Glock will be the next US Military sidearm?

Oh but!! BUT BUT BUT I HEARD BUT BUT!!! :eek: :p

It's SIG boys. Not 'ol Glocky McGlockface, that wins the competition. "BUT I HEARD!!!"

Just goes to show... gun shop "gurus" aren't always that!! :D
 
My 2 points would be the Army gets the pistol they want, and they be built in the USA with American labor, and I suspect it will be. Seems to me, Sig has much of their manufacturing in the USA.

I guess I don't understand why there would be fanboys that care what brand/model pistol they use, sounds like ego to me. They wanted a new handgun, set the criteria and picked a model. I can tell you the fanboys are definitely out there though. I bought a new Beretta M9A3, and people went out of their way to tell me that model was rejected by the Army, I guess assuming my like of Beretta pistols is based on it being adopted as the M9?

I don't really want an old worn Beretta, but hopefully the M9s won't just be scrapped as they are replaced, but it would not surprise if they are, probably some executive order from a former elected jerk won't allow them to be sold.
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess this settles it. Sig won the competition, unless the Russians hacked Beretta's computers to influence the decision! :p

I've never shot a P320 before, but it's already a hit with a lot of shooters, and I can't see it being a bad decision. Probably, none of the other contenders would have been bad decisions either.

One article in a military blog said "Given the size of the contract, Glock is widely expected to protest the decision." I wonder what THAT is based on? Other than the fact that losing companies frequently protest government contract decisions. That delays things even more, costs tons more, and usually does nothing to change the outcome. Hopefully that isn't the case.

Guessing the Army could've bought a lot of Sigs or Glocks or Berettas for the money they've spent on this already!
 
The SIG P320 was the only truly "modular" gun in the MHS trials, I think these are excellent service pistols and a quantum leap improvement over the Beretta M9 that it replaces, considering the mission intended for a military service pistol.
 
The US military was extremely disappointed in both the 45 and 1911 at the end of WW-2. Most soldiers did not like the gun nor the 45 ACP round.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have to call BS on that.

Two excellent references help shed light on US military experiences with US small arms during WW2 and Korea: US Infantry Weapons in Combat - Personal Experiences from World War II and Korea, by Mark G. Goodwin, and Battlefield Analysis of Infantry Weapons (Korean War) by SLA Marshall. The consensus was that the only ones who disliked the .45 were those who simply carried one around all the time and never had to fire it, and who complained about the weight and the recoil. Those who actually had to rely on one to stop an enemy soldier hell-bent on killing them had nothing but praise for it. The main issue the US government had with it was its replacement cost and the difficulty of manufacture, for the writing was on the wall when it came to small arms made entirely out of raw forgings and machined-steel parts. By the time it became absolutely necessary to replace the M1911A1 in the 1970s everybody wanted something lighter, easier to manufacture, and better-suited for small or female users. And so they were given that fat pig of a 9mm called the Beretta 92F.
 
Last edited:
As a glock owner, Glock does not deserve the contract for the amount of doodoo they've come out since the debacle of gen 4. To sum up everything that has introduced since gen 4..."late to the game, poor execution"
 
Quote:" Sorry, but I have to call BS on that."

Well.....you know the saying about opinions......I will offer a contrasting one.

My dad was a paratrooper in WWII (509th PIB) and was issued a 1911 which he carried all of the time. Being a paratrooper it was his primary defense during a jump until he could unpack his rifle. BTW, he made 6 combat jumps and one amphibious landing.

He said most of the guys in his company looked for a dropped sidearm as soon as possible to use instead of their issued 1911. He said they were not reliable nor accurate and sensitive to dirt. His rationale was that during the war, they were being produced at such a high rate that quality control was sacrificed for meeting shipment quota.

He had both a P38 and a P08. P38s were valued for their relative reliability and accuracy. P08s were valued for collector reasons. His P38 was stolen by a fellow paratrooper, he brought the P08 home.

So, the debate will continue. I do not hate the 1911, I have 2. The military has their reasons for their choices. Lets hope they make the best one to protect our service men and women.
 
As for the 9mm cartridge. The tens if thousands of people that have been shot dead with it since 1908 would probably beg to differ that it is not a "man stopper."
Click to expand...

Whether or not the round it ultimately lethal is no concern for the soldier, civilian or cop. We are concerned with its ability to stop the fight. Prior to WWII we did not see widespread use of antibiotics, many people died from what would be today a minor infection.

That statement is used by 9mm and 38 Special fanboys all the time in order to prove relevance. That should be a hint.
 
My dad was a paratrooper in WWII (509th PIB) and was issued a 1911 which he carried all of the time. Being a paratrooper it was his primary defense during a jump until he could unpack his rifle. BTW, he made 6 combat jumps and one amphibious landing.

He said most of the guys in his company looked for a dropped sidearm as soon as possible to use instead of their issued 1911. He said they were not reliable nor accurate and sensitive to dirt. His rationale was that during the war, they were being produced at such a high rate that quality control was sacrificed for meeting shipment quota.
Click to expand...

With all due respect for your dad's service and experience, I've personally owned nearly two dozen US military M1911 and M1911A1 pistols over the years, and I can say that there was no period where quality control was sacrificed for the sake of expediency. Ithaca and Remington Rand did have some early start-up issues, but they worked diligently with the Ordnance Department to correct those. However as we all know men in combat tend to form some very strong opinions about the gear they carried, and one vet will tell you that the 1911 was the best weapon ever fielded while another will say that it was the worst. I once met a vet who was a navigator on a B-17, and he told me that he and his crew left their 1911s back in their lockers whenever they went out on a mission because a) what are you going to do with an American-made handgun behind enemy lines, and b) all it was likely to do was hang up on something inside the plane while you're frantically trying to bail out and get you killed. Beyond that his only memory of the 1911 was that it was a heavy, useless thing.

Plenty of other US small arms have had similar stories associated with them. The M1 Carbine was liked by a few, but loathed by most. I had an exchange with a Vietnam vet on another forum who is convinced that every M16A1 rifle is an absolute piece of garbage, even those made long after the war was over. His early one jammed on him in combat, and now he hates all of them. My modern-day repro works perfectly fine, but I'm not going to argue with him as I've never had to use it with bullets snapping past my ear. I guess it remains to be seen what soldiers will think of the new P320/M17 pistol, and whether it proves to be the best sidearm ever issued or just another piece of crap nobody likes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top