Breaking: Rangers Go Glock, Is the US Army Soon to Follow? 1911s Not Longer Pistol of Choice for SF

special-forces-glock-hr

“It’s Over. Glock Won.” Hognose writes. What did Glock win? Total domination in the US Special Operations world, and (my speculation) possibly the Modular Handgun System contract as well, by extension. Hognose doesn’t explicitly say that the Glock is destined to be the next US Army service handgun, but go says just about everything short of it:

We don’t know if Tier One units are still running .40s, and we are not 100% certain the Rangers are on the Glock bandwagon, but if they are, it’s over, because that’s where the top leaders of the Army come from these days.

With the search for a new handgun in full swing, the gun that’s good enough for SOCOM and MARSOC would be a very difficult choice to pass up. Oh, and about those Rangers?

Well, shortly after that post went live, the phone rang. Yep, the Ranger Regiment is running with G19s, also.

Unless MHS is cancelled outright (a distinct possibility), and no new procurement of pistols is undertaken, it seems likely that Glock will come out on top and become the next Army service pistol. With the FBI’s recent selection of Glock, and the Army Chief of Staff already calling for a straight buy of Glock pistols in lieu of the MHS program, we may well be in for an era of Glock ubiquity that puts the past fifteen years to shame. Andrew Tuohy once said that we have reached “peak handgun” with the Glock 19, and US Special Forces seem to agree. So does Hognose, who writes:

Why the Glock 19? This is strictly our own opinion, but there are a number of reasons that make it attractive.

  1. It’s a very good size for both uniformed and  undercover work. Not too small to shoot well, not so big as to be hard for average-build guys to conceal. (Some of your Belgian horse SEALs could conceal a Barrett, but that’s another story).
  2. It’s as reliable as a hammer. Like any gun, Joe can (and does) break it, but the breaks and stoppages are fewer and further between. It’s more reliable than its in-service competitors, the 1911 (M45), M9, and P226 (and the P228/M11 used in some undercover roles).
  3. It’s durable and tolerant of abuse, neglect, and environmental stress throughout the SOF operating environment, from 0º to 90º N/S and sea level to Himalayan terrain. It might get fugly but it won’t lock up.
  4. It’s easy to learn. Makes a difference when you need to be able to shoot it, but are in a job where shooting pistol is only one of hundreds of tasks you have to master.
  5. It’s easy to shoot well. Most shooters do better on a Glock than on a DA/SA pistol.
  6. It’s cheap. Sure, Uncle doesn’t pay what you do for a Beretta or a SIG, but Uncle doesn’t pay what you do for a Glock, either.

Some of the other Glock-offs, like the Smith & Wesson M&P, can match some or all of these Glock advantages, but it’s hard to beat the whole package, as the dismissal of S&W from the Modular Handgun competition suggests.

Is this the beginning of the end? Is the final stage of the Aglockalypse upon us? In ten years, will anyone remember that any other handguns ever existed?

UPDATE: Another former Ranger has confirmed Glocks are now being issued.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Unreasonably smug Englishman

    Nice to see you yanks catching up with us.

    • Dylan Kroll

      our special operators were using Glocks when you guys all still had SIGs… plenty of photographic evidence for that

    • Black Dots

      Hey are you guys still using that AR-18 wrapped in an Erector Set? You know, the one with the auto mag drop feature?

      • Joshua

        Hey at least they adopted a good .308.

    • ReadyorNot

      “Unreasonably smug Englishman”

      LOL; least your honest!

      • majorrod

        I thought “unreasonably smug” and “Englishman” were redundant.

    • Simon Spero

      Peace Through Effortless Superiority 🇬🇧

    • majorrod

      Yep, we said the same thing when you went to 5.56, the Apache, the Javelin and multicam…

  • Dougscamo

    Amazing…I’m the first reply…though if my server is slow, it will probably be the 45th or something since this is another chance for the Glock vs 1911 riot to continue…

  • Joseph Goins

    “we are not 100% certain the Rangers are on the Glock bandwagon, but if they are, it’s over, because that’s where the top leaders of the Army come from these days”

    This quote assumes that “Ranger-qualified” is the same as a Ranger. As a former Ranger, I can tell you that they are not. Those are fighting words.

    • Major Tom

      Indeed. Just cuz you went to Ranger School don’t mean you wear the tab for the 75th.

      • Ron

        None of the Rangers and Ranger qualified people I know, call the Ranger Scroll a tab, the tab is for being ranger qualified. The Scroll is for having been a Ranger.

    • TheNotoriousIUD

      Really, whats the difference?
      I honestly thought they were the same thing.

      • Joseph Goins

        Ranger-qualified: Someone completed the whole Ranger school process but goes back to his former unit. He could be given orders to join the Regiment, but it is typically unlikely as many people finish the selection process. He takes back strong leadership principles, and it has essentially become a requirement for infantry staff officers.

        (Real) Ranger: Someone who is in the 75th Ranger Regiment and completes special operations missions. These are your airfield seizure and Black Hawk Down folks.

    • 11b

      While I agree with you, the guys over @ weaponsman where the quote was pulled absolutely know the difference between a Ranger and someone with a tab.

      • Drew Coleman

        For those of us who are not military, what is the difference? My guess is one is someone who went through the training and then to a Ranger unit, and the other someone who went through the training and went back to a “regular” unit?

        • Joseph Goins

          Correct!

          Ranger-qualified: Someone completed the whole Ranger school process but goes back to his former unit. He could be given orders to join the Regiment, but it is typically unlikely as many people finish the selection process. He takes back strong leadership principles, and it has essentially become a requirement for infantry staff officers.

          (Real) Ranger: Someone who is in the 75th Ranger Regiment and completes special operations missions. These are your airfield seizure and Black Hawk Down folks.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Cool, thanks.
            Can the people who go back to to other units be recalled by the 75th if the need arises? Does that ever happen?

          • Joseph Goins

            It is possible be rare. In my six years, I only saw it twice. I wouldn’t use the word “recalled” but I get what you mean.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Interesting, thanks.

          • CommonSense23

            No. The 75th has a completely different selection course than Ranger school. It used to be R.I.P. now it’s R.A.S.P. Thats where a lot of this confusion comes from. Ranger School makes you Ranger Qualified. RASP sends you to the 75th. Once in the 75th you only have so much time to attend Ranger school.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Interesting, thanks.

          • Joseph Goins

            “Once in the 75th you only have so much time to attend Ranger school… before they kick you out to a regular infantry unit.

      • Joseph Goins

        They must not understand it because the “top leaders in the Army” never served in the regiment.

      • RedSHARK

        Yet they use the term SF or “Special Forces” like a blanket term instead of “Special Operations Forces” ….

    • Dylan Kroll

      the quote was referring to the Regiment – that’s the only way it would even make sense given the context. The only other “Ranger” unit is the TRADOC school.

      • Joseph Goins

        “Top leaders of the Army” weren’t in the Regiment; they only had a tab. Only three of the senior leaders (army leadership, unified combatant command, army command, army service component command) ever served in the 75th:

        Chief of Staff Mark Milley (Ranger-qualified)
        Vice Chief of Staff Daniel Allyn (Ranger-qualified)
        Sergeant Major of the Army Daniel Dailey (Ranger-qualified)
        ***CENTCOM commander Joseph Votel (Real Ranger)***
        EUCOM commander Curtis Scaparrotti (Ranger-qualified)
        ***SOCOM commander Raymond Thomas (Real Ranger)***
        FORSCOM commander Robert Abrams (Ranger-qualified)
        AMC commander Dennis Via (non-Ranger)
        TRADOC commander David Perkins (Ranger-qualified)
        USARCENT commander James L. Terry (Ranger-qualified)
        USAREUR commander Ben Hodges (Ranger-qualified)
        ARNORTH commander Perry Wiggins (Ranger-qualified)
        USARPAC commander Vincent K. Brooks (Ranger-qualified)
        ***ARSOUTH commander Clarence Chinn (Real Ranger)***
        SDDC commander Susan Davidson (non-Ranger, female exclusion)
        ARCYBER commander Edward Cardon (non-Ranger)
        USASMDC commander David Mann (non-Ranger)
        USASOC commander Kenneth Tovo (non-Ranger)

        • B-Sabre

          RDECOM commander Cedric T. Wins (non-Ranger)

        • RedSHARK

          Many of those guys in that list didn’t have the timing to go to Regiment AND SF….so they went to Ranger School and then SF….

          • Joseph Goins

            Many? Name more than three.

          • RedSHARK

            Basically any SF CG that didn’t go to regiment…..Most O’s won’t get pulled into Regiment until they are post PL time. The problem is that timing also lines up with Selection and the Q course, so depending on their commissioning dates, deployment dates, and SFAS date they might not get a chance to even apply to regiment. I have plenty of SF qualed fellow Captains that have the same issues….shit I have fellow SF guys that aren’t even RANGER qualified because of their deployment and school time lines. It happens all the time. Don’t mistake me for saying any O that is Ranger qualified wanted to go to Regiment either, but it is the case many times that even if they did their timelines didn’t work out. ALSO FYI, Ken Tovo IS Ranger qualified..

          • Joseph Goins

            You failed to mention more than three.

          • RedSHARK

            Only two from that list are Milley and Votel (the rest of SF tab holders I think were at Regiment), however SF CMDs previous CG Rogers as well but wasn’t on that list, Peter Schoomaker wasn’t in Regiment either. SOCOM seems to have a rotation between SEALs, SF and Regiment guys usually. More to the point than my term of “many” which you are concerned with, is the point behind timing between SF and Regiment.

          • Joseph Goins

            Votel commanded the Regiment. I remember him being in Masirah when we initiated the first ground incursion into Afghanistan of GWOT. But that’s neither here nor there. I get the point you are trying to make, but my point is still valid that many senior leaders do not have Ranger experience.

          • RedSHARK

            Totally agree too. I didnt know that about Votel though…

          • Joseph Goins

            I like the fact that the Army is promoting it as leadership training (and realistically forcing it as a promotion requirement). However, I think that they bastardized the ideal of the Ranger by allowing everyone and their mother (I can say that now) to go to the school. They tell them that they are Rangers for simply completely small unit training that is really the first step in a professional career. Ranger-qualified people have no idea what it means to actually be a Ranger or what Rangers do.

          • Joseph Goins

            Damn, I missed him.

    • Pretty sure someone like Hognose who used to be an 18B would know the difference. I think his point has to do with how Army leadership perceives themselves and how their experience will influence their decisions.

      Actually, I know for a fact that he knows the difference, because he corrected my ignorance on the subject once.

      • Joseph Goins

        The that could be true if senior leaders in the Army actually were Rangers. They have no Ranger experience from which to draw. Only three of the senior commanders (Army leadership, unified combatant commands Army commands, Army service component commands) ever served in the 75th Ranger Regiment:

        Chief of Staff Mark Milley (Ranger-qualified)
        Vice Chief of Staff Daniel Allyn (Ranger-qualified)
        Sergeant Major of the Army Daniel Dailey (Ranger-qualified)
        ***CENTCOM commander Joseph Votel (Real Ranger)***
        EUCOM commander Curtis Scaparrotti (Ranger-qualified)
        ***SOCOM commander Raymond Thomas (Real Ranger)***
        FORSCOM commander Robert Abrams (Ranger-qualified)
        AMC commander Dennis Via (non-Ranger)
        TRADOC commander David Perkins (Ranger-qualified)
        USARCENT commander James L. Terry (Ranger-qualified)
        USAREUR commander Ben Hodges (Ranger-qualified)
        ARNORTH commander Perry Wiggins (Ranger-qualified)
        USARPAC commander Vincent K. Brooks (Ranger-qualified)
        ***ARSOUTH commander Clarence Chinn (Real Ranger)***
        SDDC commander Susan Davidson (non-Ranger, female exclusion)
        ARCYBER commander Edward Cardon (non-Ranger)
        USASMDC commander David Mann (non-Ranger)
        USASOC commander Kenneth Tovo (non-Ranger)

        If memory serves me correctly, Hognose was Ranger-qualified but never served in the Regiment.

        • Ben Pottinger

          This sounds like a repeat of the falacy that only those who “do something” can lead/create something for it, etc. It’s like saying a rocket scientist can’t make a spaceship because he’s not an astronaut.

          No don’t misread me here, I’m not saying a commander doesn’t need combat experience (or that it at least helps) but that in a world of ever increasing specialization it’s going to become harder and harder to expect those that lead (or simply those in procurement positions) to have actual practical experience in every category they deal with. This is why they make advisors.

          • Joseph Goins

            I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m simply saying that Hognose’s quote about top Army leaders using their Ranger experience is flawed because they don’t even have Ranger experience to start with.

  • Major Tom

    RE: AGlockalypse.

    Oh great, hide the news media’s ignorance of firearms more shall we? They already consider every pistol a Glock even when it’s not. Let’s not make them accidentally accurate!

    • Black Dots

      For the record, Glock-brand Glawks are the best Glawks.

  • Trey Heldmann

    Amazing, spend millions on several different procurement competitions and end up with the weapon we all knew makes the most sense for our armed services… Our awesomely inefficient bureaucracy at work everybody!

    • Sand

      To be fair, it is always good to have data to back up your decisions. I work at an engineering company, and I can’t tell you how frustrating it is when you realize that five years ago, some engineer made a design decision because “it made perfect sense at the time,” but no one remembers why, and it is not written down anywhere. Like as not, the decision was made based on some meaningless key metric or a single line on a spec sheet that has little bearing on practical reality.

      That being said, bureaucracy rarely ever makes anything more efficient, so I have to agree with your sentiment.

      • Trey Heldmann

        Your right of course, but you get my point.

      • Flyingfish42

        True, but Glock has been the right choice now going on for something like 20 years and they are just now figuring that out..

        • nova3930

          The “right” choice is the one that best meets the requirements as written. The whole purpose of a procurement competition is to determine what that right choice is. The high performance of the Glock in the civilian and LE role is no guarantee that it will meet all the Army requirements.

          • Flyingfish42

            I’m well aware of “requirements” as written. I did test and eval for the Air Force for nearly 10 years. Most of the time the requirements are very outdated and almost always more expensive and typically less effective than what ever is the current budget value item that is off the shelf. The procurement process takes so long that it is always a given. It also makes it really hard to get rid of said requirement when they make absolutely no sense in the current era because that would mean starting all over again and having to stick with what ever the service has been limping along with for the past decade or two.

            I can’t see Army requirements being any better than Air Force requirements. Written by people so high up that they’ve never done the job, being advised by Senior NCOs that haven’t been down at ground level for the past 10 years and haven’t the foggiest of clues as to what is currently going on.

            The only thing the LE/Civilian role might not reveal is what happens to a weapon that is hardly ever properly cleaned/serviced and is used by people who could care less how they abuse it because it is not their personal (as in they paid for it) side arm and then multiply that by how ever long it is issued out till it falls apart from such handling.

            There is a solution to that problem, as well as the lengthened and often rigged procurement process, stop issuing weapons and have the troops buy their own.

            Hear me out on this one. I would argue that the only thing the military should mandate (for the regular troops) is the caliber size and a common magazine standard. After that they get an allowance to purchase and maintain what ever side arm they want. Gear upgrades would be measured in years rather than every half century or so like we have now. If they trash their gear they will have to replace said gear (out of their own pocket) which will cover the bulk of wear and tear issues. With some group think and fan boy exceptions, most will go for what ever is the most durable, most effective, and least costly version out there. These days there are plenty of fine weapons, but not too many get as close to all 3 of those categories as Glock. If it turns out that is not the case, then the troops will drop them like a bad habit and move on to more effective weapons. The M9 proves that the troops could NEVER do worse than the brass when it comes to picking the best side arm.

