Why US Special Forces don't carry Glocks?

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

OK....... and how many times has this been useful?
:confused:
1st, the handgun is not your primary weapon, thats what MP5's and M16's are for.
2nd, how much ammo is this guy gonna carry? For his backup, last ditch weapon? 1000 rounds of .45 aint light.
3rd, the SEALS use the H&K SOCOM .45 anyway.
Sounds like a posterior smoke blowing to me. :D
 
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.
Click to expand...

And I can wave my Glock around like that too, with no failures. And this proves what? It proves that the shooter has poor to non-existent weapons fire discipline, why burn ammo just for the sake of burning ammo? 7 rounds of .45 aint cover fire my friend. You might convince me that 20 to 30 rounds of .223 on full auto is cover fire, but 7 semi-auto .45's :barf:
 
WR,

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.
Click to expand...


Actually, sir, you are correct on that one; I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that, as it contradicts information I already knew. Reference my post of a year-and-a-half ago



On 5/8/2000, Tamara wrote:

Actually, Browning designed the pistol that was to become the M1911 to be carried cocked and UNlocked. The original guns had no thumb safety, just the grip safety. The army requested the additional safety lever, even though Browning thought it would slow down the draw-n-shoot time of what he had designed to be the fastest gun around. Obviously this was before anyone thought of carrying an autopistol in anything other than a flapped military holster. Apparently it was also before the invention of the liability lawsuit...
Click to expand...
 
Witness the hundreds of gunwriters over the years that have cautioned that the Cocked and Locked 1911 is more prudent for the "well trained" shooter.

I would say the same about the Glock

But I would be more likely to give a Glock to a newby than a S/A handgun.

In the final analysis...the trigger is the only real safety.

Idiot proof is an illusion at best ..Someone always makes a better idiot
 
I have heard many LEO's say they dont like Glock's because it dosnt have a second strike capability. I suspect the Military may hold the same view. For those that agree I would like to ask, how many trigger pulls do you waste on a dud round before going on to a "tap, rack, bang" drill? For those of you who dont, its a very good drill to practice and incorporate to reflex. If you gun dosnt go bang you dont want to end up stairing at it pulling the trigger over and over like in the movies. This drill is so ingrained in my reflexes I once caught myself ,after droping the hammer on a dead primer, slaping the butt and trying to rack the slide....of a S&W Model 27

Kind of off topic, but on the notion of weird worries that make little sence. There was a guy in the local gunshop the other day saying he would never carry a 1911 for a ccw without a SFS type mod because its dangerous. I noted that he carries a Glock 19 with a standared 5 pound trigger. Most factory 1911's have, guess what, a 5 pound trigger and a safety. I'm a fan and owner of both pistols, I just thought it was odd that seeing the hammer back scares some suposedly gun savy folks that bad.
 
>>>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.

This is true, ideally. But if you have had two hours sleep in the last four days, the answer might not be on the tip of your tongue. Also, if you are dead, it is difficult to communicate the weapon status to your buddies in a meaningful way.

I agree with Tamara, in modern military use with around-the-clock operational tempo, .45 rounds inserted themselves in unfortunate places many times. I've read a number of reports of servicemen shooting themselves or others and know two myself.

As far as special operations forces, the SEALs advertise they use SIG. The Army special ops units would never do this because details like this help identify their presence. One could postulate that many special Army units have multiple "sets" of arms in their arms rooms so they could equipped like the good guys, the bad guys, or lord-knows-who guys. Who knows, maybe they even have crossbows.
 
I think there is a good reason why US Armed Forces don't carry Glocks, and that is because to be given a military designation number (like M9 or M1911A1), you have to release the complete specs and plans for manufacture to the U.S. government, and waive patent protection. Glock (with good reason, IMHO) refuses to do this. I think that is the main reason you don't see the US Armed forces carrying Glocks, as that is the reason they were not entered in the last Armed Forces trials. I'm not sure that this applies to Special Forces, however, the weapons they use are issued a military designation, so, it very well may.
 
I do not believe that the government forces anyone to wave patent protection. The government does reserve the right to access any patent they need for the military, but they require paying fair value for licensing the patents.
 
IGNORE THE OBVIOUS

The reason Glocks aren't used is there are better (for whatever reasons) choices.

Inarguable fact, eh?
 
What a liar or a bad memory, MP-5 isn't wasn't a Navy S.E.A.L. that did that test it was a magazine(I think Combat Handgun, I have the issue around somewhere) and the Pistol that did the worse was the USP with 2 light strikes out of 100 using (and the Glock had either 1 or none) those B.A.T. rounds. I'll even scan the article when I find it.

Quote MP-5:
"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."
 
MH, you're partly right. The gov't does require companies who win contracts to give up exclusive rights to their designs. If Glock had won the contract this year, the gov't could have issued a new contract proposal for more weapons the following year. Unless Glock was the winner, Glock would have been forced to license the design to the contract winner. Receiving a sometimes minor licensing fee is not always worth giving up exclusive control of your designs.
 
With all this talk of what handguns are more or less prone
to accident in the military, it brings to mind what I've seen
with what weapon you shouldn't use as a military handgun:
the ever-popular Browning HP.

I know, everyone loves them. I own one myself (since it's my
duty gun, why not practice on my own), but from what I saw
in Bosnia on the IFOR tour, issuing troops a pistol with a
magazine disconnect is a BAD idea. After all, in order to decock
it, not only must you pull the trigger, but a magazine must be
inserted. Not what to issue to troops with minimal handgun
training. It wasn't such a big deal in the infantry, since we used
it strictly as a backup, for drivers, etc... And it was always
carried condition 3, since the primary was the rifle or LMG.
However, many of your support types carried a handgun as
their only weapon, and given the minimal small arms training
some of the air force types have, well you get the picture.

One gentleman even managed to do a 'four-fingered draw'
out of his non-issued high-speed Bianchi thigh rig, and
perferated his holster, thigh, and floor of jeep. Embarassing
come remembrance day.

I wonder what led to the BHP's universal popularity in military
service, since it is not an 'idiot-proof' design.

Mike Hovi
Petawawa, Ontario
Canada
 
buzz_knox -
I agree with what you said, but it is still usually not a bad deal. Suppose S&W won the right to supply the military Glocks, using Glock drawings and patents. (Usually another supplier is not going to be cost competitive, because they would have to pay for new tooling that Glock had already amortized). S&W would have to pay Glock patent licensing fees. S&W would not have the right to use Glock patents for any other customer than the US military. They could not sell guns using Glock patents to US police deparments, or in Europe, or anywhere else. So Glock would receive income they otherwise would not receive if another gun design was used. Actually, I think by now all the Glock patents have expired anyway, so this is an academic discussion. What I have personally seen is that the government is usually fair when they access patents for the military. They have no problem forcing a supplier to pay for using someone elses patent.
I agree Glock may not want to supply their drawings to another company, though, I think it is very easy to reverse engineer a handgun.
 
Who wants a Plastic gun they are not very pretty tend to break down alot, fair accuracy and expensive. "G" is a auto-loader you either love or love to hate. Could be the reason the military wanted "Beretta" is they are far superior in everything...I love my G-21 but thinking bout trading for a Beretta, looks good and shoots good...oh what to do.....
 
James A... You're kidding right??? Ask Bob Cogan at Accurate Plating about the problems that T.P.D. has with their barrels on their Berettas
 
uh, James A - I'm thinking the US Army and US Marines want plastic weapons (At least all the M-16's I've seen have plastic stocks).

If you have an Ar-15, maybe you can trade it for an M-1 when you trade that Glock.


Dawg23
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top