Why has the military not purchased Glocks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Honestly? Probably because glock either hasn't entered the "bidding" process or doesn't give a good enough deal.

If it was me making the decision, I'm never having a glock in my house. They're uncomfortable, and sloppy. Yeah, sure they always shoot, but I can fork up a little more money and get a gun that not only always shoots, but is comfortable and durable as well. The mile wide machining in glock is what makes them always shoot, and also cheap. Tight correctly fitted tolerances take skilled machinists, while the Austrians are using who knows who to produce their parts... But that's my opinion...
 
I don't think any of us or Law Enforcement is in a position to know, understand and most importantly develop the DoD's requirement. The U.S. Army is responsible for collecting the requirements of all the services, roll them together and coordinating the final requirement for DoD. It is at times a compromises between the ship board Navy need, the Pilot's needs, the Military Police, and the forces on the battle field. It will be the same side arm used by the Reserves and the National Guard whether they are thrown into the fight or if they are helping us during floods, tornados, hurricanes, forest fires, earthquakes or other natural disasters. Some of these soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen are only 18 years old.

If you think you know better, then contact your Congressman and request a response from the U.S. Army's Program Manager. At the same time, you might want to contact Glock or whoever manufacturers your favorite pistol and ask them about why they do not desire to enter the fray of the acquisition process.

As others have stated the Military is responsibility for providing the weapon system that meets the requirement at the best overall cost to the tax payer. They also have to train the user and provide support for the end item.
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Wouldn't that pretty much be a matter of keeping fingers off triggers? Or is there a flaw in the safe action that I don't know about?
 
buckhorn_cortez said:
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.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what they are doing. I think I made that clear. I thought I made it clear I know nothing about their process and was looking for their reasoning?

What I DO know is basically that as far as "military use," a Glock CAN be suppressed. It is also ridiculously durable. I have shot a Glock that survived a fire. It was in a wooden night stand and was found by firemen...sans nightstand. I'm sure nobody is arguing that a Glock isn't reliable. And I'm sure most handgun users in this forum can provide some kind of testament to that end.

But it basically SOUNDS like it boils down too is bean counting bureaucracy. Which is fine. I didn't know anything about THAT. I know about the gun itself.
 
The Army Chief has made his opinion clear the solicitation process is a waste of funds. He suggested that the simple authorization to purchase an existing off the shelf firearm would do.

As for the contract, it's very much NOT about a gun, that is the emphasis usually focused on with internet gun forums. It very much IS about a package of logistical supply and the fact the .Gov will own the TDP and manufacturing rights to the firearm.

So, it may not make any difference at all which gun "wins," when the winner of the bid can outsource the sub contracts as they see fit. You could wind up with a Glock design manufactured by Remington, SIG, and S&W.

As for the requirements, having changeable grips, two different sized frames, and suppressor capability is the typical institutional compromising that resulted in the M4. What was originally intended to be used as a non combat logistics PDW or officers weapon became a patrol carbine for light intensity conflicts - ie urban terrorist hunting. And it had shortcomings in the open field, which is why there were scrambles to add longer range firepower or invent larger cartridges to make up for deficiencies.

For the most part the Army just buys a different handgun for different mission requirements, same as they issued sniper rifles and MK18 SBR's. The people charged with making the contract solicitation and including all the features were likely Pentagon hall walkers interested in furthering their careers, not shooters. Hence the boondoggle contract to embellish their OER.

Pistols really aren't that important anyway in the services, for the most part they are badges of authority. The real issue is spending millions on vetting whichever wins the contract when the results will be the same as the M4 - a lot of armorer rework, the same reason the 1911 is no longer financially affordable. It's an antiquated design that demands a lot of gunsmithing attention, where a Glock is a fleet user designed battle pistol of the modern age.

They didn't submit back in the day because they had just gotten the Austrian Army contract and were still looking to see how that turned out in the field. Today? They DOMINATE the LEO market with a significant impact world wide and Gaston Glock just may not appreciate having his invention sold to US Government mishandling. It happened to Colt and it hurt them.

Overall the process of selection is already flawed - the M9 was chosen largely because Italy threw down the Med refueling station and having the 173 Airborne Brigade on the table - take it all or leave it all. We figured the M9 was ok enough, the gun doesn't make that much difference, and we needed the logistical and tactical area advantages.

We will see the same result - politics will bias the last cut in the selection process. There are some big players from the defense industry giving this attention and the lobbyists are already twisting arms. It's a bit naïve to think that the merits of the gun or it's Brand will have anything to do with the final choice. It didn't really before, and that is the track record so far.

And to emphasize what I linked - a lot of special units have already been carrying and using Glocks IN COMBAT in the last few years. We are buying Glocks already, they are being used by special units - which is exactly how the Army actually does test the concept of a firearm. By carrying and using it on combat should it be considered capable. Their feedback is undoubtedly the reason the Army Chief is asking the overseers at the Pentagon to step aside and just let him handle it. That a politics.
 
Last edited:
From what I remember from the last handgun selection process, the DoD requires that they take ownership of the design so that they could have other companies produce them. Glock would not agree to this requirement.
 
The easiest solution would be to allow Army divisions or even brigade combat teams to select handguns such as the Glock 19, and also ammunition and accessories, that are already tested, approved and are being used in combat by units within the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). The relatively low unit prices and low issue quantities at the brigade and division level would save many millions of dollars in acquisition costs and mindless bureaucracy and get new handguns to the troops three years earlier than the current MHS plan. The Army already does this for eyewear through the Authorized Protective Eyewear List (APEL) where lower level Army units can order from over thirty different types of commercial protective eyeglasses.
 
It would be childsplay to add a slide mounted safety like a M9 that blocks the firing pin when flipped down, and ready to fire when flipped up.