          • nova3930

            Well, I work Army side and the way we write our operational requirements is in conjunction with user representatives. Requirements can be rolled in from a myriad of places by the primary, functional, “must do this to be useful” requirements for things like individual gear come from the soldiers themselves.
            Civilian and LE use only cover a very limited portion of the Army usage spectrum. That’s almost like saying that because Crown Vics did great for LE use, we shoulda used them in Iraq. Being carried on the hip in the relatively calm and mild confines of the peacetime US doesn’t approximate the combat usage spectrum. It’s an issue I deal with all the time in aviation. Components certified for civilian use cause issues constantly because the army doesn’t fly the same mission profiles.
            As far as letting troops buy their own weapons, we, the Brits and quite a few others used to do that. It was a nightmare.
            Really outside of MPs, SF and Officers a handgun is a pretty superfluous addition anyway. Outside of MPs and SF we could probably ditch them entirely and not erode capabilities in the slightest….

          • Kivaari

            Since special operations folks are the people currently using the Glocks, perhpas they have noticed it is doing the job for them better than anything else they have been issued. It seems that all the field testing has been done. Since 70% of cops used the Glock over the last 25 years, it has a known performance record.

          • nova3930

            SF doesn’t have the same requirements big army does. not by a long shot. not to mention that they operate under different procurement rules. SF uses piles of gear that never sniff big army inventory.

          • Kivaari

            Big army can adapt to the Glock easily. Glocks are easily trained with as they are simpler than other designs. Especially in troops that never had handgun experience prior to entering the service.

          • nova3930

            that’s not how procurement works. I’d recommend reading up on the system and what justifies relief of written requirements.”SF uses it” isn’t a legal justification. if it’s technically possible within budget your material solution has to meet the requirements

          • Kivaari

            What do you recommend for a pistol? Obviously SF has decided the G19 is the best choice after decades of using every thing else out there. Having been around this business for 50 years has shown me a lot about what fits a wide range of people. Being an instructor in a past life I saw how other designs did in a training environment. So far the Glock-LIKE pistols have shown to be the easiest to train people with. Then it comes down to which gun works the best in the long run. Yes, I’ve seen Glock failures (including recalls), but over all they work the best.
            Recently I talked with a commercial instructor that uses S&W M&P pistols in the classes. He prefers Glock as well. Perhaps that is why the M&P was dropped from contention, it just wasn’t as reliable. Just looking at the parts in the frame of an M&P compared to a G19 points out the obvious, the M&P has more little parts.

          • nova3930

            Im not recommending any particular solution. currently my $ is on the sig 320, a pistol I happen to like, based on the rfp I read. still the 320 vs the field I’m only 60/40 in my probability. hard to know for surewithout proprietary test data though.

            with current political and budgetary environment, the 320 offers some performance and procurement advantages over the other entrants. the fact that you can buy one “gun” plus some spare parts and have it serve as a FS and compact is a big one. different pots of $ can then accomplish the same thing.

          • Kivaari

            I could go along with the P320 as it is Glock-like. If it is as reliable, I’d not have an issue with it.

          • Kivaari

            Or like the general said, maybe it’s about time that common sense find its way into the system. All these years and all the expense is a waste that had they just bought Glocks they would be where they need to be.

          • nova3930

            yeah go watch the true story, Pentagon Wars. “common sense” procurement is how we used to do things and we spent a pile of $ buying stuff that later needed billions of $ in mods to make work for operational needs.

          • Kivaari

            It seems like it would work something like COTS. It’s not that this is a new item without a track record. It’s in the system and has been working. If it had not worked it would not have been expanded to all the SF community. That’s where it is at now. A proven performer. Perhaps that is enough to get big army to finally just adopt it service wide.

          • nova3930

            In the process, you can go with a COTS solution if it meets requirements. In fact that sort of thing is encouraged these days to save $ given the budgetary environment. After the requirements are finalized they go through a formal analysis of alternatives to determine if a COTS solution, modified existing system, new training, new doctrine, etc etc will satisfy the requirement. It’s only after they answer no to all those that they can go forward with a new material development program.

            That’s why whatever pistol wins MHS, in all probability will have some modifications from what’s currently available.

          • Blue Centurion

            “Being carried on the hip in the relatively calm and mild confines of the peacetime US doesn’t approximate the combat usage spectrum.”

            That is worth concern. My agency is moving away from Glock due to poor QC, poor customer service and sporadic reliability problems (I suppose that is more of a QC issue). I doubt Glock USA will even come close to better QC in production of Hundreds of thousands of G19 destined for the military. They have difficulty doing it for an agency purchase.

          • James Young

            What’s your agency moving toward?

          • Blue Centurion

            HK VP9

          • James Young

            Nice. Just don’t drop it in water

          • Blue Centurion

            You mean clay and leaves I believe.

          • Kivaari

            WE don’t hear of many issues with the Glock 19 except for the first batch covered under the Gen2 recall (first issue of the M19).

          • Flyingfish42

            I don’t get the analogy with the parts. You say driving a Crow Vic in the desert is a bad idea, yet you are flying around in civilian aircraft? The US side of the house when it comes to parts, Mil-Spec is Mil-spec. If the parts aren’t lasting then the spec sucks regardless of the source, that or the supplier is ripping off the government, or more likely both are true.

            It is true nobody abuses things like the military. I was always impressed how quickly my troops could destroy tools, equipment, uniforms, boots, and individual issued gear. At the same time it also amazed me how when we stopped issuing things to them how the reverse became true. They magically learned how to take care of it and always seemed to have the latest and the best stuff. If one troop found a better item, nearly all of them would have it by the end of the year.
            It would be interesting to see how the Brits let their troops buy their own weapons I’d like to have to look into that. How long ago are we talking about?

          • nova3930

            a us army c12 is basically a beech king air 200 with some extra radios. they were originally purchased with the idea that the army tactical transport mission is equivalent to the civilian commuter aircraft spectrum.

            turns out that’s not the case. a c12 gets more pressure cycles per flight hour than a civilian king air. it also gets more flight hours below 10k ft. the end result is that several major structural compotential including the wing spar wear out significantly faster.

            it causes some pretty major maintenance issues along with the associated cost.

          • Flyingfish42

            Yeah both will wear out an airframe in no time especially if you are landing them on improvised airfields. How old are the ones you guys are operating?

          • nova3930

            depends on the variant. most are old enough to drink or better although we’ve bought a few new off the assembly line in the last 5 years.

          • Flyingfish42

            That’s not to bad. We still have gobs of 60-70’s airframes still pulling duty though the wings are starting to fall off of them on a enough of a regular basis to start being alarming.

          • nova3930

            yeah. af with fixed wing has the same advantage army does rotary wing, namely most of it was purpose designed. cuts down on a lot of problems

          • Flyingfish42

            You would think that, but we end up with a lot of the little stupid problems that civilian aircraft rarely suffer from. Military aircraft might go through a couple of versions with the occasional “mid-life” upgrade but rarely as often as civilian aircraft are refreshed and small problems are almost never addressed. We spend a lot of time fixing these “non-priority” items. Far more than we should.

          • Kivaari

            Silliness.

          • RedSHARK

            “I can’t see Army requirements being any better than Air Force requirements”…..One massive fault in this point. It’s that the Airforce can even comprehend how an infantryman places the demand on a pistol outside of PJ and CCT experiences. At the end of the day SF use the glock because of its reliability, modularity, and accuracy. The Army is following suit because they see the need in their sidearm as well.

          • Flyingfish42

            I think you misunderstood, I was bagging on Army requirements hence why they’ve been farting around so long to get a new pistol. Air Force makes a requirement and by the time they get it filled it’s 10-20 years out of date, and then they are expected to make do with it for another 10-20 years. Between the M9 and new “requirements” the Army has been wasting time, money, and resources for what something like 30+ years now. That is what I meant by the similarity between the Army/AF requirements.

            I want to skip to the chase. I want anyone that doesn’t carry a weapon for their job not to have a say in the requirements. The guys at the ground floor should be the ones picking what they carry. Not some disco belt wearing SNCO or O6+ that hasn’t seen the outside of an office or their dicks in the past 10 years.

          • RedSHARK

            That’s the point, this pistol is being chosen by SOF. The Army specifically used them as a test bed. Gen. Milley (a SF guy himself) used that as a valid justification to push along the procurement process. It is the closest thing to saying “our guys like this, they want this….what is stopping us from buying it”. I agree, staff turds have no business second guessing the needs of the force. This so far is the only exception I have seen where this is not the case.

          • Flyingfish42

            Cool I didn’t realize that there was a rare breakout of rationality going on in the Army. Let’s hope it becomes trend.

          • buzzman1

            Wouldn’t work. Someone has to repair and maintain the weapons. Cant keep parts for every weapon out there.

          • Flyingfish42

            Who said anything about someone being around to repair and maintain the weapons? This would be your personal weapon. You are responsible for its care and feeding. That includes a small repair kit stocked with spare parts and/or a backup. Not exactly an expensive thing these days and an annual allowance would offset that. A trained armorer with a tool kit would be handy sure, but unless I am completely mistaken other than losing a weapon the number of side arms that completely break down during a rotation shouldn’t be that high with a quality weapon.

          • buzzman1

            Military doesn’t work that way. If a weapon breaks it has to be able to be repaired within the unit maintenance facilities. The military isn’t some militia in Montana were people bring whatever weapon the have,

          • Flyingfish42

            I’m aware of how the military works. I spent 20 years in it.

            I’m saying that way doesn’t work very well. It’s slow, stupid, and expensive. It’s time to try something different.

            We are not talking about a total free for all when it comes to side arms. Common caliber and a common magazine. Peer pressure amongst the troops (you bought what?! That thing is a piece of junk.) and leaders, (as in professional people who know what they are doing not those commonly known as officers), will steer the little lambs towards the right choices.

            I would be interested in known how many pistols actually break in the field. I can’t tell you how many times we took whole sections with us for support for things we never needed, only to leave behind people and tools that would have been useful, based on standing policy that was outdated.

          • Kivaari

            Since it is now is use after years of being in use by special operation forces probably has shown the folks that the M19 is indeed the best choice.

          • nova3930

            it’s the best choice for SF requirements which are different from big army requirements. people can repeat “glock perfection” ad infinitum but it matters little when evaluating the program entrants vs the performance metrics.

          • Kivaari

            Big army can adjust to what the SF use.

          • buzzman1

            Why, SOF gets whatever they want when they want. Big army cant change like that.

          • majorrod

            “Big army can adjust to what the SF use.”

            No for so many reasons, e.g. logistics, training, demographics (women can go Spec Ops but none have succeeded). There are many things that migrate to the conventional force but saying everything can out of hand just fails to recognize the differences in equipping a force of around 30K (Army Spec Ops) compared to a service of almost a million.

          • Kivaari

            Lots of women cops use Glocks. They are easy to train with and in 9mm are sized better than most guns on the market. What I hate to see is the gun guys pick duty guns. They tend to be the .45 is the only way to go, diregarding what will work better for the majority of people. I know our department went to G17 and G19s after I was issued one and out shot everyone. People simply can not shoot the .45s as fast and accurately as they can shoot the 9mm.

          • majorrod

            Non sequitur.

            We are talking about the Army not female cops who receive more training than the typical soldier.

            You just made my point though.

          • Kivaari

            NO. The point was being made that the pistol doesn’t fit the hands of people with small hands. Except, lots of women and smaller men can handle the G19 better than the M9 and the competition. I am saying, once more, that we need a Glock-like pistol that fits the hands of more people than the M9. We need to retain the 9mm as it has a recoil impulse that is much easier to control than a .40 or .45. There is a reason why so many people are no longer using the .40 or .45. Recoil inhibits performance. So with a better sized handgun, in 9mm with Glock -like operating systems, we will have a pistol better than we do now. I don’t care what brand it is, except, the Glock exists now and is proven. If it is an HK or SIG no one should complain except the competition.

          • majorrod

            I don’t disagree with most of your argument. .40 & .45 are still pretty darn popular and there are likely more 19111’s out there than Glocks but that’s not the point. You need to go back and read everyone’s comments.

            Specifically go back to Trey Haldeman & Sand. No one is talking about calibers. The discussion was about the acquisition process and requirements. You stated “Big army can adjust to what the SF use.” It’s just not that simple.

            I am pointing out just like others that when choosing to equip a force of almost a million a process is required and Glock might not fit the requirements dictated by the Army. (the again it might.)

            It’s a great gun the problem is just more complicated than equipping a relatively small police force or special operations both of which train their people more than the Army does the average soldier when it comes to pistol shooting.

            You just don’t understand or appreciate the difference between equipping special ops and the conventional force.

          • Kivaari

            Except I feel a Glock-type pistol will be easier to train troops with than designs like the M9. I’ve trained people with conventional DA/SA pistols and Glocks. Glock and Glock-like pistols are easier to train people with. That is my point. I think the process at this point in the MHS project is flawed. I suggest a new set of parameters be established to reflect today and not 10 years ago.

          • buzzman1

            SF are not stuck using ball rounds either. Makes a big difference in lethality.

        • valorius

          Glock is not the right choice for the majority of the poorly trained people in the US military. Not unless you want a lot of soldiers shooting themselves.

          • RedSHARK

            explain….

          • valorius

            Privates are morons. I saw one manning an M-60 that went run away LET GO of the weapon once.

            The last thing we need to do is give glocks to privates.

          • RedSHARK

            Is this from the 60s we dont use the M-69 anymore. Thats a pretty general comment. I know plenty of privates far more responsible than some pistol carrying officers. Its about training, not yiur damn rank.

          • n0truscotsman

            Thats a training issue then that needs to be addressed before we even think about adopting new gear.

        • n0truscotsman

          Other conventional militaries, not just special forces-types either, have also figured this out.

          These arguments over *requirements* is stupid and superfluous. Needlessly.

          We just need an inexpensive handgun that generally works reliable when we need it and is safe to use. No need to reinvent the wheel or needlessly spend large sums of money.

      • nova3930

        And that ultimately is the point of the procurement process, as cumbersome as it is. You want every design decision to be traceable to a technical requirement which is traceable to an operational requirement. You then test to see what if any entry has the best combination of performance vs requirements and meeting the assigned budget.
        I continue to believe that Glock is going to have a hard time meeting the Human Factors compatibility requirements in the MHS competition barring a complete redesign of the grip to a less glock-like form….

        • Kivaari

          The people that have issues with the Glock grip shape are those people used to other handguns. M1911 users hate it. Beretta M9 users hate it. But almost no one joining the military has any handgun training prior to serving. So hand a Glock to a noob and they don’t know any other handguns, and the Glock becomes the normal feel to them. After they use a Glock for a couple years hand them a M1911 and it will likely feel odd to them.

          • nova3930

            it’s has nothing to do with the shape of the grip. it’s size and a myriad of other factors. mhs has a 5-95 male female human factors compatibility requirement that the glock as currently designed fails at the extremes. it’s the same requirement that eliminates the current M9. politically women are being integrated into every MOS so that means all the weapons have to accommodate them.

          • Kivaari

            The grip size of the G19 fits MOST. Much better than the M9. What would you suggest a single column .45 or 9mm? The M1911 is too large for many people as well. I can’t reach the trigger well.

          • Uniform223

            Than you have tiny hands lol

          • Kivaari

            Size Large gloves. Short trigger finger. The A1 isn’t too bad, but it seems no one sells guns with the short trigger like the army changed to in the 20s. Changed after so many soldiers complained that they couldn’t reach the trigger. It was a feature of the A1 correcting the short comings of the 11.

