Why has the military not purchased Glocks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stonewall50

New member
I am wondering why the US military has not opted for Glocks? Doesn't it seem unusual to anyone else that there is talk of replacing current the handgun and yet the Glock is not what the Army wants? Numerous units have gone to glocks (including seals), but for some reason (no safety) it isn't wanted?

Does anyone else feel that one little detail is a good enough reason to prevent the use of an extremely rugged and reliable handgun from being used?

Btw

I carry an XD. So I'm not a Glock fanboy lol.
 
Because anything related to the US government isn't efficient. The certain units that have gone with Glocks are those that typically have oversight of their own equipment. When you start talking about the Army as a whole, everyone wants to be involved.
 
When the U.S. military issues a requirement, industry is invited to tender a submission to meet that requirement. A selection process then occurs and the winner of the selection process gets the contract.

Has Glock submitted a tender to a U.S. military contract for a general issue handgun? The last time the U.S. Military replaced its service-wide sidearm the Glock was not ready for primetime.
 
They don't like the safe action! It causes "hole in the leg syndrome" that they fixed in 1911.
 
Last edited:
I haven't seen the list of requirements, it could be that Glock doesn't meet them.

It might be that Glock didn't bid for the contract.

Maybe Glock didn't want to submit to the terms of the contract.

Just guesses on my part.
 
To be honest I'm surprised they even use Beretta. You would think they would want an American manufacturer in case sh*t hits the fan and you need someone within the states to provide your weapons. I've seen some infantry units carry Sigs too which almost won the contract away from the M9. Glock could be a contender for the future but they would have to develop some sort of external safety. I don't see the military ever using anything without a safety.
 
To be honest I'm surprised they even use Beretta. You would think they would want an American manufacturer in case sh*t hits the fan and you need someone within the states to provide your weapons. I've seen some infantry units carry Sigs too which almost won the contract away from the M9. Glock could be a contender for the future but they would have to develop some sort of external safety. I don't see the military ever using anything without a safety.
Click to expand...

Beretta has a plant in Maryland and theyre moving it down the road from just north of the Nashville area.
 
Oh good! Haha better safe than sorry after all. Call me paranoid :P
Click to expand...

You're not paranoid but smart. I think that's part of the requirements (to have a US based plant) for the very reason you mentioned. :)
 
I've heard mumblings there is already talks of throwing out the current competition b/c of procedural errors in the process. It has only been about a month since the submission date expired. I don't think any real testing has even occurred.
The last round was scrapped after great expense for all involved.
The last round for rifles the M4 had twice as many failures as the other competitors. Admittedly an absurdly small number. They stayed with the M4.
Hard to blame any company for shying away.
The money is in electronic techno gadgets that promise the world, whether they deliver or not.
 
MFitz said:
When the U.S. military issues a requirement, industry is invited to tender a submission to meet that requirement. A selection process then occurs and the winner of the selection process gets the contract.



Has Glock submitted a tender to a U.S. military contract for a general issue handgun? The last time the U.S. Military replaced its service-wide sidearm the Glock was not ready for primetime.
Click to expand...


Which is something I grasp, but I'm still wondering why the US military has a safety requirement? I mean let's put it this way...if almost every law enforcement agency in the nation buys a Glock...why has our military decided they know better with side arms?
 
if almost every law enforcement agency in the nation buys a Glock...why has our military decided they know better with side arms?
Click to expand...
US LEO have a pretty good number of negligent discharges. Lots of things go into that, but many believe the Glock "safe action" is part of it. As much as I like Glock I wouldn't say the police safety history with them is a strong positive. At best a neutral.

I'm quite certain Glock has the ability to add a safety if one orders enough.
 
Which is something I grasp, but I'm still wondering why the US military has a safety requirement? I mean let's put it this way...if almost every law enforcement agency in the nation buys a Glock...why has our military decided they know better with side arms?
Click to expand...

Ahh... one of the "If they're so smart" questions that starts with the supposition that you know more about what they're doing than they do.

