Home Main Category General Firearms

Photos Of Glock's Entry Into the Army MHS Competition

shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior MemberPosts: 5,702 Senior Member
Photos of Glock's admission into the MHS program have been released. As you all probably know by now they lost out to Sig. I can see why, as it appears Glock just took a Gen 4 19/23, removed the finger grooves, painted it FDE, added a thumb safety, and included night sights. I seem to recall the Army wanted the capability to readily attach a red dot, and from the submissions I've seen only Sig met that requirement.

I do wish Glock would sell a Gen 4 sans finger grooves to the buying public. I'd be first in line for a G19.

b3554dcc68abdf0a7d8bd6e120c951b6.jpg

https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2017/06/28/photos-glocks-army-pistol-contest-entries-glock-19-mhs-glock-23-mhs/
- I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
"Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
«13

Replies

  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Yuk............Sand color is about the the most UN-esthetic color scheme known to mankind. Should be a crime against humanity to paint guns with it....................Camo concerns aside I see no reason for a handgun to have it or even rifles for that matter. Most don't use it in those regions of the world anyway.

    You are right, doesn't look like Glock put a lot of effort into winning the military contract.
    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!
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,634 Senior Member
    Brown or not it is still a glock
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
  • bobbyrlf3bobbyrlf3 Senior Member Posts: 2,543 Senior Member
    But hey, they put a lanyard ring on it! They get points for that, right??!?! :jester:
    Knowledge is essential to living freely and fully; understanding gives knowledge purpose and strength; wisdom is combining the two and applying them appropriately in words and actions.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,146 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    You are right, doesn't look like Glock put a lot of effort into wining the military contract.

    Nope. It looks like Glock tried to give the Army what it NEEDED (a durable, simple to maintain, easy to use combat pistol, with a finish appropriate to the anticipated combat environment, requiring a minimal parts inventory that would work in a multitude of roles), while Sig handed the REMFs of Manhattan a bunch of shiny beads and came away with the island.

    The military intelligence oxymoron continues.:bang:
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,788 Senior Member
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    Nope. It looks like Glock tried to give the Army what it NEEDED (a durable, simple to maintain, easy to use combat pistol, with a finish appropriate to the anticipated combat environment, requiring a minimal parts inventory that would work in a multitude of roles), while Sig handed the REMFs of Manhattan a bunch of shiny beads and came away with the island.

    The military intelligence oxymoron continues.:bang:

    Sig undercut Glock by millions to win the contract. Army never even took the pistols to the second phase of the process for the 22,500 round longevity testing. That test is designed to determine parts service life and overall functional life of a pistol being considered for adoption, among other things.

    So basically soldiers are going to get unproven pistols.

    Glock is livid about the whole thing. So much so they are going to release the documents from their side of the MHS program detailing what Army did.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    Photos of Glock's admission into the MHS program have been released. As you all probably know by now they lost out to Sig. I can see why, as it appears Glock just took a Gen 4 19/23, removed the finger grooves, painted it FDE, added a thumb safety, and included night sights. I seem to recall the Army wanted the capability to readily attach a red dot, and from the submissions I've seen only Sig met that requirement.

    I do wish Glock would sell a Gen 4 sans finger grooves to the buying public. I'd be first in line for a G19.

    b3554dcc68abdf0a7d8bd6e120c951b6.jpg

    https://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2017/06/28/photos-glocks-army-pistol-contest-entries-glock-19-mhs-glock-23-mhs/

    I like it. I'll take 2.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,702 Senior Member
    IMO if Glock had submitted an MOS style model they would have stood a much better chance of landing the contract.

    I'm interested to see Glock's documentation, I didn't know they halted testing early.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,391 Senior Member
    bobbyrlf3 wrote: »
    But hey, they put a lanyard ring on it! They get points for that, right??!?! :jester:

    And a thumb safety.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    Don't look a whole bunch different than the Sig :uhm:

    A thumb safety seems a bit silly.
    The scope and diversity of military personnel may be beyond my understanding.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 11,003 Senior Member
    If the RFP required optical sight capability, and they submitted a solution without that capability AND got undercut on price... why the hell are they surprised that they lost?

