Navy SEALS acquiring Glock 19s?

[TunnelRat]

That would seem to suggest an innate flexibility and "tolerance" in the Glock design that simply can't be matched by the M9.

I have to go with Gats on this one. A drop in part is drop in. Nothing on the M9 or 92 is so tightly fitted that it requires hand fitting (to my knowledge). A Glock may have looser tolerances, but if all the parts you'd get for either pistol can be replaced without fitting then does it really matter if one is looser than the other? It won't impact the armorer either way. The metal Glock frame is an interesting note, but the fit of aftermarket parts isn't really a major concern for a mass issued pistol for the military.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I have to go with Gats on this one. A drop in part is drop in. Nothing on the M9 or 92 is so tightly fitted that it requires hand fitting (to my knowledge). A Glock may have looser tolerances, but if all the parts you'd get for either pistol can be replaced without fitting then does it really matter if one is looser than the other? It won't impact the armorer either way. The metal Glock frame is an interesting note, but the fit of aftermarket parts isn't really a major concern for a mass issued pistol for the military.

I agree. That's why I originally said (repeated here with newly added emphasis)

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

I doubt that the DoD would be looking to the aftermarket for parts. I would argue, however, the Glock tolerance for out-of-spec parts does highlight what may be a fundamentally different philosophy in the design of the two guns.

I make no claim that one approach is superior to the other, but am simply drawing attention to the fact that the two gun makers approached the problem of proper functional FIT from slightly different directions. (It could be that the Glock design may include some bigger innovations than many realize. )

I don't doubt that Glock has a high level of consistency in the parts they make. My point was simply that the NEED for consistency/precision in the production on some important parts seems to be less critical in the Glock design. That is neither a strength nor a weakness -- just a difference.

It could be that this "difference" may have been something that happened in the Glock 17's development, and not something intended...

 

[Double Impact]

The word is

The word is that the Navy Seals have dropped the sig handgun for the glock 19.

Does anyone out there know if they looked at the sig p320 before picking the glock 19?

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Does anyone out there know if they looked at the sig p320 before picking the glock 19?

From what I've read on other forums (with meaningful input from several long-term SEALs) is that the Glock 19 is already well established in various units of the U.S. military, with a good reputation in the field. It's unlikely the SEAL decision-makers would move to a pistol like a new striker-fired SIG without a track record in the military... The Seals giving feedback on other forums were quite happy with the new gun.

 

[Shimpy]

"From what I've read on other forums (with meaningful input from several long-term SEALs) is that the Glock 19 is already well established in various units of the U.S. military, with a good reputation in the field. It's unlikely the SEAL decision-makers would move to a pistol like a new striker-fired SIG without a track record in the military... The Seals giving feedback on other forums were quite happy with the new gun."

From several books I've read, the SEALs, regardless of what sidearm they use, it is custom fitted to each of them by their armorers. Also................... If you get a chance read "Inside Delta Force". The writer explains their training in the shooting house. They are taught to forget about sight picture and slow squeezing the trigger.
They practice firing thousands of round a week by just pointing and slapping the trigger twice. Double head shots are the results. Their main training concerns hostage rescues.

 

[CaptainO]

I would like to see...

A Glock 20 adopted by the Navy SEALS. Since my father was a BM1 Underwater Demolition Team/Navy Rifle Team, I can see where Gaston Glock's "Big 10" has logistic advantges beyond what people generally understand.

a 200 grain FMJ leaving a barrel at 1200 FPS has good terminal perfromance. If anyone else is directly behind it they could be wounded or killed. This is fine during military operations. A second combatant being disabled is always a plus. Changing ammunition types in relation to the battle situation is an extremely positive attribute.

I carried a Glock Model 20 as an Armed Security Officer while on Vehicular Patrol and Foot Patrol in a large Portland Oregon City Park. I wanted to go home at the end of my shift.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

A Glock 20 adopted by the Navy SEALS. Since my father was a BM1 Underwater Demolition Team/Navy Rifle Team, I can see where Gaston Glock's "Big 10" has logistic advantges beyond what people generally understand.

