British Armed Forces Adopt Glock 17 - Page 2

Tactical Jackalope · January 11, 2013, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gats Italian

Wut?

Your only SIG with a manual safety had better be the 1911.

I meant I don't like manual safeties lol. And so on and so forth.

And yes. My only SIG with a manual safety is my 1911 xo

9mm · January 11, 2013, 11:34 PM

Quote:

They are the very lowest common denominators that the Glock 17 was made for.

And the LEO's/3 letter alphabet governemnt groups throughout America who carry Glock 17,22 ?

Yeah Glock is the lowest denominator, thats why so many Leo/Militaries around world choice them and Taurus hasn't been picked.

Pico · January 11, 2013, 11:48 PM

I'm not a huge Glock fan but they could have done far worse. At least nobody is likely to get killed because their sidearm malfunctioned. I see all of those Brownings being disposed of and not being made available due to their gun laws and it seems a shame.

Pico

Doc TH · January 11, 2013, 11:56 PM

Don't own a Glock, and they really don't appeal to me, but the choice is a reasonable and sound one. Reliability is a significant advantage, and Glocks seem to have that quality in abundance. I can't think of any serious criticism of their decision.

tahunua001 · January 11, 2013, 11:56 PM

it really is the perfect match. the SA80 has been a pain in the ass Jammomatic since they addopted it so why not add the GEN4 17 into the mix. glock has had it's feet in the door with military and police for 25 years, I highly doubt that this will influence other major militaries to adopt glocks.

Noreaster · January 12, 2013, 12:45 AM

Wow this post turned ugly fast! Thank you for the information, I found it informative.

Auto426 · January 12, 2013, 12:58 AM

Quote:

On another note, how awesome would it be if those Hi-Powers were exported to the US as surplus. I'd love to get my hands on a couple real military Hi-Powers.

I think I'll stick with my new production commercial guns instead. Most of the Hi Powers in use by the British were built in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. they are probably pretty worn out by now, hence the contract for replacement.

Besides, the British attitude towards firearms (and their attitude in general) I doubt those firearms will ever leave that country in a functional state. More than likely they will be destroyed and scrapped.

Scouse · January 12, 2013, 07:03 AM

The UK Brownings were initially Inglis Hi-powers from Canada. As they started to get a bit long in the tooth they were replaced by a new buy of Belgian made guns in (I think) the 90's.

I sincerely doubt they will end up on the commercial market anywhere. That said, surplus SLRs were given out as aid to ''friendly'' forces, mostly in Africa after the adoption of the L85. Naturally, UK forces ended up fighting men armed with those very same rifles in Sierra Leone.

Auto426 - what is this ''attitude in general'' that the British have then?

PSP · January 12, 2013, 07:30 AM

As the soldier said, it seems one of the reasons the Glock was chosen is

because they can attach a torch. I wonder how they light it?

Scouse · January 12, 2013, 08:12 AM

PSP - Tactical Bic disposables are de rigueur

BerdanSS · January 12, 2013, 08:27 AM

I'd rather be given a new hi-power. Or maybe ya know, the even better gun it was designed after...

Not saying the glock is all bad, but for the life of me though I can't understand why anyone would want to adopt that mangy mongrel of a gen 4....the 3 is much better for military use. ( I'd still take an M9 over a G17 any day of the week)

To the Brits...You'll have to excuse the malice of some in this thread. They'er just angry because you call fries, chips.

But I'll thank you for your great contribution to this country...stout

To you all with the attitude, I'd rather fight and die next to a limey (or Aussie) any day than next to anyone east of the first and north of the last.

Scouse I think auto is confused and getting ya'll having an attitude crossed up with those "things" some refer to as the french.

Gats Italian · January 12, 2013, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Yeah Glock is the lowest denominator, thats why so many Leo/Militaries around world choice them and Taurus hasn't been picked.

It's not the Glock that is the LCD, it's the users. The Glock was designed for people who couldn't shoot before showing up to boot camp—socialist summer conscripts who had never seen a real firearm before—therefore having no knowledge base from which to critique the misshapen lump they are issued.