    If I submit an RFP or RFQ at my work missing a key request from the customer, then it is my damn fault for losing the deal.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,204 Senior Member
    JasonMPD wrote: »
    So basically soldiers are going to get unproven pistols.

    Navy Seals have used SIG's for decades. I would have NO problem trusting a SIG with my life. Unproven is a bit of an overstatement to say the least. This isn't Taurus or High Point we are talking about.
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    Tugar wrote: »
    Navy Seals have used SIG's for decades. I would have NO problem trusting a SIG with my life. Unproven is a bit of an overstatement to say the least. This isn't Taurus or High Point we are talking about.

    Not the P320.

    The 22X series of pistols is Battle proven. The P320 is not.
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,490 Senior Member
    Regarding the Glock entry, the first letter of the competition, M, denotes Modular. They wanted to accommodate various grip frames and magazine options.


    I don't think the Glock does that...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,490 Senior Member
    Wambli, it must be painful for you to talk ill of your favorite handgun...
    Overkill is underrated.
  • LMLarsenLMLarsen Senior Member Posts: 8,337 Senior Member
    GLock tried to sell their snap-on backstraps to meet the "modular" requirement. Yeah.

    And that - thing - looks like a G19 upper on a shortened G17 lower, with a Cominolli safety, painted with baby doodoo after a Taco Bell smoothie.
    “A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

    NRA Endowment Member
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,286 Senior Member
    That color is calf scour/baby poop brown. Disgusting color. :vomit: The thumb safety would make a bunch of cheeto munching hair jell Nancy boys get all excited if they offer that to the civilian audience. Thumb safety didn't help with the 1911, though; negligent discharges aboard ships got the unloaded pistol in holster and two mags in a mag pouch carry as the standard. Hardball hitting the deck of the quarterdeck or poking a hole in the overhead canvas cover is one helluva wakeup call! :silly: :roll2:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    Finally, a Glock with a thumb-operated safety. A genuine, properly located OFF switch. Now, all Glock gas to do is completely restyle the pistol - get rid of the round-barrel-stuck-in-a-square-slide look and we're there. (Remember in kindergarten you were taught that square pegs don't goin round holes? The opposite is also true). Baby steps ...
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,146 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Now why would you seek the answer to our military's future needs over the next 10-20 years with a gun designed in the 1980s!?!?!?!? I understand that you believe the end all of handgun tech basically stopped with the 1911 but the ARMY does not need a gun that will be in service in 100 years from now.

    Well, let's think about that statement for a moment and consider the problem.

    The purpose of a military handgun is to punch a hole in a small number of human adversaries from a relatively short distance, generally as a last-ditch option, do it reliably, not burden the logistics chain (with extra, non-essential things like multiple frame housings and slide lengths), perhaps be capable of some form of concealment, maybe take a suppressor for the D.O.N.T. (Delta Operator Ninja Tactical) units, and not impose a significant weight penalty on the roughly 65-pound standard load limit that soldiers have carried for a few thousand years. If it needs repairs, that work should be able to be performed with as little specialty gear and training as possible so the repair technician can perform ether more of the same task or other different tasks.

    So, what has changed recently regarding the things we do to solve these problems?

    Not human anatomy. All the arteries and nerves have been about the same size and in about the same place for hundreds of thousands of years.

    Not reliability in semi autos. Pretty much had that nut cracked before WWI.

    Not ammo capacity. Browning figured that out in the 1920's with the Hi-Power prototypes.

    Not reduced weight. Alloy guns in the 1950's and plastic ones in the 1980's.

    Not simplicity of design. IN SEVENTY FREAKING YEARS, Gaston Glock was the first guy to reduce Browning's parts count rather than increase it, and those trying to "improve" on the Glock are increasing the parts count yet again.

    Not illuminating your target. Figured that out in the early 1990's. The lights are getting better, but the M1913 rails we use to attach them are still M1913 rails.

    The "purveyors of shiny beads" seem to be trying to convince us to put tall, battery-powered red dot sights on our last-ditch, absolutely, positively, gotta work no matter what handguns. Maybe someday that "parachute" will advance to a point where a sane person would jump with it, but I proceed from the assumption that a naked GI locked in a padded cell with two 3" steel ball bearings will lose one and break the other within ten minutes. It's not even worth considering for a military role at this point in its development. Combat's a young man's game anyway; generally, the eyes of young men still work pretty well. Scopes are for the old farts.