          • Uniform223

            Shot… I meant shot. Sorry typing from a fone.

          • Ghostdog

            Phone.

          • nova3930

            most is a word with little meaning from a requirements perspective. is it 99% of users, 50.1% or what?

            comparatively a 5th percentile female has a specific definition as does every other compatibility metric. it’s something that can be tested against.

            the fact that the g19 is better than the m9 is meaningless. the m9 doesn’t meet the requirements either which is why the m9a3 was rejected.

            as far as suggestions, I’m not making any other than meet the requirements, which is actually a legal requirement, whatever form that takes.

            the glock people always seem to get bent out of shape to suggest there’s some requirement set the glock doesn’t meet. no single solution will every meet every potential set of requirements.

          • Kivaari

            I base my choice on years of use and observation of what does work and what doesn’t work. I’ve watched a lot of guns come and go. What the last 25 years has shown is there is a preference for Glock-like handguns because in the end they make the most sense. The new gun doesn’t need to be a Glock, just Glock-like. That is the same operating system, simplicity of use and training and have the same reliability. So far, I personally don’t know of another pistol that has the positive record of the Glock. If it is an HK in the tend, as long as it works and fits MOST people, that s fine. As to most, I mean the largest number possible. We know the M9 doesn’t fit enough people well. I want a pistol that fits more people than the M9. I want a pistol that is simple to use like the Glock. Less complex than the M9. A pistol the size of a G17 or G19. Caliber being 9mm. Time has shown that the 9mm is a good balance in power and ease of use.

          • nova3930

            I think that’s basically what you’re gonna see out of the back side of this if MHS goes to completion, and that’s a big if considering how screwed up the solicitation is. It’s full of all sorts of things, like holsters, that don’t need to be in the weapon procurement itself.

            Whatever the selection is will have all the attributes you’d expect of a modern service pistol. Polymer frame, fairly linear path for loading from mag to chamber, simple robust controls, consistent (and probably heavy) trigger and a low parts count. Parts count factors into maintainability and reliability so that’s probably a big one. I agree with what you said elsewhere that the M&P probably failed in that respect. I had M&Ps for a while but they did seem to have a lot of small parts compared to other designs.

            I also be shocked if the pistol is anything other than 9mm. There might be provisions for other calibers but the primary config will probably be 9mm. Switching calibers opens a whole can of worms WRT NATO compatibility and those requirements. Honestly if I could get a 45 with the same capacity and size as a 9mm I’d take it but nobody ever got ahead lusting for unobtanium lol. as it stands I agree 9mm is a good balance between wounding capability, capacity and weapon size….

          • buzzman1

            I was active duty when the M9 was selected and our NATO allies thought we were nuts for going to the 9mm. But as our NATO allies had almost no ammunition in storage they depended on us for everything including pistol ammo. Israel was also a consideration as they were heavily vested in the 9mm. We bought all of our 9mm from Israel and probably still do. If they get in a war all that ammo is diverted to their use.

          • Justin

            Wow… how did you say so many factually incorrect things in one single post? Good work

          • buzzman1

            Sorry Justin but I was there personally. And you?

          • S. Plankenberg

            Lots of our military issue 9mm is produced in the US.
            I know because I ised to work for one of the US ammo companies, and was the guy that processed our orders for the Army and Navy. It wa a lot of extra troublr due to their specialized shipping requirements. Was glad to do it anyway.

          • valorius

            I think glocks are so popular because they’re so cheap. I dont think they’re any better at anything than any other run of the mill modern service pistol.

          • Kivaari

            They led the way to a new system of operation. They showed how the “safe action” system was easier to train people with and to use in the field. It led the way in displacing the DA/SA style of service pistol, that very few use anymore. Now most run-of-the-mill modern serivce pistols are simply Glock-LIKE. The P320, VP9, M&P and so many others are simply trying to give customers a Glock with another name on the grips.

          • valorius

            What was new about the glock? Putting the “safety” on the trigger?

            To me it’s just a 1911 with no manual safety, a crappy grip angle, and a lousy trigger.

            The only thing it’s really got going for it, IMO, is it’s very reliable. But then, so is any top modern Service pistol.

          • Kivaari

            Glocks are more like packing a good DA revolver with a 17 round magazine. Dirt simple to use. It isn’t coked while riding at rest in a holster, it instantly returns to safe when the trigger is released, like a revolver. I lov that simplicity of use. It is far easier to train a recruit on the Glock than any conventional SA/DA pistol. It is less prone to NDs than the M1911. AND they are reliable.

          • Ben Pottinger

            And whats funny is how many of those people saying the glock trigger is dangerous will jump to recommend at revolver, which works basically the same way.

          • Jack Burton

            Lack of manual safeties aside, it’s pretty disingenuous to act as if a Glock is every bit as safe/idiot-proof as a DA revolver considering the difference in trigger pulls…honestly I’m tired of seeing the comparison made.

          • S. Plankenberg

            The Glock is not as safe as a double-action revolver.
            It is more likely to fire inadvertently when shoved down in a waistband, pocket, or bag or purse if the trigger snags something.

          • S. Plankenberg

            No, they don’t work the same way.

          • Kivaari

            The idea is the same. A revolver is fully loaded and READY to be used simply by pressing the trigger to the rear. Upon re-holstrering it is back in a passive mode, safe but ready. The Glock is not cocked while holstered. It is ready and like a DA revolver is in a safe mode until the trigger is pushed rearward. Re-holster it and it is on safe but ready. No manual safety to worry about. Just like revolvers the idea is to keep your finger off the trigger until such time as you need to shoot.

          • valorius

            A revolver has a much, much longer trigger pull. It is not comparable to a glock.

          • Kivaari

            Yep.

          • valorius

            One of the earlier itinerations of the Colt 1911 design had no manual safety.

            Basically, Browning was making a ‘Glock’ 100 years ago plus, lol.

          • Kivaari

            The M1910 had no GRIP safety. It had a manual thumb safety. The cavalry wanted a passive safety and that brought about the grip safety.

          • valorius

            The 1907 had no manual safety. It was a cocked and locked style gun with no manual safety at all. All it had was a grip safety.

          • Kivaari

            I had it backwards the M1910 had the grip safety and no thumb safety. the 200 gun contract for the 1907 used the Ehbets and Tansley “automatic safety” systems.

          • valorius

            I’m sure that “automatic safety” would’ve worked out suberbly in the hands of privates and patrolmen. Or not.

          • Jim C

            It’s crazy corrosion resistant. I take mine swimming in the sea.

          • James Madison

            …and its much lighter. And it has higher capacity, especially with g17 mags. And its easier to conceal. And its much more corrosion resistant.

            I love my 1911 but if I was deployed and had to choose: G19 all day.

          • valorius

            Not me. I’d far prefer an already issued Sig M10/11.

          • S. Plankenberg

            As a 1911 fan, I can say the Glock is much easier to disassemble, clean, and reassemble. The only thing I don’t like about them ( for a double stack ) is the grip angle. If it’a all I have been shooting for a few weeks, I kinda get used to it.

          • majorrod

            FWIW, the Glock submission has a manual safety.

          • Timmy Wimsatt

            I’m a Sig man. Love my 320, but I have a Glock 19 Gen 4 too and it’s an awesome weapon. Looks and factory trigger on sig makes me choose it. But make no mistake, they’re NOT cheap!!!

          • supergun

            Sig would be chosen if it was cheaper.

          • Thadius814

            Wrong. If I’m competing, it’s an expensive double stack 1911.. But if I’m going to war, going on duty or even carry concealed, bet your ass it’s a Glock! They work, ALWAYS, and WELL.. THATS why they’re popular.. Every competitive shooter I know who uses $3-4K 1911s or CZs has a few Glocks as well.. and NOT because they’re cheap!

          • valorius

            That’s your opinion, but i’m talking about as duty guns.

            Glock practically gives the things away.

          • Jim C

            I was under the impression that the US armed forces required an external thumb safety.

          • Rocketman

            The Glocks do have an external safety just not on the thumb. You just have to remember one of Jeff Cooper rules and keep your trigger finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.

          • Kivaari

            Another manual thumb safety is an option. I’ve seen them on SIGs when none is needed. Japanese police P230 in 7.65mm.

          • Kivaari

            Doesn’t the military reject people because they are either too small or too large? Practical reasoning says you can’t accept everyone.

          • nova3930

            not sure. all I know is that the HF definitions are based on the population at large

          • valorius

            The Sig M10/11 is a fantastic sidearm. I see no reason at all to replace it with anything. I would replace the M9 with the Sig though.

          • buzzman1

            I agree with you but Sigs are to expensive and many soldiers cant be bothered to maintain their weapons even in war zones and the Glocks tend to function well even dirty. BTW I’m not a Glock fanboy

          • S. Plankenberg

            The M9 was always too big and bulky for the cartridge it fired.

          • valorius

            I do not disagree.

          • U8SM5C

            Don’t disagree with your point however, the human factor requirement will probably not be a significant factor is deciding the pistol selected. Requirements have tiers. A Key Performance Parameter (KPP) is the most important and is equivalent to a line in the sand. If it doesn’t meet a KPP, it is a no go. KPPs are followed by Key System Attributes (KSAs). These are important and will impact the program however, they can be more easily modified if a candidate doesn’t meet it. Lastly is a “requirement” which is the category human factors usually falls under. When a milestone decision or a production decision is being made, the decision authority can accept whatever the system provides much more easily than a KPP or KSA. The most important factors that will come into play will be cost, reliability and effectiveness.

          • nova3930

            someone suffered through dau like I did lol.

            I can’t remember for sure but I think compatibility has been elevated to a kpp for mhs. it’s part of the “integrate women” political push so it’s getting high visibility

          • buzzman1

            Backstraps solve many of the problems.

          • Featured Comment

            I read that the SEALS are adopting the 3rd gen…no backstraps.

          • buzzman1

            That would make sense. No small handed women to worry about needed them and one less part to worry about losing or being knocked off,

          • James Madison

            There have been Tier1 guys running Glock 19s well before the weapon had to fit female ergo requirements.

            In fact, I took a class last year that Dale Comstock (SFOD-D) taught. His sidearm of choice: Glock 19.

            You probably are correct about weapon system selection factoring in females but that certainly isn’t the only reason MARSOC, Rangers, Delta, (some) SEALs have been and will continue to run the G19.

          • nova3930

            yeah I know. I’m talking specific about the mhs program for female compatibility. SF has a lot more leeway in defining requirements and choosing equipment than big army does

          • valorius

            Lots of people that join the military have a background in firearms, especially in the infantry.

          • Kivaari

            Not many with any serious knowledge. I was in a mechanized infantry unit and there were not many skilled gun people. Especially when it came to handguns. In the company only two of us shot expert with pistols. Both of us were cops in our other lives. I’ve met some really gun ignorant people in the military.

          • Uniform223

            Too true. Not to sound completely sexist, but I once saw a female soldier try and unhinge her M16 with the bolt locked to the rear.

          • buzzman1

            I’ve seen several male soldiers do that too. I never saw a female soldier throw a grenade the minimum safe distance and only a few that could shoot worth a damned.

          • valorius

            ‘Skilled’ is not the same as ‘no gun skills.’

            Don’t move the goal posts. 😉

          • Kivaari

            I was being polite. These were not recruits, these were all veterans with years of service. Some were skilled riflemen and machine gunners. Over all the gun knowledge is weak. Often the only guns these people have knowledge of, and often it isn’t enough, are the issued guns. Many of the falsehoods are spread. Just like the stopping power myths. The myth that the Russians chambered their rifles to take our ammunition. The 5.56mm “tumbling” IN THE AIR.

          • Uniform223

            5.56 tumbling in the air… never heard of that one. I know they’re supposed to tumblr when they hit flesh and muscle.

          • n0truscotsman

            That is a 1980s thing i think.

            There was much discussion about 5.56 and the misconception that the ammunition tumbled in mid air, versus, when it had to pass through flesh.

          • Flight Er Doc

            That was the conclusion made when shots in paper targets keyholed…that the bullet was travelling on something other than it’s longitudinal axis.

          • Kivaari

            That was during the Arctic test with the 1:14 rifling. In sub freezing air the bullets were unstable and tumbled and were therefore inaccurate. The 1:12 fixed that.

          • Flight Er Doc

            Rumors are the fastest travelling thing in the military.

          • Kivaari

            They have the sticking power of super glue.

          • buzzman1

            Vietnam era soldiers were told that.

          • Rocketman

            Which was basically true. I know Vietnam vets that carried the Thompson over the M-16. Why? The .45acp would go through brush and stay on target while the M-16 .556 round would go off into the sky when it hit a small branch or leaf. Made it frustrating when your trying to save your skin from the 7.62 x 39 round that Charles was using because like the .45 round it basically stayed on target.

          • buzzman1

            I had officers in ROTC that told us they carried AKs because they got tire of repeatedly shooting VC at close range and the guy kept coming. I know that stories coming out of firefights from soldiers isn’t reliable but the stories of the effectiveness of the 5.56 in Vietnam was really different than what army testing said it would be. It would be really interesting to see if the army ever did any live fire testing on animals that were high on opium.

            I had an uncle that was a Marine in the Korean War. He carried a Thompson an told me he hated carrying it and the ammo but loved it when the shooting started. He said when he cut down on the North Koreans and Chinese with it the guys he missed never stuck their heads up again to see where the fire was coming from. He credits it with being the only reason he walked out of Chosin as one of 2 survivors of his entire Company.

          • valorius

            For northerners i’ll agree with you, but southerners come out of the womb shooting 1″ groups. 😉

          • buzzman1

            If only.

          • buzzman1

            You must be talking to Vietnam vets 🙂 They had been told that crap just like the army used to tell people the M1 Bradley could take a hit from a Soviet 120mm tank round and keep fighting. The smart people knew that was BS because we knew the M-60 couldn’t do that but the stupid people sucked it up.

          • Kivaari

            That was the age group. I was in the Navy for Vietnam and the Army NG in the early 80s. They myths were still rampant.

          • richard kluesek

            Gentlemen, The tumbling projectile myth was circulated around the times when the original M16 s had 1 in 14 rifling twists and the Viet Cong dubbed the weapon as “the little black rifle with the little bullet that shoots a big hole” … And there was also the lie to the grunts that rifle ‘was ‘self cleaning’ and did not require maintenance. The updated ‘A1 then included the forward assist assembly and an “upgraded” 1 in 12 twist for improved accuracy, a bad trade off.

          • buzzman1

            I trained a lot of soldiers and lead many more and most people come into the military with gun skills they go in video games. In peacetime, range time almost doesn’t exist so a lot of soldiers have horrible gun skills.

          • George Dean

            The Revolutionary War Veterans Association (RWVA) is diligently attempting to resolve that issue thru their Project Appleseed.

            Google “Project Appleseed” for details. Wikipedia fully covers the project with appropriate links.

            Back to the thread topic, to squelch complaints; I carried a 1911A1 in the service, revolvers and S&W 9s as a LEO, and a Kahr 9mm also. Plus using my grandson’s Tarus 92 at the range (An M9 clone) With over 60 yrs experience; I favor any pistol which runs dirty, is reasonably accurate within 25 yards and has a minimum of gadgets required to get it in service. I don’t believe that there will ever be a one size fits all pistol. That said, A tool which serves the majority of users most effectively makes the most sense. You can’t force a square peg into a round hole, an alternative system, of the same caliber, should be standard for troops of smaller stature.

          • buzzman1

            If its not reliable and you cant hit with it then don’t buy it. A mix of G17s and G19s is what probably should be ought but I have faith the army will screw this up. If they stick with 9mms they have to go to a more lethal round.