As most feds/cops are rather in that same type of pool, not handgun enthusiasts in the main, and their sidearms are selected for them by bureaucratic accountants, so what's all the fuss about that being the actual situation?

Strafer Gott · January 12, 2013, 09:54 AM

Berdan, the idea of fighting next to these guys is to skip that dying part, we just ain't that into it. Let those farfield buggers do that bit. I shoot a G17. It's a service pistol, nothing more, nothing less.

Tactical Jackalope · January 12, 2013, 10:11 AM

Gats Italian..I really want to have a seriously talk with you. I'm so curious to why you actually hate Glocks so much. lol...I get it, I don't like Taurus. I don't stomp on any Taurus threads. Unless they're about the PT-145 Millennium. I personally had that clunker.

Did you ever own a Glock? What happened to you and Glocks?

It's like finding a dead clown in a field when you're a child..You'll forever hate clowns..

Did you find a dead Glock in a field?

PM me if anything. Don't want to add to this anymore than what it's at already.

edit: good call three. good call

Billy Shears · January 12, 2013, 10:41 AM

I just don't get the level of emotion here. Maybe I'm out of touch.

Here's my two cents worth anyway:

1. Glocks work as designed and have a very simple manual of arms. Therefore we should not be surprised to see them so popular among military and LEO forces all over the world. The selection was not likely made by accountants.

2. In my experience the British military is a serious and capable fighting force who are perfectly competent to decide for themselves what sidearm to issue. [And a first rate ally as well. THANK YOU.] They don't need help from internet gun forums. Glock would not have been my first choice, I prefer the M&P, but the Glock is a valid choice backed by a lot of experience.

3. While in the Army I was issued an M9. It had been used and abused and had little finish left, but it shot great. It was very accurate and very reliable. It had a manual safety. I just learned to use it and became quite proficient with it.

Anyways, let's try to be more civil. This is a great forum and a pretty good thread, but it is likely in danger of being locked up if we can't get along.

BerdanSS · January 12, 2013, 11:10 AM

Strafer Too true, for the enemy that is.

to quote Patton...."let that B@#$#$^ die for his country, you live for yours!...shoot HIM in the belly...we'll go through them like $#^& through a goose."

My point was against the negative tone in this thread about the British in general. Some here made some pretty stern comments the appear to be pointed directly at other MEMBERS that posted in this thread. No reason for all that.

If I may ask sir, do you carry a glock as a police officer? I know pretty
much all of the LEA here are using Glocks. Our town police are issued the G21 SF.

Catfishman · January 12, 2013, 11:30 AM

This started as an interesting thread. I get it, some people don't respect Glock and some don't respect the Brits. Who cares?!

Does anyone have any insight into how likely we are to see surplus Browning Hi Powers?

RC20 · January 12, 2013, 11:56 AM

T

Quote:

his started as an interesting thread. I get it, some people don't respect Glock and some don't respect the Brits. Who cares?!

Well I do care and believe that we should respect the Allies who have fought alongside us (be the conflict right or wrong).

Europe was protected by the US post WWII and very few of those countries really had anything substantial to contribute to the continental defense. The Brits were one group that did. Bless them.

If you read the accounts, the German military which would have been the first hit by the Soviets were hollow. The Brits have proven they can fight and fight effectively and without the robust backing the US forces have. That should be respected.

As for glocks, bleaah. Read the book, personally I have no use for them

And no, Sig does not have a safety but its DA pull is far safer than the glocks.

British equipment procurement is another issue and sadly politics gets involved (the business of buying a piece of equipment and then fiddling with it and adding huge costs to a costly system is a serious problem). The Aussies as of late have simply picked off the shelf US equipment so they get a proven product that works with their mostly likely ally (US).

While I wish the British forces the best with their side arm choice, I feel its the worst one they could have chosen.