    So I fail to see your point of how the current, evolved version of the Glock 19, with its 30 year PROVEN track record of solving the outlined problem is somehow inferior to some shiny, barely-tested bauble simply because the shiny bauble is "new" (while still managing to be a polymer striker-fired pistol with a Browning locking system). A thousand year old Japanese katana is certainly not new, but if the problem is how to efficiently chop off heads in close combat, you'll be in committee for a very long time trying to come up with a better way to accomplish the task.

    Nope. Somebody got dazzled by the Wizard's light show. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    The more I look at it the more I like the Ruger American 9mm pistol. Besides the LC9s I have a Ruger P-89 and have been entertaining the idy of buying another 9mm.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEGqYYgSljE
    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!
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 16,755 Senior Member
    SIGgal wrote: »
    If they made it in Pink it would be mine. I have yet to find a pistol I like that will match my AR15..... very sexist Mr Glock lol. Maybe if I change my name I can get one?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Get a 1911 Ceracoated pink....errrr....uhhhhh...ahhhhh...on second thought...don't
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • ZeeZee Senior Member Posts: 23,518 Senior Member
    Irony:

    A Pencil Pusher and a REMF arguing about what a Knuckle Dragger needs in combat.
    "To Hell with efficiency, it's performance we want!" - Elmer Keith
  • shotgunshooter3shotgunshooter3 Senior Member Posts: 5,702 Senior Member
    Regardless of what any individual believes that the military needs, they established their parameters long before the designs were submitted. So when Glock submits a design, regardless of track record, that does not meet those parameters then they are an automatic no-go at this station IMO. Add in being more expensive to the tune of 10's of millions and they aren't even an also-ran at that point.

    This coming from the guy who actively intends to put a G19 on layaway next month (I've already bought a G Code holster, SureFire XC-1, and Trijicon HD sights for a gun I don't even have).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    - I am a rifleman with a poorly chosen screen name. -
    "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast, and speed is the economy of motion" - Scott Jedlinski
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,146 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Did you read the ARMY's response to Glocks protest? Nope I'm sure...

    Glock was written off because it provided NO added value to the equation BECAUSE they brought in their "proven" (spelled out O-L-D) non-modular design

    Yet for the machineguns that actually win battles, we replaced the M-60 with the even older, BAR-derived FN-MAG, and would have to be concerned about a mutiny for even suggesting to retire the circa 1921 Ma Deuce.

    On the slowly sinking cruise ship, the crew had trouble convincing the passengers that boarding the lifeboats was in their best interests. The captain thought about this for a moment and told the crew to convince them thusly:

    "Tell the Germans that boarding the lifeboats is required. Tell the French that it's forbidden. Then tell the English that it's a game. Say those things to those groups, and you'll get them loaded into the lifeboats like so many docile sheep."

    Most of the crew went off to carry out these instructions, but one steward remained and asked, "But Sir, I'm in charge of a group of Americans. How do I herd THEM like docile sheep?"

    After a brief moment's thought, the captain replied, "Easy. Tell them it's new."
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • BigDanSBigDanS Senior Member Posts: 6,973 Senior Member
    I have written and evaluated RFP's for $15 million annual contracts several times.

    You write an RFP to weed out those that cannot meet your requirements, purposefully. When it was proposed, they wanted a Glock, or Sig, HK, or FN. They didn't want a Ruger, or a Colt, or S&W, or anything else.

    If you ever have to answer one, the answer to any question that starts with "It must have", or "It is required... " is "yes". Glock did not do that in my opinion. They took their existing design and fit it to the RFP, instead of reading the RFP and making the product. Sounds like it is about the same, right? Nope. The Sig met all of the Army's requirements in design. That Glock safety is clearly an add on to the design in my opinion. Anyone looking at the RFP would see that and think , "Not sufficient."

    Sig wanted the contract and won it based on the RFP specs. It should be a lesson to Glock. Next time design a gun specifically for it and make the real money in the civilian / LEO supply.

    D
    "A patriot is mocked, scorned and hated; yet when his cause succeeds, all men will join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.... now who's bringing the hot wings? :jester:
  • JasonMPDJasonMPD Senior Member Posts: 6,535 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Now why would you seek the answer to our military's future needs over the next 10-20 years with a gun designed in the 1980s!?!?!?!? I understand that you believe the end all of handgun tech basically stopped with the 1911 but the ARMY does not need a gun that will be in service in 100 years from now.

    Because proven designs work.

    Look at the M16 and M4 platforms. We'll use those for the next 30 years at least. Nothing has unseated the M4 platform nor the 5.56mm cartridge and won't for a long, long time. Because they are proven.

    Now the new M855 round is gonna be a problem....
    “There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves.” – Will Rogers
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Every time the military changes/upgrades a sidearm or battle rifle much debate ensues . Remember the swap from the .45 ACP to the 9mm............the gun press was ablaze with the pros and cons.....................of the caliber and why an Eyetalian company got the contract. At the time we wanted to station and operate jets from bases in Italy which raised eyebrows.

    Oh yes folks had their favorites back then, caliber and gun maker............not much has changed in some ways.

    OTOH, modular is the name of the game these days and now it isn't a debate about caliber so much as the platform and who makes it.

    Almost anybody can handle a 9mm and shoot one without much trouble, especially with its lower recoil and now grips can be swapped out to fit all shapes and sizes, male and female. Things can be added or not depending on the mission. They can be expected to hold up with intensive use or very little besides semi annual qualifications.

    If you like Glocks that's what you wanted them to choose. If you like SIG then then you are probably happy.
    I wish S&W, Ruger or Colt would have come up with something suitable to meet the requirements and/or stayed in the competition.

    Most of all I want our military to get issued a reliable affordable sidearm they have confidence in and do well with.
    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!
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,634 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Every time the military changes/upgrades a sidearm or battle rifle much debate ensues . Remember the swap from the .45 ACP to the 9mm............the gun press was ablaze with the pros and cons.....................of the caliber and why an Eyetalian company got the contract. At the time we wanted to station and operate jets from bases in Italy which raised eyebrows.

    Oh yes folks had their favorites back then, caliber and gun maker............not much has changed in some ways.

    OTOH, modular is the name of the game these days and now it isn't a debate about caliber so much as the platform and who makes it.

    Almost anybody can handle a 9mm and shoot one without much trouble, especially with its lower recoil and now grips can be swapped out to fit all shapes and sizes, male and female. Things can be added or not depending on the mission. They can be expected to hold up with intensive use or very little besides semi annual qualifications.

    If you like Glocks that's what you wanted them to choose. If you like SIG then then you are probably happy.
    I wish S&W, Ruger or Colt would have come up with something suitable to meet the requirements and/or stayed in the competition.

    Most of all I want our military to get issued a reliable affordable sidearm they have confidence in and do well with.

    The only thing I thought about, since I was already retired, was that the one handed operation of an aircrews side arm was taken away when the .38s went too.
    I'm not sure you could rack the slide on the 92 one handed floating around the ocean in one of those little ejection seat rafts if Ya needed to use tracer ammo for
    signaling and you had ball loaded.. This assumes broken arm or something on ejection.

    Though I don't know if the MIL had 9mm tracer ammo like we did .38 tracer ammo.

    I guess one could drop the mag and put in one with tracers and shoot the one ball out.
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,490 Senior Member
    NN wrote: »
    The only thing I thought about, since I was already retired, was that the one handed operation of an aircrews side arm was taken away when the .38s went too.
    I'm not sure you could rack the slide on the 92 one handed floating around the ocean in one of those little ejection seat rafts if Ya needed to use tracer ammo for
    signaling and you had ball loaded.. This assumes broken arm or something on ejection.

    Though I don't know if the MIL had 9mm tracer ammo like we did .38 tracer ammo.

    I guess one could drop the mag and put in one with tracers and shoot the one ball out.
    Snag rear sight on something, punch forward and then release to rack the slide one-handed.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 24,634 Senior Member
    Snag rear sight on something, punch forward and then release to rack the slide one-handed.

    What?
    floating around the ocean in one of those little ejection seat rafts
    Shut up-----KAREN; OK Cynthia
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