The two SEALs participating on the AR-15.com forum talk about using SIG P228s when concealed carry was appropriate, and said they seldom used the P226. (They both said that salt-water corrosion was an issue with the SIGs. Alloy frames will corrode.)

Except when boarding vessels (rope ladders which makes using a long gun difficult), they say they relied MOST on their longer automatic weapons. Hanguns are otherwise a last-resort weaon. (One SEAL I talked with some years ago said that he would sometimes rather have an extra canteen of water than a handgun -- he may have been kidding, but he seemed serious.) If they need a silenced weapon, they used the H&K Mk 23 or 24 -- as that gun is robust and handles that heavier attachment without a problem.

Most books and documents that talk about Special Ops troops preparing for action suggests that most of them could use just about anything they wanted for specific missions, if there was an obvious reason to do so. But anything used would be something they were very familiar with.

The two SEALs on AR-15.COM made the point that WEIGHT is always big concern, as they may also be carrying 70 lbs+ of other gear, and they were welcomed a lighter, competent weapon.

From several books I've read, the SEALs, regardless of what sidearm they use, it is custom fitted to each of them by their armorers. Also................... If you get a chance read "Inside Delta Force". The writer explains their training in the shooting house. They are taught to forget about sight picture and slow squeezing the trigger.

One guy I know has been working as a weapons instructor with Special Ops types at Ft. Bragg for a number of years, says they do a LOT of force-on-force drills, using simunition. He came to one of our IDPA matches some years back with a bunch of small bruises from simunition hits. (He had to see his doctor about a rotater cuff problem that week, and she just about freaked out when she saw all the bruises -- concerned that he had some sort of blood/liver problem. He explained and calmed her down.)

I've not read or heard much about weapons being "customized" to fit the individual operators, but that may be true -- or they may just do it themselves. Either approach (or both) wouldn't surprise me.

 

[CaptainO]

In that case, a Glock 29SF seems as if it would be in order A "custom load" (read: 12.3 grains of AA#7 behind a 175-grain FMJ) would generate nearly 700 fpe and work extremely well in a given combat situation.

 

[Neal_G.]

Shimpy that book details training methods from over 30 years ago. Safe to say, I wouldn't use it as a reference to the current type of trading SF and Delta use.

 

[dogtown tom]

CaptainO....I can see where Gaston Glock's "Big 10" has logistic advantges beyond what people generally understand.

What do you mean by "logistic advantages"?

Seems to me there would be tremendous logistical issues with a 10mm firearm. I'm not aware of any other 10mm firearm currently used by any US military.

 

[CaptainO]

Tom: "excessive penetration" isn't an issue in the military. If the 200 grain bullet "overpenetrates" it would generally be endangering/threatening another "enemy combatant". (It's kind of a '2-for-1' deal). Even in civilian settings, most of the projectiles have expended their energies in the primary target.

I hope that clarifies matters.

 

[tipoc]

The word is that the Navy Seals have dropped the sig handgun for the glock 19.

The "word" is often wrong, since by definition it's rumor.

The SEALS have had access to the G19 for a number of years now. It's quite possible that they have recently (within the last year) made a large (for them, there's not a lot of them ya know) purchase of new G19s. But it does not mean that they have dropped any of their other guns.

I've grown cautious about the occasional claims that one or another branch of the U.S. Armed Forces have "dropped gun X for the Glock 19" or G22, etc. When you look into it, what has usually actually happened is that a unit or more has acquired some Glock sidearms but did not abandon it's other sidearms.

Glock's marketing department is creative and hardworking the acquisition of even some Glocks by some part of the U.S. military becomes a major victory worth touting. There also seems to be some exaggeration involved in reporting it, or at least in the rumors, "the word", that follows. It's not enough that that some Glocks were purchased...they have to be replacing whatever guns were being used and thus superior, by implication, in about every way to whatever the other brand/gun was.