          • RedSHARK

            What kind of “more lethal” round do you mean….

          • Kivaari

            Serious gun knowledge is what I was talking about. MOST recruits even in infantry have little gun serious gun knowledge or skills.

          • Flight Er Doc

            Same with most cops….

          • James Madison

            Yet another good reason to have both platforms. I have no problems running a bunch of rounds during a tacclass with my G19 and then shooting competively with my 1911. Or vice versa. And can shoot both pretty decently.

            All about training. If you’re not dry firing both, often, grip angles will feel weird, otherwise its a BS excuse for a lack of training.

            Good call on selecting the G19. It’s a great little gun.

          • HR Pufnstuf

            I love my Kimber 1911. I love a Glock. Have 2 of them. Would like to have 3 more. Would like both a .380 and a 9mm that are as slim as my KelTecs, so that they’re easy to hide in my pocket. But there’s nothing much easier to shoot, and sure nothing easier to break down and clean than a Glock.

          • M40

            There was an older guy (maybe about 75) who used to shoot at my club, and he made the switch to Glocks. One day I mentioned that I was a bit surprised at his choice because a lot of the older shooters had their favorite 1911’s or other older platforms.

            He replied that as he got older, he just didn’t have the energy to invest in all the cleaning tasks. He said when he gets home after shooting the Glock, he pops the slide, barrel and spring out… and then drops the 4 pieces in the dishwasher.

          • BigDave IrreDeploraDeemable

            LOL, good story. I have to try that sometime. I am sure it works well enough!

          • M40

            I haven’t tried the dishwasher yet, but I have cleaned them in hot water with a brush and detergent… works surprisingly well. No reason the machine wouldn’t do the same… but I prefer to dry immediately and purge any remaining water with WD-40.

            Note: Even if you’ve got the maritime cups installed, it’s still a good idea to dry fire a few times to purge any excess water from the pin channel.

          • BigDave IrreDeploraDeemable

            Exactly. WD40 is designed primarily as a water displacer. It works well in that capacity and then evaporates, basically.

          • Ed Forney

            Am I the only one that has trouble breaking down a Glock With those tiny little tabs that need to be pulled down at the same time ??

          • richard kluesek

            Law enforcement agencies, with their rookies, especially the big cities, have had the experience you described for several decades.

        • Dd1055

          There will never be a handgun that will work for every single shooter. Never. But Glock 19 comes as close as I believe you will get. Is it perfect? No, not by a long shot. Is it good enough? Absolutely.

          • nova3930

            Geez, I gotta keep explaining the same stuff over and over again. “Good enough” is defined with respect to the requirements as written. In this case the requirement is 5th-95th percentile male/female human factors compatibility. Until you do the analysis and testing, you don’t know what if any proposed solution is “good enough.” That’s just how the process works.
            Saying “good enough” with no formal requirements, no testing and just picking whatever the brass liked best, yeah, that’s the way we used to do things and it didn’t work very well. We spent billions on weapons that didn’t work as intended or at all until they got follow on upgrades. The current system has it’s own issues but it does have a higher probability of selecting items that are operationally useful….

          • Kivaari

            Perhaps the written specs are such that nothing meets the minimum and maximum standards. Perhaps common sense shall get injected and someone will submit revised desirable stats and a couple guns that don’t meet the current specs will get the powers that be to revise things. A document created a decade ago no longer addresses what is available now and has shown to be better over all but not within the dated guidelines. Just like when the FBI said there was no chance in hell they would ever adopt a Glock. Reality stepped up and slapped the leadership to their senses. It seems that the leadership is saying, enough already. We have found a gun that has shown to be what we really need and we have it in service with our special ops guys and it has shown itself to be the best contender. A contender that doesn’t fit the MHS demands,m but is acquired outside those guidelines, issued to the people that are more likely to actually use a pistol and it is superior.
            Do we really need a modular handgun system?
            I say no. We just need a simple, affordable and reliable pistol that will fill the roll of a pistol in service.

        • buzzman1

          I work in procurement and it has nothing to do with what the soldier needs and the end product is based more on what certain people that what is best for the Army/soldier or technically sound. Many things are based on logistical supportability rather than capability.

          • Flight Er Doc

            If only. Explain how the decision to go to ACU was better than almost ANY alternative?

          • Joseph Goins

            They would have done better to keep the woodland and desert camos and just update the design similar to the Marines.

          • buzzman1

            The people who procure new uniforms are universally dumbasses. Remember the Lightweight BDUs? They were field tested buy 71L in Bldg4 at Benning in Air conditioned offices. Wash them once and you looked like youd been shot with birdshot or get a pocket caught and it would rip off, Remember the Chocolate Chips? Worthless. Someone decided the only desert we would fight in was the deserts of southern Russia. The list goes on.

        • Flight Er Doc

          There is NO way the M9 could have met the human factors requirement it was supposed to address….But the military bought it.

          • nova3930

            you assume it had one. I doubt it did given the time frame it was adopted.

          • Flight Er Doc

            The original AF specs required a handgun that was easier for females to hold…The M9 is not that handgun.

          • Kivaari

            It went through the AF and Army testing, that was quite extensive. The competition was worse. Pick up a S&W M59 as an example. It is big like the M9, but feels even worse.

      • flyr

        There is nothing like the process of natural selection, letting those commands which depend on the pistol for survival (although it is not their primary weapon) to make the best decision or decisions for their missions.

    • Simon Spero

      I assume you’re that a procurement process ended up with a result that “makes the most sense”.

      LMT doesn’t do small arms. Er… I mean the one that doesn’t do small arms.

    • Black Dots

      Two words: Congressional Oversight. All it takes is some congressman trying to get re-elected to make a big stink about no-bid contracts to kill the careers of several senior Army officers.

      • Kivaari

        It appears that the Glock and a whole bunch of other guns have been actively tested in the field and the Glock has won out.

    • Rick Frazier

      Big surprise

    • valorius

      Actually the glock is a terrible choice for the military as a whole.

    • Boeing352

      Nothing about the Glack is an advantage. It’s 1980s tech, weak framed, cheap sights and a spongy trigger. What to step back in time 3 decades

  • Phillip Cooper

    Wow. Way to go, “journalistic impartiality”.

    • Patrick R. – Senior Writer

      How do you figure? I didn’t see anything Nate wrote that wasn’t impartial.

      • Black Dots

        Sounds like Phillip works for Smith & Wesson.

      • Swarf

        Don’t even take that bait. Since when is this a hard news site?

        Pretty sure the word “blog” is somewhere around here…

  • 11b

    My only concern with regular Joes running a Glock is no manual safety. I foresee a lot of NDs because there’s already very limited pistol training as is. The Army really needs more trigger time across the board.

    • Joseph Goins

      My opinion is that pistols are very few people are issued pistols. It’s kind of a non-issue.

    • Harry’s Holsters

      If you’re likely to have an ND you’re likely to have and ND no matter what gun you are using or the manual of arms.

      • BillC

        Yes. This guy here.

      • Joseph Goins

        I respectfully dissent. While the “gun cleaning ND” will always happen, the most common occurrences (drawing and reholstering) would be heavily mitigated.

        • Harry’s Holsters

          I’ve taken multiple handgun courses been involved with a video shoot for my local training company. Taking a Baret Fawbush class this weekend and in high school I was trained to shoot by buddy’s dad and his friends and the friends were all special operations combat veterans. Now I don’t have a lot of experience shooting with people who don’t take safety seriously.

          But I have talked with with multiple people usually law enforcement who have forgot to de-cock or engage the safety on their firearm after using it. Most situation were not a human threat they were dealing with. Just because the a gun has a safety doesn’t mean people will use it. I’ve also seen people are less likely to use proper trigger finger discipline when handling a gun with a safety.

          Idiots will be idiots when it comes to safety no matter what gun they are using.

          • Joseph Goins

            Thus the inexperience I referenced. (I don’t mean that negatively, by the way.)

            Active safeties are designed to mitigate the risk of carrying a firearm. Your statement at the end (“idiots will be idiots when it comes to safety no matter what gun they are using”) perfectly encapsulates why redundant active safety mechanisms are required for the military. Grunts are idiots. [Have you ever met a Marine?]

            Hypothetical:
            Imagine that PVT Harry Holster is a combat medic who was issued an M9 with standard issue holster. His unit was engaged by the Taliban on the side of a mountain from fifty yards away. He falls to the ground and his holster hits a log. A stick is pressed against the trigger. Does the gun go off? No, it had a active safety.

            The whole “pistols shouldn’t have safeties” debate has two fundamental flaws: it assumes that the a) user will b) knowingly pull the trigger. Murphy’s law tells us otherwise. That is why soldiers are taught to disengage the active safety when their sights are on target and to reengage it when the sights leave the target (exactly the same as on a rifle).

            Believe it or not, there are plenty of incidents where a gun was fired while inside of a holster. Here are some examples examples from across the holster spectrum:

            LEATHER HOLSTER
            http://www . itstactical . com/warcom/firearms/safety-warning-worn-leather-holsters-can-cause-accidental-discharges/

            NYLON HOLSTER
            http://www . concealednation . org/2016/02/when-bad-holsters-turn-worse-this-guy-took-one-right-in-the-a-heres-why-a-proper-holster-is-essential/

            KYDEX HOSLTER (specifically Safariland Model 6360)
            http://www . your4state . com/news/news/winchester-police-research-new-holsters-after-school-bus-gun-incident

            Moreover, there are plenty of incidents where officers slipped, fell, or otherwise could not maintain trigger discipline due to outside factors (read: it wasn’t really their fault). See the following: http://www . nydailynews . com/news/national/colorado-slips-ice-accidentally-shoots-suspect-article-1.2470940.

          • Harry’s Holsters

            These incidents are due to training flaws, or improper gear.

            “Murphy’s law tells us otherwise. That is why soldiers are taught to disengage the active safety when their sights are on target and to reengage it when the sights leave the target (exactly the same as on a rifle).”

            So you’re saying safeties work with sufficient training? I’ll agree with that same as I’ll agree you don’t need a safety with sufficient training. No safeties on drop safe weapons.

            There is a cost to everything but why is someone being issued a weapon if they can’t safely use it? I know it happens but I don’t think safeties will make a difference there.

          • Joseph Goins

            What did I mention that qualifies as “training flaws, or improper gear”? Hint: Safariland 6360 is their most popular holster for law enforcement. I only pointed out the issue with the leather and nylon ones to show that no holster perfectly protects the trigger.

            That being said, I don’t think you comprehend what I wrote. I’ll chalk that up to my writing. I will clarify.

            The user does not have to knowingly press the trigger for the gun to go off.

            There are two parts to this. First, guns don’t require a user to operate. They merely require something to force the trigger rearward. Second, the user does not have to have to make a conscious decision (with good training) for the gun to go off. Environmental factors can very easily cause well-trained users to accidentally press the trigger when they know not to do so. Here are some examples:

            Gun fell on the floor: www . goo . gl/mgjZ9y (unknown)
            Object in kydex holster: www . goo . gl/qNZkKH (Glock)
            Object in the trigger guard: www . goo . gl/G1H5zu (Sig P320)
            Officer slipped and fell: www . goo . gl/LXzPhe (Glock)
            Officer tripped and fell: www . goo . gl/kvds9A (Glock)

            All five of these would have been prevented with a manual safety. It’s very common for people who haven’t been in an operational environment to say something immature like “the officers shouldn’t have had their fingers so close to the trigger that they the pulled it” because they don’t have real experience outside of a classroom.

            The “I didn’t think it was loaded” discharges will never go away as that is human error. Safeties can only help to mitigate the risk involved in carrying a handgun. If you couple that with effective training, safeties can only help you and they cannot hurt you.

            Note: Please do not assume that I addressed truly negligent discharges like the one by Tex Grebner.

          • Harry’s Holsters

            I’m not a LEO obviously so I don’t have to worry about re-holstering quickly. That said 60% of law enforcement wouldn’t carry glocks if a thumb safety prevented NDs like you’re saying. That’s not to forgot that other striker fired guns without Thumb Safeties that they carry. Insurance companies would offer preferable rates to LE agencies that carried guns with a Thumb Safety.

          • Ben Pottinger

            He’s also siting a single incident on a holster style unlikely to be used in the military (a tac light kydex holster) and you (like I) as a holster maker probably know that it’s kinda hard to make a light compatible holster without a bit of gap at the top. I bet a child could work their finger into it given time. Not an issue with a non light kydex holster and probably an easy enough “fix” if your that paranoid (take the kydex higher up towards the grip?) . For personal carry it’s a risk I’m willing to absorb considering the likelihood.

          • Joseph Goins

            The subject of the discussion is about adoption by the military, not personal carry. You as an individual can pick what you want to match your circumstances. The military does not have that luxury. They have to maximize security for a number of reasons. But, this wasn’t a single, isolated incident that I mentioned. Here’s another Safariland holster with Glock and light as that is industry standard: http://www . lodinews . com/news/article_c49d5473-7e86-538b-879d-300ca160e9cc.html

            Moreover, you may want to hold off on your characterization that the military is unlikely to issue pistol lights and compatible holster designs. Different SOCOM units were already issuing pistol lights when I left in 2008. New accessories like lights and lasers (and possibly hollow points) are being considered for standardization according to the Request for Proposal. The RFP specifically wants a design that can be concealed for a more cover profile which will almost necessitate a light on the gun (and I am speaking from practical overseas experience here). When something like this happen, holster design will be the last thing considered. It is always going to be gun, accessories, and then holster. As smaller lights like the Surefire XC1 come to market, the odds go up even more.

          • Ben Pottinger

            See your pointing to the trigger as the problem when the problem is obviously children. If I stay away from annoying children I’m perfectly safe!

            Also these are technically not ND’s since someone is actively trying to discharge the firearm.

            You say (or someone was saying) the concern is that dumb grunts will have the weapon and then point out holster failures with very specific criteria (weapon lights and annoying children) that are unlikely to be issued to dumb grunts (socom, sf, etc sure, general issue, no).

            It just feels like people are digging pretty deep to try and find a reason why glocks are a bad choice.

          • Joseph Goins

            Touché about the children. Now, getting to the real stuff…

            All I pointed out when I mentioned the holsters is that they give people a false sense of safety regarding their trigger when there is no manual safety activated. And while you are right that “these are technically not ND’s since someone is actively trying to discharge the firearm,” I never called them “negligent” as they are, more appropriately, unintentional discharges by the real user (the officers).

            My original point stands: The whole “pistols shouldn’t have safeties” debate has two fundamental flaws: it assumes that the a) user will b) knowingly pull the trigger. Murphy’s law tells us otherwise. That is why soldiers are taught to disengage the active safety when their sights are on target and to reengage it when the sights leave the target (exactly the same as on a rifle). If they do that, then they won’t have a negligent discharge for any reason (except the “I didn’t know it was loaded type”) regardless of whatever circumstance causes the user to touch the trigger prior to the conscious decision to shoot.

            If you want to talk holster design, remember that the Army and Marines have the Blackhawk Serpa. The design has been banned from many police ranges (Dallas PD, FLETC, etc.) and tactical training courses (Larry Vickers, Gunsite, etc.). The problem with it’s design, as you probably know, it that it requires the trigger finger to depress the button instead of having a thumb operated mechanism like the Safariland ALS. While many people will be quick to discuss “training flaws,” they need to remember that human error affects trained individuals as well. Guns & Ammo did a video previously where they mentioned how the Serpa was safe and people who fuçk up can only blame themselves. What they didn’t realize is that the video actually demonstrated why it is a terrible design. Patrick Sweeney (the handgun editor) drew his PPQ and stuck his finger in the trigger guard similar to Tex Grebner. Watch the video: https://youtu . be/LJ2Qg4xwHgg. If the military keeps their standard issue holster and selects a gun without a manual safety, they will have an exponential increase in workplace accidents.

          • Ben Pottinger

            Ugg those were terrible holsters. I actually bought one when they first came out and the first trip to the “range” (I shoot at private property) I thought to myself how likely you would be to blow your own toes off trying to draw the gun quickly from the holster. It was quickly “retired”. I also discovered the biggest expense to CCW isn’t the gun, its all the holsters you end up buying.

            That said since they can’t “reuse” the old holsters if they move to the Glock we don’t have any reason to believe they *would* stick with the old design (considering the obvious flaws when used on a gun without a manual safety). Of course, *that said* (for the second time) they might very well go with a Glock *with* a manual safety (since as we have seen with the FBI and Israel Glock is more then willing to make changes given a big enough customer).

            I suspect the argument is unlikely to be settled on here considering the outcomes of our fictional scenario(s). Your scenario’s require someone to admit they they might shoot themselves or others while the scenario the “no safety” crowd tends to use is the one where you draw your gun and pull the trigger, nothing happens and your subsequently killed and your body profaned by (insert badguy here). Regardless the probability involved (and if we discussed statistics I suspect your scenario has a much higher probability simply because you draw and holster your weapon far more often then you are attacked by body profaning killers) I know my brain fears scenario #2 far more than scenario #1 (because like most good humans I think “it won’t happen to *me*”).

            Hopefully we will find out sometime in the next decade or two what the military thinks on the matter.

          • Joseph Goins

            That said since they can’t “reuse” the old holsters if they move to the Glock we don’t have any reason to believe they *would* stick with the old design That was one reason why I mentioned the Safariland ALS system as it is the other major player in the tactical holster market.

            Where have you said previously that they might very well go with a Glock *with* a manual safety (since as we have seen with the FBI and Israel Glock is more then willing to make changes given a big enough customer)? I certainly didn’t read that in your two previous posts to this thread.

            I believe the DOD will buy the Glock 19 simply for the price savings. That’s why they chose the M9 over the P226 in the first place.

          • Ben Pottinger

            I said “that said” twice in the two sentences (which is what my comment was referring to, not me discussing manual safety fitted glocks in a previous post). And I hope your right about going with Glock because of cost, simply because handguns are of such minor importance to a military they shouldn’t cost much (yes, at an individual level their function is pretty vital, but ”tis the life of a grunt.. lol).

            Someone further up the comment chain said apparently the Glock submission does have a safety, I don’t know if that’s true but like I said it would be easy enough for them to do.

          • Joseph Goins

            You shouldn’t be so quick to say good training can fix “training flaws.” Human error is more common than you realize even in well-trained individuals. Watch this video were the Guns & Ammo handgun editor tries to say that the Blackhawk Serpa is safe: https://youtu . be/LJ2Qg4xwHgg. Pay close attention to his reasoning (“you need to apply the four fundamentals all the time”) and watch his finger very closely at the 2:29 mark. He almost shot himself in the foot.

            The Serpa design has been banned from many police ranges (Dallas PD, FLETC, etc.) and tactical training courses (Larry Vickers, Paul Howe, etc.). The problem with it’s design, as you probably know, it that it requires the trigger finger to depress the button instead of having a thumb operated mechanism like the Safariland ALS and Bladetech Thumbdrive.

            Good to know that Army and Marines value their service members so little.

          • Harry’s Holsters

            This has been a good discussion that I’ve enjoyed.

    • Brocus

      Unlike the model sold to the public the Beretta ARX entry for the MHS program was shown with a frame mounted safety. Glock’s entry might be a similar deviation from current models.

      • Anonymoose

        The Israelis had Glock 17S and 19S models, but I doubt they would trot out those now. The lack of a manual safety on the Glock is one its main selling points.

        • James Young

          I believe a manual safety was in the requirements for MHS, so Glock would have had to add one. Though maybe they have been eliminated like Smith & Wesson. Has anyone considered that?

    • Ray

      If you’re too dumb to keep your finger off the trigger, do you really have enough brain cells to activate the manual safety?

    • majorrod

      A requirement for the MHS is it have an external safety. The Glock submission has one.

  • Harry’s Holsters

    The Armed Services just need to adopt a Gen 4 Glock 19 and not order back straps. Less to loose and they fit small hands better than the Gen 3. Plus it would be very easy to get armors up to speed and parts won’t be an issue. The biggest problems I could see are guys on deployment putting new springs, guide rods, and connectors in their guns causing issues for the armorers and potential reliability issues. I guess this would depend on how close of an eye they keep on issued weapons.

    • Joseph Goins

      Were you ever in the military? No one but armorers can put “new springs, guide rods, and connectors in their guns.”

      • CommonSense23

        Or people in units that treat their personnel like adults.

      • Harry’s Holsters

        No but but I also understand guys may do things behind the armor’s back and defy the rules which is what I was referring to above.

        • Joseph Goins

          What the f… Leave it alone, Joe! Ok kid. Whatever you say.

      • RedSHARK

        Well….No one in the “regular” Army

  • Cozmolyne

    “Some of the other Glock-offs, like the Smith & Wesson M&P . . .”

    I’m so tired of hearing this crap. Glocks are striker-fired, polymer framed BHPs. Glocks, M&Ps, Sigmas, VPs, Walthers, CZs and a vast majority of pistols on the market today are BHP copies. End of story.

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      Well with that logic you could say that the bhp is a double stack 9mm 1911 copy and provoke the question as to why anyone changed at all. Why did we change? Because they are better.

      • Cozmolyne

        Yeah, except a 1911 is functionally different in that it uses a toggle-link. BHP and Glock both use a barrel that tilts via camming rather than a toggle link.

    • Joseph Goins

      Glocks are striker-fired, polymer framed BHPs. Glocks, M&Ps, Sigmas, VPs, Walthers, CZs and a vast majority of pistols on the market today are BHP copies. End of story.

      Can you tell me who your dealer is? I want to smoke the good stuff like you. They are not even close to the BHP (unless you are looking at a double stack magazine which it wasn’t even the first double stack). Polymer and strikers were first combined on the HK VP70. Every modern gun is a copy of that.

      • AC97

        I think they mean that they are copies in that they all use the Browning tilting barrel design.

        • Kyle_D

          Even if thats the case, that’s like calling every vehicle ever just a copy for the Model T because they use internal combustion engines and assembly lines. Ridiculous oversimplification

          • AC97

            I agree.

          • Cozmolyne

            No, it would be a ridiculous oversimplification if I said they’re copies because they use cased ammunition with a detachable magazine.

            Look up a picture of a Glock and BHP disassembled, side-by-side. They are functionally the same gun, save the firing mechanism.

        • Joseph Goins

          The tilting barrel design isn’t even exclusive to the HP.

    • Audie Bakerson

      Actually from what I’ve read Browning’s original prototype of the Hi-Power was striker fired in the first place.

    • n0truscotsman

      The Sigma and M&P *are* Glock-offs. This is well known and is the source of many contentious arguments.

      • James Young

        Doesn’t even matter who was first. People only use terms like Glock-off to insult the competition. Pointless

  • Black Dots

    This just makes sense. Glocks tick a lot of the most important boxes: cheap (especially for a government agency), reliable, easy to train on, and did I mention cheap? Also, I’m sure the vast majority of the soldiers getting these either own one or have spent a lot of time behind one.

  • Ranger Rick

    It only took about 35 years for this to happen.

  • Nicks87

    “1911s No Longer Pistol of Choice for SF” You say that as if it just happened. The trend away from 1911s has been going on for some time now. Only a few bitter clingers are still holding on to there antiques.

    • Joseph Goins

      No one has 1911s anymore. MARSOC just announced they were getting rid of theirs.

      • Ron

        Force Recon and the various base SRT will still use them.

        • Joseph Goins

          Force recon is not in the SOCOM chain of command which is what the commenter was referencing.

          • Ron

            got you, the SF thing is bit off could mean, Special Forces or Security Forces (AF, Navy and Marine Corps).

          • Joseph Goins

            The post itself was about SOF units. SMUs, SF, Rangers, SEALs, and MARSOC were all mentioned by name.

          • Ron

            The title is written by someone without a high degree of knowledge of military organizations. “Breaking: Rangers Go Glock, Is the US Army Soon to Follow? 1911s Not Longer Pistol of Choice for SF” The term SF can connote three service specific Occupational fields, Army Special Forces, Air Force Security Force and Marine Security Forces and is also job description for Navy personnel. To be more accurate it should have said special operations forces, since if it only applied to the Army Special Forces, they gave up 1911s a long time ago and the other hold out wothin Army Special Operations Forces gave them up mid-GWOT.

          • Joseph Goins

            I’m not disagreeing with you. The post was about SOF. That’s what I addressed. Based on the simple assumption that author accidentally left out the “O.”

          • Joshua

            I always thought SF = Army Special Forces.

            Or when I read SF that’s how I take it, though a lot use SF interchangeably with multiple units.

          • CommonSense23

            Where are you getting Force Recon is in the Socom chain. Thats the whole point of Marsoc.

          • Joseph Goins

            They aren’t in SOCOM.

          • Joseph Goins

            Because they aren’t in SOCOM.

          • Joseph Goins

            Because they aren’t in SOCOM.

    • Cozmolyne

      “Only a few bitter clingers are still holding on to there antiques.”

      I know this is just an obnoxious fanboy being an obnoxious fanboy, but I’ll debunk this idea that ANY pistol is antiquated just because it’s old for passing readers:

      Any pistol that is semi-automatic, uses a detachable magazine, and uses cased, smokeless powder is not antiquated. Find me one example of a modern pistol where this isn’t the case (obviously funky prototype weapons excluded). Every single one has these three characteristics.

      Can a pistol meet the above criteria and be considered “old” or “behind the curve”? Most certainly. Antiquated? Absolute nonsense. Single shot, black-powder pistols are antiquated. SA revolvers are antiquated, black or smokeless. 1911s are not.

      • Joe

        Yeah, because a single action, overweight, low capacity, expensive to produce correctly, comparatively unreliable, more difficult to assemble/disassemble (or requires tools if it uses an updated guide rod), pistol with a manual safety is so appropriate in combat use. The 1911 is old, period. It is a classic design which can be fun to shoot at a range. Does it work? Yes. Are there so many better designs on the market that it renders the 1911 antiquated? Yes.

        Most modern pistols such as the Glock and M&P all use an updated version of the Browning tilting barrel locking mechanism. As in the same mechanism that is in the 1911 except modern pistols use a linkless version. There is nothing wrong with the 1911 as a pistol especially in the context of what it (and other JMB designs) brought to us but time and technology has moved on.

        I know people who carry 1911s and modern pistols everyday. I carry an M&P personally for full disclosure. This being said, everyone I know who carries a 1911 cannot give me one good reason why they do so besides they like the design (nostalgia) or they are forced to carry them (in the case of a local Sheriff who mandates their deputies carry them). If an individual wants to carry a 1911 that is on them. If a government wants a modern pistol they choose something besides a 1911.

        • Cozmolyne

          The fact that people are able to work around these short comings and make the 1911 work for them just as well as any other modern pistol pretty much renders your point moot.

          The 1911 is still used by some parts of the military and by many police officers and even some instructors; I’ll wait for you to explain how a gun that is still present among those who truly use them for combat roles is “antiquated” and not relevant. Unless you’re willing to make the case that the military still uses muzzleloaders.

          • CommonSense23

            Who still uses the 1911 in the military?

          • Ray

            Except they’re not just as good. Units are dumping 1911s because they’re cumbersome, finicky beasts. Romanticism keeps the 1911 alive more than anything else, and your infatuation is part of it. Is it serviceable? Sure, but you could say the same about a revolver. However, that does not make it a good choice for a service pistol. It provides no benefits compared to modern polymer pistols, at the cost of weight, complexity, low capacity, and temperament.

          • Cozmolyne

            “Units are dumping 1911s because they’re cumbersome, finicky beasts.”

            Well they never actually said why they’re dropping the 1911 but sure, whatever.

            “Romanticism keeps the 1911 alive more than anything else, and your infatuation is part of it.”

            I never said the 1911 was my handgun of choice. All I’m doing here is arguing against fanboy fanaticism like yours. I don’t care if it’s with Glocks, 1911s, or any other guns.

            “Is it serviceable? Sure, but you could say the same about a revolver.”

            Well it’s a good thing I’m talking just about pistols then.

            “However, that does not make it a good choice for a service pistol. It provides no benefits compared to modern polymer pistols, at the cost of weight, complexity, low capacity, and temperament.”

            No, what makes it a good choice for a service pistol is if it is a pistol that you are most comfortable with. My god, do you people know what “subjectivity” is?

          • Marc

            “work around these short comings and make the 1911 work for them just as well” is drivel. It has its shortcomings. Some people simply prefer nostalgia over a better pistol, but that’s no excuse when tax money is to be spent.

          • Cozmolyne

            “Some people simply prefer nostalgia over a better pistol”

            Yeah, sure, it’s not like some people shoot some pistols better than others or anything like that.

            The human colon puts out methane, not oxygen. You’ll suffocate yourself if you don’t pull your head out of our butt.

          • n0truscotsman

            “The fact that people are able to work around these short comings and
            make the 1911 work for them just as well as any other modern pistol
            pretty much renders your point moot.”

            It renders nothing moot, especially among organizations that require a large number of handguns in service, with finite budgets.

          • Cozmolyne

            My point is not that the 1911 is good for organizations. It’s whether or not it is a relevant pistol, which it is, and therefor not “antiquated.”

            But the M14 is not obsolete. A lever action is obsolete. A musket is obsolete. A blackpowder cannon is obsolete. A single action revolver is obsolete.

        • majorrod

          Have you not heard of high capacity 1911’s?

          Seems there’s something still there considering how often they are seen in use by competitors.

      • Audie Bakerson

        The C96 Mausers that used detachable mags?

        • Cozmolyne

          Yes, as ridiculous as it sounds, but it was really kinda designed to be used with a stock so it wouldn’t work well but I’m sure someone could manage it.

      • Kivaari

        M1911s were replaced because time showed they were unreliable. A the base model for comparison the M1911 had horrible performance in the 80s tests. The latestest and newest models are expensive and do not perform as well as desired and no mater how you slice it the ammo is heavy and magazine size is small. A can (1000rds) of .45 weighs nearly twice what a can of 9mm weighs. A Glock at 22 ounces v. 40 ounce M1911 allows more ammo to be carried – and it is in a gun that works.

        • majorrod

          Where are the results of this supposed 80’s test?

          • Kivaari

            It was well published in the era. First the USAF dd a test and came up with the M92F. The Army wasn’t happy with the AF tests so they re-ran the entire test again and came up with the M92F which became the M9. Than the slide failures took place and the M92FS evolved. The M9 added the “S” feature for all future guns and replacements. It only took a new slide and new hammer pivot pin. The M1911 did very poorly. A few contenders did even worse. Like Colt’s DA submission.

          • majorrod

            Link?

            I learned long ago to look at source documents vs. relying on the interpretation of those documents by others.

          • Kivaari

            Do your own research. The end result of both tests happens to be the M9 pistol. You do understand that the testing did result in the M9 don’t you?

          • majorrod

            I was wondering if you had done yours. So many just repeat what they heard especially when it supports their preconceived beliefs.

            Yes, I actually carried both the 1911 and M9. The research is interesting. There’s is a huge difference in reliability from the “81 to ’84 test They changed definitions and the way things were measured in the later tests where the 1911 did poorly. Funny, in ’81 the 1911 beat the M9.

