Navy SEALS acquiring Glock 19s?

[herdman]

Grant D,

Had two special ops guys tell me the same thing. And, they didn't even know each other. They both said get a M9 and don't look back and don't listen to the BS about them. They used them in far harsher conditions than the average guy could ever dream about. They said they would take a M9 any day. Good enough for them. Good enough for me.

 

[JDBerg]

Glocks are the modern day Browning High Powers.

The British Ministry of Defense (MoD) replaced their worn out BHP inventory with the Gen4 Glock 17. I'll venture a guess that if we allowed our U.S. war fighters to choose between a serviceable M9 and a new issue Gen4 Glock, there would be a big pile of M9's left behind to haul back to the armory. We let NATO choose the ammo we load these things with, what is the issue with selecting the service pistol that most of the rest of NATO is now using anyway?

A Glock works since the only reason you would ever need to draw it is in the event of a malfunction of an issued M4A1, therefore it needs to be ready to go out of the holster.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Just wait until reports start coming out with the problems with the Glocks. And, that will happen just like it does with any product. They some of the mystique will go away. There is a big difference between a combat weapon and what it goes through than a police issue weapon or carry weapon for a civilian.

What is that "difference" between a combat weapon and a police or civilian carry weapon? Please explain. The Glock 17 was, in fact, designed from scratch to serve as a military weapon as was the older 1911. (Most of the other guns made their way into military applications after a lot of intervening models.) I've known a number of guys who spent a good deal of time in combat, and two of them served as Special Ops troops, either in VN or Africa. For them, a handgun was always a last-resort weapon, to be used when all else had failed; they almost never used them.

Had two special ops guys tell me the same thing. And, they didn't even know each other. They both said get a M9 and don't look back and don't listen to the BS about them. They used them in far harsher conditions than the average guy could ever dream about. They said they would take a M9 any day. Good enough for them. Good enough for me.

One SEAL I talked with some years ago said that in many cases, he'd rather carry an extra canteen of water than a handgun. He may have been pulling my chain, but he seemed serious. Handguns aren't the primary or go-to weapon for any Special Ops troops, although the H&K Mk23s and Mk24s are the weapon of choice for SEALs if a silencer is required.

In a discussion of this same topic on the M4Carbine.net forum, two SEALs there (both considered "content experts" there), consider the Glock 19 is an ideal mix of 1) small size, 2) light weight -- important when you may also be carrying 60-70+ pounds of other gear, 3) good capacity, and 4) reliability. Both of those guys said they didn't use the P226 that often, but would use the smaller P228. Neither of them mentioned the M9. They said SEALs could sometimes spend time in salt water and corrosion was a concern with the SIGs. (I suspect it would be with M9s, too.)

 

[Tactical Jackalope]

Walt you hit the nail on the head.

I've also been following the discussion on the M4 Carbine forum since it began.

Basically what Rana is saying is that the contract with SIG expired. Glock is cheaper. Other branches of our military use the Glock 19. So weapon familiarity and the size / weight is a main reason. I also heard some guys say they either didn't like the P226 or barely used it. Rifles are the way to go for most instances they're involved in.

Me? For my daily life. I carry a P229 or P226. I can't carry a rifle around like a Navy SEAL can. LOL. Remember they're going downrange towards some of the most dangerous situations in the world, a pistol is the last thing on their mind. But it is on their mind if they need it. A P226 served amazingly so for decades. Now the Glock will fill that holster and it'll do so well if you ask me.

 

[herdman]

Walt,

Here is the difference. Cops put on their pistol in a belt. Do their duty in a pretty controlled environment. Squad car, suburban street, office, mall, in the car, walking a street, etc. they go home an night, put the weapon on the nighstand and the department buys them a new one ever 5 years.

Soldier lives in the muck, mud, sand, rain, sleet, snow, arctic, 100 degrees, rolls in the mud, etc. And, the special ops guys, infanstry, combat arms, etc. fire their weapons more and use them in much harsher conditions than the average cop. It is a much harsher environment. Much harsher in terms of elements and treatment.

