Home Main Category General Firearms

Why dont us military use glocks?

killpillakillpilla MemberPosts: 50 Member
If Glocks are so good, why doesn't our armed forces use them as their primary sidearm?
«134

Replies

  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Money. Various manufacturers bid for US contracts. They of course have to meet the minimum operational requirements but then it's financial. So the Colt 1911 went away and the 9mm (Nato round) became the standard. Of course, special forces still get to choose their weapons and most still select .45acp in various makes.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 25,060 Senior Member
    I for one am glad I did not have to use a Glock and it's horrible trigger pull.
    They would have had to remain as is with no mods for the general force.

    That is not to say that a Glock with some aftermarket tuning is
    not a usable handgun.
  • killpillakillpilla Member Posts: 50 Member
    Ok, thanks! I heard there going back to the 1911 .45, any truth to that?
  • jbohiojbohio Senior Member Posts: 5,608 Senior Member
    Probably because Glock was still a fledgling Austrian gun maker the last time we changed sidearms.
    And, they're made of PLASTIC!

    Changing sidearms for the whole of the military is a huge, expensive undertaking.
  • sarg1csarg1c Senior Member Posts: 1,707 Senior Member
    Thank GOD they don't...
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    A little history here.....

    When I was assigned to the 194th SAB, we were the field test-bed for the Armor Center/TRADOC, both at Ft. Knox KY ('89-'92 when I was there). As well as being a rapid deployment force for XVIII Airborne Corps. One test trial we had was the Glock 17......we punished the hell out of that platform as only tankers could.....and it passed our abuses......but the Army said Nay because it lacked an external safety lever. That and the Beretta conspiracy...

    Only special ops with their open TO&E policy gets to play with 1911s for now.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • EliEli Senior Member Posts: 3,074 Senior Member
    Money, timing, politics, and ignorance.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,758 Senior Member
    What Eli said and what 5280 said, the lack of an external safety is an automatic disqualification. Why doesn't Glock offer one? Probably because they're selling as many as they want to, so why change the design?
    Overkill is underrated.
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    The military doesn't use Glocks precisely because they aren't so good. Frankly I don't know why anybody uses Glocks. Everybody who does, from all the police departments to all the civilians, are wrong. And no, I don't want to hear their side of it. The "safe action" is a dangerous joke, the market is flooded with guns that are just as reliable, durable, accurate and competitively priced as Glocks - and are also a helluva lot safer. The idea of locating the only external safety in the middle of the freaking trigger (!!!) is an accident waiting to happen. Autoloading pistols, except DAO models with long, heavy, revolver-like trigger pulls, should have a true safety that, when engaged, completely disables the weapon. Especially if the trigger is pulled. DUH!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,758 Senior Member
    Or you could just learn to keep the booger-picker off the bang switch.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,054 Senior Member
    Well, as much of a design abortion as the M9 is, it IS the current standard with an existing logistics train. For much the same reason we stick with the M16 - there isn't any out there so demonstrably better as to justify the expense of getting rid of the guns, the parts, and retraining all the people who operate and maintain them.

    The "advances" that the military are really looking for are ways to destroy tanks, penetrate bunkers, and shoot around corners. Small arms are small potatoes, and with limited funds, the priority goes to the more strategic toys.

    I've got my handgun preferences, same as anyone else, but at the end of the day, one functional combat autoloader is pretty much as good as another, and so long as I have access to rifles, MG's, shotguns, and on-call artillery, I'm not overly concerned with what it is.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,758 Senior Member
    Also, don't forget: if you're using your handgun, things have gone seriously wrong.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 25,060 Senior Member
    Also, don't forget: if you're using your handgun, things have gone seriously wrong.
    That is sorta true, though some are only armed with a handgun.

    That is all I ever had, loaded with flare rnds and tracers.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,758 Senior Member
    Yeah, and if you had to use your handgun, things had gone pretty wrong, right?

