|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 14, 2016 14:49:30 GMT -5
taskandpurpose.com/what-the-army-needs-in-a-new-service-pistol/?utm_source=linkedin&utm_medium=social&utm_content=tp-linkedin&utm_campaign=gearWell, if you're like me, and just learned an hour ago the Navy SEALs are phasing-in the Glock 19, to replace their Sig P226s, then the US Army needs to realize how much of a big deal that is... Its been known several US Special Forces units have been using Glock pistols on a per unit basis, most often the 19, for a while now during the GWOT, but this thinking has yet to trickle-down to the regular units. With the Marine Corps ordering the swan song of the 1911, and the Army's new asinine competition for companies to introduce a new design of pistol to replace the aging M9A1s, which still has a ridiculous requirement for an external safety, I personally think the Glock company should just submit a host of 19s for the competition, and just act like it ain't no thang, just to see what happens. What really excites me about this now, is the greater likelihood Safariland will make their Ranger Regiment Holster for Glock 19s now. soldiersystems.net/2013/04/26/warrior-west-safariland/
|
|
winter
Junior Member
Posts: 479
|
Post by winter on Jan 14, 2016 15:58:47 GMT -5
How does a country 18 trillion in debt just decide to replace a perfectly good firearm?
Handguns don't sway the damn battle.
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jan 14, 2016 16:38:51 GMT -5
How does a country 18 trillion in debt just decide to replace a perfectly good firearm? Handguns don't sway the damn battle. If only it were about just what was appropriate from a military perspective (I am sure that there are, as well as the 'line my pockets because I make financial decisons' some other good reasons for changing too). I actually pretty surprised that we beat the US to glocks, quite frankly. Nothing wrong with the 226 for someone who gets plenty of time on one, but glocks are so horrendously simple they are ideal to teach en masse. What would make sense was if this is a decision that's been made and they are going to phase them in rather than buy replacements over a period of time. I confess to not having read the whole article, just the blurb on here, mind you
|
|
winter
Junior Member
Posts: 479
|
Post by winter on Jan 14, 2016 19:42:14 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm sure it is more about paying back bribes then any real military need. The US is not about En Masse troops, it should be about well trained professionals who have time to train. More guns in lesser trained hands is not a solution to this nonexistent problem.
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 15, 2016 3:40:58 GMT -5
OPM, man; its all Other Peoples' Money. The military could've gone with Glocks back when the Beretta 92 was selected, but that same damn payola system kicked-in, because Beretta was willing to open a factory in the US. But now, with at least having an assembly plant state-side, we'll see, but given the continual trials to replace the M4, I don't have my hopes up for something brand new to result, probably just a product improved version of something which already exists, except for that stupidly over-priced M9A3 thing.
|
|
4track
Junior Member
Posts: 276
|
Post by 4track on Jan 15, 2016 9:29:07 GMT -5
I almost wonder if the whole "SEALS use 'em" mentality is why there has been a serious run on Glock 19s, lately.
I can hardly find one in stock, in any color, without a hugely inflated price.
|
|
winter
Junior Member
Posts: 479
|
Post by winter on Jan 15, 2016 14:39:03 GMT -5
I don't believe there's any more room to advance the auto loading cartridge rifle. The last real advancement was the detachable box magazine. Since then it has only been marginal improvements.
Honestly, the newest fanciest AR is tactically the same as the original M16. The fanciest new handgun doesn't do anything the M1911 didn't already do.
We all worry about what SHTF situation we will have to deal with. The one I worry about is our country going bankrupt. I'll never support this foolish continual and marginal improvement in small arms that only really wastes money that could be better spent on medical care for our troops.
Training is what makes men hard to kill.
|
|
karl
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by karl on Jan 16, 2016 13:54:43 GMT -5
The military has had a fanatical obsession with requiring a handgun to have both a hammer and a manual safety (and then mandating that it be carried chamber-empty).
But you guys are right, the one that wins is the one that puts out the payola.
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 16, 2016 16:59:03 GMT -5
The military has had a fanatical obsession with requiring a handgun to have both a hammer and a manual safety (and then mandating that it be carried chamber-empty). Despite how many units within the US military, foreign militaries, and US law enforcement agencies, using one particular model of Glock pistol or another, already.
|
|
|
Post by andrewe on Jan 25, 2016 0:29:43 GMT -5
OPM, man; its all Other Peoples' Money. The military could've gone with Glocks back when the Beretta 92 was selected, but that same damn payola system kicked-in, because Beretta was willing to open a factory in the US. But now, with at least having an assembly plant state-side, we'll see, but given the continual trials to replace the M4, I don't have my hopes up for something brand new to result, probably just a product improved version of something which already exists, except for that stupidly over-priced M9A3 thing. Glock chose not to compete in the XM9 trials (if memory serves, because they were up to their elbows in the Austrian Army contract). Whatever design won would have been required to manufacture the guns in the US; that's Federal law. Same reason FN built a factory in South Carolina to make M240, M249, M16, M4, M2, etc... M9A3 would actually be the best new-pistol option for the Army to choose, because despite the Gunbroker prices, they really wouldn't be much if any more expensive than the M9 to Uncle Sam, would be the smallest disruption to supply chains (many parts are backwards compatible), training, etc. Bonus in that the safety/decocker could later be converted to G-style decocker only (which it should have been from the start, IMO) just by swapping the components rather than requiring machine work as the 92FS/M9/M9A1 does. Of course, probably only the Air Force would adopt that change (IIRC, they use the safety/decocker as a decocker only) as the Army seems to think that a double-action pistol should also be carried with manual safety engaged. To top it off, the DoD could decide to just adopt M9A3 as an "engineering change" to the existing M9 contract, rather than going through the time and expense of the huge competition they're currently planning. Save millions of taxpayer dollars and still get an improved pistol out of the deal. Frankly, the NSW official buy of Glocks is probably just a formalization of existing practice. There are dozens of pictures of US SOF carrying Glocks in combat overseas, this just makes it official rather than a unit-level purchase.
