Why US Special Forces don't carry Glocks?
- Thread starter Irfan
- Start date
- Status
The U.S. military is not keen on issuing striker-fired weapons (whose cocked status cannot be verified visually) with no manual safeties. Heck, the reason the 1911 has a grip safety was because of the Army's demands; it was added over J.M. Browning's protests.
The Army was investigating DA autos long before the XM9 trials because in addition to the 1911's useage in several heroic situations, it also had the dubious distinction of inflicting more casualties on its operators than on the enemy in almost every war it was used in. Hand a bunch of 18-20 year-old kids, most of whom have never operated a handgun before, a pistol that can only be decocked by pulling the trigger, and you are going to see a lot of creased buttocks and holed feet.
The Army was investigating DA autos long before the XM9 trials because in addition to the 1911's useage in several heroic situations, it also had the dubious distinction of inflicting more casualties on its operators than on the enemy in almost every war it was used in. Hand a bunch of 18-20 year-old kids, most of whom have never operated a handgun before, a pistol that can only be decocked by pulling the trigger, and you are going to see a lot of creased buttocks and holed feet.
LOL!
Tamara, that's hilarious, and I definitely see the irony. But I tend to disagree with the conclusion.
Of course we'd have more documented cases of self-inflicted injury, than we have of confirmed kills using a 1911. In wartime, on a battlefield, the enemy isn't going to stop what they're doing to perform an autopsy on fallen soldiers, so they can count how many .45ACP slugs are in a cadaver, and provide that data to an enemy. No pulse, dig a hole, cover it up, move on.
I strongly suspect that there are an enormous number of actual kills attributable to the 1911... more than we can conceive of... but because it's not the enemy's job to provide statistical information to us during armed conflict, we have only the documented cases of self-inflicted wounds to rely upon.
To use that information as a metric, would be like trying to count how many successful car trips are taken, by the number of accidents attributable to drunk drivers that crash.
In marketing parlance, this is referred to as 'sampling error', where we're looking in the wrong place for data, and on the back end, it necessarily obviates that there will be an interpretation error when deriving a conclusion.
Do you agree with me?
Tamara, that's hilarious, and I definitely see the irony. But I tend to disagree with the conclusion.
Of course we'd have more documented cases of self-inflicted injury, than we have of confirmed kills using a 1911. In wartime, on a battlefield, the enemy isn't going to stop what they're doing to perform an autopsy on fallen soldiers, so they can count how many .45ACP slugs are in a cadaver, and provide that data to an enemy. No pulse, dig a hole, cover it up, move on.
I strongly suspect that there are an enormous number of actual kills attributable to the 1911... more than we can conceive of... but because it's not the enemy's job to provide statistical information to us during armed conflict, we have only the documented cases of self-inflicted wounds to rely upon.
To use that information as a metric, would be like trying to count how many successful car trips are taken, by the number of accidents attributable to drunk drivers that crash.
In marketing parlance, this is referred to as 'sampling error', where we're looking in the wrong place for data, and on the back end, it necessarily obviates that there will be an interpretation error when deriving a conclusion.
Do you agree with me?
Probably true...
... Rovert.
I have to agree with you that their methodology was suspect, although I do believe they arrived at the right conclusion.
I think DA/SA pistols with visible hammers and decockers are far more "idiot-resistant" (as nothing is truly "idiot-proof") than traditional SA designs or striker-fired types like the Glock.
... Rovert.
I have to agree with you that their methodology was suspect, although I do believe they arrived at the right conclusion.
I think DA/SA pistols with visible hammers and decockers are far more "idiot-resistant" (as nothing is truly "idiot-proof") than traditional SA designs or striker-fired types like the Glock.
Tamara, if the goal was to find a gun that offered more safeties, and/or more ways to confirm weapon status, then I agree wholeheartedly. One of the reasons I bought the P99 instead of the Glock was that I didn't like the idea of not knowing what the status of the striker was.
I guess that makes me one of the idiots.
But, for the Army to conclude that there were more self inflicted wounds than intentional kills, based on absence of evidence, and a preponderance of internal documents, in an organization that has a penchant for paperwork and bureaucracy, is sheer stupidity. No wonder they need all the margin for error in a handgun they can get. It was so the idiots in the STATISTICAL office don't accidentally shoot themselves!!!
Arizona Eric
New member
Rovert, you can tell the position of the Glock striker by observing the trigger position. Trigger back equals striker "non-cocked," trigger forward (in firing position) equals striker "cocked."
Maybe not as nifty as some little button sticking out, but it works.
Maybe not as nifty as some little button sticking out, but it works.
Thats one of the little things I really like about my Steyr M40 over a Glock, the "Loaded Chamber Indicator" on the back of the gun is a feature that Glock should consider employing in their guns (for one thing you can't see the trigger if it's in a holster).
When that little nubbin is popped out you have one in the pipe.
When that little nubbin is popped out you have one in the pipe.
Just curious............. If its in a holster and you're carrying it, why wouldn't it be chambered(trigger forward)? I've carried a G17 as a duty weapon for going on 7 years now, and never have a doubt of my weapons condition. Besides if you have a thumb break holster, that little indicator is useful. Kinda blows concealed carry, when you have to unsnap and check the status of your weapon. And in most cases ie the Walther, that little button is not a chamber loaded indicator, so you may assume that your weapon is cocked, but is it chambered?
Be Safe
Mike
Be Safe
Mike
Will Beararms
New member
The 1911 still has a strong following in those crowds. The design can take a 1000 round shooting session and not result in stoppages common to those designs with the large block in the chamber as it expands and hangs on the hood in the front of the slide area. (Per a SEAL once romantically involved with a family member)
Loaded chamber indicators are a neat thing to have, but do we really need them?