The armed forces have been buying firearms for 200 years - they know a little about buying quantities of firearms and what they want in a sidearm. Law enforcement guns are not used in the same type of conditions as military guns.

As an example, they want the ability to use a suppressor on the pistol. That's not a standard requirement for law enforcement agencies that I'm aware of.

The entire RFP is more than just "buying guns." It includes spare parts, spare parts delivery, armorer training, cleaning kits, etc.

The real sticking point is that the Army wants to own the technical data package - meaning they want to own the design just like they do with the AR M4 rifle.

They want the ability to put the pistol out for bid in later solicitations meaning - even if you win, you could lose because there's no guarantee you're going to be supplying all of the pistols over the 20 year contract if you don't win the subsequent bid solicitations.
 
This XM17 MHS nonsense is just that, nonsense. It's more of a symbolic move than anything. I'm not a Beretta fanboy but the M9 ain't all that bad, my unit's M9s actually have pretty freakin sweet triggers, the DA pull blows anything else I've ever shot out of the water and the SA pull is right up there with a nicely tuned 1911. Just my opinion but when Beretta presented the M9A3 it seemed to me like a perfect fix for all of the M9s deficiencies. The worst things about the current pistol are the large grip circumference and the sights. Fix those and you have one hell of a side arm.

Honestly speaking a new handgun is not what most people in the military really wants or needs. What we want is a lighter more user adjustable, and reliable rifle. A few minor tweaks to the current issue M4 and M16A4 would accomplish that. The KAC rails on the current rifles just add way too much weight and should be replaced with lighter Keymod or MLOK forends. The BCM KMR13 would be my pick. Ditch the A frame sight and put a Lo pro gas block on a barrel ported for a mid length gas system. Put M4 buffer tubes and stocks on all M16s to improve usability with armor.

That overhaul could probably be done in place of this stupid (IMO), MHS competition and have a far greater impact on combat effectiveness.
 
Just my opinion but when Beretta presented the M9A3 it seemed to me like a perfect fix for all of the M9s deficiencies.
Click to expand...

Other than the ballistic requirements in the solicitation rule out the 9mm...

I'm not a Beretta fanboy but the M9 ain't all that bad, my unit's M9s actually have pretty freakin sweet triggers, the DA pull blows anything else I've ever shot out of the water and the SA pull is right up there with a nicely tuned 1911.
Click to expand...

You must have some pistols that are real anomalies. I've never shot a Beretta 92 that had "freakin sweet triggers."

The ones I've shot have average triggers at best, and the SA is no where near a 1911, unless the 1911's you've shot are substandard examples.
 
Ive shot some old series 70 1911s with very, very good triggers. Now I'm not saying that the SA pull on our M9s is the best I've ever felt, but it's pretty damn good. The M9s (M9A1s actually) in our armory may just be very well broken in, possibly. The SA pull has a little more take up than a good 1911 SA pull would, but it is light and breaks crisp. There's also a little more over travel than I would like but the reset is nice and short and very positive. The DA pull is butter smooth, very light (for a DA trigger) with little to no stacking. If I were issued an M9A3 with as good a trigger and three dot or straight 8 sights I would carry it hammer down safety off and have absolutely zero complaints.

And if you think my memory is failing me I just came back from a field drill this past weekend and got to fiddle around with my Plt Sgt's issued M9 quite a bit.

I really could give a crap what the solicitation says. The Army is making another wasteful decision, 9mm is perfectly acceptable (ideal even?) for a sidearm, especially now that they're considering using JHP ammo.

In the big scheme of things a pistol is a rarely used weapon in combat and has little impact in a firefight. If they wanted to get smart they would give pistol qualified personnel the discretion and maybe an allowance to purchase and use their own handgun so long as it is chambered in whatever caliber we happen to be using, 9mm at the moment. Keep the M9 in reserve to issue out in case of someone's pistol going down. Sidearm problem solved, money saved to improve more important things, like rifles and support fire weapons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top