US military was real slow to adopt the fantastic GLOCK!

[titsonritz]

Hey buddy.... you know what I'm after ATM!!

View attachment 713692

You should have one for each hand.

 

[11Charlie]

Glocks are the most hated on handgun out there. For every post I make saying something nice about them, there are 100 that bash them. Whatever.

They are also the most reliable handgun made and save lives every day. Don't like them? Fine. No problem. But to say they are sub-par is just ignorance.

To be fair I didn't say that but I have to be honest and tell ya they are fuggly!!!

Just giving ya crap. We all know Tikka is everything

 

[Kruel J]

To be fair I didn't say that but I have to be honest and tell ya they are fuggly!!!

Just giving ya crap. We all know Tikka is everything

To be honest I like the way they look. Simple, utilitarian with no fancy stuff to get dirt in.Are they the best looking? Nah. But they aren't that bad. Besides, I don't see anything but a front sight post when I'm using it.

 

[trevi]

I don't recall the ins and outs, but I seem to recall Glock either protested or sued or both over the pre-destined Sig pick.

Regardless, a person is probably a moron (not uncommon in senior military ranks - people tend to lose their brains and thinking ability) to pick a brand new entry to serve as a military weapon after some "trials" over a gun design that has PROVEN itself over 4-5 decades in global military, police, and civilian use and has become the singular most popular modern handgun in America. No test is even required, good to go off the shelf. As one general officer stated, instead of wasting money on trials, I could have used that money and put a Glock in every holster by now for the same price, or words to that effect. I guess nothing was learned from the M16 boondoggle. Fielding an unproven weapon prematurely when better options were available.

And the result was predictable. The Sig P320 had a lot of teething problems. There's ample articles of reliability issues, quality control issues, and of course it FAILING drop testing after winning the contract... I mean, seriously military brass, are you that inept???

The Sig P320 offers no distinct advantage and nobody is ever going to utilize the modularity in material ways in the military. It's a neat little feature that has no practical benefit at the armorers or unit level. And certainly not at the cost of picking an unproven design over one with 5 decades of proven use in military, police, competition, and civilian ownership and use.

I am confused as to which gun is 5 decades old. Glock was created in 1982.

 

[Jonnyuma]

I was in the Army during that period when all the new whiz-bang "new stuff" was being worked into supply chain... K-pot helmets, PASGT Kevlar body armor, M16A2's, "speed lace" boots, the Hum-V, AT-4 rocket launcher, M9 pistol, etc.

In fact, my first real world deployment... was literally using mostly Vietnam era kit and weapons.

Sounds like you and I were in the service at around the same time. I remember my first M16 A2. I walked a post with a 1911 and an 870 (no rifles allowed... super secret stuff within those corrugated tin walls, ya know). Spent some time in third-world sh*tholes doing stuff that we're STILL not supposed to talk about... I think I can say that my español got significantly better, Grarcias El Presidente, Señor Regan.

I hated the "new" Beretta 9mm. I was a curmudgeon even at 20 yrs old. Good damn thing they didn't try to push a Glock on me... it took me another 35 yrs to accept a plasti-gun, much less a striker-fired plasti-gun into my home. And a NINE MILLIMETER!??

I got over it... but it was hard.

 

[Ben B.]

I don't much care what pistol the Army issues, and pistols certainly don't win battles or wars. But I was disappointed that the Smith & Wesson M&P didn't make the cut over a Euro gun. I bought one of the 5" Army trial model 9mm M&Ps with thumb safety, and like it as much as I can like any plastic pea shooter. It certainly feels and shoots like a worthy, American successor to the 1911.

 

[DirectDrive]

I don't recall the ins and outs, but I seem to recall Glock either protested or sued or both over the pre-destined Sig pick.

