Could Glock make/sell a top performing large Bowie for $59.99?

[Smaug]

Really ? You know a lot. Let them Glock folks know it. They are out of touch, obviously. They should have done it years ago. So silly.

Why do you and others feel the need for snarky replies like this? It was a legitimate question and a legitimate response and you (and others like you) are stuffing the thread with this negative stuff.

 

[Smaug]

No.

Mecha made a good point with his bolded quote above.

SanLuisObispo, do you consider the Glock field knife to be "top performing?" In terms of toughness, it's hard to argue. They are so thick, and made from a ductile steel, they've got to be just about impossible to break or damage to the point that it couldn't be used as a stabbing weapon.

...But in terms of edge retention or corrosion resistance, it's near the bottom of the barrel.

 

[Danke42]

Ok, now I'm warming up to this idea some more.

Do you think they'd release a John Wayne commemorative model?

You know The Duke would have said yes to that.

 

[herisson]

Why do you and others feel the need for snarky replies like this? It was a legitimate question and a legitimate response and you (and others like you) are stuffing the thread with this negative stuff.

I sincerely apologize for being negative. In my own defense, I will argue that I'm getting tired of people with no knowledge at all teaching professionals how to run their business. Like "I want this, why in heck don't you make it ?".

 

[MarkN86]

I didn't ask about that.

Maybe you didn't, but someone else on the page asked why they haven't made one yet. The comment is relevant to the discussion, regardless.

They are a gun company, not a dedicated knife maker. Very few, if any, gun companies ever get into knives outside of putting their logo on an already designed knife. I'm not certain whether or not Glock has heat treating ovens in-house. They might make their own blades, but I wouldn't be surprised if the blades were made by someone else and shipped in, with a handle fitted on arrival.

This place is called a discussion board because we discuss things here. If you are going to try to silence those who don't agree with everything you say, why bother posting here?

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Why do you and others feel the need for snarky replies like this? It was a legitimate question and a legitimate response and you (and others like you) are stuffing the thread with this negative stuff.

Because most of us don't think this is a legitimate question at all, rather it's a self indulgent exercise in which the OP asks a question, functionally ignores all input and questions, then tells us all the conclusion they had reached before posting the initial question. Most of us have seen it dozens of times before and since neither snark nor good faith input will make an ounce of difference in the conclusion that the OP reaches, many will go for snark.

Personally, I think even had the question been asked in good faith it's not particularly legitimate because it's based on a faulty premise, namely that the Glock Field Knife is in any way a top performing piece of cutlery. It's a very adequate tool designed for a fairly specific field of use, but in terms of 'top performing knives' without a budget given I'd be shocked if it could even crack my top 100.

 

[Smaug]

Because most of us don't think this is a legitimate question at all, rather it's a self indulgent exercise in which the OP asks a question, functionally ignores all input and questions, then tells us all the conclusion they had reached before posting the initial question. Most of us have seen it dozens of times before and since neither snark nor good faith input will make an ounce of difference in the conclusion that the OP reaches, many will go for snark.

Personally, I think even had the question been asked in good faith it's not particularly legitimate because it's based on a faulty premise, namely that the Glock Field Knife is in any way a top performing piece of cutlery. It's a very adequate tool designed for a fairly specific field of use, but in terms of 'top performing knives' without a budget given I'd be shocked if it could even crack my top 100.

Well, that's a good response, and civil too. Thanks.
I usually go for good faith, but I didn't used to. I started moderating another forum some months ago, and with too many snarky responses, the whole feeling of the place just suffers after awhile.

 

[OrangeBlueOrangeBlue]

Glock is able to sell those field knives for so cheap in part because of government subsidies. I do not believe there are subsidies available for the type of knife you have described.

I feel like there would be a LOT less demand for a Glock bowie than the Glock field knife.
For one, militaries would not buy it.
For two, bowies are not even a thing every knife collector feels he needs to have.

I don't think it would justify the expense to design, tool up and produce it.

The fact that Glock marketed their Steyr AUG bayonet as a "field knife" and made it widely available for civilian purchase is pretty unique. This angle wouldn't work for a bowie, as they wouldn't have the military foundation to start it off. Probably, civilian sales are just icing on the cake.