Glock doesn't have a 30 year history of the US Army(insert Marine Corps, etc.) putting them through the ringer. Sorry, but they don't. Our military has more deployments in the last 15 years than the rest of the world combined. Sorry but that is a fact.

I am sure Glock would do fine, don't get me wrong. But, there is no history there yet as with other weapons. Special operations troops are a different animal than the average unit.

Plus, from what I hear the Army would rather issue a soldier a M4 than a sidearm now, even those who in past years would carry a sidearm. Why not give them enough firepower? I would much rather have a M4 than any pistol.
The pistol is not a primary weapon for combat arms troops.

Finally, do you think the Army and Marines are going to issue a pistol with a 4.5 lb trigger with no safety to the average private or solider/marine? I will believe it when I see it.

Don't get me wrong. I like Glock. My point is comparing the Sweedish or even British army doesn't compare to mass produced weapons for the US military.

Glock would be certainly capable, but my guess is that it won't be widely distributed. I agree with you about size and I am someone who has humped it before. The GLock 19 reduces size and weight. I also agree with you that a pistol for most military applications is useless and a last resort.

I am not arguing about the merits of the Glock. I think there is still a lot to be learned and I don't think they will be a mass distributed weapon. Speical ops, yes. Regular infantry unit or cav unit? Probably not. Glock puts a safety or decocker on it then maybe.

It is all good. I think the biggest thing is the pistol for the Army and Marines are really an afterthought. M4 and M16 varient are the weapon of choice.

 

[TunnelRat]

And, the special ops guys, infanstry, combat arms, etc. fire their weapons more and use them in much harsher conditions than the average cop. It is a much harsher environment. Much harsher in terms of elements and treatment.

And yet they're the ones choosing to use Glocks in many cases.

I am sure Glock would do fine, don't get me wrong. But, there is no history there yet as with other weapons. Special operations troops are a different animal than the average unit.

Wait a minute. At one point you use special operations troops as the benchmark for what is a good pistol, and now you're saying they're a different animal and should be considered differently? Are you still talking in terms of reliability, or are you now talking about safety?

Soldier lives in the muck, mud, sand, rain, sleet, snow, arctic, 100 degrees, rolls in the mud, etc.

The pistol is not a primary weapon for combat arms troops.

You don't consider these two statements somewhat contradictory? You talk about the extreme conditions soldiers find themselves in during combat, but then say that pistols aren't the primary weapon for combat anyway. That begs the question of how many pistols were actually put through all those conditions. As has been said here by a number of folks, more often than not soldiers would rather have extra ammo for their primary or other supplies than a pistol. I'd wager most of those M9s are being used for MPs, rear-echelon troops, and officers. That's not to say some M9s aren't seeing hard use, but we all seem to have agreed that they're not as critical as people often think.

Finally, do you think the Army and Marines are going to issue a pistol with a 4.5 lb trigger with no safety to the average private or solider/marine? I will believe it when I see it.

It's 5.5 lb. typically, but I agree with you that without a safety I don't see it being the standard sidearm. But we're not talking about the standard infantry or a mass issued sidearm. We're talking about Navy SEALs.

 

[herdman]

Tunnel Rat,

If you are going to use something then you want to make sure it has been used and tested in those environments. And, I am not talking about some guy on youtube throwing it down in the mud either. LOL

Some regular joes are always going to have a sidearm and there are basically two of those than have a long history and data set. The 1911 and M9. My opinion, both served pretty well. Are Glocks serving well in special operations? yes. So are HK, 1911's, Sigs, and M9's. I know two Army Green Berets that spoke highly enough about their M9's. I know some other guys that have used Glocks.

I agree, the G19 is a great platform for special operations troops. My point is for a mass distributed weapon I have my doubts.

Would I take a G19, you bet. Would I take a M9 you bet. If it came down to a pistol most of the time I would be a world of deep hurt. Both would serve well. The G19 has the advantage of being smaller, lighter, etc. The M9 has a longer track record(good or bad in some people's opinion) and it has the advantage of features Big Army and Big DOD want for a mass issued weapon.