Strafer Gott · January 12, 2013, 11:57 AM

No, I'm way too old for LE. It's my GMTHOH option. It's an outstanding good luck charm. I hate to say it out loud, but it's a tool, like a Black&Decker. I have genetic Austrian meathooks, what can I say? Everything fits. The trigger is close enough. Those Fobus Holsters are great for getting it high and back.

WVsig · January 12, 2013, 12:02 PM

Quote:

On another note, how awesome would it be if those Hi-Powers were exported to the US as surplus. I'd love to get my hands on a couple real military Hi-Powers.

With the current state of things I doubt you will see these guns imported into the US but if you want a gun that was used in combat/military they can be found right now on gun broker. Guys like PW Arms have been bringing in surplus BHPs from places like Israeli for a long time. The gun pictured below is an Israeli defense force gun.

Quote:

I think I'll stick with my new production commercial guns instead. Most of the Hi Powers in use by the British were built in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. they are probably pretty worn out by now, hence the contract for replacement.

This has no basis in fact. The guns which are being used by the Brits do not have internal extractors. Take a look at his famous Brit who served in Afghanistan. If you look closely you can see the external extractor which knocks out BHPs from the 40s and 50's and most from the 60's IIRC. The BHP clearly has an ambi safety and spurred hammer. The grips are MKII or MKIII plastic not the older wood. The gun is clearly a MKII or MKIII which would make it no older than 1982. Also it does not appear to have a rib on the top of the slide which would make it a MKIII which was introduced in 1988.

Quote:

Does anyone have any insight into how likely we are to see surplus Browning Hi Powers?

No no sight but again in the current climate I do not see any new mass important of surplus guns into the US.

Scouse · January 12, 2013, 01:47 PM

Nice to see not everybody here holds such a negative views of my country.

BedanSS - Stout is indeed the drink of the gods. The real black gold!

UK military procurement has a long and depressing history of some gloriously absurd decisions. Some really good ones too, along the way, but it is the bad ones that stick out . . . like the present overly heavy and only-reliable-after-paying-the-Germans-loads-to-fix-it service rifle. The Glock doesn't strike me as a bad one by any means, though. Good tool for the job, a service pistol.

WVsig - exactly, that Hi-power is from a second batch of procurement. Most certainly not 40's and 50's.

Tucker 1371 · January 12, 2013, 02:07 PM

Quote:

OP Maybe our own military will get over their fear too.

I hope not. Everyone's complaint with the M9 is that the grip is freaking huge. I have a Glock and the more I hold it the better it feels but I still like my 1911's grip better by a country mile. Glock's grips just SUCK. That and I know people that I would definitely NOT feel comfortable with if they didn't have a safety. MARSOC just went with the 1911, the SEALs use a Sig (or whatever they want), the rest of us need a gun that doesn't require Gorilla hands to grip.

Auto426 · January 12, 2013, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Auto426 - what is this ''attitude in general'' that the British have then?

Probably the fact that they banned almost everything but a few select sporting weapons for civilian ownership. I don't see them going that far to restrict gun ownership of their own people and then turning around and selling a bunch of surplus semi-auto handguns to another country for civilian ownership.

Quote:

This has no basis in fact. The guns which are being used by the Brits do not have internal extractors.

So Prince Harry has a newer gun. The British officially adopted the Hi Power in the 1950's. You think they just threw away all the older ones the second they got a few newer ones?

WVsig · January 12, 2013, 02:26 PM

Quote:

So Prince Harry has a newer gun. The British officially adopted the Hi Power in the 1950's. You think they just threw away all the older ones the second they got a few newer ones?
__________________

Yes or sold them as surplus as parts for those guns were no longer available. You are demonstrating that you know very little about the BHP. If you knew anything about BHPs with internal extractors you would know that they it is a design which is prone to breakage. NO one not even Browning/FN still makes the internal extractor. They are very hard to come by and no professional standing Army including the British are putting these into combat service because there is no way to support them the the field. Parts are simply not available.

Why not just admit you where wrong?

