Glock Pulls Old Models, Rolls Out “V” Series – Could This Spur Patent and Liability Claims?

When attorney William Kirk, host of Washington Gun Law, says he’s “staying in his lane,” he means it. In a recent breakdown, he didn’t review triggers, frames, or sight cuts. 

He focused entirely on the legal ripple effects of Glock’s decision to discontinue most of its catalog and replace it with a new “V” series – models touted as immune to the illegal auto-sear commonly called a “Glock switch.”

That choice, Kirk argues, has consequences far beyond the gun counter. It touches California’s newest conversion-focused statute, the viability of several public-nuisance lawsuits pending against Glock, and the way other states may copy-paste California’s language into their own codes. 

I’ll add this up front: it’s rare to see a major manufacturer make a sweeping model shift with the law so plainly in the foreground. That alone makes this moment worth watching.

The Rumor Becomes Real: Glock’s “V” Series Replaces Legacy Lines

Kirk points to industry reporting that Glock confirmed the rumors: most legacy models will stop shipping, with “V” variants taking their place. The outliers, for now, are the Glock 43, 43X, and 48, which continue as is. The rest migrate to the new family, with shipments slated to begin in early November.

He’s careful not to speculate about engineering. Instead, he underscores what Glock appears to be signaling: these pistols are designed so a back-plate add-on – the classic pathway for an illegal switch – won’t work. 

Whether you call that a design fix, a compliance step, or simply model evolution, it’s a clear legal posture.

From where I sit, that posture is savvy. In an era when “readily convertible” has become the legislative phrase du jour, product teams that can anticipate conversion theories before they’re codified have a competitive – and legal – edge.

California’s AB 1127: Why Design Matters More Than Marketing

Kirk spends much of his analysis on California’s Assembly Bill 1127, a law aimed squarely at “machine gun convertible pistols.” The statute is unusually specific. It describes, in effect, a striker-fired pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be turned into a machine gun “by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter as a replacement for the slide’s back plate,” without further machining or modification.

Then the law does something else: it maps a way out. It excludes striker-fired pistols that don’t have that exposed, convertible trigger-bar geometry and instead use a bar “shielded from interference by a pistol converter.” It even warns that a simple polymer notch in the rear of the frame won’t count as sufficient shielding.

Kirk’s take is straightforward: California handed manufacturers a blueprint for compliance. If Glock’s “V” series implements shielding that frustrates back-plate-based conversion, the models should fall outside AB 1127’s definition. 

That means, practically speaking, California’s conversion-ban won’t block sales of the new guns – unless the state moves the goalposts again or stacks a different restriction on top.

My read agrees with Kirk’s: design beats rhetoric. When a statute defines the problem with that much granularity, an engineered solution is possible. 

And once a top-five brand releases a line designed around that solution, legislators lose some leverage; the market can keep moving with models that satisfy the text of the law.

What Happens To The Old Glocks?

As Kirk notes, there are already “millions and millions” of legacy Glock pistols in circulation. Discontinuation doesn’t vaporize them. They’ll be bought, sold, inherited, and used for decades, subject to whatever state and local rules govern possession and transfer.

Could California or another state try to criminalize possession of pre-“V” models that fit the conversion definition? Politically, anything’s possible. Legally, that would raise ex post facto and takings optics, spark immediate litigation, and punish owners who’ve never broken the law. 

It’s also far from clear that such a move would reduce criminal use of illegal switches, which are already federally banned. I share Kirk’s implicit view: the likely play is to regulate new sales and leave prior lawful possession intact.

For dealers and distributors, the near-term lesson is risk triage. Inventory management, SKU swaps, and paperwork updates become more important as states draft “convertible” language with cut-and-paste precision. If your compliance plan still treats all striker-fired pistols as functionally identical, it’s time for a revision.

The Lawsuits: Public Nuisance Theories Meet Evidence Rule 407

Kirk flags at least three public-nuisance-style suits against Glock – filed in New Jersey, Chicago, and Seattle – alleging the company knew its pistols could be illegally converted and did too little to stop it. Plaintiffs in those cases might look at the “V” series and say, “Aha! A remedial fix proves earlier negligence.”

Enter Federal Rule of Evidence 407, the “subsequent remedial measures” rule. In plain English, as Kirk explains, you generally can’t use evidence of later design changes to prove the original product was defective or that the company acted negligently. 

The policy makes sense: we want manufacturers to improve safety without fear that every improvement will be weaponized against them at trial.

That doesn’t end the lawsuits, as he’s careful to say. Plaintiffs can still try to prove knowledge and negligence using other evidence – internal emails, expert analysis, marketing claims, distribution practices, whatever the record contains. But the mere fact of a redesign won’t be the smoking gun they might hope for.

From my perspective, this is a pivotal point that too many headlines miss. If courts treated post-incident fixes as admissions of guilt, companies would have a strong incentive not to fix anything until litigation ends. Rule 407 flips that incentive in the public interest.

Could More States Copy California?

Almost certainly. Kirk points out that “crazy laws start in California and then spread like a vicious cancer,” a blunt way of noting a real pattern in firearm legislation. 

Once a big state drafts a conversion definition that survives initial scrutiny, others borrow it. That’s not just politics; it’s legislative efficiency.

If the “V” series truly meets California’s criteria, Glock has likely future-proofed its main line for a round of copycat bills. It’s also not hard to imagine other manufacturers following suit to avoid being boxed out of the nation’s largest firearm markets.

There’s a broader implication here. When lawmakers get specific about mechanisms – cruciform bars, back plates, and shielding – engineers can do their jobs. When lawmakers stay vague – “unsafe features,” “ghost components,” “assault characteristics” – they invite litigation and compliance chaos. 

As someone who wants safer products and clearer rules, I’ll take specificity every time.

Practical Takeaways For Owners, Dealers, And Lawyers

For owners, Kirk’s message is reassuring: you’ll still be able to buy Glock pistols in regulated states so long as the new models slot cleanly into the statutory carve-outs. 

Your current guns remain lawful where they were already lawful; nothing about a model change retroactively criminalizes you.

For dealers, the homework is real. Expect new model numbers, roster updates, and possibly fresh affidavits or spec sheets to satisfy state databases. If you operate in California, get comfortable with AB 1127’s definitions; “shielded from interference” will become as familiar as “microstamping” once was.

For litigators, Rule 407 keeps the chessboard intact. The “V” series is newsworthy, but it’s not an evidentiary shortcut. Plaintiffs still have to prove knowledge, defect, causation, and damages without leaning on the redesign as substantive proof. 

Defense counsel still has to explain distribution controls, warnings, and compliance systems without hiding behind a new part number.

And for Glock, the move is more than a legal hedge. It’s a branding decision that tells regulators: “We heard you. We engineered around your definition.” Agree or disagree with the politics, that’s a pragmatic way to keep product flowing while blunting a wave of conversion-focused statutes.

My Bottom Line

William Kirk’s analysis strips the hype and goes right to the legal joints and tendons. The “V” series looks like a deliberate response to a very specific statute. That should preserve sales in California and any state that copies AB 1127’s wording. 

It also shouldn’t, by itself, weaken Glock’s position in ongoing public-nuisance suits because evidence law walls off subsequent remedial measures.

Will this stop criminals from seeking illegal switches? 

Of course not – criminal demand is a separate problem that already sits under a stack of federal and state bans. But as product stewardship in a hostile legal climate, Glock’s move makes sense. It’s compliance by design, not by press release.

And that, as Kirk would say, is staying in your lane.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

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.