If I were a special operator, I would probably take the G19. Special operators get a lot of leeway in some cases. If I am a General in charge of the decision to issue it to 100,000 or more troops then I have some tough decisions to make.

This is like arguing over Chevy and Fords or Mossberg 500 vs Remington 870's. The bigger question is the real weapon of choice, the M4, M16, etc. The pistol is almost an afterthought.

 

[TunnelRat]

And, I am not talking about some guy on youtube throwing it down in the mud either. LOL

Neither am I, though that's amusing for what it is.

The bigger question is the real weapon of choice, the M4, M16, etc. The pistol is almost an afterthought.

This is true, but I can't afford a lot of the bigger toys. This is the pistol forum after all, and I think we as civilians talk about pistols as much as we do because they're typically the most practical option for us.

 

[JDBerg]

Finally, do you think the Army and Marines are going to issue a pistol with a 4.5 lb trigger with no safety to the average private or solider/marine? I will believe it when I see it.

The British military is now at close to three years of combat experience in Afghanistan with the Gen4 Glock 17. I have not yet heard or read of any major problems with these guns in the field. And the point has been made that a combat service pistol is strictly a backup to a functioning combat service rifle for the military.

This BBC article from Jan. 2013 compares the Glock 17 to the Browning Hi-Power it replaces, note the comment about the "old Browning's external safety catch";

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-20978842

 

[Gats Italian]

The G19 will fail as hard as the M9 has "failed" if the DoD merely repeats its past handgun wisdom.

1) Don't replace worn out pistols. Glocks do wear out. The M9, for most of its career, has had a sub-$300 replacement cost per unit and the DoD still pushes the issuance of pistols that should have been long retired. Heck, the 1911A1 became unacceptable in part because the youngest ones remaining in the 80s were made in 1944. Hopefully SOCOM, or whatever it calls itself these days, will have wiser procurement folks standing behind them than past military handgun efforts have enjoyed.

2) Allow reliability to suffer for the sake of being cheap. Want to see G19 be plagued by reliability problems? Just wait until some paper pushing bean counter at the DoD decides to replace OEM Glock mags with some Checkmate Industries or other Brand X aftermarket ones. Heck, the PTB wouldn't even refill OEM Beretta mags with OEM magazine springs for God's sake. How shortsighted is that?

There's a reason that folks who rely on Glocks as their first line of defense rather than the last line of defense don't send off for "who knows and who cares" remote maintenance or have any use for Glock compatible "Asian Military" generic mags in their "playing for keeps" guns.

Glock owners may one day find, as Beretta 92 series owners certainly have found, that their privately owned pistols in no way suffer from any possible ill repute foisted upon them by pernicious DoD bean counting.

It's fine to hate the M9 for being a product of its times, or for its ergonomics, but it isn't fair to saddle it with the crap that the Big Army did to it out of cheapness and neglect.

Glock fans should pray that the G19 stays limited issue to units that give a damn about functioning equipment.

 

[JDBerg]

The G19 will fail as hard as the M9 has "failed" if the DoD merely repeats its past handgun wisdom.

Glock armorers can be trained in one day and all of the wear parts on a Glock can be replaced in 20 minutes without any necessary additional fitting of parts. The cost of Glock parts is negligible compared to the savings in armorer time since Glock parts do not require fitting. Just ask the gunsmith / armorer who services the Glock service pistols which are probably issued to your local police department. This fact alone has proven to be a major cost and time savings for the NATO allies who have adapted the Glocks, as it will be for the US military units who are adapting the Glocks.

1) Don't replace worn out pistols. Glocks do wear out. The M9, for most of its career, has had a sub-$300 replacement cost per unit and the DoD still pushes the issuance of pistols that should have been long retired. Heck, the 1911A1 became unacceptable in part because the youngest ones remaining in the 80s were made in 1944. Hopefully SOCOM, or whatever it calls itself these days, will have wiser procurement folks standing behind them than past military handgun efforts have enjoyed.

