Why US Special Forces don't carry Glocks?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another thought........

The 1911 has proven it can be stuck up over the opening of a trench or foxhole and be shot one handed with a semi-stable grip. I have proven it for myself.

Would you do the same with a light-weight polymer frame? The Glock has proven it's worth and it is the most profound advance in pistol design since the 1911 imho but it does have one short-coming: limp wristing.
 
Redlg155,

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.
Click to expand...

Er, actually, yes.

If you had a dollar for every unintentional *bang!* from when GI John Doe's thumb slipped off that hammer while decocking it since 1911, you could retire wealthy. The U.S. Army started looking at DA pistols in the mid-'60s for just this reason.

A pistol that requires you to pull the trigger on a live round to decock it is an invitation to AD's. Remember, you and I know the way to carry a 1911 is cocked and locked, but 99% of GI's carried it hammer down on a loaded chamber when in the field in wartime. An incident occurs causing a soldier to draw and fire two rounds, be it an uninvited guest in his foxhole or a hostile rat in his tent. After the incident is over, he goes to lower the hammer on the pistol and... well, you fill in the rest.
 
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.
Click to expand...

You goofed big time Tamara.

In fact it was exactly the opposite.

John Browning put the grip safety on first and then the military demanded the manuel safely. See the Biography of John Browning available from Browning Arms Co.. See page 293. There is even a big picture of the very first 1911 showing , guess what no manuel safety. W.R.
 
I shot a pistol for the first time when I joined the Bundeswehr in '91. It was a P1 (gun formerly known as P38), one of these oh-so highly sophisticated DA/SA pistols with a safety that doubles as a decocker.
But due to our instructors' lack of proficiency with handguns and lack of training, I felt rather insecure with this gun and its many conditions and functions. Cocked and safety off, decocked and safety on, decocked and safety off.
I'm grateful that I never had to draw a P1 when I've been on guard at the gate.
"Oops, I need my gun - Oh, I forgot the safety - Maybe I should cock the hammer?"
(In retrospect, I think I better had carried condition 3, safety off)

My point is, I think de-cockers are superfluous. When I have a SA handgun and want to add some safety, I put the safety "on". When I have a DA/SA weapon, it will still go BANG when I pull the trigger, so why not use a conventional safety lever in the first place. And do I really need two trigger profiles? I don't.

Now I own a Glock and I feel more secure with it than with any other gun. Chamber a round and it's ready to fire. Finger off the trigger and it's safe. The only thing I could understand would be if someone felt the need for an additional manual safety.
In my opinion a visible hammer does not add the least bit of safety. A manual safety? Maybe - but it also adds potential confusion.
 
I rather suspect that some in the military are aware that striker fired guns do have weaker firing pin energy.

Look at the fired primer of any ammo fired from a Glock. The firing pin strike is very light with slight cratering around the indentation.

Now look at the same ammo fired in a hard hammer fired gun like a high power and see the very deep crater it leaves.

It does not take a genius to see that a good hammer gun with the proper spring in it is way more the reliable weapon in rough combat conditions of cold mud and just plain powder residue left in the gun.

AS a matter of fact on this very forum several months ago a police officer wanted to know what they could do about their glocks constantly misfiring when they were on their practice range.

Of course the post was soon forgotten by the Glock lovers. And everyone that posts anything less than praise for these weapons is called a liar on this forum. W.R.
 
I had light primer strikes with Chinese and Fiocchi ammo. But I no longer shoot these brands. If I still would or encountered the same type of failure with my practice or emergency ammo, I'd just buy and install a stronger firing pin spring for less than $8.

BTW, I have witnessed exactly the same type of malfunction with an HK USP using one of these ammo brands, not to mention all the failures to fire with revolvers.
 
Will,

Sorry for my poor english but please explain me the following part of your sentence: "does not heat up after 700-1000 rounds when you've dropped it in beach sand..." :confused:

Stahl,

I'm using Fiocchi .40SW ammo (marked Fiocchi-USA on the case) for my USP40 and never had a light primer strike or any firing related problem in 2000+ rounds.
 
Well I don't know why glocks aren't in general usage but my buddy who was in the Special Forces carried with him his own personal glock 19.

He swears by it, he said that it took unbelievable amounts of abuse and fired thousands of rounds through it and never failed him.

BTW I've found glocks especially the 9mm's to be very accurate.
 
Ive heard that they've had some trouble with Glocks functioning from the "surf" enviornment. This is what I have read. I really dont think the lack of safety has anything to do with their selection. We are not talking about the regular GIs but highly trained spec operators.
In one report, a Navy S.E.A.L. was testing a lot of Geco B.A.T. rounds. (Blitz Action Trama rounds are a high velocity round with a synthetic nose cap which falls away in flight leaving a cookie-cutter style bullet. They are used by the GSG9 at checkpoints in Germany for effecient tire deflation) Various handguns were used including a Beretta 92F, a Glock 17 and a H&K MP-5N. The only handgun which was 100% was the Beretta. The Glock was the worst performer with light strikes on the primers. The tests by the way were for ammo performance and did not take place in adverse conditions. That striker fire mechanism is the "achillies heel" of the Glock if you will.
 
The Glock was the worst performer with light strikes on the primers. The tests by the way were for ammo performance and did not take place in adverse conditions. That striker fire mechanism is the "achillies heel" of the Glock if you will.
Click to expand...

