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!
That's been accomplished my friend......it's called the H2000......or Springfield XD. It's a Glock for wussies that can't be safe with their own pistols, but also caters to the 1911 crowd that can't get over the Glock grip angle, yet shoot Ruger MKII pistols....hippocracy at it's finest.
God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
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!
Holy crap, I'm glad I read this! I just thru my Kahr PM9 in the trash can. I don't know I managed to carry it every day for 7+ years without shooting myself. It has NO external safety AT ALL!!
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
It's funny, but I absolutely dislike external safeties (thumb/grip) on handguns. In my opinion, no handgun should have a safety on it except single actions like the 1911 and Hi Power et al in order to carry cocked and locked. Even at that, I do not like a grip safety.
Heck, I don't even use the safety on bolt guns!
But, what do I know? I'm an accident waiting to happen. :-)
"To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
Alright men, get outta them fart sacks "Drop yer Cocked Glocks and pick up yer Socks"..........Naw, I reckon not.:tooth:
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Oh no, Beretta conspiracy? Now you must indulge me!!!
Lots of speculation on this, but one theory floated around, if you are old enough to remember the mid-1980's, you'll recall that the "Big Bad" of the time was Moamar Khadaffi of Lybia. Italy is geographically well suited as a staging point for strikes against Lybia. In 1986, we adopt an Italian handgun. Hmmmmm. . .
Lots of speculation on this, but one theory floated around, if you are old enough to remember the mid-1980's, you'll recall that the "Big Bad" of the time was Moamar Khadaffi of Lybia. Italy is geographically well suited as a staging point for strikes against Lybia. In 1986, we adopt an Italian handgun. Hmmmmm. . .
That was the conspiracy theory. Hey, when they killed that jerk, was it a Beretta?
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
One thing you need to realize Killpilla, is that there are different schools of thought advocating different features on handguns. Never mind the durable/reliable/accurate aspect - we're mainly talking control systems
One camp is the hard-charging, gun-saavy, warriors who, whether they are actually Marines or not, live by the Marine creed of "This is My Rifle". These are the folks who when given their choice, tend to run with cocked and locked 1911's for much the same reason samurai used katanas - it's hard to find a better tool for the intended job, for the operator who lives his occupation. These guys will be safe and effective with whatever you give them, because they are serious enough to learn the quirks of whatever tool they are given. Think of these guys are professional race car drivers - they turn off the traction control on their daily drivers because they can get more out of a car with those features disabled/removed.
Then there is the camp that NEEDS traction control, or in the case of pistols, things like heavy double action on the first shot, decocking safeties, magazine disconnects, painfully obvious loaded chamber indicators, etc. . . To the hard-charging operator, these things are obstacles that prevent the "race car" from being able to achieve top speed and maximum handling. To the "soccer mom" casual operator - i.e. the soldier who qualifies with a generic "pool weapon" annually, at best, they're features that - in theory, anyway - make it harder for the "driver" to inadvertently wrap his car around a tree, or, in the case of firearms, unintentionally shoot someone or himself.
The Glock kinda splits the difference. It tries to keep the operators happy with simple controls and minimal obstacles to firing. It also tries to keep the "Nervous Nelly" crowd of Lowest Common Denominators (LCD's) happy by minimizing the amount of stuff a user has to think about. Nice thing about a Glock is that pretty much NOTHING can make it fire unless the trigger is pulled. The one major lesson to beat into the head of the operator of ANY firearm is finger off the trigger until actually shooting. The advantage of the Glock is that there's little else to beat in.
But it's all a matter of perspective - the Army knows that MOST of their force is composed of LCD's, and that their hardcore operators can cope with a weapon designed for LCD's better than the LCD's can handle a hot rod. In this context, the "best" tool for the job can have a lot of definitions.
I was thinking the same thing. If my Glock ain't so good, my Kahrs are probably total junk.
I've carried a Glock for years, other pistols without external safeties, never had a problem. However, the military had its requirements and one mandate was external safety. Regardless of our experience or opinion, the regs had to be met. Thankfully the Beretta is a pretty nice pistol and far as I know, it's had a good service record (such as standard issue sidearms ever manage to have in the military).
Naturally, special forces and such, those who can pick their own sidearms, almost always select .45acp. I wonder why....
Bigslug, that's an excellent posting on the needs of various elements of the military. And you're right -- a Glock w/o external safety or, maybe, a Beretta with, is about the maxed out thing that many average troops need to worry about. Better that they be well trained with their ARs and general tactics and such, than become experts with a pistol. After all, there are few times they'll really need that pistol in battle.
And, as you say, there are the pros. They can use anything and will, given the chance, modify it to fit even better. These are the sort who can "blend" with a hair-trigger .45 or a customized H&K. Just point them in the general direction and it's a done deal.
