Are Glock Rails Connected Inside the Frame?

Discussion in 'Glock Forum' started by rbbeers, Sep 22, 2020.

  1. rbbeers

    rbbeers Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporting Member

    3,654
    4,542
    Silver-Bolt, LElliott, Toni77 and 2 others like this.
  2. GlockGhost

    GlockGhost Active Member

    736
    127
    Interesting, Thanks Bob
     
    LElliott and rbbeers like this.

  3. rbbeers

    rbbeers Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporting Member

    3,654
    4,542
    You're very welcome. :)

    By the way, anyone who doubts that the front and rear rails are indeed single steel stampings (as presented in the video) need only perform a simple test with an ohmmeter ('continuity' tester) from one side of the front or rear rails to the other side (as shown below)... it's a 'short circuit' (0.5 ohms). That is, they're electrically continuous from side to side (like a piece of wire)... which means they're physically one unit (as shown in the video). ;) :D

    Frame rail resistance test 1a.jpg

    Best regards,

    Bob
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
    Southlake and LElliott like this.
  4. Danzig

    Danzig I do hood rat sh%t! Supporter

    32,322
    19,764
    Texas
    With all the damaged beyond repair Glocks out there, no one has pics of the naked metal rail inserts?!?
     
    lschne and LElliott like this.
  5. rbbeers

    rbbeers Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporting Member

    3,654
    4,542
    I've found one picture... but I'm not sure they're Glock rails. :(

    upload_2020-9-22_16-43-32.png

    If they are, they're a few to several iterations old (and from the 'black part' days of yesteryear). :rolleyes:

    Best regards,

    Bob
     
    Danzig and LElliott like this.
  6. HJB

    HJB Well-Known Member

    838
    1,048
    I would have guess that ole Lenny could have picked up some detailed piece part drawings to answer that question. But then, what would he have to make a video about ?
     
    Danzig and LElliott like this.
  7. rbbeers

    rbbeers Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporting Member

    3,654
    4,542
    Even if he had such a document, I'm quite certain that Glock's drawings are proprietary and making details of them public would expose Lenny to a rather nasty lawsuit.

    My guess is his pockets aren't nearly as deep as Glock's. :rolleyes:

    Best regards,

    Bob
     
    Danzig, Southlake and LElliott like this.
  8. Southlake

    Southlake Salt Life Staff Member Moderator Lifetime Supporting Member

    58,077
    24,228
    Good guess:
    upload_2020-9-22_19-58-2.jpeg
     
    Danzig, Olga17 and rbbeers like this.
  9. Lucian_253

    Lucian_253 Well-Known Member Supporter

    Your way is much less destructive, lol!! I feel bad for the guy who sent his frame to the Glock Store & they messed it up bad enough that they just cut it in half for the experiment.
     
    Major54, rbbeers and Danzig like this.
  10. Danzig

    Danzig I do hood rat sh%t! Supporter

    32,322
    19,764
    Texas
    Talking about Glock lawsuits...
    On Tuesday, September 15, 2020, a Federal Judge for The United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, issued a decision in the case of GLOCK, INC. v. THE WUSTER INC., d/b/a AirSplat.com, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00568. The Defendant operated AirSplat retail locations and an Internet retail store at AirSplat.com that sold airsoft guns and related products. The Court’s decision yesterday ended a six and a half year lawsuit between the parties in favor of GLOCK.


    In February of 2014, GLOCK filed a multi-count complaint against the Defendant for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, and related claims under federal and state law.

    The Defendant imported Glock Replicas, marketed, advertised for sale, and did sell the Glock Replicas using GLOCK’s trade dress and trademarks. The Court found that the Defendant “intended to, and did, create actual market confusion in the minds of the consumers as to whether they were genuine or licensed GLOCK products, in violation of Glock’s registered trade dress and legally protected rights.”

    The Court found the Defendant liable to GLOCK for the following:
    • Infringement of GLOCK’s registered trademarks and trade dress in violation of the Federal Lanham Act;
    • Unfair competition in violation of Georgia statutory and common law; and
    • Unjust enrichment in violation of George common law.

    The Court awarded monetary damages to GLOCK totaling $ 2,253,078.28, consisting of:
    • Disgorgement of the Defendant’s profits realized from selling infringing Glock Replicas;
    • Pre-Judgement interest; and
    • Attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.

    The Court also awarded a Permanent Injunction to GLOCK prohibiting Defendant and various other persons from selling GLOCK replica pistols in the future or otherwise infringing GLOCK’s trademarks or trade dress.

    “This is a resounding victory for GLOCK against a seller of replica airsoft products,” said Carlos Guevara, Vice President and General Counsel of GLOCK, Inc. “This ruling puts potential infringers like Airsplat on notice that GLOCK will vigorously prosecute its intellectual property rights against those who would infringe.”

    6 1/2 YEARS!
     
    58sniper, miniman and Lucian_253 like this.