            If one is open minded and reads further into the report it expresses reliability in successful firings vs. breaking down the different types of malfunctions. In that perspective the 1911 beat the M9 in ’81 by .02% and lost to it in ’84 by a whopping .4%.

            BTW, the M9 didn’t win in the ’81 tests and the Air Force used 1911’s that were 35 years old.

            Thanks for making my point about relying on others to interpret data…

          • Kivaari

            They used existing M1911A1s as none had been bought since 1945.

          • majorrod

            Understand (and knew) everything you said (and agree the Army wanted a 9mm solution) but you don’t get the problem with using old guns to compare against new pistols and then when they don’t do well calling all the old gun unreliable?

            Sure, let’s take a 35 year old Glock and compare it against ____. You’d be rightly screaming yet this is EXACTLY what you are doing attempting to support the “antiques” comment by Nick! Remember you called the 1911 (not the 1911’s in the inventory back then) “unreliable”.

            Using this old test to condemn brand new .45’s simply demonstrates a
            lack of knowledge that the old tests used old .45’s or a bias that
            simply doesn’t care for fair comparisons. Which one is it?

            BTW, on a separate note. There were 1911’s chambered in 9mm even back then or we could have retrofitted 19112…

          • Kivaari

            Ask users of new M1911-type guns if they are reliable out of the box. I’ve owned 15 1911-type pistols over 50+ years. There were some unreliable ones. I know when I was shooting IDPA the people that showed up with Kimbers never seemed to finish without failures.
            I remember Clint Smith’s article about what common sense dictated. He commented that he saw so many 1911-types fail at his classes that his advice was to buy a Glock 19 and be done with it. Why screw around?
            Why convert the M1911A1s to 9mm? Well, you would still end up with an old single action pistol that did not meet the desires of the Army and AF.
            At the time they desired and wrote the RFP for pistols like the M9. There was no way they were going to convert M1911s. There is a real weak spot in the 1911 9mms, and that is that fragile splinter-like ejector.
            Today we have better pistols than we did in 1984. Training and tactics have changed enough that the current school makes a Glock-like pistol more desirable than any SA or DA/SA pistol. A DAO-style pistol simply makes more sense. We have come a long way since 1911.

          • majorrod

            I’m a 1911 owner, have owned several over 30 years so yes I qualify as a user. But let’s get back to the point, your sliding scale.

            You yourself admitted, “I’ve owned 15 1911-type pistols over 50+ years. There were SOME unreliable ones.” (emphasis added.)

            So not ALL of them were unreliable as you have characterized the 1911 platform?

            You misstated what the results were for the USAF and Army pistol tests.

            Now you supposedly know the RFP was written specifically for the Beretta?

            I don’t really care which pistol the Army chooses as long as it’s a reliable one and meets the RFP’s but your credibility is shot and the repeated fake information you use to support your conclusions does Glock no favors.

          • Kivaari

            NO, I said the military wanted a Beretta-type pistol. Only the Beretta and SIG made ti through the testing. The SIG lost out due to spare parts and support costs. It look like the military in a bid to appease SIG adopter the P228 in order to get a smaller gun and stop lawsuits. There were candidates from severa makers including Colt and S&W. Their guns did not hold up.
            Regarding some M1911 working they did. Some failed. As for Glocks the ones I owned, upward of 15, two gave issues. a first gen M19 (part of the G2) and a G2 17. After the recall kits were installed they worked fine. An issue with the M1911 was issuance of low bid magazines. I had a small box full of defective magazines. I’ve never needed a box for defective glock magazines.
            As I’v said I want a Glock like pistol, brand isn’t important. I do like the P320.

          • Kivaari

            That’s misrepresents what I said.

          • majorrod

            If I’m misrepresenting what you said I apologize.

            Please point out where I said something you didn’t say.

          • This chart from a GAO report on the XM9 program shows snippets from the results of the 1981 and 1984 tests. It narrows down the results to the Beretta 92SBF, HK P7M13, SIG-Sauer P226 (sponsored by Saco Defense), the S&W 459, and the control M1911A1.

            http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf#page=30

            There are additional comparison charts in the following pages.

      • gunsandrockets

        The actual practical differences between CCW handguns is inversely proportional to the talk devoted to those differences.

    • Kivaari

      It’s been an ongoing process for 70 years. There was a desire to go to 9mm in the WW2 era. The Army did testing in the 40-50s, than war got in the way. Finally 35 years ago they got real serious and we ended up with the M9. Now is the time to get a Glock-like pistol.

      • Ron

        If you look at the MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES ARMY
        WOUND BALLISTICS study of wounds from WWII, Korea and the early stages of Vietnam published in 1962, they discuss at the length the advantages in terms of wounds produced of 9mm over the 45.
        “From an analysis of these facts and the requirements for penetration of skin and bone, it can be readily appreciated that the .45 caliber bullet is of little value as a wound-producing agent except in the softer tissues and at near ranges. The bullet often fails either to penetrate or to fracture bone and practically never shatters bone in the manner common to the rifle bullet or fragment. The Japanese and German sidearms with muzzle velocities of approximately 1,100 f.p.s. were much more effective as antipersonnel weapons than the .45 caliber weapon. While the same bullet with its characteristics was used in the submachinegun, multiple hits probably compensated for the weaknesses, so apparent in single shots”

      • You might appreciate the mini-history of the 9x19mm selection process that I pieced together for an episode of Handgun Radio.

        http://firearmsradio.tv/handgun-radio/105

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    The big question is whether the army goes with the better p320 or the cheaper glock

  • JustAHologram

    I’m not buying #5, that is entirely personal preference. Personally it goes SAO>SA/DA>Striker>DAO

  • ReadyorNot

    1911s have been out of style for a while haven’t they? I think MARSOC with the

    Colt M45A1 is one of the last adopters?

    • Joseph Goins

      They switched to the Glock within the last month.

      • ReadyorNot

        Oh wow, did not know that! Didn’t they just induct the 1911 too?

        • Joseph Goins

          I think that adopted it in 2011/12.

          • Ron

            First fielding of M45A1 was 2nd week of Apr 2013 with the MarDet Ft Lee, the next week the II MEF and the East Coast MARSOC units got their first guns.

      • CommonSense23

        They have been using the 19 for years. They officially dropped the 1911 last month.

  • Rnasser Rnasser

    How is something that has been happening for at least the last five years is “breaking news”?

  • A bearded being from beyond ti

    So i guess it’s fair to say that Glock is the AR-15 of the pistol world?

    • Dougscamo

      I love this post! Now, not only will we be getting guys arguing Glock vs 1911 and guys arguing about who is or isn’t a Ranger, we will now introduce AR vs….fill in the blank….great! And this was not sarcasm on my part A bearded being….just love your ability to keep the ball rolling….

    • Joseph Goins

      Nah, I’d compare it more to the AK47. Glock is very likely the most circulated handgun in the world. It is tough as nails, reliable as it can be, and easy to instruct people on.

      • Ron

        I think you will find more Browning Hi-power style pistols out there than Glocks just because HP have been in circulation longer.

        • Audie Bakerson

          Yeah, 1911, Hi-power, Makarov and CZ-75 types are likely all ahead of the Glock in circulation

  • Fine. FIne! FINE! I get it. I’ll go buy a G19… Jeez

  • A Fascist Corgi

    I still think that it’s a mistake for the military to select a pistol without a manual thumb safety. As that blog entry stated, having to use a pistol in combat is quite rare. So, you’re basically going to have millions of men and women with varying degrees of intelligence, maturity, and coordination constantly handling hot handguns that have relatively light and short trigger pulls. I guarantee you that far more U.S. soldiers will be injured by their own handguns than these handguns will be used to shoot the enemy.

    And as to the common argument that thumb safeties slow down combat engagements to an unacceptable degree; it’s odd how these same people would never own an AR-15 that didn’t have a manual thumb safety. It’s a perfect example of a completely illogical double standard.

    • Joshua

      Glock has made 3 manual safety derivatives for tenders.

      • majorrod

        Austria and the UK. Is the current submission the third or am I missing one?

        • Joshua

          I believe it was the joint combat pistol, if I’m remembering correctly.

          • majorrod

            Are you talking about the preceding pistol competition the USAF ran and is now the Army’s baby as the MHS?

    • CommonSense23

      AR15s don’t sit in holsters until they are needed. Trying to compare the lack of a safety on a Glock to a M4 is asinine.
      Pistol use has been split pretty much down the middle in the GWOT down to didn’t have a rifle such as blue on green or a base attack. Or wounded used. With some notable exceptions. When wounded you want the least amount of steps to fire.

      • Joseph Goins

        “Trying to compare the lack of a safety on a Glock to a M4 is asinine.”

        It really isn’t. Stop getting your training from James Yeager.

        • CommonSense23

          How is it not. One sits on a two point sling or one point with a unprotected trigger. The other sits in a holster the vast majority of time until it’s in your hand.

          • Joseph Goins

            Because it is based on two incorrect assumptions:

            #1 A holstered weapon is not the same as a safe weapon.

            #2 The only thing you need to do to avoid a negligent discharge is to not press the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

          • n0truscotsman

            1.) Strawman. Nobody is claiming that a holstered weapon is the same as a *safe weapon*, by safe, meaning, empty.

            However, yes, a holstered weapon is generally “safer”, as opposed to one held by the soldier who also has to naviate through vegetation and other environmental elements that could possibly pull the trigger.

            This is why a glock-style safety works on a glock and not a AR15.

            2.) This is a general rule of thumb that is true 99% of the time, unless extraordinarily rare circumstances occur. Why im having to address this, I have no idea. Of course, the other 3 rules apply with equal validity.

            Stop trying to poison the well with james yeager.

          • Joseph Goins

            You are literally the first person to ever associate me with Yeager.

          • Joseph Goins

            #1A You and I are not using the same definition of “safe.” The original commenter referred to the AR-15 as having “unprotected trigger” which needed a safety. I am using his definition for my word “safe.”

            #1B You were the one who used a strawman argument when you discussed holstered weapon is generally “safer” instead of *safe weapon*, by safe, meaning, empty

            #2 You assume that the user knowingly has the final say in whether or not the gun goes off which is aided by the other 3 rules. Murphy’s law says you are wrong on both accounts:
            —-It doesn’t need to be the user that pulls the trigger.
            —-The user doesn’t need to know what he’s doing for it to go off.

          • n0truscotsman

            Im not interested in interpreting different people’s meanings of what the word *safe* means.

            My point is that a M4 without a safety, used as intended, is a helluva lot *less safe* than a holstered Glock.

            That is why it has an external safety.

          • CommonSense23

            Ok so what is your definition of a safe weapon if a holsters weapon isn’t safe. And for NDs other than open bolt weapons what else needs to be done to prevent NDs other than not pressing the trigger.

          • Joseph Goins

            As I said earlier, dismissing comparisons of pistol and rifle safeties is not fair because you have to assume two things:

            #1 A holstered weapon is the same as a safe weapon.

            Correct me if I’m wrong here: The theory on why a rifle needs a safety is because the trigger might get hooked on your gear and go off when it is slung behind your back as you make your way up a mountain with vegetation. Right? You even said the rifle sits on a two point sling or one point with a unprotected trigger. This begs the question of whether or not a holster protects the trigger. You assume that it does when there are plenty of examples that prove otherwise:

            Leather
            http://www . itstactical . com/warcom/firearms/safety-warning-worn-leather-holsters-can-cause-accidental-discharges/

            Nylon
            http://www . concealednation . org/2016/02/when-bad-holsters-turn-worse-this-guy-took-one-right-in-the-a-heres-why-a-proper-holster-is-essential/

            Kydex (specifically Safariland Model 6360)
            http://www . your4state . com/news/news/winchester-police-research-new-holsters-after-school-bus-gun-incident

            #2 The only thing you need to do to avoid a negligent discharge is to not press the trigger until you are ready to shoot.

            Have you ever had environmental issues come up?

            User Slipped and Fell
            http://www . nydailynews . com/news/national/colorado-slips-ice-accidentally-shoots-suspect-article-1.2470940.

            Gun Fell On The Floor
            http://www . palmbeachpost . com/news/state–regional/shot-when-man-drops-gun-fla-cracker-barrel/gxg8DMfmAVBbZtOyHsSuEI/
            http://www . americablog . com/2013/02/wife-drops-gun-at-mcdonalds-accidentally-shoots-husband.html
            http://www . myfox8 . com/2013/12/27/handgun-accidentally-discharged-at-kernersville-restaurant/

          • Flight Er Doc

            The only holstered weapon I’ve ever seen fired was a Colt SAA in a gunbelt that was dropped on the hammer…

            Not exactly a Glock problem. Would you care to explain your reasoning?

          • Joseph Goins

            There are plenty of incidents where a gun was fired while inside of a holster. Here are some examples examples from across the holster spectrum:

            Leather holster with Glock
            http://www . itstactical . com/warcom/firearms/safety-warning-worn-leather-holsters-can-cause-accidental-discharges/

            Nylon holster with unknown handgun
            http://www . concealednation . org/2016/02/when-bad-holsters-turn-worse-this-guy-took-one-right-in-the-a-heres-why-a-proper-holster-is-essential/

            Kydex holster with Glock (Safariland Model 6360)
            http://www . your4state . com/news/news/winchester-police-research-new-holsters-after-school-bus-gun-incident

            While you can dismiss the leather and nylon holsters as not being a “proper” or “quality” holster, I included them here because many people (myself included) use them.

            FYI: I’ve personally seen two “drop safe” Glocks fire when they landed. All it takes is enough force to bump the center switch and the trigger at the same time. I’m not saying that to diss Glock as a brand. I’m saying it for the same reason as nonlethal and less than lethal should be called less likely to be lethal. I still shoot all of my Glocks and have my G26 as my backup car gun.

            I do like Glocks and shoot mine regularly. It’s not a

    • n0truscotsman

      Its not a double standard at all. You are being disingenuous.

      For anybody who has worn equipment in the field, it should be obvious why a primary fighting rifle has a safety.

      Entirely different than a handgun that spends most of its time protected inside a holster. Not that the Glock doesn’t have a *safety* because it does.

      NDs are failures that are addressed with training, familiarity, and leadership.

      • majorrod

        I’ve worn equipment in the field for a couple of decades. Both a rifle and pistol are in a soldier’s hand when in use. A pistol is designed to be used with one hand (e.g. try releasing the bolt on an M4 keeping one’s hand on the pistol grip) and are therefore even more easily fired necessitating a need for a manual safety.

        If there was less of a need for a safety on a pistol users of pistols with a safety wouldn’t be routinely required to engage that safety when moving on a range between targets (and taking their finger off thr trigger is as necessitated for users of pistols without a manual safety)..

        The rules of gun safety don’t change based on the platform one is using. Yes, pistols spend time in holsters. They get used in people’s hands. A lot of this “no manual safety is required” is due to Glocks their popularity and their culture (e.g. “Glock Perfection”). What many don’t realize is that Glock has actually produced Glocks with manual safeties for both Austrian and British Army trials.

        I don’t disagree with the statement, “Glocks are safe without a manual safety”. It REALLY depends on the shooters training on whether any gun is safe. So the discussion that pistols don’t need safeties because they live in holsters just rings hollow. Many of our early pistols (and long guns) did not have safeties on them. Today it’s much more common for pistols not to have them and it seems people mentally justify the omission rather than question the practice.

        For the longest time our police used revolvers because the long hard trigger pull was a safety feature. The 1911 single action necessitated a safety because it can be easy to fire a round especially in a stressful situation. Double actions started to be adopted by police to provide that long hard initial trigger pull again as a safety concern. Stryker fired pistols like the Glock have reduced that trigger pull.and now we are in a phase where training has largely replaced the perceived need for a manual safety. Though it is interesting that large departments like the NYPD and others require heavier triggers on their issued Glocks.