Both types of soldier are needed. The vast money needed to equip and train a specialist is best focused on those few who fit the task. Not to discredit the average soldier, either. Our regular US troops are the best in the world (okay, maybe they stand even w. the Brits or Israelis, but nobody's better)
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 just flushed my glock and the kahr down the toilet, now I'm safe(r). Wow.
Replies
That's been accomplished my friend......it's called the H2000......or Springfield XD. It's a Glock for wussies that can't be safe with their own pistols, but also caters to the 1911 crowd that can't get over the Glock grip angle, yet shoot Ruger MKII pistols....hippocracy at it's finest.
Holy crap, I'm glad I read this! I just thru my Kahr PM9 in the trash can. I don't know I managed to carry it every day for 7+ years without shooting myself. It has NO external safety AT ALL!!
Heck, I don't even use the safety on bolt guns!
But, what do I know? I'm an accident waiting to happen. :-)
waiting for that.....should be a good one! :popcorn:
That was great. Had a friend shot down in a Blackhawk in Somalia.
Science is cool when something starts on fire....you just fragged your own six-pack.....my hats off to you for that experiment.....nut-ball! :tooth:
I think the idea is, keeping someone ELSE's booger-picker off YOUR bang switch.
You are one of them.
both you guys..
video or
You are one of them.
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
No need for a video...it was a well documented historical event....you just came along too late to witness it...and it was stupid funny.....
Very true.
Whoo hoo! Yeah, I always loved that part (he's a good actor) GREAT movie!
Tried to make it bigger, now I dont know what the heck I did but enjoy the new Dewalt!
Lots of speculation on this, but one theory floated around, if you are old enough to remember the mid-1980's, you'll recall that the "Big Bad" of the time was Moamar Khadaffi of Lybia. Italy is geographically well suited as a staging point for strikes against Lybia. In 1986, we adopt an Italian handgun. Hmmmmm. . .
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
That was the conspiracy theory. Hey, when they killed that jerk, was it a Beretta?
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
One camp is the hard-charging, gun-saavy, warriors who, whether they are actually Marines or not, live by the Marine creed of "This is My Rifle". These are the folks who when given their choice, tend to run with cocked and locked 1911's for much the same reason samurai used katanas - it's hard to find a better tool for the intended job, for the operator who lives his occupation. These guys will be safe and effective with whatever you give them, because they are serious enough to learn the quirks of whatever tool they are given. Think of these guys are professional race car drivers - they turn off the traction control on their daily drivers because they can get more out of a car with those features disabled/removed.
Then there is the camp that NEEDS traction control, or in the case of pistols, things like heavy double action on the first shot, decocking safeties, magazine disconnects, painfully obvious loaded chamber indicators, etc. . . To the hard-charging operator, these things are obstacles that prevent the "race car" from being able to achieve top speed and maximum handling. To the "soccer mom" casual operator - i.e. the soldier who qualifies with a generic "pool weapon" annually, at best, they're features that - in theory, anyway - make it harder for the "driver" to inadvertently wrap his car around a tree, or, in the case of firearms, unintentionally shoot someone or himself.
The Glock kinda splits the difference. It tries to keep the operators happy with simple controls and minimal obstacles to firing. It also tries to keep the "Nervous Nelly" crowd of Lowest Common Denominators (LCD's) happy by minimizing the amount of stuff a user has to think about. Nice thing about a Glock is that pretty much NOTHING can make it fire unless the trigger is pulled. The one major lesson to beat into the head of the operator of ANY firearm is finger off the trigger until actually shooting. The advantage of the Glock is that there's little else to beat in.
But it's all a matter of perspective - the Army knows that MOST of their force is composed of LCD's, and that their hardcore operators can cope with a weapon designed for LCD's better than the LCD's can handle a hot rod. In this context, the "best" tool for the job can have a lot of definitions.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
I've carried a Glock for years, other pistols without external safeties, never had a problem. However, the military had its requirements and one mandate was external safety. Regardless of our experience or opinion, the regs had to be met. Thankfully the Beretta is a pretty nice pistol and far as I know, it's had a good service record (such as standard issue sidearms ever manage to have in the military).
Naturally, special forces and such, those who can pick their own sidearms, almost always select .45acp. I wonder why....
And, as you say, there are the pros. They can use anything and will, given the chance, modify it to fit even better. These are the sort who can "blend" with a hair-trigger .45 or a customized H&K. Just point them in the general direction and it's a done deal.
Both types of soldier are needed. The vast money needed to equip and train a specialist is best focused on those few who fit the task. Not to discredit the average soldier, either. Our regular US troops are the best in the world (okay, maybe they stand even w. the Brits or Israelis, but nobody's better)