I can rail all day about inefficient DoD procurement practices for proper maintenance and care for existing military weapon assets. The fact is, Congress is incapable of intelligently allocating funding to properly maintain existing weapons, the 1911A1 required, and the M9 requires significant parts replacement and fitting at major expense. Blame sequestration under the Obama "administration", but this was neglected for too long, and plans for outright replacement are now necessary and they will do the same with the M9 replacement.

2) Allow reliability to suffer for the sake of being cheap. Want to see G19 be plagued by reliability problems? Just wait until some paper pushing bean counter at the DoD decides to replace OEM Glock mags with some Checkmate Industries or other Brand X aftermarket ones. Heck, the PTB wouldn't even refill OEM Beretta mags with OEM magazine springs for God's sake. How shortsighted is that?

The DoD flat out screwed up by specifying the phosphate coated M9 magazines to Beretta, who in turn flowed down the requirement to its magazine subcontractor, Checkmate. But does Checkmate currently make Glock mags? Replacement OEM Glock mags are durable and relatively cheap to replace, cheaper than any reliable Beretta / M9 replacement mags.

There's a reason that folks who rely on Glocks as their first line of defense rather than the last line of defense don't send off for "who knows and who cares" remote maintenance or have any use for Glock compatible "Asian Military" generic mags in their "playing for keeps" guns.

The Korean made KCI Glock mags are not my choice for reliable magazines, the baseplates in these are junk, and anybody out to save a buck or two to use these deserve the problems they can cause.

Glock owners may one day find, as Beretta 92 series owners certainly have found, that their privately owned pistols in no way suffer from any possible ill repute foisted upon them by pernicious DoD bean counting. It's fine to hate the M9 for being a product of its times, or for its ergonomics, but it isn't fair to saddle it with the crap that the Big Army did to it out of cheapness and neglect.

Valid comment that applies to owners of 1911A1 pistols and M1A1 rifles as well. I'm not exactly crazy about the fact that the British Ministry of Defense replaced their Browning Hi-Powers, I would never give up my own BHP for either of my Glocks. But time marches on, and old broken things have to be replaced by new working things. If a British Royal Marine says that a new Glock is needed to replace his old BHP, who are we to argue? Like we really know what is needed to fulfill his mission better than he does, c'mon, get serious!

Glock fans should pray that the G19 stays limited issue to units that give a damn about functioning equipment.

Disagree, the military should be able to use whatever Glock service pistol variant fulfills the mission need for a backup service pistol for a functioning M4-A1 or M16-A1.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

2) Allow reliability to suffer for the sake of being cheap.

I'm not defending the DoD's buying practices, but can you cite an example of the price (2, above) being the primary consideration with regard to small arms purchases for the US Military in the past 40 years?

As best I can tell, price wasn't the only or chief consideration in initial the Beretta acquisition -- as it was the only weapon not kicked out for functional issues. (It turned out that the the S&W entry, a version of the S&W 459, did quite well, but was incorrectly kicked out . That error wasn't known until a GAO IG got involved sometime later, and by then it was too late.) Did POLITICS play a part in any of this? Who knows.

Some years later the DoD issued a new request for bids, and only Beretta and CZ (using the CZ-85) submitted bids, and both weapons passed the tests. Pricing may have been an issue, there -- but CZ's bid price apparently included spares and replacements, while the Beretta bid did not.) None of the other firms submitted guns. CZ would have had to set up a US manufacturing facility, which Beretta had already done. Beretta won the bid.

That said, the low unit prices cited as a replacement cost typically have more to do with volume discounts than CHEAP construction or materials.

I'm NOT a Glock FanBoy but I do get irritated by folks who cite the use of a particular weapon by a particular military or police unit as a justification for their use of that gunmaker's products. Those doing the citing are generally NOT shooting the same weapon, almost never facing the same environmental conditions, and aren't constrained by often seems to be a bizarre testing and acquisition process. A civilian can just show the gun shop the money and be on his or her way.

I would argue that most of the handguns made by the larger firms (S&W, H&K, Glock, SIG, Colt (if they made an appropriate 9mm). FNH, Ruger, Springfield, Taurus, etc., etc. ) could field a competent weapon for military use.

