[ARCHIVED THREAD] - They should just go with Glock…. (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 7/28/2025 10:53:55 AM EDT
|
Not a parody thread. Simple to field strip, simple to work on, simple to operate, reasonably priced, and dead nuts reliable. You can disagree, but you’d be wrong. (The military) |
|
Quoted: Not a parody thread. Simple to field strip, simple to work on, simple to operate, reasonably priced, and dead nuts reliable. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. (The military) |
|
Serious answer. Too many idiots in the military. If Glock releases a model that don't require a trigger pull to take down and has a manual safety then Yes. Otherwise no, F--- NO. Yes, I know next get is supposed to change the take down, and they have made models with a safety. |
|
Quoted: Had Glock submitted a Ruger style FCU Glock pistol( what the contract asked for) an Airman might be alive today. Quoted: Quoted: Not a parody thread. Simple to field strip, simple to work on, simple to operate, reasonably priced, and dead nuts reliable. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. (The military) Had they not been stupid and asked for something that's never going to be utilized in the first place, the Airman might still be alive. |
|
Quoted: Had Glock submitted a Ruger style FCU Glock pistol( what the contract asked for) an Airman might be alive today. Quoted: Quoted: Not a parody thread. Simple to field strip, simple to work on, simple to operate, reasonably priced, and dead nuts reliable. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong. (The military) Selection first, requirements second. |
|
Quoted: Not a parody thread. Simple to field strip, simple to work on, simple to operate, reasonably priced, and dead nuts reliable. You can disagree, but you’d be wrong. (The military) |
|
Quoted: Serious answer. Too many idiots in the military. If Glock releases a model that don't require a trigger pull to take down and has a manual safety then Yes. Otherwise no, F--- NO. Yes, I know next get is supposed to change the take down, and they have made models with a safety. ^ truth. Think about how many people join the military just to get money for college and such. Absolutely zero firearm experience. And you want to give them a pistol that requires pulling the trigger to clean |
|
Quoted: Serious answer. Too many idiots in the military. If Glock releases a model that don't require a trigger pull to take down and has a manual safety then Yes. Otherwise no, F--- NO. Yes, I know next get is supposed to change the take down, and they have made models with a safety. The Glock submission in question had a manual safety. |
|
Quoted: ^ truth. Think about how many people join the military just to get money for college and such. Absolutely zero firearm experience. And you want to give them a pistol that requires pulling the trigger to clean Quoted: Quoted: Serious answer. Too many idiots in the military. If Glock releases a model that don't require a trigger pull to take down and has a manual safety then Yes. Otherwise no, F--- NO. Yes, I know next get is supposed to change the take down, and they have made models with a safety. ^ truth. Think about how many people join the military just to get money for college and such. Absolutely zero firearm experience. And you want to give them a pistol that requires pulling the trigger to clean Too stupid to disassemble/reassemble a firearm = too stupid to know when to use a firearm.... If they can't be trained to disassemble/reassemble, is there really an expectation they can be trained on when to correctly use it? Oh wait.....we're still in the "Harambe died" timeline....never mind...  