    • RedSHARK

      “having to use a pistol in combat is quite rare”, that’s a general statement, and wrong depending on which units you talk to. Also “I still think that it’s a mistake for the military to select a pistol that doesn’t have a manual thumb safety”, make no mistake the M9 is chambered and de-cocked and the thumb safety is off, so when you draw all you have to do is pull the trigger, you never operate the thumb safety like one thinks, and it is almost always used to decock the pistol. Don’t mistake the thumb safety use by the military as used like an ACTUAL safety.

  • nova3930

    I’ll be surprised if the Glock wins Big Army. Don’t know what the requirements as written were for SF but I’d virtually guarantee they’re different than Big Army. Fact is a lot of SF procurement bypasses the normal processes to the point they just pick what they want and buy it. Big Army can’t do that….
    I also know that the FBI requirements were different than Big Army, due to different definitions in human factors compatibility…..

    • Joshua

      FBI tender was hand made for the P320, yet the Glock ended up winning despite not being “modular” enough.

      • nova3930

        And that’s all dependent on the metrics used for evaluation. Some requirements can be more heavily weighted than others. Something we don’t necessarily get a window into.
        I’d almost bet that the modularity requirement is more heavily weighted with the Army though. It’s integral to meeting the 5-95 male/female compatibility requirement and that’s integral to meeting the requirements of the political types that control the purse strings………

  • Frank Grimes

    What is the rabid obsession people have with what handgun the military may or may not issue?

    What kind of extended individual handgun gunfights are happening?

    They could issue S&W 64s and it wouldn’t make any practical difference.

    • Rock or Something

      Handguns are rarely ever used in the military and the absolute minority when it comes to actually combat use.

      However, if you ever have to use it, it better damn well work. Because if you are down to that, you are a real bad pickle. Hence the interest on what will be picked next.

  • PaC SGM (R)

    Group CIF’s have been running G19’s as back up’s for years along with more then a few people using them under the radar in Iraq back in the day.

  • Audie Bakerson

    Will we see more support for “M17” builds with no OEM parts now? We know from the Colt v. Bushmaster M4 thing Glock won’t own “M17” so that solves the “what the hell do you market it as” question.

  • 🐒👊

    And so the GREAT 1911 SELL OFF of 2016 began.

  • David B

    I’ve said before how I personally don’t like glocks, but how they make sense for a military/police duty weapon. However, it would irk me if they won the “Modular Handgun System” contract since they aren’t actually, you know, modular.

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      has nobody pointed out yet how the barrels on the gen 5 glock 17s are just longer glock 19 barrels and use a 19 locking block. so you should be able to just stick a 17 slide on a 19 frame, and they’ve got back straps. I don’t see how the sig 320 is anymore modular.

  • PaC SGM (R)

    Good write up and great points on the reasoning for the G19

  • Glock, not just for breakfast anymore.

  • Ron

    Until a few years ago SOCOM was working on a common CQB pistol; the reason MARSOC got M45A1s as its CQB pistol was their previous position was they would acquire what ever the SOCOM adapted as the CQBP. When that program died they tied in with the M45A1 acquisition which never really met their needs. So as SOCOM started to buy Glocks, it only became natural it filled the CQBP requirement and units started getting them instead of spending service dollars for a service specific weapon.

    • Joseph Goins

      SOCOM had Glocks floating around before MARSOC even existed.
      Your theory is wrong.

  • Kivaari

    An excellent choice. It should have happened decades ago.

  • Blue Centurion

    Heres to hoping the slide won’t fall off when dry firing.

    • uisconfruzed

      That spring design was replaced years ago.

      • cisco kid

        Actually Glock just recalled its latest model because once again the slides were falling off. They never solved this problem since the 1980’s

        • uisconfruzed

          Egads, I hadn’t heard that, I thought it just applied to my 16+ yr old G27, that has never failed.

  • Jeff S

    SF? When did the Green Berets last use a 1911?

    • James Young

      What do they carry?

      • RedSHARK

        We carry Glocks now…used to carry the Beretta M9 (which was AWFUL).

      • Jeff S

        SF=Special Forces=Green Berets. Rangers, MARSOC, NSW, AFSOC, etc. are not Special Forces; they’re Special Operations. The article title is a little jacked up. Just trying to make sense of it.

  • Drawing Guy

    The 1911 was designed very specifically for one purpose. Have a look at the story if you’re not familiar with it. Those who are concerned with similar problems as those this weapon was designed to deal with will agree that while they may also carry other weapons, they will always carry this one.

    • pbla4024

      For killing a horse.

  • Kivaari

    The M1911 has a “long” trigger. The M1911A1 has a “short” trigger and scallops allowing better trigger access. That is two of the changes the Army made to the .45 after complaints from soldiers coming out of WW1. The others being long tang to stop hammer bite, arched mainspring housing to improve pointing and better sights. All improvements. The A1 is a real improvement over the 11. Many, probably most, newly produced M1911 pistols use a Long trigger and often a flat housing. Two retrograde changes that baffle me.

  • WELLS SHANE

    NOT A VERY RUGGED HANDGUN FOR COMBAT . DO NOT LIKE POLYMER FRAME’S ON COMBAT HANDGUN .HAVE YOU EVER SEEN ONE COME APART .THE BERETTA 40 MM WOULD BE BETTER HANDGUN.EVERY ONE IS TO WEIGHT ORIENTED .I AM IN MY LATE SIXTIES .I SPENT TIME IN THE JUNGLE .WE CARRIED EVERYTHING WE NEEDED LRRP.

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      if this is a parody it’s a great one

    • RedSHARK

      The Beretta is HOT garbage…..

    • uisconfruzed

      You’re one tough cookie!
      All CAPS and I wouldn’t dare pull the trigger on a 40mm pistol!

  • MechanizedSwede

    I´ve never shot a 19, but i carry a gen3 17 on the job. It really is the camry of pistols, pretty boring to look at. Not very exciting to shoot, but it works all the time every time.

  • demophilus

    Having shot the G19, SIG Pro and 228/9, M&P, USP and original Walther P99, I can’t tell you which shoots best, but I’d like to try the P320. Especially if you guys are buying the ammo.

  • William Nelson

    The discussions below are a wonderful read; thanks to all of you guys for some good info (in my opinion).

  • James Young

    Couldn’t Glock be one of the twelve MHS competitors that wasn’t selected when they downselected to three pistols? There’s only three left. For all we know it’s between Springfield, FN, and HK, or whoever. Sure they dont meet the requirements as well as say the P320 or the APX, but neither does Glock.

  • Joseph Goins

    Nope. You said in your first post: “So as SOCOM started to buy Glocks, it only became natural it filled the CQBP requirement….” I told you that SOCOM started buying Glocks before CQBP was even a thing. If you wish to revise your original post to say “So as SOCOM starts to make Glocks be standard issue side arms…”, that would be accurate.

    • Ron

      There is no SOCOM CQBP, the mass purchase of the 19s has made the requirement a moot point, because part of the reason for the procurement of a CQBP was to have a common pistol

  • valorius

    Rangers have been using G19s for years. This is not new news.

  • phauxtoe

    Reliable and very very Cheap!

  • Bud

    Strange that everyone tells you that the 1911 is crap but then you start hearing rumors and SF’s are carrying 1911 because they have the knockdown power and one shot one kill ability they need. There is something about the .45 bullet that always works and everyone wants but “Hey” we got to have this new and improved gun because it looks pretty and its NOT a 100 years old.

    • Ron

      If you look at the MEDICAL DEPARTMENT, UNITED STATES ARMY
      WOUND BALLISTICS study of wounds from WWII, Korea and the early stages of Vietnam published in 1962, they discuss at the length the advantages in terms of wounds produced of 9mm over the 45.

      “From an analysis of these facts and the requirements for penetration of skin and bone, it can be readily appreciated that the .45 caliber bullet is of little value as a wound-producing agent except in the softer tissues and at near ranges. The bullet often fails either to penetrate or to fracture bone and practically never shatters bone in the manner common to the rifle bullet or fragment. The Japanese and German sidearms with muzzle velocities of approximately 1,100 f.p.s. were much more effective as antipersonnel weapons than the .45 caliber weapon. While the same bullet with its characteristics was used in the submachinegun, multiple hits probably compensated for the weaknesses, so apparent in single shots

      • Bud

        All that read nice and sounds nice but WHY do SF unit grab a .45 before a 9mm its called knock down power at CLOSE RANGE you do not use a pistol at any target over 10 years. Or do this take a 9mm find someone dumb enough to let you shoot them with a 9mm, then take a .45 and shoot them with it. Then ask them which one hit the hardest.

        • Ron

          WHY do SF unit grab a .45 before a 9mm
          Because they don’t, it is a false statement and people making show ignorance and after reading the article and the numerous post on the very topic contained within, the continued assertion goes beyond ignorance but veers into willful disinformation or delusion.

        • cisco kid

          No such thing as knock down power with any weapon especially the .45acp. Pistolero Magazine in the 1980’s shot barn yard pigs whose autonomy is much like humans and found the .45 acp did not knock down pigs or spin them around like a top or make them disappear in a red puff of mist. As a matter of fact the 9mm made the pigs jump higher and squeal louder and killed the pigs every bit as good as the .45 acp. You are referring the the “45acp gun writer myth” which gun writers pandered after the Philippian war of 1900 with the U.S. No evidence from U.S. Military records ever documented the “45 acp myth” because it never existed not then and not even today with modern expanding bullets.

          • Ron

            There is truth to the tale of the reason for the myth of creation of the 45, but gun fanatics also leave out significant portions of the story. Yes the newly adopted 38s were not effective at “stopping charging Morro warriors” but was it just poor marksmanship because both a combination of little to none of poor training, and the transition to single to new double actions or that even with good marksmanship it is hard to stop a charging individual who pre-drugged with an opiate and tied constriction bands at each joint? Because there also were reports of 30-40s, 45-70s, 45 Colt Single Action Army(s) and 12 gauge shotguns having issues at stopping charging Morros.

          • RedSHARK

            Someone gets it.

        • uisconfruzed

          “you do not use a pistol at any target over 10 years.”-???

        • CommonSense23

          They don’t. Its rumor that keeps getting spread by the .45ACP fan base.

        • RedSHARK

          “knock down power” huh……easy there Harry Potter.

          • Bud

            Do you know the history and why the Army started using the .45. things have not changed over the years, the Military discovered the 9mm did not do what the soldier in the field needed “knock down power” and the will find out that the .40 caliber won’t fill the bill either. In time soldiers will start asking for and carrying a .45. But all you haters of the .45 will be proven wrong just like you were with the 9mm. I hand gun is a last resort weapon, you want one the does the job and has done it for over 100 years. You will see I am right as I was with the 9mm, its never how many bullets you have its what the bullet does that counts.

          • RedSHARK

            Dude…I shoot a 1911, I carry a FULL size SA Operator. I’m not trash talking the .45 as a bad round, I’m saying that there isn’t such thing as knockdown power. And to your point, it’s also not about the size of the bullet it is WHERE you place it that counts too. 9mm has a higher velocity than a .45 wound channels are practically the same, look at every single ballistic and real world test and you will see TWO things. 1. “knockdown power” is BS and does not exist 2. 9mm is comparable to .45…..

          • Bud

            I guess where you use it makes a difference, I found it best it tunnels with a .22 long rifle as back up. But up close and personal .45 works best,

  • disqus_1IXWD6GbBr

    Never ever going to give up my 1911.

  • n0truscotsman

    They’re generally FOS.

    I find it funny that the same people that complain about the glock 19s grip also shoot their favorite in 40 or 45.

    And I find it even funnier that these people seem to know jack s–t about the M9s grip, which is *worse* than the G19.

    No, its not perfect and cannot fit *everybody’s* hands. So what? it just needs to fit most, marginally, while considering that the M4 is your primary arm.

  • Jim

    About time, 31 years late. If they had done that in 1985, it would have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars American police departments were buying Glocks in 1985 for about $300 per unit along with free transition training.

  • mazkact

    l am not a Glock fanboy but I hope they get the contract. Glocks just “want” to shoot. They do shoot easy and the learning curve is small. As I understand it Glock would need to build a manufacturing plant in the U.S in order to get the “Big” contract and that would be good for all of us.

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    Was Springfield XD even considered? Grip angle is more like a 1911 and it has the grip safety as well. I’m not a Glock basher…I own one as well as a few XD’s. Just wondering if Springs was even in the running.

  • ConvoyScout

    Glock 19 Gen 3, Ghost trigger, Trijicon tritium hi viz dual Heinie style steel night/day sights. I like my HK45T with YHM Cobra M2 Mo betta. The G-19 works just fine.

  • buzzman1

    Hope they get rid of that lousy stock trigger it comes with. Its worse than a milspec M-4 trigger.

  • buzzman1

    I have been around and I have never heard anyone say the glock hurt their hands, but with the wussies in this country now I don’t have a hard time believing someone has said that.

    • Vanns40

      I must be the most screwed up shooter ever. I’ve shot and carried a 1911 and it didn’t hurt my hand and I could hit whatever I aimed at. Same with Sig & Glock. I’ve carried Glocks for 20 years just because I like them more, they’re easier to maintain in the field and you can’t kill them as easily. The ONLY firearm that has ever hurt me when I shot it was a rifle (can’t remember the make) chambered in 375 H&H. That was very uncomfortable.

      • buzzman1

        I have had a few weapons hurt me. The first was a 10 gauge shotgun, the second was an original version M240 without the buffer (the old ones were beasts to fire on a bipod) and the last was a 12 gauge used in the early research for the XM-25s. They removed a barrel, milled out the receiver and the center of the stock and removed the recoil pad. The we had to fire 3″ mag duplex rds.

  • Jim C

    I look at the Glock as a tool; nothing more, nothing less, and nothing else. It works for punching holes with few problems. It sure isn’t going to win any beauty contests, but that is not what the purpose for which the tool was designed.

  • buzzman1

    Cant help but wonder how many soldier will shoot themselves and others with the Glocks in the first few years after the change over in the big army. Think I’m kidding? Read NYC’s experience with that.

    • CommonSense23

      You know why the NYPD had that issue. A history of bad weapons handling with revolvers being it’s saving grace. They had horrible trigger discipline which isn’t the same issue the military has.

      • buzzman1

        That’s exactly the reason. They received little to poor training with the pistol and they couldn’t keep their booger pickers off the trigger. Trigger discipline is better in combat arms but they don’t get enough range time or training and I’ve known plenty of guys who had great trigger discipline with rifles but with pistols not so much.

  • Don

    “Glocks are “Over Priced” & “Overrated”! I’ve heard this most of my adult life. I have owned just one Glock 17 and I don’t own one know!

  • Biker Bob

    Well they finally got it right! Glocks are pretty much the AK of the pistol world. The NYPD knew this back in the early 1990’s when they started issuing the G19 to ESU and detectives and then within a few years made it an option department wide. The only downfall being a PC 14 lb trigger!

  • Loren McCoy

    Glock G19 is perfect for the military. It really is the perfect size and is easy to shoot. If I had to pick a pistol to teach a newbie on, it would be the Glock 19. It is not a perfect pistol but it gets the job done and is easier to use than most other pistols, i.e., it is as easy as a revolver to use but carries a lot more rounds and is easy to load.
    I’m not a newbie. I have my own personal range at my farm. I prefer the Sig P226/229. But I would not give that pistol to a new shooter. The DA/SA system is too complicated for most shooters.

    • uisconfruzed

      I’ve had a Sig P229 for years & still shoot better with my Glocks, better natural point of aim, fits my hand better, etc.
      I also have Smith revolver, Colt Anaconda & 1911 Commander, a pair or Rugers, and a Kahr.
      I only carry one of the Glocks, it fits me and works.

  • Bob

    hide and watch! I predict there will be MORE ND’s and AD’s.
    Reason, the passive safety system trigger set up (with no MANUAL safety like the 1911).

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      A: It’s easy to refit a manual safety on a Glock.
      2) only an idiot relies on a safety.
      c] most of the SOF community run loaded, hammer back and safety off. Because when you need to shoot, a tenth of a second to take off a safety is three seconds too long.

      IV} several regular units follow c] already.

  • Tucson_Jim

    Ah yessssss… there’s nothing about a government procurement process that can’t be logically decided after a few vacations, dinners, and prostitutes help justify them. It’s worked for Glock for decades…

  • Shawn Morris

    I think the purpose of the MHS was to get Glock to offer a lower price. But leave it to big government to spend millions so they can save thousands.

  • Zebra Dun

    It was foretold in the scriptures Amen.

  • cisco kid

    Lets look past all the hype and see what an unreliable and totally unsafe pistol the Glock really is.
    The Glock is a pre-loaded striker fired pistol making it vastly, vastly inferior to most hammer fired Military auto pistols. Don’t believe me? Then conduct the high primer test. I used empty cases that were primed only with high seated primers. Three Glocks and one Walther P99, all pre-loaed striker system pistols failed the test 3 times in a row and all on the same primer which makes it even more shocking. I tested many, many famous Military hammer fired auto pistols and all passed the high primer test.
    The Glock firing pin channel is wide open letting in burnt powder, dust, dirt, and grim which can mix with lube. All prescriptions for disaster especially in cold weather. Now compare this totally inferior design to the closed firing pin channels of many famous Military Hammer Fired Auto pistols. There is simply no comparison the Glock is inferior. Not to mention the hole in the base of the grip frame which also sucks in dirt and dust.
    The Safety factor: If there ever was a pistol that should have been banned from the market it is the “totally unsafe” Glock firing system and take down system. Lets now look at both:
    The unsafe takedown system requires you to actually pull the trigger with the slide forward which has proven a disaster in actual use with many pictures abounding on the internet and discussed in various firearms publications that resulted in people accidentally shooting themselves because they forgot to check the chamber before performing takedown. Contrast this with the Beretta 92 which requires you to lock back the slide therefore expelling a forgotten round still in the chamber. The engineer that designed the Glock was a complete Moron.
    Now lets look at the actual danger of even handling, holstering or carrying a Glock with a round in the chamber. “What people cannot see they do not fear” especially when most Glock owners do not even understand how their gun actually works. Handling a loaded Glock is like walking around with a single action revolver with the hammer cocked back. An accidental snag of the trigger sets it off and many, many innocent people have been shot by Cops on ordinary traffic stops, the latest was published this summer in some of the Gum Magazines about a Cop who got out of his cruiser and while walking toward the car he had stopped his Glock went off and he accidentally shot a passenger in the car. No one in that car had been guilty of anything. I could quote you pages and pages of accidental shootings by Cops and civilians using this unsafely designed weapon, many of which were published in the old Gun Week Newspaper now called “The Gun Mag”. Glock originally had considered designing the Glock with an exposed hammer and was warned no one in the right mind would buy one because at a glance they could see the folly and danger in the design but with a concealed striker the average Glock user had no idea how dangerous this pistol is to even handle because he does not understand how it works.
    Expanding on more examples of the unsafe Glock history the New York Police Department had so many accidental discharges that resulted in injury and death to innocent people they made Glock produce for them a much heavier trigger called “The New York Glock Trigger”. Of course with the short stroke single action type trigger this did not achieve the desired effect and accidental discharges still happened far more than with traditional long stroke double action only auto pistols like Beretta has produced for Police Departments. Massad Ayoob stated that such pistols like the Beretta cut way down on accidental shootings and deaths.
    Many Foreign Countries banned the importation of the Glock until Glock installed a factory manual safety which Glock did but never made available to the U.S. Market.
    The sights on the Glock are junk plastic and have been the subject of a plethora of articles detailing that they wear down and break off. The are complete unreliable junk.
    Now lets look at how many unnecessary accidents will happen with U.S. Military personnel when and if they adopt the Glock. When the U.S. Military adopted the 1911 pistol John Browning at first did not put a manual safety on the 1911. The Military back then that actually had some intelligent and safety conscience people who told Browning if he wanted to sell pistols to them he had better damn well put a manual safety on the gun which Browning did do. The 1911 which was designed over 100 years ago has both a manual and grip safety on the pistol making it way safer to handle and use than the more modern plasticky Glock pistol that in reality has no real safety of any kind, its trigger safety is an obscene joke that does not work as intended. Something folks is very, very wrong here and it would take an absolute Moron not to see what is coming if and when the U.S. adopts the unsafe Glock pistol.
    I would guess the real reason the U.S. Military is considering the Glock is one of cost. For some strange reason the U.S. has never hesitated on spending billions on larger weapons but when it comes to handguns they are as cheap as Ebenezer Scrooge during Christmas.
    All this is nothing new as the U.S. Military has had a history of adopting some very unreliable weapons which included the BAR Rifle, the Remington 700 Sniper Rifle, the inferior 1903 Springfield rifle that did not come close to matching the reliability and safety of the German 98 Mauser Rifle. The only thing the Military got right was the adoption of the 1911 pistol which by the way was actually a gun that was adopted by default. The Military actually and originally adopted the .30 cal. German Luger and placed an order for over 200 pistols as part of the first batch of U.S. Military Pistols but a clerk lost the order and the Military then lost interest in the pistol and later conducted new tests and adopted the 1911 pistol but that is another story.

  • Nickp

    NDs alllll day

  • majorrod

    Glocks have been in Ranger Regiment arms rooms for over a decade.

  • kyle893

    S&W m&p is not really up to the quality of a glock. It may have better aesthetics but it is not a very well made gun, like a lot of things S&W does lately. A lot of people blamed tge 40 and 357 sig when they were “wearing out” handguns prematurely. Turns out, the common denominator in those premature worn out handguns was they were M&Ps. It became especially obvious after the 9mm version started having issues. MAC did a test on the M&P and it was the worse performing gun if I remeber correctly.

  • John

    I like Glock, and it makes more sense as a military sidearm. The M9 wasn’t bad either (if you got a new one). Never got why the 1911 is supposed to be the greatest pistol of all time ever. The grip is nice, but everything else was underwhelming for a combat pistol. Yeah “it killed a lot of people”, so did the Colt SAA, Luger, PPK, and various S&W revolvers. Still wouldn’t want any of those as my only sidearm downrange, either.

  • Jackson Andrew Lewis

    i think the sig p320 is still the only pistol meeting us military needs for modular pistols…. and beats the glock in every other area too….. with more capacity in every size….

  • Steve_7

    What this article neglects to mention is that Glock is involved in a pile of litigation and a lot of it (e.g. two separate suits by former Glock lawyers) is likely to stick. I can’t see the DoD wanting to buy guns from a company that has serious legal problems. Look at what happened recently with the M4 contract and Colt’s. If they require the TDP to be farmed out to other companies, then maybe. Gaston Glock can only bury himself in defence lawyers for so long.

    Also, at the end of the day, can you really justify spending huge sums of money on replacing the Beretta with the Glock?

  • flyr

    The fatal flaw in all in all of this is the bureaucrats obsession with single source selection ( maximizes the gifts and minimizes or at least defers the opportunity to be proven wrong. McNamara tried this with the TXF/f111 but thankfully adm connolly was willing to sacrifice his career for the future of the nation and the navy got F-14s instead.

    Our Navy would be far stronger today had Congress not been convinced by Boeing to replace all the F-14s and A’6s with short legged politically correct F-18s. Our ability to go inland has been dramatically reduced.

  • Mikial

    No surprise. Not what the Internet gun “experts” like to call a Glock ‘fan boy,’ since my wife and I both own 1911s and Beretta’s and a lot of other guns, but having carried and used Glocks in a wide range of circumstances from EDC at home to PSD work in Iraq my personal belief is that they are the best gun for the job. An opinion apparently shared by a large percentage of law enforcement and military organizations globally.

    Glocks embody every requirement of a combat handgun . . . accurate, simple to use, and most of all, reliable. And before all the “no external safety” disciples jump on the bandwagon here, after 2 1/2 years in Iraq and multiple trips into Afghanistan since 2004 I saw plenty of ND’s with guns that had external safeties. That little switch on the outside of a gun is no substitute for training and common sense.

    The Glock 19 is a good choice that gives the best reliability and utility for a combat handgun.

  • Rocketman

    My used 2nd gen. Glock 19 has from the looks of it had hundreds if not thousands of rounds run through it before I even got it and I’ve never had a failure even with crummy reloads. It’s reasonably accurate and lightweight for holding 15 rounds. The Army could sure do worse than to make it their pistol.

  • KUETSA

    Everything good I hear about 9mm is said to be a result of MODERN HOLLOWPOINTS. For a military sidearm using FMJ ammo .45 has a BIG ADVANTAGE in putting the guy at the other end of it down quick. Just an observation.

  • pismopal

    Glock is the overwhelming choice of professionals. Most objections are from hobbyists who make choices based on other less practical subjective factors such as looks and “feel”.

  • Kivaari

    The people complaining about the horrible Glock feel, haven’t used them much. They are stuck of what they already use and have to defend that choice. Most of them are M1911 fans, and to them nothing else feels right. With some serious training and daily use pretty much anyone can use the Glock 9mm guns without trouble. The “poor grip angle” is a total BS issue for people that train a little bit. The idea is to get rid of all the other toys in you safe and get used to using one gun. It may not be as fun as having a safe full of toys, but in a serious world having all the toys doesn’t help you get better it just messes with the brain.

  • Franco Eldorado

    I’m surprised they didn’t elect for a passive safety. Glock probably only cost them $100 each. Anybody can repair one.

  • BigDave IrreDeploraDeemable

    Most automatic handguns are horrible to repair or modify. They all have overly complicated triggers with a myriad of tiny springs and clips that take three hands to re assemble. One microscopic part goes missing and you have a paperweight.

    On the other hand, a child…a clumsy child, could re assemble and/or repair a Glock. They have the most brilliantly simple triggers in the world. Keeping all stock parts the trigger can be made to function 35% smoother just with some time and some flitz. Forty dollars will buy you a new, pre polished, adjustable trigger based on lightly modified stock Glock parts. (GlockMade triggers)
    This brand of guns will never win a beauty contest. I dont have any issues with that. To ME, my Glock is beautiful!

  • RedSHARK

    Meanwhile, ZERO US Army soldiers are saying that since Special Forces has been using them for the last 4 years and love them.

  • RedSHARK

    FYI….there is no 3rd, 5th and 7th Ranger Bn…..only 1st, 2nd and 3rd…..

    • Robert Rodriguez

      I never said those were the Ranger Battalions. Hence Hence why I mentioned the Rangers seperately. I was referencing the Special Forces groups.

  • Mac

    Why in heck did this take soooo long ?

  • working4change

    lol G19… aka POS only upside if relaible as a hammer n price.

    XDM or XDS are far better in everyway but price.

    Glock=HP injet baseline product.

    now yes the 1911 needs replacement. 8-9 rounds vs 13 in a .45acp for example sucks. yes after they are tweeked 1911 is nice. but when out of the box there are better options its past time to change.

    i own G19 9mm and it has more recoil then my XDM 45acp. the glock has more impact on hands and wrist. i get tighter groups with my 45 and faster.

    pick your poison. the G19 will be good enough, but their are better options.

    oh yeah the New High Points out last glocks…. when the glock was locked up tight, the high point shot for another 200 rounds. just wish they had DS magazines if not for capacity, they would be in the mix.

  • Kivaari

    My point is the M1911 was the base line standard. NO M1911 was going to be procured so there was no need to buy new M1911s. All it was there for was setting a base line. Like Cnada testing new guns for the RCMP. They issued S&W M10 .38 special revolvers in 2″ and 5″. They used them as the base line to compare the new candidates against. They were happy with the ballistic performance of the .38 specials. They wanted a gun that would perform as well. It came down to 9mm and .40 cal which both performed to a ballistic standard that was acceptable. So it came down to what pistol do they adopt, knowing it wasn’t a M10. Same with the Army. The base line was the M1911. The new gun had to perform as well or better than the M1911. It just wasn’t going to be a M1911, it was going to be one of the candidates possibly. Two pistols performed as well or better than the M1911, the SIG P226 and the Beretta M92F. The MRBF on trhe M1911 was low. The other guns performed better. It did not matter how well the M1911 performed. It was not going to be kept.
    It is just known among M1911 users that they do fail in the civilian world. Yes some are better than others. The current issue guns are not reliable according to everything I have read. If these brand new $2000 M45-types don’t work, why keep them? We have many better pistols to choose from today. I’ll go with Glock.
    I know on a small scale that based on 6 pistols, Colt Government model commercial guns from the 1980s, that those guns failed in short order. That’s just one small police department. First they tried AMT, which failed quickly. The guts were replaced with Colt parts, and failed miserably. They were replaced with Colts, which lasted a little longer. Than SIG P220, Than Glock 21 (that were recalled) to Glock 17 and 19s that worked for 10 years until I retired and they bought G35s. I don’t know how those worked. I’d have kept the 9mm.

    • majorrod

      This is not difficult.

      Understand your point.

      Not debating your point.

      Never was debating your points about the M9 competition. It was never the issue. The discussion was about calling 1911’s antiques or your wholesale categorization of them as unreliable.

      THAT’s the point. You calling all 1911’s unreliable and using flawed data to make the case. It’s simply not anywhere near accurate.

      Now you are citing a small (Whopping six guns) unnamed unverifiable police department’s experience? Stick with citing the Air Force study where they used 35 year old 1911’s vs.and new guns or the ’81 test where the 1911’s (again, not new) did better than Beretta.

      • Kivaari

        That’s why I pointed out it was a small smapling. It was my department before I joined that went through the 1911 issues. I am not making a blanket statement about 1911s, as some are fine guns. I personally had a WW2 Colt that shot superbly and reliably. Than I had others that did not. From memory the tested pistols showed the 1911 had the worst MRBF and MRBS, out of the guns tested that passed the tests. There were some that couldn’t get to square one they were so bad.
        What is the record for the brand new .45s the military has issued in the last 10 years? Haven’t they performed poorly? That is my point. I DO NOT have good data on them, just rumor mill. Via the rumor mill, I hear they are troublesome. I’d like to know the truth. Regardless of the performance, the military doesn’t want to issue 1911-based .45s anymore. It doesn’t matter if they are 100% performers, the guns just do not fit what the services desire in a pistol.
        That is my point. Those branches and units don’t want .45s. They don’t want the M9 or M11.
        It seems that they do want the Glock 19 and the upper brass agrees.
        So, it doesn’t matter what any 1911 or M9 pistols does. What matters is these people want Glock 19s. Neither the M45 or M9 is able to do the job they want it to do. That is the G19 is smaller, lighter, simpler and reliable so it is the current favorite.

  • Jimney123

    Just goes to show you that in the end, price point matters more than the best piece of equipment.

  • Jimney123

    Just goes to show you that price point is more important than superior equipment. But I do realize they need an idiot proof firearm that everyone can use, and the Glock sure wins in that arena…a lot of sheep sporting Glocks.

  • Col Yogurt

    What/whose sights are on these glocks?