    A friend was a heli-borne USMC mortarman. His personal weapon was a M9, but he always tried to get an M16. Of course if he was using his firearm, things had gone bad.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 25,060 Senior Member
    Worse than bad, I'd have been shot down out in the jungle
    hopefully uninjured from the nylon let down.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,216 Senior Member
    Ned-- If your job was riding around in F-4's and you are forced to use a handgun, I would say that you would be in a pretty dire situation. I sure as heck wouldn't be using a pistol when I could use an F-4 instead.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    Not necessarily.....think scenario when you're in the top-hatch of a vehicle in a city, and someone on foot is coming up on the flank.....sometimes that pistol becomes your primary arm to engage the threat.....Glock-Beretta-Colt.....it wouldn't matter but the stopping effect of 9mm VS .45 in FMJ configuration....and that all goes back to bullet placement. A 9mm in the head works just as well as a .45 cal.

    The Beretta is a good platform, minus the o-s*** spring under the right hand-grip panel, and the wonky safety-decocker on the slide.....and the fixed sights.....but an open ejection slide with the Browning II design of internal lugs. Make it in .45 with a 10 rnd capacity, and we wouldn't be talking about it so much.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Military isn't now, and never has been, too thrilled about a semiauto sidearm without a separate safety that must be placed in the OFF position to enable firing of the weapon. The separate safety is just another block in the steps to fire that help ensure safety in case the primary safety (the person holding the weapon) fails. And that one will fail with boring regularity during mental stress, lack of rest, and unexpected conditions. So the manual safety is just a sort of last ditch measure to prevent a ND.

    Don't know how the Navy does it now, but when I was serving the sidearm for armed security watches and Petty Officer of the Deck was an unloaded 1911 in a flap holster with two magazines in a mag pouch on the duty belt. There was a long standing reason for that.

    Back in the good ol' days, the sidearm was cocked and locked with a round in the chamber and safety in the ON position. During relief, the magazine would be dropped, the round in the chamber ejected, and pistol, magazine, and loose round turned over to the relief watch. You should be able to see where this is going. Say you're on the midwatch (0000-0400) and your relief arrives on time at 0400. Both are sleepy. During the weapons clearing the safety is inadvertently swept to OFF and the booger hook finds the bang switch as the person attempts to pull back the slide. Nothing good comes of that even with the horribly stiff trigger pulls on those pistols. So that caused the rule change that had the pistol to remain unloaded and two mags on the opposite side of the duty belt.

    Pulling, loading, and deploying the pistol from a flap holster took precious time. That is why the use of explosively loud and harsh language is used during this brief period to disorient the questionable person. I was considered pretty darned good in the explosively loud harsh language bit. :tooth:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 26,929 Senior Member
    Why dont us military use glocks?


    Some of them do.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 26,929 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    Everybody who does, from all the police departments to all the civilians, are wrong.

    That's a lot of wrong people.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 17,872 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    The military doesn't use Glocks precisely because they aren't so good. Frankly I don't know why anybody uses Glocks. Everybody who does, from all the police departments to all the civilians, are wrong. And no, I don't want to hear their side of it. The "safe action" is a dangerous joke, the market is flooded with guns that are just as reliable, durable, accurate and competitively priced as Glocks - and are also a helluva lot safer. The idea of locating the only external safety in the middle of the freaking trigger (!!!) is an accident waiting to happen. Autoloading pistols, except DAO models with long, heavy, revolver-like trigger pulls, should have a true safety that, when engaged, completely disables the weapon. Especially if the trigger is pulled. DUH!

    Must be a Glock scared you when you were a kid...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 25,060 Senior Member
    Then there was that Marine Capt that stoped an Israeli tank advance by climbing
    up on the lead tank and putting a .45 to the Lt Col's head. It was in the early 80's.

    Great relationship with an ally, hey.
  • EliEli Senior Member Posts: 3,074 Senior Member
    Zee wrote: »
    Why dont us military use glocks?


    Some of them do.

