Et tu, Glock?

Zion Patriot,

News broke this week that Glock, Inc. sent a letter to Oklahoma Representative David Hardin, chair of the House Public Safety Committee, expressing support for state legislation banning machine gun conversion devices (MCDs)—the so-called “Glock switches” that criminals use to illegally convert pistols into full-auto firearms.

At first glance, the move might seem like a simple corporate statement against a product Glock neither makes nor condones. But the way the letter was written has set off alarm bells across the firearms community.

Where Glock Went Wrong

If Glock had simply said: “We don’t make these devices, we don’t condone them, and we actively work with law enforcement to shut them down”—they’d be on safe ground. That would have kept the focus on brand protection, fraud prevention, and cooperation with existing law.

Instead, Glock went further. The letter explicitly urges Rep. Hardin to join other states in passing new laws mirroring federal prohibitions. That single shift in tone—from disavowing criminals to advocating legislation—turned what could have been a routine corporate distancing move into what many see as Glock endorsing gun control.

And here’s the kicker: the devices aren’t coming from Glock in the first place.

  • Many are 3D printed in home workshops.
  • Most of the mass-produced versions are illegally imported from China.
  • None are manufactured, endorsed, or sold by Glock.

So instead of holding the line as a victim of brand misuse, Glock chose to step directly into the political fight—alienating many of its own customers in the process.

And in the gun world, “shall not be infringed” doesn’t come with an asterisk.

A Familiar Warning: Smith & Wesson, 2000

The backlash is familiar. In 2000, Smith & Wesson cut a deal with the Clinton administration, agreeing to design changes, dealer restrictions, and trigger lock mandates. Gun owners saw it as a betrayal.

The fallout was immediate:

  • Sales dropped by over 40% in months.
  • The brand was sold at a massive loss the following year.
  • Boycotts and distrust lingered for decades.

Even today, 25 years later, some gun owners still refuse to buy S&W firearms.

Sig Sauer’s P320 Controversy: Mishandling Matters

Fast-forward to today and Sig Sauer is facing its own firestorm over the P320 discharge controversy. What hurt Sig most wasn’t just the technical issues, but the way they handled it—downplaying concerns, avoiding a full recall, and leaving customers feeling dismissed.

The result? Ongoing lawsuits, damaged credibility, and a loss of goodwill that competitors are quick to exploit.

The lesson is clear: in this industry, how you handle the problem matters as much as the problem itself.

Other Case Studies in Brand Backlash

This kind of fallout isn’t unique to the firearms industry. Other companies have learned the hard way what happens when you alienate your base.

Bud Light (2023): In a bid to broaden its market, Bud Light partnered with a social media influencer whose brand didn’t resonate with its traditional customer base. The backlash was immediate and devastating. Sales plummeted, distributors revolted, and Bud Light went from America’s top-selling beer to a cautionary tale almost overnight.

Cracker Barrel (Last Week): Known for its old country store vibe, Cracker Barrel decided to modernize—updating its logo and remodeling some restaurants. What seemed like harmless branding changes enraged loyal customers who felt the company was abandoning its roots. The backlash intensified when corporate initially doubled down, defending the changes and alienating their base even further. Only after sustained pressure did Cracker Barrel concede and return to the original logo. By then, the damage to customer trust had already been done.

The parallel with Glock is obvious. The gun itself hasn’t changed, but Glock’s public stance shifted in a way that made its most loyal customers feel betrayed. Like Bud Light and Cracker Barrel, Glock touched the third rail of brand identity—they signaled to their base that they weren’t really “one of them” anymore.

What Glock Should Have Done

The smarter move for Glock was obvious:

  • State the facts: “We don’t make or endorse these devices. They’re illegal under federal law.”
  • Protect the brand: “We actively help law enforcement and fight counterfeits.”
  • Avoid the politics: Stop short of calling for new legislation.

In other words: don’t shoot the messenger. Glock could have drawn a line between their name and criminal misuse without stepping into advocacy that many see as an infringement on the Second Amendment itself.

Why This Will Sting

Glock is not Smith & Wesson in 2000. Their dominance in law enforcement contracts gives them a financial cushion. But even here, the ground is shifting. Sig Sauer has already taken marquee contracts—including the U.S. Army’s M17/M18 sidearm—and S&W has clawed back a small slice of the LE market with its M&P line. Glock isn’t untouchable anymore.

And now, they’ve risked alienating the one group they can’t afford to lose: their fiercely loyal civilian base.

Déjà Vu?

The firearms community has a long memory. Smith & Wesson learned that when they lost customers for decades. Sig Sauer is learning it now with the P320. And Glock may have just set itself up for the same kind of backlash—not because of what they believe, but because of how they said it.

And the worst part is, MCDs are already illegal at the federal level. Adding state restrictions is like putting someone on “double secret probation”—it doesn’t add real consequences. It simply lets the state pile on charges alongside the feds when a case is brought against an individual… for exercising a right that’s already constitutionally protected.

When a gun company crosses the line from defending its brand to endorsing restrictions, it stops being seen as a messenger and starts being seen as a collaborator. For Glock, that could prove to be a costly mistake.

Gun Control Politics