Navy SEALS acquiring Glock 19s?

KW Gary M said:
If you read the several posts above you will see the purpose of this post was to show Audi, Mercedes and BMW are about as American as Glock and Beretta.



I have no complaints about my Audi. Bought my first one over 20 years ago and have owned nothing else since.
Click to expand...


American cars don't have manuals with more than one language? Seems to me I've seen them that way.

I think we've reached the point where we're just at a difference of opinion in terms of what it means to "Buy American". I'm not sure either of us is right or wrong. I'm also not sure what we're discussing is still relevant to the OP.
 
Sounds like they are going with the Gen 3 variant.

Good call IMHO. The Gen 4 guns have been plagued with reliability issues since it's inception. They totally murdered the Glock reliability with the Gen 4 guns.
 
Sounds like they are going with the Gen 3 variant.

Good call IMHO. The Gen 4 guns have been plagued with reliability issues since it's inception. They totally murdered the Glock reliability with the Gen 4 guns.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize that. I was thinking about picking up a new Glock, should I try for a Gen3? Do they still make Gen3s?
 
I think that the bugs have been worked out of the Gen 4 guns. But, if you're concerned, about it, here's what I'd recommend.

If you want a Glock 17 or 19, get a Gen 3. If you want any of the other guns, either a Gen 3 or a Gen 4 should be fine.
 
That shiny finish isn't Tenifer............it's paint.
Click to expand...

You're right I should be distinguishing between metal treatments and surface finishes. If it's a surface paint on top of the Tennifer (I always thought it was a black oxide not a paint), then it was a much more durable paint in the past. US Glocks don't use the Tennifer process since it wasn't allowed by the EPA and neither do newer production Austrian Glocks (or so I believe).

Edit: In doing some more research it seems the nitriding or "Tennifer" process Glock used wasn't "banned" per se by the EPA, though it does produce hazardous waste. The newer gaseous nitriding process does not produce the same hazardous waste as the older salt-bath method, hence the appeal (I imagine there is a cost in the disposal of the waste and maybe incentives for being "green"). That's all related to the nitriding of the slides. As for the surface coatings, Glock has used a few over the years. I'm not sure why they went away from the "frying pan" finish (think of the look of a cast iron pan) that some people, such as myself, seem to prefer. The newer surface finish does seem to scratch more easily. Though as you pointed out, when talking about nitriding metals the treatment penetrates into the metal itself so surface scratches shouldn't really matter anyway as the metal will be resistant to corrosion deeper than the scratch will penetrate.
 
Last edited:
I agree with all your other points, but I don't know that I personally can get behind this one. While Glocks certainly have seen extensive law enforcement usage and military usage by certain groups and countries, the SIG P226 at least went through the initial pistol trials. Many people have tried to replicate those tests on Glocks after the fact, but the reality is it wasn't there. From a biased American perspective, I believe the SIG P226 and the M11 have had more hard use by American soldiers than the Glock series. Given the preponderance of US forces in military conflicts during the time frames of these pistols, I do think that counts for something. I carry a Glock 19 and I don't consider it an unreliable pistols at all, I just haven't seen anything that has convinced me that it is definitively more durable and forgiving of environment than the SIG.
Click to expand...

The Glock wasn't at those trials due to being disqualified out of hand by a crazy demand for an external safety! In my opinion the G17 would have in all likelihood been the overwhelming winner of those tests, just as it has been in every other test in which it competed head to head with those other designs. Certainly the Sig and Beretta are remarkable designs, and quite obviously durable and reliable, nonetheless, steel and aluminum alloy don't flex, they bend and they break, and they are more complex mechanisms than the 32(34 counting sights)part Glock!

The G17/19 is exactly the pistol(s) which the DoD should have adopted when replacing the 1911A1, the ultimate benefit being that they could have had three or four of them to every Sig or Beretta! ;)
 
The Glock wasn't at those trials due to being disqualified out of hand by a crazy demand for an external safety!
Click to expand...

I don't think that requirement will go away for the next pistol either tbh. I seem to remember Glock delivering a manual safety equipped model to some customers as well.

In my opinion the G17 would have in all likelihood been the overwhelming winner of those tests, just as it has been in every other test in which it competed head to head with those other designs.
Click to expand...

Would you mind linking me to the results of those other tests? I'm legitimately curious.

the ultimate benefit being that they could have had three or four of them to every Sig or Beretta!
Click to expand...

What civilians pay per unit versus what the government pays per unit for a guaranteed contract of thousands of pistols is often quite different. The prices you see quoted from the original report also include parts and maintenance for those pistols over the course of their useful lifespans (and the M9s are pushing 30 years now). This isn't me saying that the Glock wouldn't have been cheaper, I don't doubt that. I am just not sure about the factor of 3 or 4 in cost reduction.
 
I think that the bugs have been worked out of the Gen 4 guns. But, if you're concerned, about it, here's what I'd recommend.

If you want a Glock 17 or 19, get a Gen 3. If you want any of the other guns, either a Gen 3 or a Gen 4 should be fine.
Click to expand...

I agree with the bugs having been worked out. That is not to say that some individuals will still have a problem and that is avoidable especially considering the tremendous volume of pistols Glock sells.

I own a Gen 2 Glock 19 and just love it am I am considering another and it would be a Gen 4 as the back strap options would be important to me with my larger hands. In the rare case one would have problems with the Gen 4 Glock 19 it usually shows up in short order and reports are Glock has been good in repairing them or even replacing in some cases under warranty.
 
The only reason Austrian Media is running it,
is due to Glock being the pistol of choice.
If it were S&W, you wouldn't hear a beep.

It isn't really a surpise, either, as the Rangers have been buying Glocks
ever since the Brass said it was OK to.
And what, pray tell are the 7th Spec Forces guys buying as accessories??
Beta mags and 33-rd mags for those Glocks...they want lots of Capacity ;)

So that should tell S&W that the M&P needs Beta mags & longer stick mags
to be available if they want to share in the fun :)
 
Some may say "Glock fanboys make them laugh"...
But what makes me laugh is the teeth gnashing "can it be true" reactions of the Sig, XD, VP9 fanboys. There are a lot of Colonel Kurtz XD/Sig fans muttering The Horror...
All this time, Glock was supposedly bettered by this pistol or that, yet Glock continues to Endevour to Persevere.
 
Would you mind linking me to the results of those other tests? I'm legitimately curious.
Click to expand...

Fair point, however at 70% or better of US LE, its obvious that the Glock design has been accepted as better by them, likely due to equal portions of cost, simplicity, ruggedness, and reliability. It also cannot be forgotten that the G17/19 is in widespread issue within the spec ops community, and it has seen years of use by US Delta operators, and CIA contractors, they could have chosen anything they wished, they chose the simplest, most rugged design and have very obviously proven it to be superior.
 
I have always felt every branch of the US Military should carry an American made gun.
Click to expand...

Congress agrees with you it is a Federal Requirement for any large weapon contract, why do you think Beretta build a factory here in the USA??

Can Glock handle a 500,000 unit order here in the USA? I don't think so.

Don't give up on Beretta just yet, they have been in business for over 300 years and I don't see them losing to a punk like Gustive Glock, whose name is mud not only here in the US but in the EU as well.

And least we forget the military REQUIRES a manual safety on each and every handgun they use. (LOL) (good luck to Glock on that one) LOL, LOL.

Have fun with this dream (brain gas) and stay safe.
Jim

likely due to equal portions of cost, simplicity, ruggedness, and reliability.
Click to expand...

You left out bribery, immoral corporate practices, selling below cost to LE and screwing every other American citizen with over priced junk.
 
Last edited:
Actually a safety on a Glock would be easy. Just mount it on the slide and have it stop the movement of the firing pin. Make it flip up and down like a M9.

Deaf
 
Actually a safety on a Glock would be easy.
Click to expand...

Deaf, it is a little more complicated than that, like "patents", "copy rights" and tons of lawyers from S&W, Ruger, Colt, and yes even Beretta. (LOL)

Even Gustive is not that stupid. Don't you think if he thought he could get away with it, there wouldn't be one on them now??

Like I said, have fun with this post and stay safe.
Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top