    And AKs as well.

    :wink:
  • killpillakillpilla Member Posts: 50 Member
    A little history here.....

    When I was assigned to the 194th SAB, we were the field test-bed for the Armor Center/TRADOC, both at Ft. Knox KY ('89-'92 when I was there). As well as being a rapid deployment force for XVIII Airborne Corps. One test trial we had was the Glock 17......we punished the hell out of that platform as only tankers could.....and it passed our abuses......but the Army said Nay because it lacked an external safety lever. That and the Beretta conspiracy...

    Only special ops with their open TO&E policy gets to play with 1911s for now.

    Oh no, Beretta conspiracy? Now you must indulge me!!!
  • killpillakillpilla Member Posts: 50 Member
    horselips wrote: »
    The military doesn't use Glocks precisely because they aren't so good. Frankly I don't know why anybody uses Glocks. Everybody who does, from all the police departments to all the civilians, are wrong. And no, I don't want to hear their side of it. The "safe action" is a dangerous joke, the market is flooded with guns that are just as reliable, durable, accurate and competitively priced as Glocks - and are also a helluva lot safer. The idea of locating the only external safety in the middle of the freaking trigger (!!!) is an accident waiting to happen. Autoloading pistols, except DAO models with long, heavy, revolver-like trigger pulls, should have a true safety that, when engaged, completely disables the weapon. Especially if the trigger is pulled. DUH!

    So perhaps they could do a gen 5 with a grip safety. That would keep from changing the desing to much and that comfort to those who need it. Dont get me wrong, I'm not a 'Live by the Glock, Die by the Glock' guy. Just simply curious cause they say "Glock perfection" yet our soldiers dont use it, but I have had allot of great answers here and thank you all!
  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 4,227 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    The military doesn't use Glocks precisely because they aren't so good. Frankly I don't know why anybody uses Glocks. Everybody who does, from all the police departments to all the civilians, are wrong. And no, I don't want to hear their side of it. The "safe action" is a dangerous joke, the market is flooded with guns that are just as reliable, durable, accurate and competitively priced as Glocks - and are also a helluva lot safer. The idea of locating the only external safety in the middle of the freaking trigger (!!!) is an accident waiting to happen. Autoloading pistols, except DAO models with long, heavy, revolver-like trigger pulls, should have a true safety that, when engaged, completely disables the weapon. Especially if the trigger is pulled. DUH!

    That is one of the biggest loads of crap that I've seen on this forum. Unbelieveably ignorant. You really shouldn't talk about something you know nothing about.

    Oh, and what's the problem with a safety on the trigger? Keep your freakin' finger off the trigger unless you want the gun to fire and you don't have a problem. And by the way, that is not the only safety function on a Glock. Only external, yes. But as a system, it works fine.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,216 Senior Member
    I am thinking that if I were to ever rely on a safety, there is something seriously wrong with my gun handling.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • JayJay Senior Member Posts: 4,227 Senior Member

    You freakin' read my mind! :roll2: I was just too lazy to look it up......
  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    horselips wrote: »
    The military doesn't use Glocks precisely because they aren't so good. Frankly I don't know why anybody uses Glocks. Everybody who does, from all the police departments to all the civilians, are wrong. And no, I don't want to hear their side of it. The "safe action" is a dangerous joke, the market is flooded with guns that are just as reliable, durable, accurate and competitively priced as Glocks - and are also a helluva lot safer. The idea of locating the only external safety in the middle of the freaking trigger (!!!) is an accident waiting to happen. Autoloading pistols, except DAO models with long, heavy, revolver-like trigger pulls, should have a true safety that, when engaged, completely disables the weapon. Especially if the trigger is pulled. DUH!

    I'm a pretty as easy going fellow.....but I gotta say, you are so wrong on this. Accidents waiting to happen have been proved to be NEGLIGENCE! If you ain't smart enough to handle a Glock, then maybe you're not smart enough to be around ANY firearm!
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement