening the slide is a huge mistake in my opinion. It will kill the reason why so many agencies went with the ,40 S&W chambered guns in the first place.

I'm not ditching my Gen 4 guns for the Gen 5 guns. Nope.

[rug357]

I’m sure on gen 6 they’ll go back to thin slide and 3 pins

[Deputydave]

When I first heard Glock was introducing a Gen 5 40 S&W platform I was excited. No, I'm absolutely NOT a Glock fanboy, but I use to have a Gen 3 G23 and liked it well enough except for the stupid finger grooves. So I thought, 'Great, a new G23 with no finger grooves...I'm in'. Until I saw what they did by going to the 2-pin and thick slide. After that I promptly decided 'nope'.

Instead I went with an HK USPc. The weight, size, thickness is the same as a Gen 5 G23 but there were important, to me, differences. First and foremost, the USP was designed around the 40 S&W and not just a 9mm converted over to 40 S&W like Glock. Therefore it's a superior pistol that shoots the 40 S&W (and 357sig) a lot softer. Secondly, I prefer a hammer-fired pistol over a striker-fired pistol.

So as far as a 40 S&W platform it's goodbye Glock and hello HK

On a side note, the HK I bought actually came as a 9mm. I purchased a complete 40 S&W slide off Armslist (before they got stupid) and then a Rim Country Mfg 357sig barrel. Wow! Nice shooting pistol.

[N4KVE]

I used to carry a Gen 3 Glock 30. Good gun, but I moved on. If I were to go back to a Glock, it would be another Gen 3. Nothing newer. GARY.

[lakelandman]

If only Glock would change it up they all look the same to me.

[Deputydave]

If only Glock would change it up they all look the same to me.

Glock has always given the consumer what Glock wants them to have rather than what the consumer wants. For example, there are a LOT of folks that would buy a Glock if it had a manual thumb safety. Yet Glock refuses to put a MS on their pistols if they're sold to civilians. To the point some folks think that Glock has never had a MS. In fact, they've had them since the beginning but only put them on contract pistols.

I'm not a Sig fan, but at least they have an eye for what the consumer wants. The MS on the P365 is a good example, they give you the option. I called them a while back and asked if they would ever provide an upgrade kit to put a MS on models that didn't have them. They said they currently had no plans but had received so many calls they were running it up the chain. It wasn't all the much later that they started selling those parts. Nice when a company listens to the buyer. Glock really can't be accused of that too much though.

As far as a Gen 5 Glock 9mm, I like them well enough because they don't have finger grooves. But the extra wide, extra thick 2-pin 40 S&W platform...hard pass.