|
|
Quoted: Had they not been stupid and asked for something that's never going to be utilized in the first place, the Airman might still be alive. This happened purely because several retired general and flag officers went to work for Sig. Then, influenced the specifications of the new pistol requirements, that heavily favored Sig. Then, their buddies in the Army chose the Sig, even though during the selection process, there were obvious issues that were still being worked out. This is what happens when admin people make decisions for weapons selection instead of the people who are actually going to be using them. There is plenty of blame to around. |
|
Quoted: I’m not sure which I find more retarded, the fact they didn’t choose Glock form the get go and avoid all this trouble, or the fact numerous people want the DoD to go BACK to the severely antiquated Beretta manual of arms. People who have never served a day in their life say they should have just stuck with the M9. No, it is too bulky, heavy and do not do well in extreme cold weather. It was time for something far more compact and lighter. When you have 100 plus pounds of gear on daily, having something more compact, thinner and lighter is what is needed. Glock was and still is the obvious answer. |
|
Quoted: I'm waiting for Ruger to add a safety to an RXM, spray paint it tan and make 8 gajillion dollars. Tan, you say? Attached File |
|
The problem NOW with the 19x is the same problem that plagues Glock currently and that plagued the 19x when it was first submitted...it's outdated. If this was 2005, sure. Great gun. Maybe a little dated in 2005 but still solid. In 2025? Lol. They need to scrap it all and start the trials over with a new batch of submissions. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I'm waiting for Ruger to add a safety to an RXM, spray paint it tan and make 8 gajillion dollars. Tan, you say? https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/252069/1000001316_jpg-3595880.JPG Ahem, cough cough Flat Desert Earth |
|
Quoted: Not a parody thread. Simple to field strip, simple to work on, simple to operate, reasonably priced, and dead nuts reliable. You can disagree, but you’d be wrong. (The military) You described a myriad of gun options. Glock had an advantage in reliability once. They are just another option now. |
| Either Glock or M&P should be adopted. They're both vetted and proven platforms that have enough adoption in LE circles that this should be a no brainer. Glock probably has more experience fulfilling large contracts, while the M&P offers better ergos, trigger, etc.. Either is fine, it's not like the military requires a high end competition pistol or something. It needs to be stupid reliable and simple, that's about it. Glock is already in the system with NSN numbers and everything, it'd be pretty easy to switch over. |
|
Quoted: People who have never served a day in their life say they should have just stuck with the M9. No, it is too bulky, heavy and do not do well in extreme cold weather. It was time for something far more compact and lighter. When you have 100 plus pounds of gear on daily, having something more compact, thinner and lighter is what is needed. Glock was and still is the obvious answer. Correct. Carrying heavy sidearms is dumb. -M17 survivor |
|
There's no cheap with the Glock when it starts at around $500. If the military had gone with the S&W then, they would of had a cheap(er) gun that still worked reliably and saved millions on the contract. I have a S&W SD9VE that's a clone of the Glock and it's dead nuts reliable and easy to tear down to clean for $200+ less than the Glock depending on model. The M&P model is even better and is Made in USA. |
|
Quoted: The problem NOW with the 19x is the same problem that plagues Glock currently and that plagued the 19x when it was first submitted...it's outdated. If this was 2005, sure. Great gun. Maybe a little dated in 2005 but still solid. In 2025? Lol. They need to scrap it all and start the trials over with a new batch of submissions. The only problem that plagued the 19x was the cost and maybe the proprietary magazines. I'm not sure what's outdated about a pistol who's firing mech is so simple it works in almost every environment , can mount a flashlight and an optic had they submitted an MOS version. It even had a functional manual safety. The military isn't going to have a million plastic frame pieces so that every individual can customize the grip like the HKs etc. They were never going to have a million different sized frames laying around for the P320s which makes the whole modularity thing so ridiculous. |
|
Quoted: There's no cheap with the Glock when it starts at around $500. If the military had gone with the S&W then, they would of had a cheap(er) gun that still worked reliably and saved millions on the contract. I have a S&W SD9VE that's a clone of the Glock and it's dead nuts reliable and easy to tear down to clean for $200+ less than the Glock depending on model. The M&P model is even better and is Made in USA. DoD don't pay retail. We were told by the contractors for M17 orientation that the army got an extremely good deal on the pistols because they also gave sig an ammo deal. But yeah M&P or Glock would've been great if corruption didn't exist, as has been alluded to. |
|
