Prototypes really don't prove much of anything, other than what the idea was at the time. If there are changes between the prototype and the finished product, usually there's a reason for it.
Then there's companies like the pic posted above where companies have figured out how to do a thumb safety and you know there is a secret bunker glock doesn't talk about that has the template on how to do this and what new parts are needed
We don't really know that yet. There could very well be sleeper legislation that hasn't yet been triggered. New Jersey has a law saying that only smart guns can be sold within the state, but it doesn't go into effect until a smart gun becomes available on the market.
And then there's California and its particular way of doing things. If a manufacturer produces one model of pistol, but supplies it in two different finishes, California counts it as two entirely different models that have to be verified for sale. If Glock were to suddenly produce a model with an external thumb safety, there's little doubt they'd suddenly reclassify the non-thumb safety models as unsafe for private sale, and make them illegal for ownership. Same for DC which basically stole their approach to doing things.
And those are some of the 2 worst states in the nation. A lot of companies now don't even bother sending new models to CA for drop testing because the cost and it's stupid. It's like certain generations of S&Ws being on the handgun roster and some aren't.
If there's "sleeper" registration, then there's nothing you can do about it, it's like the Hughes Amendment of 86. Buy what you want/can now, then get extra later.
California sucks for gun owners, absolutely terrible.
[quote}
Didn't Smith & Wesson do that from the ground up though? Or did they produce only one M&P model in the beginning, and then go about changing its controls for the creation of new models? [/quote]
Ground up, which glock could in one of their 4 generations redesign the insides to be modular....but it's glock
You'd have to ask the FBI about that one. But a removal of thumb ridges doesn't require a significant redesign of internal components, which in turn requires significant research and development into how the internals can be modified to incorporate new parts. The receivers are just injection molded polymers, meaning a secondary mold can easily be made, the ridges filed off, and non-ridge model receivers cast.
It's the Army contract, companies submit guns in hopes of getting approval knowing they could be wasting millions of dollars. S&W did this with the M&P 2.0. Hell Detonics managed to submit a pistol. Didn't FN develop the FNX tactical to surpass military testing when the military started thinking about going back to the .45? Nothing is a given in the gun industry. Sometimes you spend millions in R&D and you don't get a contract. If an anftermarket company can develop a new glock sear cage and sell the whole thump safety kit for $90, then glock can do it much cheaper.
That might be the case, but the buyer isn't always right.
I'm having a Joe Dirt flashback of snakes and sparklers
Apart from the new recoil spring designs, have Glock internals really been changed since their inception?........
.....It's the difference in trigger bars. Glock moves rearward, SIG moves forward. It takes more force to pull the 320 trigger because there's more resistance to overcome.
Not really they haven't changed no, really makes all those "generations" just seem like marketing hype.
And seems like Sig figured out the first time around something glock hasn't with the 320. Don't need a tapped trigger, and they figured out how to make a striker gun that doesn't require the trigger to be pulled to take it apart. glock could think outside of the box, and to be honest if they took the effort, they probably could have came up with a 320 design years ago but glock is glock and they are perfectly happy with what they offer and if you aren't, tough sh*t. It's their mentality
obviously their choice but if it was me I think I would have considered adding a thumb safety for a big contract. whats it hurt? Some people want that so give it to them. But they also may not "need" the contract either.