Pentagon Seeks New Sidearm

Red Flag 1 said:
I love my Glock, but the "safety" is a joke. I too would like to see another external safety for the Glocks.
Click to expand...

M&P. I'm with you on the Glocks - love 'em. But the M&P isn't that far different, has roughly the same track record in terms of "goes bang every time", is of comparable maintenance as the Glock, has arguably better ergonomics, and has an optional 1911-style safety (i.e. an improvement over the slide-mounted decocker on the M9). IMO, if you want a Glock with a safety, you just described an M&P.

I like the Glock trigger (even stock) over the M&P, but I don't see trigger quality being something that DoD is going to put a lot of weight on - logistics, reliability, and safety will determine this question.
 
Totentanz said:
M&P. I'm with you on the Glocks - love 'em. But the M&P isn't that far different, has roughly the same track record in terms of "goes bang every time", is of comparable maintenance as the Glock, has arguably better ergonomics, and has an optional 1911-style safety (i.e. an improvement over the frame-mounted decocker on the M9). IMO, if you want a Glock with a safety, you just described an M&P.

I like the Glock trigger (even stock) over the M&P, but I don't see trigger quality being something that DoD is going to put a lot of weight on - logistics, reliability, and safety will determine this question.
Click to expand...

M&P has a redesigned trigger, reset which corrected a lot of the problems (Apex Tactical makes the ultimate M&P trigger IMO).
Rumint says the AF was leaning towards a M&P in .40 cal when the Army shut the program down (nothing like a good inter-service rivalry).
 
lindy said:
Looks like business as usual in WDC. What a cluster. Although I will say that just a few months ago SWHC was just $9.



The Army's M9 Beretta Replacement Will Cost Twice as Much as We Thought -- The Motley Fool
Click to expand...
SWHC?

Anyway, I didn't read the RFP, ammo being included in the contract is stupid, and will just force some companies out of business (making it harder for civilians to buy ammo).

The RFP has to be overly detailed because the losers will file a protest with the GAO and you have to be able to prove all your requirements were written down.

SOCOM already went Glock, so saying this becomes a SOCOM buy, may be a stretch.
Meanwhile the Marines continue to buy the M9A1 model while the Army blindly sticks to the original M9.
 
I think I have a new favorite General:

"The testing -- I got a briefing the other day -- the testing for this pistol is two years," he added. "Two years to test technology that we know exists. You give me $17 million on the credit card, I'll call Cabela’s tonight, and I'll outfit every soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine with a pistol and I'll get a discount on it for bulk buys."

Army boss takes aim at bureaucracy over sidearm choices | Fox News
 
1911??? No way, it's 2016. Exposed hammer? When you need your pistol, you REALLY need it. No point in needlessly exposing critical parts to damage.

Manual safety? The holster is the safety, when you take it out, you really need to shoot it fast- forget about a safety.

That pretty much narrows it down- they need to do the right thing and buy Glocks.
 
There are a host of striker frames available.
That said, Glock is in the system so expanding it from SOCOM to every service could be done legally (but only after SOCOM's buy was complete)
 
DA SWO said:
There are a host of striker frames available...
Click to expand...
Yet none of them are anywhere near as well proven or accepted by industry experts as Glocks.

Savage makes bolt guns, but if you really want something worth having you get the Remington 700-know what mean?
 
Etype said:
Manual safety? The holster is the safety, when you take it out, you really need to shoot it fast- forget about a safety.
Click to expand...

Said like every Bravo I know.

Especially to us support guys, if we had to use our pistol, WE were in a tough spot and the pistol needed to be ready for immediate action.
 
Last edited:
Etype said:
Yet none of them are anywhere near as well proven or accepted by industry experts as Glocks.

Savage makes bolt guns, but if you really want something worth having you get the Remington 700-know what mean?
Click to expand...
I am not arguing against Glocks.

The problem is the procurement system (which was actually designed by Congress) which prevents a direct buy in most cases.
The Services could start buying Glock once the SOCOM buy is complete, and use the fact that their respective SOF units have the pistol as a sole-source justification.
 
I agree with Etype for the most part. But I do have to be honest, The Army has wasted too much time and money already. It's a fucking pistol, who gives a fuck, make it light weight, reliably, trainable, good service life and be done with the bullshit. S&W vs Glock, 1911 vs Pick your polymer poison, etc. They're really dumb arguments to be having in 2016. As I've said before, there is no super new advance in pistol technology, some of the most respected firearms and bullets are century old design's.

What has been proven time and time again, is that .45 acp will not "knock down a 200lbs man" because its slightly larger in diameter than a 9mm. Things like well trained people vs "you'll never see your sights so practice point shooting" types. I liken it to the "most lethal karate experts of the 1980's" it's time to stop spreading bullshit and get with the reality.

Glock 19, is the right choice, its cheap, it works, its easy to work on, and its easy to train people to use. And yes, all the untrained dirtbags will shoot themselves, have ND's and big mother Army will come up with some gay shit to counter it vs kicking out dirtbags and properly training soldiers. But what the hell, at least the soldier who actually needs a pistol, will have something reliable, light weight and accurate.

Its crazy, I've been on this forum for 8 year's and this was a topic that actually brought me to SS, 8 year's later, different thread but same comments.
 
So, a few things strike me.

The first is the Army needs to spend time actually training people to shoot a pistol instead of engaging in the ballistic abortion most troops currently get.

Second, the 1911 is a proven service handgun. It has been in use for so long in so many different environments that any concerns about exposed hammers and safeties are really moot. Agency requirements are pushing me towards a 9mm Glock, but I have carried 1911s and HK45s for years. I am no slower with a 1911 or HK (first shot is the same from the holster; splits are faster with 1911/HK). It's all about training; if you're slower because you have to disengage a thumb safety then you need to train more. Sorry, but there it is.

Assuming the same shot placement and the same bullet, bigger calibers will do more damage than smaller ones.

All that said, the clear choice is a Glock. Not because it's easier to shoot, but because it's a reliable pistol with a short learning curve and easy maintenance. 1911s are pains to maintain, require special training and fitting of parts where the Glock simply doesn't. Add in higher capacity, RMR compatibility for units that will benefit from it, cheaper ammo and lighter weight and the fact it's already in the procurement system and you have to wonder why we're even debating this.
 
When I was with the IG, I had a chance to spend some time with several police agencies who were going from .357 revolvers to Glock, and similar weapon makes. The USAF was still training us with .38 cal. I was impressed by the Glock, so much so that I grabbed a 17 not long after, and have been shooting with it for decades now. If there was another weapon I would go with, should Glock not have been there, would be the 1911. It is a different weapon all together, but rugged, reliable and great stopping power.

My $.02.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

8
Kimber kisses up..................2nd Amendment issues.
Replies
11
Views
3K
Minuteman1636
M
Ravage
Faster combat power, less exposure in the assault zone
Replies
1
Views
3K
AWP
AWP
Back
Top