Quoted: DoD don't pay retail. We were told by the contractors for M17 orientation that the army got an extremely good deal on the pistols because they also gave sig an ammo deal. But yeah M&P or Glock would've been great if corruption didn't exist, as has been alluded to. Quoted: Quoted: There's no cheap with the Glock when it starts at around $500. If the military had gone with the S&W then, they would of had a cheap(er) gun that still worked reliably and saved millions on the contract. I have a S&W SD9VE that's a clone of the Glock and it's dead nuts reliable and easy to tear down to clean for $200+ less than the Glock depending on model. The M&P model is even better and is Made in USA. DoD don't pay retail. We were told by the contractors for M17 orientation that the army got an extremely good deal on the pistols because they also gave sig an ammo deal. But yeah M&P or Glock would've been great if corruption didn't exist, as has been alluded to. Yeah the ONLY reason I don't have M&Ps over Glocks is because there are a lot more moving parts in the M&Ps. End of the world I'm going with Glock for simplicity |
|
Quoted: Yeah the ONLY reason I don't have M&Ps over Glocks is because there are a lot more moving parts in the M&Ps. End of the world I'm going with Glock for simplicity I have a G17 Gen3 from back in the day and an M&P compact 2.0. Zero issues with either ever. I slightly prefer the M&P but either would be great as a standard issue sidearm for decades. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Big mil will never chose Glock as they want a manual safety that can be clicked on and off. https://www.americanrifleman.org/media/ujvnbxdd/glock_mhs_19_left.jpg If the Glock model pictured here already had an NSN, it seems like the DOD could easily start the procurement process (assuming funding had already been programmed). But I don't think there's an NSN yet associated with it. Nonetheless, there are several Glock models which already do have NSN's. And there is an existing process that a supplier can initiate that lets them modify their design specifically to meet a new government guideline - namely by submitting an Engineering Design Proposal (ECP). An ECP is one way to let a supplier make design improvements to their design but keep the government from having to re-bid the contract. I've wondered if Glock could use the ECP process to redesign one of their existing NSN models which has already been procured - i.e., take an existing G19, add the thumb safety, length the grip, change the color, change the sights, add a lanyard loop, etc etc. Then submit the ECP and a new bid to the DOD. Sometimes the DOD does not know the answer to a problem until the answer is plopped right in front of their noses. An ECP might be a good way for Glock to be the white knight here. |
|
Quoted: Serious answer. Too many idiots in the military. If Glock releases a model that don't require a trigger pull to take down and has a manual safety then Yes. Otherwise no, F--- NO. Yes, I know next get is supposed to change the take down, and they have made models with a safety. |
|
Quoted: People who have never served a day in their life say they should have just stuck with the M9. No, it is too bulky, heavy and do not do well in extreme cold weather. It was time for something far more compact and lighter. When you have 100 plus pounds of gear on daily, having something more compact, thinner and lighter is what is needed. Glock was and still is the obvious answer. Quoted: Quoted: I’m not sure which I find more retarded, the fact they didn’t choose Glock form the get go and avoid all this trouble, or the fact numerous people want the DoD to go BACK to the severely antiquated Beretta manual of arms. People who have never served a day in their life say they should have just stuck with the M9. No, it is too bulky, heavy and do not do well in extreme cold weather. It was time for something far more compact and lighter. When you have 100 plus pounds of gear on daily, having something more compact, thinner and lighter is what is needed. Glock was and still is the obvious answer. The problem we had with the M9 when we changed from the 1911 wasn't that it was heavy and bulky. Our problem was that octopus of straps that Bianchi made to adapt a belt holster to a shoulder holster. Our battalion commander let us retain the old, black leather holsters we'd been using once it was shown that a Beretta fit in them. As a tanker, we didn't lug 100 lb. of gear daily and had heaters, but we are also far more likely to be issued a pistol than someone who does and has to deal with the cold. |
|
Quoted: Correct. Carrying heavy sidearms is dumb. -M17 survivor Quoted: Quoted: People who have never served a day in their life say they should have just stuck with the M9. No, it is too bulky, heavy and do not do well in extreme cold weather. It was time for something far more compact and lighter. When you have 100 plus pounds of gear on daily, having something more compact, thinner and lighter is what is needed. Glock was and still is the obvious answer. Correct. Carrying heavy sidearms is dumb. -M17 survivor The SOF community went with the Glock 19 for the exact reasons I mentioned. |
|
Quoted: The whole modular design in a military sidearm was a stupid requirement. It is just a bunch of shit to get lost. G-19X should be the current sidearm. I kinda figured the modularity would end up being unused because I remember them telling us that if we had small hands we'd be issued an M11 instead of an M9. Never saw an M11 in the tanks. CID next door had them. |
|
Quoted: Not a parody thread. Simple to field strip, simple to work on, simple to operate, reasonably priced, and dead nuts reliable. You can disagree, but you’d be wrong. (The military) If they are good enough for Iraqi traffic cops, they are good enough for the Army. |