Back to the original question, all US small arms must be made in the USA. I doubt Gaston would have allowed this. He was quite goofy on these things. Wouldn't even allow 'Sig' to be stamped on his slides........as in .357Sig. Just says .357.
"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
BTW many Armed services personnel do carry other weapons, IIRC lots of AF fighter pilots carry personally owned Glock 19s.
"There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
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!
And once more, old horse lips has spoken via the lips on his rear end and produced pure horse fertilizer good for Teach's garden and little else.
Military weapons are chosen not by price alone, but by a silly set of pre-set parameters of design and performance based on what entity they wish to award the contract to.
The decision to adopt the M-9 was a political one, not based on a sound fiscal plan.
"There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
Back to the original question, all US small arms must be made in the USA. I doubt Gaston would have allowed this. He was quite goofy on these things. Wouldn't even allow 'Sig' to be stamped on his slides........as in .357Sig. Just says .357.
Oh, but they can be built in Smyrna Georgia......let's not go into Frabrique National and how they supply our military and police forces.....or how about the favored Springfield XD.....i.e. H2000 Croation a pistol built by a country that killed many of it's own people in the name of ethnic cleansing.
God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
As I've said before, when I was looking to increase my carry options, I specifically chose the FN FNP45 because it has a frame-mounted safety that allows it to function just like a 1911; no change in operation. As a bonus, I shoot it better than I expected.
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.
For one thing, I think the Berretta was a very popular Pistol when the US switched to 9mm and probably gave the US Military powers that be what they wanted that fit their bill. I don't remember hearing of Glock during this time period. However, I would think they would have considered the Glock since then. In my opinion it would be the perfect US Mil Side Arm, and it can be had in 9mm, 40, and 45. Take your pic Uncle Sam!!!
I'm Just a Radical Right Wing Nutt Job, Trying to Help Save My Country!
Glocks are great guns and don't cost much. If you use your gun for selfdefence do you want the Police to hold on to a $600.00 gun or a $2250.00 Kimber till the hearing. Just asking. :silly: Later,
Fat Billy
Recoil is how you know primer ignition is complete.
Glocks are great guns and don't cost much. If you use your gun for selfdefence do you want the Police to hold on to a $600.00 gun or a $2250.00 Kimber till the hearing. Just asking. :silly: Later,
Either one wouldn't matter. Price isn't the issue. The best tool for the job is. My fat ugly behind is worth more than ANY gun.
Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
While I have the utmost respect for our military members, many of them are gun idiots when they join the service. As a result of a need for 100% safety, the military requires training and equipment to be idiot proof. With proper training a Glock is 100% safe. I own one.
But, if I am trying to train thousands of 18 year olds, I think an external safety would be a good idea. Remember, many of those recruits have never touched a gun until they joined the service.
Plus, I suspect it is cheaper to repair Berettas and Sigs over years of abuse.
And there ain't as much pistol training in LE as you seem to think. Point is: LE seems to have no problems giving folks a firearm without a safety lever, why should the military worry? Heck, in some areas they're not allowed to carry with a round in the chamber anyway...
BTW, I'm pretty sure that LE academies nationwide train thousands of new recruits.
The Army doesn't take which pistol they adopt lightly. They apply a set of criteria and then test them all. When the Barretta won (I was shocked.) they had to license and build a factory here. When they tossed the 1911 in the early 80's they felt they had to adopt the NATO round, so we got the 9MM. Now the .45 is roaring back. The Marines just refurbished a bunch for their recon guys....or some such special ops outfit. We need a harder hitting pistol, just as we did in 1898 in the Philippines and for the same reason. The Army, always infected with PC are considerate of the small hands, weak wrists of the girls who did have a hard time firing the 1911. So we'll probably keep some kind of pea shooter for the ladies, but we men need a round that will knock the enemy's dk in the dirt and that's a .45.
And there ain't as much pistol training in LE as you seem to think. Point is: LE seems to have no problems giving folks a firearm without a safety lever, why should the military worry? Heck, in some areas they're not allowed to carry with a round in the chamber anyway...
BTW, I'm pretty sure that LE academies nationwide train thousands of new recruits.
Lol - they aren't allowed to have a round in the chamber? Barney Fife joke comes to mind.
Overall, I am sure LE academies, in total, do train thousands of recruits each year. I meant that each Police Academy typically has a much smaller number of recruits to deal with during a year.
I have a theory on safety. keep it simple stupid. That is the genius of the Glock design IMHO. But, others don't see things that way. I think the military is is the second camp.
I have three pistols. .38 snub nose and 9 mm Glock for self defense. Both are compact for easy concealment. My Kimber .45 for target and self defense of my house. I wish that I had a full sized Glock .45 with a single stack.
If I was in the military, I would want a .45 Glock in my holster. They have great reliability, no dumb safeties to mess with, and are easy to operate in panic mode.
The no round in chamber thing has been confirmed by currently serving members. OTOH, they point out that once you get in some areas, you carry with a round in the bhamber.