Regardless, a person is probably a moron (not uncommon in senior military ranks - people tend to lose their brains and thinking ability) to pick a brand new entry to serve as a military weapon after some "trials" over a gun design that has PROVEN itself over 4-5 decades in global military, police, and civilian use and has become the singular most popular modern handgun in America. No test is even required, good to go off the shelf. As one general officer stated, instead of wasting money on trials, I could have used that money and put a Glock in every holster by now for the same price, or words to that effect. I guess nothing was learned from the M16 boondoggle. Fielding an unproven weapon prematurely when better options were available.

And the result was predictable. The Sig P320 had a lot of teething problems. There's ample articles of reliability issues, quality control issues, and of course it FAILING drop testing after winning the contract... I mean, seriously military brass, are you that inept???

The Sig P320 offers no distinct advantage and nobody is ever going to utilize the modularity in material ways in the military. It's a neat little feature that has no practical benefit at the armorers or unit level. And certainly not at the cost of picking an unproven design over one with 5 decades of proven use in military, police, competition, and civilian ownership and use.

 

[strick]

The M17 did not have any drop test issues that I recall, however the P320 did have an issue with not being drop safe.

 

[Raidingtime]

It was all the craze in the 1980's when it came out: the Glock 17.

What did our military stupidly do to replace the venerable old Colt 45's? They brought in this crappy Beretta 92/M9 thing. My brother who was in the army said he once tried to clean one for a woman officer in the field because the barrel developed rust in short order with just a little rain. He wasn't even trained in field-stripping the pistol so he had improvise by removing as much surface rust as he could. He said it was crap. The M9 barrel exterior is exposed on top, not even covered by the slide completely as is the Glock, Colt 45 and many other handguns.

If the US military were any smarter, they would have contracted with Glock right off the bat. Special or elite units have adopted the Glock as their sidearm over the years but this wonder still has yet to be accepted as America's standard-issue sidearm. Glock is a favorite among 75% of US cop shops.

How the U.S. Military Slowly Fell in Love with Glock

Why was adoption of the Glock initially slow? How did it overcome those barriers? Why has it replaced 1911s, Sigs and Berettas as the sidearm of elite units?

nationalinterest.org

.

Well the military likes to use things that have a track record of working, Glock at the time didn't have that. I am on the team of F the Barretas as the ones I used in the navy were crap. I like their choice with the sig.

 

[strick]

Just stop with the whole cops trust glock and we know because of xx% use them. It gets old and nobody really cares anymore and if you do then you better go buy a P320 then, just please do not drop that one though.

 

[leadcounsel]

Best modern guns I'd choose to defend my life with, are all essentially tied and would just depend on other factors like weight, hammer vs. striker, manner of carry or if it's going to sit in a drawer, etc. are Glock variants, Sig P220/226/229, CZ75 variants, CZP07/09, HKUSP variants, Walther P99, and the SW M&P.

The rest are all honorable mentions and have design or track record problems. Even the Beretta M9 is a 2nd tier weapon for several reasons.

I am confused as to which gun is 5 decades old. Glock was created in 1982.

Wow, bazinga. You got me. Glock is no longer a credible gun because I was off by a decade when I accidentally wrote 5 decades, not 4, and I guess it's technically 38 years, not quite 4 decades.

Yep, they're garbage. Ignore the fact that they are probably the most prolifically copied (many patent infringement lawsuits filed by Glock against competitors for IP theft) and widely adopted modern handgun by the most people in the profession of arms and civilian competitors, and civilian concealed carriers over any other singular gun design in modern history...

And if not for the stupid politics games, the US military would have broadly adopted them as well long ago.

In a very crowded arena of top tier designs, as I've listed, in my humble opinion the standard Glock pistols are the best of the pack for a utilitarian carry gun for professional or personal use. Period. And I really really like the guns I've listed...

 

[leadcounsel]

Well the military likes to use things that have a track record of working, Glock at the time didn't have that. I am on the team of F the Barretas as the ones I used in the navy were crap. I like their choice with the sig.