I can't prove that's what happened here. But the footprints the same. So I'm cautious.

tipoc

 

[shootniron]

I cannot see one advantage to a Seal team using a Glock 20.

 

[tipoc]

I cannot see one advantage to a Seal team using a Glock 20.

I'm sure that if there was, or could be, they have or will figure it out on their own. They usually do.

They know what Glocks are and they know what the 10mm is. "Word is" that they are competent with firearms.

Chris Kyle, the SEAL, carried a Sig P226 but did not have much confidence in the 9mm round. He replaced the P226 with a Springfield TRP Operator in 45acp in 2004 and was happy with it till it was damaged by a piece of frag. He replaced it as his duty gun with a Sig P220 in 45acp and carried that till the end of his deployment. See his book, "American Sniper" for the story of this.

The SEALS have options.

tipoc

 

[CaptainO]

shootiniron:

The 10mm Auto "comes into it's own" at longer ranges. It is a superb subgun round. Hey, 1267-1300 fps (713-750 fpe) with a 200-grain TMJ bullet from 12" submachine gun barrel will poke through walls, zip through vehicle doors and light barriers. Heavy clothing? No problem!

I can't see a downside that can't be solved by a "change" in ammunition. (180-grain FMJ, JSP loads) will always be a viable option. Swapping magazines will immediately solve the issue.

Saving SEAL members' lives and swift (and conclusive) completion of the team's mission is the objective.

 

[tipoc]

What makes folks think the SEALS have not looked at the 10mm? Or that they haven't or don't use it for some applications?

Do you think they don't know about it?

Pretty much, I think, we can assume that if they had a need for it they'd be using it.

tipoc

 

[CaptainO]

tipoc:

Let's be honest with each other. Since the Thompson La Garde tests of 1910-1911, the decisions to adopt a handgun cartridge has been based primarily on "commecial" considerations (Beretta - 1977-78).

Well, the 10mm shouldn't have been shelved for these reasons. It was concieved as a combat/battle cartridge in the first degree. John (Jeff) Cooper endorsed it as such and I have been shooting it since 1991. There is little more than this endorsement needed to convince me of it's superiority in the field. The FBI knew this, but the .40 S&W was created because most of their "Special Agents" are little more than analytical "pencil pushers" that hadn't the physical fortitude to effectively operate a more effective handgun than the 9mm Parabellum. As a result, the .40 S&W was born. Now they have reverted back to the 9mm (yet again).

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[dogtown tom]

CaptainO Tom: "excessive penetration" isn't an issue in the military. If the 200 grain bullet "overpenetrates" it would generally be endangering/threatening another "enemy combatant". (It's kind of a '2-for-1' deal). Even in civilian settings, most of the projectiles have expended their energies in the primary target.

That "excessive penetration" you love so much comes with increased recoil.
I know you think the 10mm is the bomb, but few in law enforcement or the military share your love.

The 10mm has as much chance as the .327fed does of being adopted by the .mil

It's a great round for hunting, if I lived in Alaska I would own one for sure. But I think there are far better handgun calibers for self defense.

I hope that clarifies matters.

It doesn't.
My question was "What do you mean by "logistic advantages"?
I think you might have the terms "ballistic" and "logistic" confused.

 

[CaptainO]

Not a bit. The men in the SEAL teams could (and can) use every edge they can obtain. I carried the Glock 20 for at least ten hours a day in a Sam Browne belt in a uniform a minimum of 5 days a week.

These men are in their early 20's at their peak of strength and training. I was 50 years old at the time. (I think they can handle it).

 

[45_auto]

These men are in their early 20's at their peak of strength and training. I was 50 years old at the time. (I think they can handle it).

Were you also carrying over 100 pounds of additional gear when you were packing your big bad 10mm?