About 10 years ago the US Army bought 5,000 Ruger P95s and sent them to Iraq for use by US troops, there. http://www.ruger.com /news/2004-12-23.html I remember that when it was fresh news, but thought they were for Iraqi troops, not US troops. Who knows how many other similar purchases for other US small arms have also slipped under our radar screens?

I would argue, too, that if a gun is going to fail, the US commercial market is as rigorous a test of durability as anything the military does -- if only because many more testers are involved! That most weapons aren't "idiot proof" is also a factor, as a number of the civilian "testers" will probably try things no military tester in his right mind would attempt. Getting the results just takes longer than a military test regimen. But, as we saw with the recent introduction of the Remington R51 handgun, it doesn't always take long at all. That's because there are many, many more weapons involved in the "test" process and those guns are fired by many, many more "testers"!!

 

[TunnelRat]

^ I got the impression Gats was writing about maintenance, not acquisition.

 

[herdman]

I thought the Army was after a modular handgun system?

 

[Gats Italian]

M9 parts require no more fitting than do Glock parts. In fact, the M9 isn't terribly difficult to detail strip for all of its supposed complexity. Fact remains that no end line military user is going to be given the parts access or authority to be their own armorer. That's not the way things are conducted.

What will happen to any handgun in the non-SF community is that some pistols and magazines will get FUBAR'd and then, maybe, they will be cashiered or will be sent up the line, or NOT, AS IN EVER, and just issued and reissued to some unlucky saps for them to curse about the POS on the internet to the end of his days.

This sort of reputational trashing happened to the 1911A1, it's been ongoing with the M9, it has happened to the M-16/M4, and it will happen to all of their successors too.

 

[Sharkbite]

I have a LOT of experience with Glock pistols in general. Having carried one on "contract work" in both Iraq and Afghanistan. G17's and G19's.

I also saw TONS of Glocks come through Front Sight during the time i taught there (8 years).

The guns are easy to work on at the "Armorer" level. Pop out the bad part..pop in a good part. ZERO fitting...plug n play type maintenance

The guns are easy to shoot well. The guns are as reliable as mechanically possible.

I think it fits the bill to a tee

 

[Walt Sherrill]

M9 parts require no more fitting than do Glock parts.

You may be right about M9 parts not needing more fitting than a Glock, but it seems that the Glock design tolerates a great deal of SLOP with the gun still functioning flawlessly.

One of the firms that made metal frames for Glocks -- an interesting side trip into the Glock parts after-market industry -- made a point of telling their customers that not all Glock parts available in the after-market would work in a metal-framed Glock, even though they would work perfectly in a factory Glock frame. The metal frame version required a different level of parts consistency than did the factory Glock frame. That would seem to suggest an innate flexibility and "tolerance" in the Glock design that simply can't be matched by the M9.

For stock weapons (as would likely be the case with military Glocks or Berettas) which are maintained by military armorers or gunsmiths, that "fit" issue is probably a non-issue, but it does point to a fundamentally different philosophy it the two guns' designs.

 

[amd6547]

The ease of completely stripping a Glock to its smallest part is reminiscent to me of doing the same thing to a 1911. It is simple in both cases. I really appreciated the Glock design when I detail stripped my G17.

We're I issued one, a small ziplock bag would hold every internal part you could want to replace.

Aftermarket mags? Well, I'm sure magpul would like a bite at that contract...they are already making mags.

 

[Gats Italian]

Even assuming the case that an alloy framed pistol requires a bit more precision of part build to account for the unyielding frame, this is not a serious difference in maintenance between the two pistols for the end user, it just requires more consistency part to part at Beretta.

It cannot be credibly said that parts for modern Berettas, SIGs, and other alloy framed duty pistols are not "drop in."

 

[amd6547]

I love the Beretta 92 series, and have an almost irresistible desire to sell most of the guns I own to buy a WC Brigadier...
But completely stripping a 92 is not nearly as easy as a Glock or 1911.