Posted: 12/19/2007 10:11:18 AM EDT
|
Why dont they have one? I shoot Glocks better than the M9 (I know I am not the only one using them) and they are easier to break down and are more realiable. So why dont they have one yet? This has probably been talked about several times but I have not been around to read them...so lets do it again 
|
|
I thought it was because Glock wouldn't allow the US Military to manufacture them (from scratch, not like they do in GA) in the US. I assume that is because they didn't want Soldier of Fortune readers to keep hearing how crummy issue Glocks were. I mean, Berreta gets nothing but bad publicity from the Military deal. The US military obviously can't adopt an arm they can't manufacture, so Glocks were out of the question for general issue. I mean, what if we went to war with Austria? |
|
Like everything in the military, MONEY Why get Glocks when we have the M9? Why get the 6.8 when we have the 5.56? Why get a new rifle when we have the M16? It just comes down to if they want to spend the money to replace something thats not broken and when it comes to small arms that answer is always no. |
the US mil doesn't produce their own arms, the M9 is made by Beretta USA the M16 is made by Colt and FN and the M4/M4A1 is made by Colt. Toad |
|
I guess its kinda like the 416 vs M4 debate, it might be better but not such an improvement to warrant a huge change. THe M9 isnt a bad pistol by any means I was just thinking when they switched why didnt they pick Glock. What weapons where even in the running when they tested for new handguns? Are there any discussions by the government to change the M9? If so what are they looking at? |
The military did order some M9A1s, however when you have things like the Marine Corps starting to replace 90 plus percent of their M9s with M4s. I don't think a new pistol is high on the priority list. |
Sorry, I meant made in the USA. The US army doesn't adopt weapons (for general issue anyway) that the US can't manufacture domestically. |
That cannot be any worse than working a US police firing line, in these days of dumbed-down standards and "no child left behind" philosophies. Back when I began the profession, it was understood that some folks were simply meant to sell shoes; and when they demonstrated that lack of weapon-handling skill on the range (after a reasonable period of instruction), were gently sent home. Nowadays? Continual "remediation", in the hope that this blind hog WILL find an acorn. The Beretta is no "safer" in the hands of a duffer than anything else. . |
If IIRC I believe the Sig 226 actually "won" the trials, but were under bid at the last min by Beretta. I could be wrong on that, or maybe interweb rumor, but the Sig was in the running. FB |
+1 to the PD comment. I find it pathetic that instead of simply training the officers and letting the incompetent shooters go, they just keep making the standards lower! I totally blame this on the ex-Chief, but we had one idiot that was flinching so badly from the recoil of the .40 we were issued that he was hitting the ground in front of the target stand at 7 yards! Instead of sending him home and telling him to get some instruction before returning to work, he just kept forcing the instructors to keep pushing him through until he finally got a passing score, just barely. 13 trips through the course and he finally got a passing score. And I had to work with this idiot! That's a lawsuit just waiting to happen! For years, the most popular duty weapons around this area were S&W Sigmas and Glocks. I don't feel like typing all the details right now, but there were 7 ND's with Sigmas and Glocks in the matter of a few years by LEOs. Absolutely none of them were even remotely excusable. Everything from floors in apartments, locker rooms, keyboards at dispatch and even an "experienced" officer's rookie's leg were shot. And, they were all blamed on the "unsafe design" of the pistols without and external safety. Instead of requiring basic firearms knowledge to be an LEO, or at least give adequate training, they try to idiot-proof the weapons and make the qualification courses easier to a higher percentage of individuals pass. It's just pathetic. |
actually the HK P7M13 "won" as far as reliability, accuracy and ease of use went, but some felt the squeeze cock was unconventional, and didn't like the idea of the lack of manual safety on a technically single action pistol, that along with high cost put it out of the question. the second was the sig 226 which the decocker made the lack of manual safety acceptable, reliability and accuracy was still exceptional, but it was also put out because of price. so the military chose the "good enough" gun that the government felt like paying for. this is why you saw the new jersey and utah state police switch to the p7m13 not too long after that,which both later strayed from some time after again due to cost (though detroit swat used the m13 up until about 4 years ago), and several departments switch to the sig in the early 90's. which didn't last awful long due to the fact that that's around when glock started it's take over of the LE community. don't get me wrong here though, the beretta is a good pistol, though it wouldn't be my first choice. |
| When the military narrowed it down to the Sig 226 and the M92, the Sig won but Beretta lowered the price per unit. It came down to money. Glock hadn't been around long enough and wasn't extended an offer to submit a model for trial. At least Glock got to submit a modified G21 for the Joint Service Pistol trial. If I remember correctly it had an external safety. At least the Navy got smart and issues the 226 to some Seal units and the 228 to Navy pilots instead of the M92. |
So what you are really saying is that you don't have the slightest idea about military weapons manufacture and procurement. NONE of the military's weapons from knives to nukes is made by the military. All of them are manufactured by private corporations. |
As I clarified in a later post, if you'd bothered to read my reply to the same, but less rudely posed, question, I meant that general issue weapons had to be made somewhere by someone in the USA - so a war/blockade won't separate the army from their guns. |
not really. beretta won the contract because italy told us that if we wanted to keep a nuke sub base in italy, we would go with beretta. so we did. gotta love politics. |
+1 If your government cared about it's troops, they'd have a weapon in something like 6.8SPC with hollow points and a piston upper. And Glock pistols. Maybe when Ron Paul leaves the UN (Oh, and the army would spend as much as they did on rifles on boots and backpacks.) |
Apropos of nothing, but isn't the reason that Glock doesn't manufacture slides over here because the Tenifer-coating process is nixed by the EPA? I thought that Glock is now making some frames over here, but always mated to Austrian slides, but I haven't actually seen a 'made in the USA' frame, so who knows. |