Scouse · January 12, 2013, 02:32 PM

Exactly WVsig, they were known for breaking when returning to battery.

Auto426 - except that isn't really what you said is it, you said their attitude to firearms, which would be covered by your reply there. Then you said "and their attitude in general", which clearly reads like you are talking about something else, you know, "in general" as opposed to "towards firearms".

So, what is this general attitude?

January 11, 2013, 11:48 PM	#28
Pico Senior Member Join Date: July 5, 2002 Location: Ga Posts: 515	Glock 17 for UK military I'm not a huge Glock fan but they could have done far worse. At least nobody is likely to get killed because their sidearm malfunctioned. I see all of those Brownings being disposed of and not being made available due to their gun laws and it seems a shame. Pico

January 11, 2013, 11:56 PM	#30
tahunua001 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 7,839	it really is the perfect match. the SA80 has been a pain in the ass Jammomatic since they addopted it so why not add the GEN4 17 into the mix. glock has had it's feet in the door with military and police for 25 years, I highly doubt that this will influence other major militaries to adopt glocks. __________________ ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin

January 12, 2013, 10:11 AM	#39
Tactical Jackalope Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2010 Location: Miami, Florida Posts: 6,429	Gats Italian..I really want to have a seriously talk with you. I'm so curious to why you actually hate Glocks so much. lol...I get it, I don't like Taurus. I don't stomp on any Taurus threads. Unless they're about the PT-145 Millennium. I personally had that clunker. Did you ever own a Glock? What happened to you and Glocks? It's like finding a dead clown in a field when you're a child..You'll forever hate clowns.. Did you find a dead Glock in a field? PM me if anything. Don't want to add to this anymore than what it's at already. edit: good call three. good call Last edited by Tactical Jackalope; January 12, 2013 at 10:44 AM. Reason: three dog

January 12, 2013, 11:10 AM	#41
BerdanSS Senior Member Join Date: April 3, 2011 Location: to close to other houses Posts: 1,176	Strafer Too true, for the enemy that is. to quote Patton...."let that B@#$#$^ die for his country, you live for yours!...shoot HIM in the belly...we'll go through them like $#^& through a goose." My point was against the negative tone in this thread about the British in general. Some here made some pretty stern comments the appear to be pointed directly at other MEMBERS that posted in this thread. No reason for all that. If I may ask sir, do you carry a glock as a police officer? I know pretty much all of the LEA here are using Glocks. Our town police are issued the G21 SF. Last edited by BerdanSS; January 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM.

January 11, 2013, 11:56 PM	#29
Doc TH Senior Member Join Date: December 15, 2005 Posts: 633	Don't own a Glock, and they really don't appeal to me, but the choice is a reasonable and sound one. Reliability is a significant advantage, and Glocks seem to have that quality in abundance. I can't think of any serious criticism of their decision.

January 12, 2013, 12:45 AM	#31
Noreaster Senior Member Join Date: January 30, 2011 Location: New England Posts: 1,449	Wow this post turned ugly fast! Thank you for the information, I found it informative.

January 12, 2013, 07:03 AM	#33
Scouse Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2011 Posts: 133	The UK Brownings were initially Inglis Hi-powers from Canada. As they started to get a bit long in the tooth they were replaced by a new buy of Belgian made guns in (I think) the 90's. I sincerely doubt they will end up on the commercial market anywhere. That said, surplus SLRs were given out as aid to ''friendly'' forces, mostly in Africa after the adoption of the L85. Naturally, UK forces ended up fighting men armed with those very same rifles in Sierra Leone. Auto426 - what is this ''attitude in general'' that the British have then?

January 12, 2013, 07:30 AM	#34
PSP Senior Member Join Date: June 2, 2006 Location: Bowling Green Virginia Posts: 4,487	As the soldier said, it seems one of the reasons the Glock was chosen is because they can attach a torch. I wonder how they light it?

