According to attorney Tom Grieve, people are getting Glock’s big move wrong.
In his recent video, he says the story blasting across gun forums – that Glock is discontinuing most handguns to appease California – is the simplest explanation, not the best one.
Grieve says the rumor mill focuses on a new “V” (Victor) edition line that tweaks parts tied to illegal Glock-switch conversions. That’s getting read as a political bow to anti-gun states.
But as Grieve tells it, the real driver isn’t a statehouse. It’s business, patents, and competition.
Not a Culture War – A Product War
Grieve argues Glock’s core striker-fired “secret sauce” dates back to the 1980s. Those foundational patents expired roughly two decades ago.
Since then, Glock has filed incremental patents for incremental improvements. But the basic recipe, he says, is now public domain.
That means competitors can copy the concept, often cheaper, sometimes more ergonomic, and with features modern buyers want. In Grieve’s view, the market has already started to do exactly that.
So if you’re a Glock executive, what do you do? “Change the sauce,” Grieve says.
The “V Edition” and the California Roster Question
Grieve doesn’t deny that politics might factor at some level. If more states mimic California-style rules, Glock will want its guns eligible to sell.
But he also raises a practical doubt: even if Glock retools and re-releases, will the California handgun roster actually allow those models into the state? “Time will tell,” he says.
That’s why Grieve frames the “V edition” shift as multi-causal. Compliance may be part of it, but the bigger play is strategic repositioning in a crowded, post-patent market.
How to Tell What Glock Is Really Doing
Grieve offers a simple test for viewers. Watch the product that comes out the other side.
If Glock uses this pause to roll out wholesale changes – new ergonomics, fresh design language, broader upgrades – then innovation was likely the primary motive. That would look like a company seizing the moment to jump cycles ahead.
But if the “new” models look nearly the same – same grip, same slide, same guts – except for a few legally sensitive parts tailored to neutralize switch conversions, that’s different. In that case, Grieve says, the balance tips toward regulatory pressure driving the move.
Either way, he’ll be watching. And he expects the market to judge fast.
Innovation, Patents, and the Bigger Picture
Grieve zooms out to make a point gun folks don’t always love to discuss. Without patent protection, you don’t get R&D, risk-taking, or the millions it takes to build a new platform.
He points to fights around forced-reset triggers as an example of how heated these issues get. But his bottom line is clear: protecting IP is pro-innovation, not anti–Second Amendment.
He also reminds viewers that patents aren’t in a footnote – they’re in the Constitution itself. If you want a better Glock, a better anything, you want companies to guard what they invent long enough to profit and reinvest.
The Real Risk Isn’t “Selling Out” – It’s Standing Still
Here’s why Grieve’s analysis rings true. When a platform’s core patents expire, the clock starts on your brand.
Knockoffs nibble from below. Rivals leap from above. If you sit still, the market moves around you. That’s not politics; that’s physics in consumer tech.
And Glock’s odd position makes the choice harder. The more iconic your look and feel, the more loyal your base – and the more pressure not to change the things your base loves.
Threading that needle takes courage. If Glock uses this moment to rethink ergonomics, refresh controls, and modernize without losing the essence, the brand wins twice.
Grieve’s two-scenario test is useful for buyers and dealers. If we see category leaps – sights, frames, triggers, takedown, modularity – the story is renovation.
If we see compliance tweaks and little else, the story leans toward regulation. That doesn’t make Glock “the enemy,” but it does put pressure back on lawmakers and courts.
Either way, buyers get a vote with their wallets.
If the new line solves real pain points – grip texture, reach, optics cuts, recoil behavior – adoption will be loud and fast.
If it doesn’t, the clones and competitors will keep peeling market share. That’s the game Glock is trying to reset.
Why This Isn’t “Glock vs. the Second Amendment”
Grieve repeatedly says he’s not anti-Glock. He was “all-in” for years, still respects the brand, and wants it strong.
The Second Amendment is healthier, he argues, when the big names innovate and competition stays fierce. Nobody wins with stale designs, high prices, and no push to improve.
Which is why he frames this pause not as capitulation, but as a fork in the road. If Glock treats the V-line moment as a relaunch, they could reclaim the narrative.
If they don’t, the market will keep teaching the same lesson. Patents lapse. The field crowds. The leader must lead again.
What About California, Really?
Grieve’s candid take is refreshing here. He doesn’t pretend Sacramento’s rules don’t matter.
But he keeps the priorities straight. A move this big has to make sense globally – in Europe, in U.S. free states, and everywhere in between.
If California buys some of the new line, fine. If it doesn’t, the business case still needs to work for Glock’s core customers. That’s why he doubts this is mainly a politics play. A company this size moves for reasons that outlast one state’s rulebook.
The Switch Question and Public Relations
Grieve acknowledges the obvious: the Glock switch crisis is real. Bad actors converting pistols to fully automatic has drawn attention from ATF, media, and lawmakers.
If Glock can engineer out the easiest conversion paths without hurting honest buyers, that’s responsible design. It’s also good PR.
But Grieve is careful to separate PR wins from product strategy. A lineup-wide halt and relaunch signals something larger than a single compliance fix.
Watch the Next-Gen Touchpoints
Grieve says we’ll know soon enough. If the next pistols change how the hand meets the frame, how the slide sits under optics, how the trigger breaks and resets, we’re in new era territory.
Expect a serious look at modularity too. The market has embraced chassis-style systems and user-level swaps; Glock has room to modernize there without losing identity.
If Glock lands those upgrades without breaking the brand feel, Grieve suggests the move will look wise in hindsight. If not, the value proposition shifts to the rivals who already did.
Per Tom Grieve, the headline “Glock bows to California” is too small for what’s happening. He thinks the larger story is a strategic reset in a world where Glock’s foundational patents are gone and competitors can clone the classics.
He doesn’t dismiss regulation or politics as irrelevant, especially with conversion parts in the news and rosters to navigate.
But he says the ratio likely favors innovation and IP strategy over virtue signaling.
His test is straightforward: judge the pistols. If we see real, wholesale improvements, the answer was business. If we see mostly switch-proofing, the answer was pressure.
Either way, Grieve wants Glock strong, the market competitive, and the Second Amendment well served by companies that build better tools, then protect the ideas that made them.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