What they did instead was to use the same model, and make their nice little shovel available, again after establishing the military foundation. It seems like Glock is hesitant to branch out in edged tools the way they did in guns. In guns, they have a few models that they sell to the world's police and military market. I'm betting that they branched out into civilian models only because they could share so many parts with the police and military models; it made business sense.

What they might be able to do is to make a basic pocket knife to sell to militaries & police at a lower cost and complexity than the typical SAK. (just like they did with pistols 40 years ago)

From what I've found, the Field Knife has been made of "phosphated spring steel" since it was adopted in 1978. If it requires decades of government purchasing and use of questionable materials to hit $30, I don't think there's any chance in hell they can make a "top-performing" larger knife for $60.

Nah. Glock began selling firearms 38 years ago. Averaged over those 38 years, they sell nearly 300K firearms/year, possibly more based on European sales. That's 11.4M handguns. I suspect the average Glock owner/user has owned/used 2 or more Glocks, so about 5.7 people have owned/used Glocks. Of those 5.7M, let's say half have passed away ovr the past 38 years. Of the remaining, at least 10% (a very conservative number) are Glock fanatics who would likely already own the Glock field knives and would jump at the chance to buy an inexpensive/high quality Glock Bowie. That's 285K people.

So yeah, they'd sell "tens of thousands" of them at $59.99 if they were high quality and a superb design. Done deal. Once word got out that such a superb knife was available for such an inexpensive price, people who did not know Glock due to their firearms, would begin buying them.

Is that private sales or all sales? A lot of people who've used a Glock did so for their job (LE or military), and aren't actually interested in purchasing anything from them.

 

[Smaug]

..

Is that private sales or all sales? A lot of people who've used a Glock did so for their job (LE or military), and aren't actually interested in purchasing anything from them.

Tangent, I hope it will be forgiven: I bought into the Glock hype, many years ago. I figured if it's reliable, light and the police and military buy them, I should too. I found that they ARE all those things ^, but it wasn't really what I wanted in the end. For example, Walther's first P99 was a much more refined execution of the same mechanical design: better ergonomics and a much better trigger, with all the other Glock advantages retained.

 

[Insipid Moniker]

Well, that's a good response, and civil too. Thanks.
I usually go for good faith, but I didn't used to. I started moderating another forum some months ago, and with too many snarky responses, the whole feeling of the place just suffers after awhile.

No problem. I try to extend good faith initially, but if someone has made it relatively clear they aren't extending that same courtesy I don't feel particularly bad that others aren't extending the same to them.

 

[jlauffer]

Don't think I saw this explained...why the $60 price point?

 

[Danke42]

Glock pistols are like solid state radios or Briggs & Stratton mowers. You're not getting a Ferrari but you are getting something that requires almost no service and will remain reliable. That's what Glock buyers want.

Just because Glock can and does make such reliable pistols is it a good idea to make a price point Bowie? If that's such a good idea then how about a Glock smartphone or a Glock pickup truck, Glock commemorate spoons, Glock running shoes? They all kinda seem like bad ideas.

 

[Steely_Gunz]

That's axiomatic. It's ALWAYS a good idea for a company to garner goodwill. Keep in mind I never said Glock should do this, nor did I ask if they should do this. I asked if they COULD do this?
I'm not really sure why some are trying to twist my question into knots?

Why not just send us all Christmas cards then? There is no reason to an economic bath making something that most likely won't sell for goodwill. They already have their goodwill. They make very durable, affordable firearms with a low cost of ownership in regards to what few parts do break and offer a pretty spiffy warranty where if you do manage to wear one out, they usually rebuild it for you at no cost. They don't need to cater to a niche crowd to keep on brand and keep people interested in their designs. Honestly, when it comes to stepping outside of their comfort zone, Glock wouldn't crack my top 5 gun manufactures that would do anything remotely risky/not profitable. That's their lane. They are an ice cream shop that sells really delicious vanilla ice cream, and that's it. You may also add black or very dark gray sprinkles if you like, though.

No one is twisting your question into knots. If it is a yes/no..YES. They totally could. It may be a profit loss but if Gaston and the gang decided to retool and crank out bowie knives, I have no doubt that they could do it and sell it for $59.99. All some of us are asking is why do it? What's in it for Glock? Why retool for and make something brand new if you have the resources to simply make more of what makes you more money and is in higher demand? I would like to see the What-If analysis on this out of pure curiosity, but everyone here is just stabbing in the dark since none of us have access to any numbers retained by Glock.

