Why has the military not purchased Glocks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Click to expand...

I can categorically assure you that maturity and discretion are NOT automatically conferred with ranks E4 and above.

There is a simple, essentially FREE method that would solve issues with this or that pistol being the preferred individual weapon. The military doesn't like to do it, primarily because of the immaturity and lack of discretion making educated and sensible choices with so many of their personnel.

And that is, simply to ALLOW the individual to carry what ever they wish, in ADDITION to their issued weapon. All costs (including ammo if not the military round) to be borne by the individual.

No, its not a perfect solution but nothing can be. Smart commanders often allow significant latitude to troops "on the sharp end" that cannot be allowed in garrison conditions, as despite our respect for them our troops are, as Kipling put it, "not plaster saints". And I speak from personal experience.

because the handgun is without a doubt the least consequential weapon in a firefight.
Click to expand...

While I cannot argue this point, there is another point to consider, one where the handgun is the MOST consequential weapon to the individual.

It is often said that handguns do not win battles, but a handgun might be the thing that saves the life of the soldier who does win the battle.

There are many stories from combat zones throughout the last century of "private" pistols (not issue weapons) saving the lives of troops, particularly in cases of enemy infiltration. One fellow I knew was the 4th owner of a Colt .38 snub that had been passed on each time its owner left the unit. He said it was a great comfort to him more than once.
 
He said it was a great comfort to him more than once.
Click to expand...
Morale has won and lost more wars than steel. Warm meals and small arms a soldier is confident in, whether warranted or not, can make a big difference.

For the price of the landing gear on one F35...
But Senators sons and campaign contributors ride in F35s.
 
I can categorically assure you that maturity and discretion are NOT automatically conferred with ranks E4 and above.
Click to expand...

Correct, I've seen come corporals do some boneheaded things. But I believe the vast majority of them are mature enough to select a reliable combat handgun that works for them.

While I cannot argue this point, there is another point to consider, one where the handgun is the MOST consequential weapon to the individual.

It is often said that handguns do not win battles, but a handgun might be the thing that saves the life of the soldier who does win the battle.
Click to expand...

Which is why it should be an individual decision. The handgun that may save your life shouldn't be a one-size-fits-most affair. If should be a weapon that you have the opportunity to train with 24-7, not whenever the unit schedules a range day and the armory hands it out to you. Of course this would require a change in the on base carry policy.

And that is, simply to ALLOW the individual to carry what ever they wish, in ADDITION to their issued weapon. All costs (including ammo if not the military round) to be borne by the individual.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Were something like this implemented I think you would see most people opt for whatever the standard issue round happens to be.
 
But I believe the vast majority of them are mature enough to select a reliable combat handgun that works for them.
Click to expand...
417109_L1.jpg

Claro que si.
What national military organization; not "special forces" but general Army, Navy, Marine, CG, AF, whatever; allows soldiers to choose their own weapons?
Maybe some third world affairs where the government can't afford standard uniforms. No logistical or training support to begin with.

Carrying an issued M9 + a personal side arm possibly in addition to the issue rifle and mags/ammo for all three...
8589130470762-butch-cassidy-and-the-sundance-kid-wallpaper-hd.jpeg


I smell an orphanage burning.
 
Glock

They haven't chosen the Glocks so they can keep spending money on the tests. It is our money and as you know the taxes keep going up and up because that is how our government works. There is no respect for the tax payers.
 
After 20 years in the US Army and 5 more working for a defense contractor I can say one thing. It won't be the best gun that's picked. It will be whoever has the most political influence.
 
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...

As a matter of fact since their business is to kill,,,, and the average police officer never fires his gun in other than at the range,,,,,yes the military does know better.
 
The Glock is inexpensive and works well enough but there is such a high accident rate with them, I would be very surprised if they were ever approved for the military. The PA State Police are dumping their 3rd Glock in a short period of time and going to Sigs in no small part due to accidents.
 
I guess the Brits are better gun handlers than us, since they issue the Glock 17.
When my daughters fiancé, who had never shot a firearm, expressed interest in shooting, I took him out to the club.
After going over range operations and safety, we started with the SR22 pistol.
Showing safe behavior and having fun, we then moved up to the Glock 17. I had previously described the Glock system, emphasizing that his finger should never be on the trigger unless he was shooting.
He took it in, and had a fine time putting a few mags through it. Safe procedures followed at all times.
I'm pretty sure US troops could be taught safe gun handling at least as well as the Brits.
 
saleen322 ....The PA State Police are dumping their 3rd Glock in a short period of time and going to Sigs in no small part due to accidents.
Click to expand...
Wrong. They will continue to have negligent discharges regardless of the firearm selected. Think about why that might be.;)
 
I respectfully disagree. As someone who has testified as a training expert in court, I would correctly describe such an occurrence as accidental or unintended discharge if the shooter did not knowingly want the weapon to fire. A negligent discharge would occur if the shooter intentionally fires a weapon and misses the intended target and hazards a third person or property of another.
 
Uhhh...no

If you are handeling the gun in a "negligent" manner. As in finger on the trigger when not appropriate...and you fire a shot you didnt mean to fire..its Negligence
 
I am thinking that to prevent a potential negligent discharge in a gun with a safety it requires the operator to switch on the safety. If the same operator is not able to keep his finger off the trigger when not intended, how can you assure that he will also flip the safety on or decock as the case may be. So if you are unable to keep your finger off the trigger, or other action in the trigger guard, why would you assume that same operator would always apply the safety to prevent the ND.

I don't know if I have ever seen evidence that there are more NDs or "holes in the legs" of Glock owners/users as non Glock owners/users. Does this exist? I would like to see it.

By the way, I am not partial to Glocks. I have Berettas, S&Ws, and Glocks. Just curious.
 
Foreign material ( shirt tail, coat tail, etc...) or other obstruction shouldn't cause an accidental discharge on a 92 or 226 while the hammer is down when re-holstering.
Why not delete the safety, both grip and thumb on a series 80 1911? It won't fire unless your finger is on the trigger also.
 
There are, essentially two different systems of mechanical safeties. I call them "active" and "passive".

An active safety requires the user to put it on, and it stays on until the user takes it off. Also known as manual safeties. Safety levers are active systems.

A passive safety is one that the user "turns off" by holding the gun in the normal firing grip. Grip safeties and trigger safeties are passive systems. I also consider the long, heavy trigger pull of a DA revolver to be a passive safety system as well.

Gun designers are seldom gun "users" in the way that people on the sharp end are gun users. Meaning, what a gun designer considers good enough (or "perfection" if you are a certain Austrian firm;)) may not be what the military (or other customer) considers good enough.

The 1910 prototypes for the Army .45 pistol didn't have a safety lever (aka safety lock). They had a grip safety, which Browning thought was good enough. It was the Army, specifically the Cavalry that demanded a safety lever. The 1911 has both.

And, while we don't ride horses as much as we used to, the military hasn't forgotten that the same risks still exist. Yes, it takes a conscious act on the part of the user to apply the safety, and safeties can, and do fail, but overall, a gun with a manual safety (active safety) applied is safer than a gun without one.

We can argue about the degree of safety, I suppose, and we do argue a lot about if it is the "best" thing. Currently, and since 1910, the military has had a requirement for a manual safety on semi auto pistols. Whether you or I think it is wrong doesn't matter. What matters is what the military specs for the contract, and only guns that meet those requirements are considered.

So far, GLock hasn't, and isn't.

Other countries have their own rules, and they don't apply here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top