January 12, 2013, 08:12 AM	#35
Scouse Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2011 Posts: 133	PSP - Tactical Bic disposables are de rigueur

January 12, 2013, 08:27 AM	#36
BerdanSS Senior Member Join Date: April 3, 2011 Location: to close to other houses Posts: 1,176	I'd rather be given a new hi-power. Or maybe ya know, the even better gun it was designed after... Not saying the glock is all bad, but for the life of me though I can't understand why anyone would want to adopt that mangy mongrel of a gen 4....the 3 is much better for military use. ( I'd still take an M9 over a G17 any day of the week) To the Brits...You'll have to excuse the malice of some in this thread. They'er just angry because you call fries, chips. But I'll thank you for your great contribution to this country...stout To you all with the attitude, I'd rather fight and die next to a limey (or Aussie) any day than next to anyone east of the first and north of the last. Scouse I think auto is confused and getting ya'll having an attitude crossed up with those "things" some refer to as the french.

January 12, 2013, 09:54 AM	#38
Strafer Gott Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2011 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,315	Berdan, the idea of fighting next to these guys is to skip that dying part, we just ain't that into it. Let those farfield buggers do that bit. I shoot a G17. It's a service pistol, nothing more, nothing less.

January 12, 2013, 10:41 AM	#40
Billy Shears Senior Member Join Date: January 17, 2011 Posts: 606	I just don't get the level of emotion here. Maybe I'm out of touch. Here's my two cents worth anyway: 1. Glocks work as designed and have a very simple manual of arms. Therefore we should not be surprised to see them so popular among military and LEO forces all over the world. The selection was not likely made by accountants. 2. In my experience the British military is a serious and capable fighting force who are perfectly competent to decide for themselves what sidearm to issue. [And a first rate ally as well. THANK YOU.] They don't need help from internet gun forums. Glock would not have been my first choice, I prefer the M&P, but the Glock is a valid choice backed by a lot of experience. 3. While in the Army I was issued an M9. It had been used and abused and had little finish left, but it shot great. It was very accurate and very reliable. It had a manual safety. I just learned to use it and became quite proficient with it. Anyways, let's try to be more civil. This is a great forum and a pretty good thread, but it is likely in danger of being locked up if we can't get along.

January 12, 2013, 11:30 AM	#42
Catfishman Senior Member Join Date: February 10, 2009 Location: Mississippi Posts: 727	This started as an interesting thread. I get it, some people don't respect Glock and some don't respect the Brits. Who cares?! Does anyone have any insight into how likely we are to see surplus Browning Hi Powers?

January 12, 2013, 11:57 AM	#44
Strafer Gott Senior Member Join Date: May 12, 2011 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,315	No, I'm way too old for LE. It's my GMTHOH option. It's an outstanding good luck charm. I hate to say it out loud, but it's a tool, like a Black&Decker. I have genetic Austrian meathooks, what can I say? Everything fits. The trigger is close enough. Those Fobus Holsters are great for getting it high and back.

January 12, 2013, 01:47 PM	#46
Scouse Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2011 Posts: 133	Nice to see not everybody here holds such a negative views of my country. BedanSS - Stout is indeed the drink of the gods. The real black gold! UK military procurement has a long and depressing history of some gloriously absurd decisions. Some really good ones too, along the way, but it is the bad ones that stick out . . . like the present overly heavy and only-reliable-after-paying-the-Germans-loads-to-fix-it service rifle. The Glock doesn't strike me as a bad one by any means, though. Good tool for the job, a service pistol. WVsig - exactly, that Hi-power is from a second batch of procurement. Most certainly not 40's and 50's.

January 12, 2013, 02:32 PM	#50
Scouse Senior Member Join Date: June 9, 2011 Posts: 133	Exactly WVsig, they were known for breaking when returning to battery. Auto426 - except that isn't really what you said is it, you said their attitude to firearms, which would be covered by your reply there. Then you said "and their attitude in general", which clearly reads like you are talking about something else, you know, "in general" as opposed to "towards firearms". So, what is this general attitude?