|
|
4track
Junior Member
Posts: 276
|
Post by 4track on Jan 25, 2016 11:23:51 GMT -5
...The military could've gone with Glocks back when the Beretta 92 was selected, but that same damn payola system kicked-in, because Beretta was willing to open a factory in the US. But now, with at least having an assembly plant state-side, we'll see.... Glock chose not to compete in the XM9 trials...Whatever design won would have been required to manufacture the guns in the US; that's Federal law. Same reason FN built a factory in South Carolina to make M240, M249, M16, M4, M2, etc... I have been trying to source another Gen 4 19 since November 2015, but they have all been sold out, both locally and on the internet. Dealers have told me that they cannot even order one for me. One dealer told me that the Gen 4 19s are no longer listed by his distributors…?!! Then, last week, I find a local gun shop that has a Gen 4 19 listed for a slightly inflated price, but I was desperate enough, at that point, to pay the extra thirty dollars to get one. I got to the shop, gave the gun a quick once-over inspection, paid for it, and then, as I was about to leave the store with my new gun, I asked the seller if he realized that he had the only Gen 4 19 in the entire city. He said that he would not be surprised, if that were so, because the Gen 4 19 will no no longer be available for public sale for at least a year, maybe more. Wait….what? ? OK, he had my attention. I asked him why. He claims that the Department of Defense has put in a huge order for Gen 4 19s (for US Army, I think he said). Because of this, Glock has temporarily suspended all commercial sales of this model, until they can first fulfill their government contract. I told the guy that, if this were true, then Glock would have to first start manufacturing all of the guns in the States. Then, the guy tells me that they already have, and that the gun I that just bought was one of them. I opened the case again, and looked more closely at my Gen 4 19,. I was pleasantly surprised to see that he was not fooling: While I know that Glock has put out some Made in USA guns in limited numbers, in the past, the fact that my new gun has a relatively low serial number prefix, combined with the current drought on model 19 guns……. ….well, it kind of gives the gun store guy's story a bit more credence, in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 25, 2016 13:41:35 GMT -5
I've had an American made Gen 4 G19 for around a year-and-a-half. The first I've heard of a "shortage" of this particular make and model, is in this thread. It would truly be intriguing if Glock isn't making any for civilian sale, because they are filling a DoD order. How large of an order would it take, to get Glock to temporarily cease production of one of their most popular models for civilian sales?
|
|
|
Post by panzer0170 on Jan 25, 2016 16:35:54 GMT -5
I've had an American made Gen 4 G19 for around a year-and-a-half. The first I've heard of a "shortage" of this particular make and model, is in this thread. It would truly be intriguing if Glock isn't making any for civilian sale, because they are filling a DoD order. How large of an order would it take, to get Glock to temporarily cease production of one of their most popular models for civilian sales? especially given that you'd assume they'd make less money off've a contract because of bulk discounts. I know there's going to be a support package and other stuff in there too... But the civvy market must have a big mark-up on price versus someone with the buying power of the DoD....
|
|
4track
Junior Member
Posts: 276
|
Post by 4track on Jan 25, 2016 19:46:10 GMT -5
Well, all I can say is that the government contract story is a "gun store guy" theory, so take that for what it is worth.
As for the Gen 4 Glock 19 shortage, it is very real, in my local area, as well as all of the major online retailers that I regularly purchase from.
I cannot find one 'In Stock" at any of the following locations (and I have been on waiting lists for over two months): Gander Mt., DSG Arms, Rifle Gear, Copper Custom, J&G Sales, Glockmeister, etc.
I can get a Gen 4 17, all day long…but no 19.
|
|
|
Post by omnivorous on Jan 25, 2016 22:32:16 GMT -5
I've had an American made Gen 4 G19 for around a year-and-a-half. The first I've heard of a "shortage" of this particular make and model, is in this thread. It would truly be intriguing if Glock isn't making any for civilian sale, because they are filling a DoD order. How large of an order would it take, to get Glock to temporarily cease production of one of their most popular models for civilian sales? especially given that you'd assume they'd make less money off've a contract because of bulk discounts. I know there's going to be a support package and other stuff in there too... But the civvy market must have a big mark-up on price versus someone with the buying power of the DoD.... Other than gleaning the SOF community in the US armed forces having a liking for the 19, I've not know of many LEO agencies or other such groups issuing it. I'm fairly ignorant of the foreign (to the US) military and gov't agency market. My local Sheriff's Dept. issues the Glock 21 (full-sized, 45 ACP) to its deputies. I've read the FBI wants to go back to the 9mm, but I've not read of which particular make and model they would like to go with...
|
|