I personally don't understand the military's need for a thumb safety. That being said, I think they don't carry Glocks for a more practical reason: too costly to change over to them.
We need a harder hitting pistol, just as we did in 1898 in the Philippines and for the same reason. The Army, always infected with PC are considerate of the small hands, weak wrists of the girls who did have a hard time firing the 1911. So we'll probably keep some kind of pea shooter for the ladies, but we men need a round that will knock the enemy's dk in the dirt and that's a .45.
Please tell me that you don't actually believe any of that crap.
The no round in chamber thing has been confirmed by currently serving members. OTOH, they point out that once you get in some areas, you carry with a round in the bhamber.
I personally don't understand the military's need for a thumb safety. That being said, I think they don't carry Glocks for a more practical reason: too costly to change over to them.
I can only address conditions back in the 1970's aboard ship in the Navy. Quarterdeck Petty Officer of the Watch carried a .45 unloaded and no magazine in the mag well. He had two magazines in pouch on left side of duty belt. On missile house watches and armed roving patrol, I carried a .45 unloaded with two magazines in mag pouch on left side of belt, and also a 28" baton. For close work the baton was the preferred tool. For missile loading and unloading at the weapons depot, the .45s were cocked and locked, and I also carried an M14 with magazine in place and a round in the chamber, with 5 spare magazines. It was kind of redundant as the missiles came and left with enough Marines to invade a small country. Marines were there to engage if they came by land, and I and my swabbie buddies were to repel attack from the sea. This contingent of Marines did not include the ones hiding out in the bushes; when they finally left it was like half the forest got up and walked off.
“I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer” ― Douglas Adams
Remember that the military is stuck with FMJ. With good hollowpoints, either a 9mm or 45 is fine. If it is FMJ only, give me a .45.
:win:
"There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
Replies
Now I have to make a trip out there and dig up your septic tank, thanks. I don't know about the Kahr, but the Glock should be fine.
Yes, cause krylon kills people too!
And once more, old horse lips has spoken via the lips on his rear end and produced pure horse fertilizer good for Teach's garden and little else.
Military weapons are chosen not by price alone, but by a silly set of pre-set parameters of design and performance based on what entity they wish to award the contract to.
The decision to adopt the M-9 was a political one, not based on a sound fiscal plan.
Oh, but they can be built in Smyrna Georgia......let's not go into Frabrique National and how they supply our military and police forces.....or how about the favored Springfield XD.....i.e. H2000 Croation a pistol built by a country that killed many of it's own people in the name of ethnic cleansing.
Recoil is how you know primer ignition is complete.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-pistols-for-uk-armed-forces
But, if I am trying to train thousands of 18 year olds, I think an external safety would be a good idea. Remember, many of those recruits have never touched a gun until they joined the service.
Plus, I suspect it is cheaper to repair Berettas and Sigs over years of abuse.
Ask me how many times the clearing barrel has been put to use in my local dept. after they send folks to the academy.
Most law enforcement agencies don't train thousands of troops every single year. Furthermore, the pistol is a backup weapon for most military troops.
In contrast, the pistol is the primary weapon for most officers. They depend virtually all their time training with firearms with a pistol.
BTW, I'm pretty sure that LE academies nationwide train thousands of new recruits.
Lol - they aren't allowed to have a round in the chamber? Barney Fife joke comes to mind.
Overall, I am sure LE academies, in total, do train thousands of recruits each year. I meant that each Police Academy typically has a much smaller number of recruits to deal with during a year.
I have a theory on safety. keep it simple stupid. That is the genius of the Glock design IMHO. But, others don't see things that way. I think the military is is the second camp.
I have three pistols. .38 snub nose and 9 mm Glock for self defense. Both are compact for easy concealment. My Kimber .45 for target and self defense of my house. I wish that I had a full sized Glock .45 with a single stack.
If I was in the military, I would want a .45 Glock in my holster. They have great reliability, no dumb safeties to mess with, and are easy to operate in panic mode.
I personally don't understand the military's need for a thumb safety. That being said, I think they don't carry Glocks for a more practical reason: too costly to change over to them.
Please tell me that you don't actually believe any of that crap.
I can only address conditions back in the 1970's aboard ship in the Navy. Quarterdeck Petty Officer of the Watch carried a .45 unloaded and no magazine in the mag well. He had two magazines in pouch on left side of duty belt. On missile house watches and armed roving patrol, I carried a .45 unloaded with two magazines in mag pouch on left side of belt, and also a 28" baton. For close work the baton was the preferred tool. For missile loading and unloading at the weapons depot, the .45s were cocked and locked, and I also carried an M14 with magazine in place and a round in the chamber, with 5 spare magazines. It was kind of redundant as the missiles came and left with enough Marines to invade a small country. Marines were there to engage if they came by land, and I and my swabbie buddies were to repel attack from the sea. This contingent of Marines did not include the ones hiding out in the bushes; when they finally left it was like half the forest got up and walked off.
― Douglas Adams
:win: