Glock will be the next US Military sidearm?

Not much is being released for public consumption regarding the status of the current Army testing process.

If anyone from a couple of the gun companies for which I maintain armorer certifications knows anything, they aren't talking.

The only public press releases I've seen are the same ones from last Sep/Oct many of us have probably already seen:
http://kitup.military.com/2016/10/dropping-gun-maker-army-handgun-program-track.html
https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...sson-latest-casualty-in-us-army-pistol-trial/

We haven't even had a confirmation of caliber selection, according to what I've seen or heard.

It won't surprise me to see either Glock or SIG win, or both (like when DHS awarded their contracts to SIG & HK, and when Beretta got a major portion of the military contract for the M9, but SIG got the M11 contract).

How will this affect the private market and LE? Probably in a predictable manner. The enthusiasts and LE/military hobbyist/novelty owners will avidly follow everything and try to emulate their favorite gov buyers ... and everyone else will hopefully benefit by seeing some continuing improvements carried over into the regular commercial production models.
 
A great fit

I hope to see our Army choose the G-17 and G-19. It's a very logical choice, and I'm sure Gaston's crew will be happy to provide an off switch.

As for me? Just like the AR caliber. 100 rounds of .556 weighs substantially less than 100 rounds of 30-06. 100 rounds of 9mm weighs less than 100 rounds of .45.
Every ounce counts for the soldier.
 
Glock 17/19 would be an excellent choice for a Military Sidearm its cheap,easy to maintain,reliable,modular to most hand sizes, combat accurate, and very plentiful upgrades to sights and trigger. What they might do is add a trigger lever stop like the Canik TP9 SF as a "manual safety".
 
I have no insight on what they may choose ...or if they are going to make a change...and I think the Beretta is a horrible choice.

( buy my word, I hope its not a Glock ) !!
-------------
I don't think it will be a 1911...it should be....but it won't .../ so of the 3 you list, I will hope Sig gets it .... ( but it would be better if they went back to a good 1911 ).
 
It Still Kills Me That The SEALS went away from the Sig to the Glock. Nothing against Glock I just think the Sig is a bit better suited for the job.
 
If the 1911 still wasn't the world greatest combat handgun implement, the CORPS wouldn't have adopted them AGAIN a few years ago. Face it, the M1911A1 is the apex of combat handgun development. There has been 105 years and counting of failure after useless failure in the futile "development" of the fighting pistol.

"Perfection"? You're out of your mind. TRUE perfection was attained in the year of 1911 my friends. :rolleyes: ;)
 
Last edited:
Yea I say first start with a better rifle. Like a piston M16/M4 in a real caliber like the 6.8. Then go with a better handgun & if we stay with the 9mm why not the CZ,75? If not then go with a sig in 357sig. IMO that's the way to go. Why we still have DI AR's I just don't get it & the 5.56 caliber. Why spend a ton of money to come up with a better caliber (the the 5.56) for the AR and then never use it??
 
Another thing I just thought of... I believed Glock to be the likely winner, but now that I think about it I can tell you that the Army will likely not go with Glock unless the design is changed so that you can disassemble without pulling the trigger. The military is very set in it's ways, so much so that I was very surprised to see that a manual safety wasn't in the design requirement.

At any rate, I do not see a pistol that requires a trigger pull during disassembly being adopted by the Army. Keep in mind, they do have to train to the lowest common denominator.
 
"...inability to stop a determined enemy with one shot..." Nonsense. No pistol cartridge will do any such thing. The ACP included. The ACP's fabled 'one shot stop' ability is a myth. Physics doesn't allow it.
The M9 was adopted, like the M-14 and M-16, for political reasons. Military didn't get a say in any of it. The M9 was adopted because other NATO countries were complaining about the balance of trade in military kit. The M-14because of NIH and the 16 because McNamara ordered it.
Kind of doubt the U.S. Congress will allow the adoption of a foreign made pistol for general issue unless, like the M9, it gets made in the U.S.
Anyway, military pistols are primarily status symbols. They're far more expensive and difficult for a new troopie(be he/she an officer or not) to learn how to use(Hence, the M1 Carbine) and are last ditch "I've made a serious tactical error getting this far from my rifle." firearm. They're not anybody's primary weapon except maybe an MP.
And by far most current troopies have never seen a 1911A1. The entire argument is moot.
"...the CORPS..." Gets what the Navy Dept. says it can have. Their Special forces types are carrying 9mm Glocks if they want to as well.
"...clapped-out BHP's..." 1967 is new. Our Inglis High Powers were all made in 1944 and 45. Still being used('Stored' is a better word. Pistols are rarely out of the armoury or fired. Other than the assorted base gun clubs, CF members rarely shoot anything.) with no fuss.
"...perfection was attained in the year of 1911..." That's just the year of adoption. Really nothing to do with anything. Oh and the 1911A1 is heavy, has a relative small magazine and is chambered in an excessively large calibre. The number of countries that adopted it can be counted on one hand.
 
I apologize and stand corrected on S&W "the Army is still evaluating striker-fired pistols from Glock, Sig Sauer, Beretta and FN Herstal, according to a source familiar with the competition."

It will be interesting to find out why Smith & Wesson didn’t make it to the next round of MHS.

Doc
 
Made in the USA

Fabrique National in Columbia SC makes arms for the US military now, they also make a very nice pistol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top