Glock just does not care cause it already has the lion's share around the world now.

The US military will just have to ask Glock "pretty please" nicely to get them to make some.

Deaf
 
Child's play to do it once, perhaps. Do it on an industrial scale with dedicated machinery/production lines and it becomes a whole different story...

I'm sure Glock has a well-detailed cost/benefit analysis behind their decision-making and if it made sense for them to be involved in this, they would be.
 
I'm not a Glock fan by any means, but they do everything a military sidearm should do. They're durable, easy to repair/service, lightweight, and they have massive manufacturing capacity in the US.

That said, you could say the same about Sig, FN, Smith & Wesson, Beretta, and Ruger. All of them already produce guns that meet most (if not all) of the MHS requirements. There's no need for this massive boondoggle, except it's the Pentagon. Boondoggle is what they do.
 
but they do everything a military sidearm should do
Click to expand...


Except that the military requires a positive manual safety (aka safety lock), which GLock refuses to provide. As long as the military believes they need one, and Glock believes their design is perfection without one, there is an impasse.

And, don't think a handful in use by SPECIAL operations groups is the same as a general purpose handgun for all the troops.

The easiest solution would be to allow Army divisions or even brigade combat teams to select handguns such as the Glock 19, and also ammunition and accessories,
Click to expand...

It might seem so, but there are drawbacks to that approach, the main one is a lack of standardization, something the military is rather keen on.

Spec ops groups get to play with what they think will serve them best (generally) because they are SMALL units, with highly specialized missions and personnel. Including training.

Imagine the support requirements if each division, or brigade (gasp!) chose what it's commander of the time liked best. Repair parts, and repairman training would no longer fit every unit. The general supply system would have to stock parts for ALL the different guns in use in different units, AND get the right parts to the RIGHT units, and based on my personal experience, they can barely manage that with everything standardized.

It SEEMS like it would be easier and cheaper, but I don't think it would be, when you add in ALL the "unseen" things it takes to make the system work.
 
I understand the military requiring a manual safety. Do you know how many recruits have never touched a gun? You'd be surprised. Just cause they're military doesn't mean they know how to handle a weapon safely
 
Imagine the support requirements if each division, or brigade (gasp!) chose what it's commander of the time liked best. Repair parts, and repairman training would no longer fit every unit. The general supply system would have to stock parts for ALL the different guns in use in different units, AND get the right parts to the RIGHT units, and based on my personal experience, they can barely manage that with everything standardized.
Click to expand...

That's why they should leave handgun selection at the discretion of the individual Marine or Soldier and say to heck with standardization or support of those weapons. Maintain the old M9s in the armory to issue out in case of an individual operator's off the shelf weapon having a catastrophic failure, and not blow a crap ton of DoD funding that could be spent more wisely, like training or modernizing the M4 and M16A4. The sidearm is a far too seldom used weapon to justify wasting money on this MHS crap. Our rifles could use a little modernizing and could shed a few ounces in several places.
 
Sounds good, but will the individual Marine or soldier provide his or her own repair facilities, training, and parts supply? I know troops make more money than the $34 a month I got when I was drafted, but that still seems a bit much on a GI's pay. And would the same apply to rifles, artillery, trucks, tanks, etc. Suppose a GI tanker thinks a German or Russian tank is better than the M1A1; would it be OK to order up one from the nearest dealer?

Sorry, Tucker, but soldiers, for good reasons, are not allowed to be individualists, choosing their own weapons, uniforms, and tactics.

Jim
 
Never suggested ALL weapons should be left up to the individual, much less tactics and uniforms. I only suggested that a very narrowly issued weapon (squad leaders and up) be left up to the personnel that rate one. And generally speaking those personnel have the maturity and discretion to make an educated and sensible choice. They also get paid more than E1 through E3s.

Not sure if you read my whole post but I clearly said that the military should allow this while absconding from providing logistical support for the plethora of different sidearms that would show up. Instead of spending more money on a new handgun the M9 could simply be held in reserve of the need arose (I.e. Sgt Tucker 1371's CZ75 broke and is unserviceable, hand him this old ragged out M9 and a holster).

The reason why I think this is absolutely feasible is because the handgun is without a doubt the least consequential weapon in a firefight. On any given deployment, if you need it at all, it'll probably only be once. It's a silly thing for the DoD to be blowing money on when we have much greater needs (like more ammo for training). That, and it has been done by past generations of Marines and Soldiers, granted not in a very long time.

I understand if you disagree with my post Jim, but using hyperbole to belittle my opinion is not what I consider conduct becoming of people of the gun. An armed society is a polite society right?
 
which GLock refuses to provide. As long as the military believes they need one, and Glock believes their design is perfection without one, there is an impasse.
Click to expand...
I'm under the impression Glock has made pistols with safeties for large contracts in the past, they are just unwilling to make demo guns and generally play the games DOD requires.

Everyone carrying different pistols would be a nightmare. When eye wear malfunctions it gets trashed. Same with everything else normal soldiers are allowed to select. Saying they should pick their own firearms would be like letting them pick their own vehicles.
 
Does every soldier in the Army get a sidearm or something? There's like 10 M9s issued out in my company, maybe. Only the officers and staff NCOs have them.

And I'm not suggesting relying solely on personnel having their own sidearms. Keep the M9 in reserve for issuing out when someone's personal weapon goes down. Not sure if anyone is catching my drift but I'm suggesting that the Army (or anyone else) not spend any more money on a dang handgun. Handguns are great for storming the chow hall and that's pretty much their place. I agree we need them for those one or two outlier scenarios, but I don't agree with spending money on a new handgun over something like lighter multi hit capable SAPI plates, or lighter more accurate M4s and M16A4s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top