Glock 19 MHS

B

Brownstone322

New member
Would a Glock 19 MHS interest you? Some reports say that now Glock is considering offering a commercial version, so I'm trying to gauge the level of interest among shooters.

If you're not already familiar with the 19 MHS (you probably are), it was submitted to the Army's Modular Handgun System competition and ultimately lost out to the SIG P320, apparently because of price, not performance. (That last bit is ironic, because everyone says the P226 lost out to the Beretta in the '80s for the same reasons.)

As you might know, the 19 MHS looks like this:
GLOCKmhs1215_07-onWhite_0350-1.jpg


Here's where it's cool (meaning different from any other Glock we can get, which I define as coolness):

• It's a compact/full-size hybrid with a G19's barrel/slide mated to what's otherwise a G17's frame with 17-round magazine. (This is analogous to the SIG P320 Carry/M18.)

• It's all desert tan, slide and all.

• It has an external thumb safety.

• It has a lanyard ring at the base of the grip.

Those four aspects make the MHS different enough that I might actually want one. Other than that, I don't see where it's any different from what we can get now (and I already have a 19 Gen 4 and a new 17 Gen 5). However, according to what I have read (take that for what it's worth), the commercial version s'posedly will not have the external thumb safety, which would make it less different/cool, and maybe less desirable. (Not that I think Glocks should have thumb safeties; I'd just prefer something that closely approximates what the Army almost selected.)

So whaddaya think?
 
I've never been a big fan of compact length slides on full length frames. As someone that carries you've just given me a grip that's harder to conceal without the extra sight radius or barrel length. For a service weapon on an OWB holster I also don't get the point. On a belt mounted holster sometimes the shorter length slide can press less against a seat, but most military holsters I see in use in my travels are drop leg holsters. In that case I really don't get it.

As to do I want this particular pistol, no not really. It doesn't really appeal to me. But I think if Glock made it available to the general public it would sell, maybe not a ton but likely enough to warrant its inclusion in the product line.
 
TunnelRat said:
I've never been a big fan of compact length slides on full length frames.
Click to expand...

Points taken about a short barrel combined with a long grip. The marketplace supports your opinion as well: There aren't many of those out there.

That said, what do you think of a Colt Commander? (I own one, and I prefer it to a 1911 with a full-length barrel.) It's not exactly the same template as a Glock MHS or a SIG P320 Carry, but it's the same basic idea.

Then there were the classic Smith & Wesson autos that used to be so popular, such as the 5900 series. They were designed as service sidearms, and they always mated four-inch barrels to full-sized grips. Back then, we didn't even use the term "hybrid"; that's just how they were.
 
That's a fair point, about the Colt Commander. I guess when it comes to that I give the Commander more of a pass because you're losing a portion of steel frame that has a moderate amount of weight and the effect of the balance on the pistol in that case is more than those with polymer frames like the Glock where the frame doesn't weigh much. Same is true of the wall steel S&W 59 series pistols, though they had aluminum frame models where you're not losing much weight either.

The P320, the 509, this Glock, the XDM, a few do this setup so there must be some customers or even departments that want it. I just don't personally fall into that camp. As I said above, I do think it would sell well enough.
 
HighValleyRanch said:
MHS
How is this Glock modular?
Click to expand...

I used to ask that too, but now I think I have an answer. It just takes a little 'splaining ...

The MHS program was never exactly transparent (not to me, anyway), and it was never clear to me what "modular" really meant to the Army. Once I saw the SIG M17 and M18 (both of which use the SIG P320 "Carry" frame), I think I figured it out -- the Army wanted multiple barrel lengths on a common frame with (crucially) a common magazine. So whereas the FBI bought two sizes of gun altogether (the G17 and G19), the Army appears to have wanted 1 1/2 guns, if that makes sense.

Enter the new Glock. For Gen 5, Glock changed the locking block on the G17 so that a G17 slide/barrel can be mounted on a G19 frame. It works, 'cause I've done it at home. Apparently Glock didn't submit a long slide/barrel version to the Army for testing, but I suspect that's what they had in mind. (The long slide would need a "chin" underneath the muzzle to cover the recoil spring, but the end result would be something almost exactly like the SIG M17.)

That's what I think "modular" really means to the Army (plus the Glock has optional back straps, of course). Yes, I know, the P320 is a lot more modular than that, but all those part-swapping options date back to the P250 and weren't developed with the MHS program in mind. They just came in handy.

Separately, I've read reviews of the Gen 5 Glock 17/19, and they usually mention the new locking block on the larger gun, but they never really explain why, other than observing the manufacturing benefits of a common design. But in the context of MHS, it suddenly all made sense to me.
 
stormyone said:
I would buy a Glock toaster.
Click to expand...
So would I. I'm getting to where I might need a new toaster, and a Glock would look way-cool in my kitchen.

Waaaaay back when, the sport of motocross originated in Europe and was dominated in the early years by Euro brands: Maico, Bultaco, Husqvarna and ... wait for it ... CZ. Would I buy a firearm from CZ? Damn right I would.

(By the way, we've gone full circle. KTM rules motocross now. That's right ... Austrian.)
 
The thumb safety is as un-Glock as it gets. You can put 17 round magazines into the Glock 19 already. You can get Glocks in FDE color schemes.

Unless someone's life would be made complete by adding a lanyard loop, the only thing marketable about this would have to be the fact that it's the Glock that was *almost* chosen by the Army.

If they make this a limited release I'm sure they'll sell.

The "cool" factor will sell. But there's definitely nothing actually new here.
 
Just like a 1911 commander length, I’ll bet it balances nicely in the hand and comes up fast on the sights, the thumb safety is small and unobtrusive (my favorite kind of thumb safety) so I’d probably ignore it. Don’t care for the FDE but I could live with it.
 
I really don't understand why all the cry babies about the glock safety.
The shield has one, and I like it. Use it or not use it, you're not committed to HAVING TO USE IT! Good for holstering and then take it off.

On the shield I have to use my support hand to click it on, but can move it to fire position with my strong thumb. So when coming back to close retention, click it on when it goes back into the holster, and then move it back into fire in the holster.
 
I’m not sure it makes one a crybaby to say you don’t want a feature. I don’t want it. I’m not going to use it and I’d rather it not be there and have it get engaged accidentally. Even if there was no way for it to get engaged it’s an added part. But guess what. There are Glocks for those that don’t want it, and maybe Glock will release this for those that do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
OhioGuy said:
The thumb safety is as un-Glock as it gets. You can put 17 round magazines into the Glock 19 already. You can get Glocks in FDE color schemes.

Unless someone's life would be made complete by adding a lanyard loop, the only thing marketable about this would have to be the fact that it's the Glock that was *almost* chosen by the Army.

If they make this a limited release I'm sure they'll sell.

The "cool" factor will sell. But there's definitely nothing actually new here.
Click to expand...
I'll quote myself: "According to what I have read ... the commercial version s'posedly will not have the external thumb safety." [emphasis added]

As for the fact that this Glock was "almost chosen by the Army," that's true, but so what? The SIG P226 is an Army reject. Same for the Beretta M9A3. Same for the S&W M2.0 5-inch. They're still cool pieces, and they all have a certain appeal to me.
 
the commercial version s'posedly will not have the external thumb safety."
Click to expand...

Ok, not sure I'd really be that interested either way, but without the external safety what makes this different from any other dirt colored GLOCK.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top