laststandonzombieisland

Word swept across the gun universe on Monday that Glock may be changing everything known and loved about its catalog. Here’s what we found out.

What we know: One of the largest Glock retailers, Lenny Magill’s Glockstore, announced on social media that, “We have received news that as of November 30th all Glocks are discontinued except 43, 43X, 48X. All Glocks will be replaced with new Glock ‘V Models.’ These will have changes that prevent switch conversions. At launch, all will be non-MOS. No pricing changes.”

Why should we take that seriously? We’ve known Magill for over a decade, and he is a solid fixture in the gun industry. A sort of impossibly tanned and sagacious Glock All-father. He has probably sold more Glocks than anyone, and his views on the brand are consistently accurate.

Verification: When looking for validation on rumors in the firearms industry, especially when it comes to the notoriously tight-lipped Glock, it’s akin to “checking the hot sheets” in “Men in Black.” A bit of success came from Glock Talk, one of the largest public Glock communities in the country. A thread there includes a screenshot purportedly from gun wholesaler Lipsey’s, detailing that “On November 30, Glock will stop shipments on all Gen 3, Gen 5, Gen 5 MOS,” with the slimline G43X, G43X MOS, G48, and G48 MOS remaining active. This jibes with McGill’s harbinger of looming Glock upheaval.

The screenshot further details, “In December 2025, Glock will begin shipping V Series. Pricing will be consistent with current Gen 5 structure,” with models to include 17 (V), 19 (V), 23 (V), 23 (V) MOS, 45 (V), 19X (V), 20 (V) MOS, 21 (V) MOS, 26 (V), and 44 (V). “Changes to V series include internal slide and trigger improvements. Current Glock Performance triggers will not function in V-series guns.”

Thus:

What Glock is saying: We reached out to our contacts at Glock early Monday to clarify the reports of discontinuations and the new V models, as well as to ask for a statement. By Tuesday morning, we still hadn’t received any response.

Background: The sale of Glocks to consumers in California, which has some 13 million gun owners, is banned after July 2026, under a new law adopted by the Democrat-controlled state government. While the currently dormant law is already under legal challenge, like-minded states are sure to pursue similar laws. Glock is also fighting lawsuits from progressive-led cities like Seattle and Chicago, as well as a multi-state lawsuit led by New Jersey and Minnesota, focused on the possibility that the company’s guns can be illegally converted to fire full auto. Possession of such switches or devices, unless registered, is illegal under federal law and has been for decades.

Has Glock tried to address this already? Glock added an element to the rear of the Gen 5 series slide and frame, which makes inserting an illegal switch or chip harder, akin to how some AR-15 makers utilize “high shelf” lowers. However, California hasn’t approved any Gen 5 Glocks for consumer sale in the state, and the new law bars an anti-switch block molded into the rear of the frame or slide by the manufacturer, seemingly ruling out any possible Gen 6 gun with a more robust block.

As some of the citations over the new V series guns specifically mention that “Glock Performance triggers will not function in V series guns,” it’s likely the company is pivoting away from using a so-called “cruciform trigger bar,” which is specifically mentioned in the text of the new law. No cruciform trigger bar = not subject to the new law. As Glock has no shortage of new patents secured in the past several years on novel trigger and frame lock-up systems, this move may have been a long time coming.

Our take: Looks like current “classic” Glock models may become a little scarce after November, or at least command a higher cost (remember, there are millions in circulation), with New Glock models shipping in December. Purists will scoff, but sales of the new guns will probably be brisk, as every new Glock generation has seen in the past.

Will it stop anti-gun politicians backed by gun control organizations with deep pockets from backing a new bill to ban another firearm over arbitrary features? Most assuredly not.