I simply question how a Field Knife and a Bowie are similar any more than a house cat is similar to a jaguar. The field knife is an indestructible pig sticker. I've never seen one broken. However, I just don't see the process of how they made translate into a good bowie knife. Ontario already makes a pretty good knife that checks off those boxes and is also in the business of filling government contracts for blades/tools and not guns. I would not pay $60 for a super thick poor performer of a bowie knife just because Glock made it when I can get one that performs cutting and chopping duties better at the same price. I just don't see the steel used in the Field Knife being good for MY knife chores. I think a lot of folks would take their own personal needs into account.

 

[madcap_magician]

Ok, now I'm warming up to this idea some more.

Do you think they'd release a John Wayne commemorative model?

Uh, no. There will be an R. Lee Ermey signature edition, though, that has to count for something.

This guy is about Glock like that Smiling/Smiling Larry guy is about Cold Steel.

 

[DocJD]

Could Glock make/sell a top-performing large Bowie that would sell at retail for $59.99/unit (or less), while realizing a profit margin similar to their classic Feldmesser 78 and 81 field knives, which often sell for $29.99/unit?

More specifically could Glock produce/sell a Bowie (with sheath) roughly the size of a Randall 9" Sportsman's Bowie (made in Austria), using the same materials/heat treat/level of finish Glock already uses on their field knives at a cost that would allow it to be sold at retail for $59.99 (or less) with profit margins similar to what they realize now in the sales of their field knives?

Like their field knives, there would be next to no promotional expenses, and the knives would get to ride on the sales channel already wrought for the sales and distribution of their handguns.

Don't know about Glock , but Cold Steel sells the Drop Forged Survivalist for about $60 .

 

[craytab]

Why do you and others feel the need for snarky replies like this? It was a legitimate question and a legitimate response and you (and others like you) are stuffing the thread with this negative stuff.

It is not a serious question without clarification on several key points that it seems the OP is ignoring in order to obfuscate his desire to pontificate his own opinion to the rest of us. It is not a discussion but rather a set up straw man question where only the OP himself has the correct answer, which he will graciously share with us after he tires of shooting down our opinions.

 

[MarkN86]

Glock pistols are like solid state radios or Briggs & Stratton mowers. You're not getting a Ferrari but you are getting something that requires almost no service and will remain reliable. That's what Glock buyers want.

I know that's exactly what I wanted, that and a wide availability of replacement parts, along with a large number of people who already know how to work on them if something goes wrong. I know there are indeed better products out there, but Glocks are a reliable workhorse with enough accuracy that you'll never notice it if you have to use it. If I want a nice gun I'll go with something like a 1911 that I can build out and improve over time.

I think the knives are okay for the price. They're not great performers, but I've seen where they hold up to some serious abuse. A good soldier-proof option as long as you can keep a coating on it.

 

[Danke42]

I know that's exactly what I wanted, that and a wide availability of replacement parts, along with a large number of people who already know how to work on them if something goes wrong. I know there are indeed better products out there, but Glocks are a reliable workhorse with enough accuracy that you'll never notice it if you have to use it. If I want a nice gun I'll go with something like a 1911 that I can build out and improve over time.

I think the knives are okay for the price. They're not great performers, but I've seen where they hold up to some serious abuse. A good soldier-proof option as long as you can keep a coating on it.

Soldiers are pretty well always going to have some oil or lube with them if the coating is scraped off doing squaddie stuff.

 

[SanLuisObispo]

Don't think I saw this explained...why the $60 price point?

1. Because it would be cheap for a high-quality large Bowie. That niche really isn't filled in the market.
   
2. It's simply 2X what their smaller field/survival knives currently sell for.

 

[Hackenslash]

Could Glock make/sell a top-performing large Bowie that would sell at retail for $59.99/unit (or less)

After an extensive review of the Glock manufacturing capacity, design facilities and audited financials, I can definitively say, as currently configured Glock, could NOT make/sell a top-performing large Bowie that would sell at retail for $59.99 or less.

The only way Glock could pull it off would be to be acquired by a larger shell corporation that could outsource labor and bulk purchase shoddy materials to produce cheap knives using ultra low-cost manufacturing. QSM Outdoors has venture capital and could be a viable partner.