I think the problem here was not the striker, but the ammo used. Geco BAT ammo (among other brands) uses very hard Berdan primers, which were found to be problematic from time to time in a variety of handguns, including the Glock and the SIG. The only pistol that would light up every round reliably was the Beretta 92FS. Hard primers can be an issue in a lot of handguns, especially those with lightened mainsprings and/or skeletonized match hammers.
 
IRFan Wrote:
Also I heard that Glocks failed some US Navy SEAL tests.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the only test that Glocks have failed is the Wild Romanian test.:p That test's methodology was badly flawed, IIRC.
 
This is a post from the resident (former?) Navy Seal over at http://www.tacticalforums.com/



" The SIG is a well-loved pistol in the Teams and has proven itself in the minds of Frogmen. My only complaint is that the Navy doesn't have the pistol or the magazines coated with something impervious to seawater.
Therefore Teamguys must be a little creative and make do.

The Berreta is out with the Teams. The problems we had in the late eighties and Beretta's subsequent badmouthing of the Teams have left a long time dislike of anything Berreta by NSW. In truth, if Beretta had simply fixed the problem without accusing SEALs of firing "hot ammo" than we would still be shooting Berretas. The 92F, after all, was a SEAL inspired design (a departure from the euro contols of the 92sb). It rusts pretty badly in saltwater and is large for a 9mm, these days. But overall it is a pretty solid gun. It is difficult to equip with tritium sights, however.

The Glock 19 shoots well, holds up to saltwater rather well, and accepts the larger mags of the G17, also. The only problem with Glocks is that no Frog would feel completely safe with one loaded and not in a retention holster. Frogmen are covered with webstraps most of the time and it is possible that one would get caught between the trigger and holster, thus firing the pistol upon complete insertion of the Glock into a holster. At least with a SIG you can feel for that possibility and control it by keeping a thumb on the hammer. Not so with striker fired weapons. The liner of the Glock magazine is also susceptible to rust in saltwater and will cause enough internal mag "drag" on the bullets to prevent firing all but the chambered round.

If the Teams ever depart from the great P226, I would hope they went the direction of the USP.

Frogman "
 
Repeat after me: "A gun is just a tool..."

...and like all other tools, there are right ones and wrong ones for particular tasks.

While it may be educational to learn why the SEALs selected one particular weapon over another, that doesn't mean their choice of tool is appropriate for your task.

Another thing to consider when questioning the military's choice of anything is that usually politics, budgets, and bureaucracy play a BIG role in the procurement process. I could tell you some ugly stories about the Navy's decision to purchase and deploy the ASPJ (Advanced Self-Protect Jammer) even though it failed Operation Test & Evaluation. (Hint: It had to do with certain congress critters not wanting to lose ASPJ manufacturing $$$ in their districts.)

As for anything--let alone guns--being "idiot-proof," there is no such thing: as soon as such a thing is built, along will come a stupider idiot.
 
Talked to a fella the other day who commented on his time in uniform. Said the instructor would close by having everybody check the chamber, point the barrels in a safe direction, and then pull the trigger. Three or four bangs every time.

Nothing is idiot proof to a sufficiently talented idiot.

Steve
 
There is one big problem with loaded-chamber indicators: sometimes they don't indicate when the pistol is loaded.

I've owned exactly two pistols with LCIs; a Taurus PT-100 and a Walther PPK/s...I own none now.

First went back to the gunsmith at the shop where I purchased it; he wasn't concerned that the LCI didn't function. From one aspect, neither was I. [all guns are always loaded] From another, I was. [something is obviously out-of-spec]

Traded it on my first SIG...the mighty P229/.40...best combat pistol out-of-the-box ever made. [your opinion may vary]

Hallelujah! Nothing has ever been quite the same since. :cool:
 
To SpyGuy;

A couple of points about ASPJ:

It was killed by a Congressman from Arkansas closely aligned with Bill Clinton (can't remember the name).

In Op Eval it was required to increase survivability 30%. The mission scenario used had a 90+% survival rate without it. It was cancelled because survivability did not meet 120%. Guess the Navy was looking for 20% more planes to return from a mission than they sent out.

After we lost an F-16 in the Balkans, the military went back hat-in-hand to the ASPJ contractor and got the 2 EDM units. They were flown on future high risk missions.

The Navy now buys a similar self protection jammers from Israel.

Hey, you're right, politics DOES play into Gov't weapons procurement!:)
 
Actually

Glocks are used in the military. Of course these are POW's (privately owned weapons) that are winked at by the unit commnaders and the user takes his chances.

As far as 1911's go... well here is a little story for y'all

There I was, hanging out in Iraq after the ceasefire washing my socks in my waterproof bag when I hear a loud bang a hundred meters to my rear. After getting the sand out of my mouth and realizing that the "bang" came from the rear I not so casually wondered over to the screaming. In brief. New medic, recently assigned cleaning his 1911 clears the weapon prior to disassembly by racking the slide and checking chamber. Lets the slide slam forward, then drops fully loaded mag and squeezes trigger to let the hammer forward. "Bang" occurs and hole appears in thigh.

The US Army's weapons training sucks unless you're in SOCOM. We don't fire nearly enough bullets down range to make me happy out of the m16/M-4 let alone the M-9.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top