Actually that's not accurate at all. In fact, the military often adopts products and gear that fail in the field and have to be recalled, replaced, or fixed. I'm a paratrooper. About 10 years ago the Army replaced the venerable and reliable T-10 parachute with the T-11 for several valid reasons. But the T-11 wasn't ready for game-time and several Soldiers died. The T-11 had some design flaws that were remedied. (All my jumps were with the T-10. I was off jump status at the time of the change-over and never personally jumped the T-11, but a close sniper friend in 1st Group gave me the updates.)

When you're actually serving, you pretty much accept your fate that YOU are the guinea pig field testing equipment. That's partly why "off the shelf" excellent gear should be chosen in favor of these abbreviated proving ground tests for such simple equipment as a handgun. As they say, "perfection is the enemy of good enough."

 

[j_ravenswood]

I don't much care what pistol the Army issues, and pistols certainly don't win battles or wars. But I was disappointed that the Smith & Wesson M&P didn't make the cut over a Euro gun. I bought one of the 5" Army trial model 9mm M&Ps with thumb safety, and like it as much as I can like any plastic pea shooter. It certainly feels and shoots like a worthy, American successor to the 1911.
[/QUOT Why the thumb safety that gets in the way? Shiedls have the option of no thimb satety. That's the beauty of d/a revolvers: no manual safeties

I don't much care what pistol the Army issues, and pistols certainly don't win battles or wars. But I was disappointed that the Smith & Wesson M&P didn't make the cut over a Euro gun. I bought one of the 5" Army trial model 9mm M&Ps with thumb safety, and like it as much as I can like any plastic pea shooter. It certainly feels and shoots like a worthy, American successor to the 1911.

Why the thumb safety that gets in the way? Shields have the option of no thumb safety.
That's the beauty of d/a revolvers: no manual safeties when you hafta shoot a bogey in a BIG hurry!
Both Glock and Smith & Wesson Shield are autoloading pistols with the mentality leaning toward simplicity of a double-action revolver; K.I.S.S.
I'm now under the impression Shield EZ beats Glock hands down.

The Smith has the consistent crisp one-piece trigger with short crisp reset and none of the girly shirt nonsense to boot.

 

[Kruel J]

Why the thumb safety that gets in the way? Shields have the option of no thumb safety.
That's the beauty of d/a revolvers: no manual safeties when you hafta shoot a bogey in a BIG hurry!
Both Glock and Smith & Wesson Shield are autoloading pistols with the mentality leaning toward simplicity of a double-action revolver; K.I.S.S.
I'm now under the impression Shield EZ beats Glock hands down.

The Smith has the consistent crisp one-piece trigger with short crisp reset and none of the girly shirt nonsense to boot.

I own both. And the EZ, while a fine handgun for folks with hand strength issues, isn't even in the same realm as Glocks.

The EZ is not used by ANY...not even ONE..professional agency. It is not field tested, torture tested, reliability proven or otherwise.

"Beats a Glock" it DOES NOT. But if it's the gun you are wanting then get one.

 

[titsonritz]

 

[j_ravenswood]

I own both. And the EZ, while a fine handgun for folks with hand strength issues, isn't even in the same realm as Glocks.

The EZ is not used by ANY...not even ONE..professional agency. It is not field tested, torture tested, reliability proven or otherwise.

"Beats a Glock" it DOES NOT. But if it's the gun you are wanting then get one.

The Shield EZ has some things that make it even look more professional than just a plain old Shield. Pic rail, a one piece trigger and the pistol even looks bigger and tougher than a Shield M2.0.

 

[Kruel J]

Cuz looks makes a gun better? Ok. I thought you were comparing it to Glocks?

Meh. Do whatever you like.

 

[titsonritz]

 

[titsonritz]

If only it came in Tiffany blue, it the bestest ever.

 

[Kruel J]

If only it came in Tiffany blue, it the bestest ever.

Yep. I love it when people opine with no actual experience. It's the bestest ever.