Any person who uses a weapon should know the condition of the weapon on his person 100% of the time. He should know the loaded status and how many rounds he has available. Should an individual recieve a weapon from another person, a safety check should be performed immediately to confirm the status of the weapon. So a loaded chamber indicator might be nice to know when someone is handing you a weapon, but you are going to check anyway....or at least I hope so!
DA/SA vs SA type weapons... For years the U.S. Military used 1911 autos as the standard sidearm. Did we have any serious safety issues with the 1911's? No. Are our soldiers getting "Dumber" and they can't handle a 1911? I hope not. So why the sudden push for a DA/SA weapon? I can understand the military wanting to standardize calibers to 9mm to ease logistic problems, but I do not understand changing to an entirely different weapons system.
It is not secret that the Military is afraid of giving its soldiers ammo, so it doesn't surprise me that its afraid of arming them with the best weapons available. If they let the "ground pounders" choose the weapons they want to carry instead of Beauracrats and Generals that have their own agenda choose the weapons, our military would more than likely be armed with different weapons.
It's no wonder why many of our Special Forces Teams are armed with non standard weapons. It's beacause they know what works best.
Good Shooting
RED
Any person who uses a weapon should know the condition of the weapon on his person 100% of the time. He should know the loaded status and how many rounds he has available. Should an individual recieve a weapon from another person, a safety check should be performed immediately to confirm the status of the weapon. So a loaded chamber indicator might be nice to know when someone is handing you a weapon, but you are going to check anyway....or at least I hope so!
DA/SA vs SA type weapons... For years the U.S. Military used 1911 autos as the standard sidearm. Did we have any serious safety issues with the 1911's? No. Are our soldiers getting "Dumber" and they can't handle a 1911? I hope not. So why the sudden push for a DA/SA weapon? I can understand the military wanting to standardize calibers to 9mm to ease logistic problems, but I do not understand changing to an entirely different weapons system.
It is not secret that the Military is afraid of giving its soldiers ammo, so it doesn't surprise me that its afraid of arming them with the best weapons available. If they let the "ground pounders" choose the weapons they want to carry instead of Beauracrats and Generals that have their own agenda choose the weapons, our military would more than likely be armed with different weapons.
It's no wonder why many of our Special Forces Teams are armed with non standard weapons. It's beacause they know what works best.
Good Shooting
RED
No offense meant to any of the "Tupperware Tribe", but...the Glock IS NOT as "Idiot-proof" as the Beretta, Sig-Sauer, etc....lack of an external hammer, lack of a manual safety/decocker, etc....remember, we are talking issue weapon for the Military, after all...and they have NEVER BEEN enamored of the handgun especially, and don't put in the "Traing Time" with it that it would require, for whatever reason...lowest common denominator, and all that....mikey357
One, yes, you're right. If you know the condition of your weapon when you put it in a holster, unless you hear a loud BANG, all things being equal, it shouldn't change.
There seems to be some confusion on the Walther P99. I'll try to clarify. There are a few indicators that are both visual, as well as tactile. One is the condition of the striker, which you already know is visible from the rear of the gun, but protrudes, so that you can feel it in the dark. There is also a chambered round indicator on the right of the slide that depresses, which is also visible with a red box, and easily felt in the dark.
Because of the unique DA/SA trigger mechanism, trigger position can be fully forward, even if decocked, yet still fired by a long travel pull. Or, you can set it to SA by bringing the trigger back halfway.
HTH.
There seems to be some confusion on the Walther P99. I'll try to clarify. There are a few indicators that are both visual, as well as tactile. One is the condition of the striker, which you already know is visible from the rear of the gun, but protrudes, so that you can feel it in the dark. There is also a chambered round indicator on the right of the slide that depresses, which is also visible with a red box, and easily felt in the dark.
Because of the unique DA/SA trigger mechanism, trigger position can be fully forward, even if decocked, yet still fired by a long travel pull. Or, you can set it to SA by bringing the trigger back halfway.
HTH.
"The 1911 still has a strong following in those crowds. The design can take a 1000 round shooting session and not result in stoppages common to those designs with the large block in the chamber..."
Don't make me laugh, the 1911 as a more reliable design than the SIG-Browning locking types! In an 1000 round test!
Don't make me laugh, the 1911 as a more reliable design than the SIG-Browning locking types! In an 1000 round test!
Covert Mission
New member
I vote with those here who think one should know the status of one's own weapon, and if it's someone elses (or even your own), you trust but verify. Press check, press check, press check.
I wouldn't mind if the Glock had a chamber-loaded indicator, but it doesn't bother me one bit that it doesn't. Whether the Glock is idiot-proof... well, no gun is, period. Engage brain first.
I wouldn't mind if the Glock had a chamber-loaded indicator, but it doesn't bother me one bit that it doesn't. Whether the Glock is idiot-proof... well, no gun is, period. Engage brain first.
Will Beararms
New member
Gunhead I will make you laugh. Per the SEAL I refered to earlier, he expressed a preference for a loose, rattlle-prone 1911 capable of no more than average accuracy (3-4" at 25 yards).
Again, per this guy who I have known for several years, the 1911 design does not heat up after 700-1000 rounds when you've dropped it in beach sand and salt water like other pistols with the large square block in the chamber area like Glocks and Sigs. This is just what he said not me.
I can assure you of one thing, if the rnak and file of the US Military had a choice between the Beretta 9mm and a 1911 .45, the 1911 would get the nod every time.
Again, per this guy who I have known for several years, the 1911 design does not heat up after 700-1000 rounds when you've dropped it in beach sand and salt water like other pistols with the large square block in the chamber area like Glocks and Sigs. This is just what he said not me.
I can assure you of one thing, if the rnak and file of the US Military had a choice between the Beretta 9mm and a 1911 .45, the 1911 would get the nod every time.
- Status