Austrian firearms giant Glock has abruptly pulled 34 of its most popular pistol models—the largest cut in its product line in four decades—sparking questions about the future of one of America’s best-selling handguns. Discontinued models include the Gen3 and Gen4 versions of the G17, G19, G22, and G34, weapons long favored by police and civilians alike. The move comes just days after California enacted a sweeping new law targeting pistols that can be easily modified into automatic weapons.
Although Glock described the announcement as a “strategic portfolio reduction,” industry observers say timing is everything. California’s new restrictions, growing lawsuits, and federal scrutiny have converged to put unprecedented pressure on the company that once dominated the U.S. market with military precision and minimalist design.
California’s New Law Shakes the Market
On October 10, 2025, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1127, banning sales of any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be adapted with a “Glock switch.” The bill, sponsored by Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, takes effect July 1, 2026, and authorizes lawsuits not only by the state attorney general but also by city attorneys and private citizens.
Gabriel called the measure “commonsense,” saying, “As parents and lawmakers, we refuse to stand idly by while our schools and communities are threatened by illegal machine guns.”
California’s law builds on years of concern about the growing presence of Glock switches—small, quarter-sized metal devices that let semiautomatics fire up to 1,200 rounds per minute. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reports that more than 31,000 of these devices were seized nationwide between 2017 and 2024, with incidents rising sharply.
For Glock dealers in California, the impact is already real. California gun dealers report inventory challenges, with customers still seeking Glocks for their reliability and customization. However, the roster process for new models means dealers could be waiting years.
A Legacy Under Fire
Glock built its reputation on engineering consistency rather than constant redesign. Its cruciform trigger bar—a cross-shaped internal part central to its safety and firing system—has remained virtually unchanged since the 1980s. That reliability earned Glock roughly 65% of the U.S. law enforcement handgun market.
But now, the same feature has put the company squarely in legal crosshairs. Chicago sued Glock in March 2024, alleging the company knowingly allowed its pistols to be easily converted into machine guns. Minnesota followed in December, and Seattle joined in September 2025. Both the Chicago and Minnesota lawsuits have cleared early challenges and are moving toward discovery.
“Glock can fix the problem,” said a spokesperson for Everytown for Gun Safety, emphasizing that engineering modifications could prevent illegal conversions without a total redesign. “The fix wouldn’t be complicated.”
The company, still privately held under the late founder Gaston Glock’s trust, has largely avoided public explanation. Industry analysts describe its latest move as risk management—reducing exposure in states most likely to take legal or legislative action.
Personal Loss and Public Pressure
For families like that of Deborah Grimes, regulation is overdue. Her son, Greg “Najee” Grimes, was shot and killed in Sacramento in 2022 by a gunman using a modified Glock. Grimes has become an advocate for gun violence prevention, speaking publicly about the devastating impact of weapons modified with Glock switches.
The massacre saw “115 bullets in 50 seconds,” underscoring the human toll driving legislative urgency. Sacramento officials emphasized this was not about responsible ownership, but about illegal firepower on city streets.
These tragedies have fueled support for AB 1127 even as gun rights groups call it unconstitutional. John Commerford, California director for the NRA, argued that “the law bans some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.” On October 14, the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation filed a federal suit challenging the measure.
Legal scholars expect the case to test the boundaries of new Supreme Court rulings expanding gun rights. “The decision could clarify whether design regulations are permissible under the Second Amendment,” said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, a firearms law expert.
A Divided Industry at a Crossroads
While Glock retreats, competitors like Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer, and Taurus remain unshaken. None use the cruciform trigger design, leaving them unaffected by California’s restrictions. “In a consolidation phase, compliance is an advantage,” said defense analyst Martin Konrad. “Companies already aligned with new standards stand to gain market share.”
Globally, regulators are watching. The U.K. already bans any civilian-modifiable handgun design, and Canada’s 2022 handgun freeze effectively halted sales there. Analysts say California’s model could set a powerful precedent if lawsuits fail and enforcement proves effective.
Rumors circulate that Glock may unveil “V Models” with switch-resistant engineering by year’s end, though no official plans have been released. Whether the company adapts or exits major markets will likely shape the next chapter of firearm regulation in the United States.
For now, the world’s most famous handgunmaker stands at a turning point—its simple design caught in the expanding complexity of America’s legal and moral debate over gun safety, innovation, and accountability.