The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 19, 2012, 01:11 PM   #1
simonrichter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2011
Location: Austria
Posts: 363
Why doesn't the US military use Glocks?

While many PDs (I reckon the majority...) seem to use Glocks and also an lot of Fed Agencies do, the military seems to shun this gun for no obvious reason. I'm well aware of the fact that there are long-term and high quantity contracts for the M9, yet there are some SIGs and Kimbers (or other M1911 derivates) and HKs with the military and the special forces, but no Glocks...

Is it about the striker-firing issue? Or the missing external safeties? I'm pretty sure someone of those experts out there knows the answer...
simonrichter is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:14 PM   #2
RickB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2000
Location: Western WA
Posts: 5,699
Because the U.S. government has no interest in basing missiles in Austria?
RickB is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:14 PM   #3
hulley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2008
Location: Hoschton, Ga.
Posts: 717
I "think" that military pistols have to have an external hammer and a decocking lever, like FNPs, Sigs and Berettas. I have a few friends in the military and thats what was told to me.
__________________
Nov 2, 2011 sent form 4, SS Sparrow. Arrived May 29, 2012.
Jan 30, 2012 sent form 1 for SBR. Arrived July 12, 2012
Jan 22, 2013 Sent form 4, 762-SDN-6. Arrived Sept 13, 2013
hulley is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:14 PM   #4
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,422
External safety is/was the biggest reason.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:19 PM   #5
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Because there are better options.
jmortimer is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:28 PM   #6
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,103
Quote:
I "think" that military pistols have to have an external hammer and a decocking lever
1911s? No decocking lever.

Could it just be an external hammer for pistols? Or the external safety? Or both?
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...
AZAK is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:30 PM   #7
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 4,349
I was under the impression that an external hammer and a manual safety were preferred.
__________________
Guns don't kill people. Apes with guns kill people! - Robin Williams
TunnelRat is online now  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:36 PM   #8
dajowi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 2, 2005
Posts: 976
If we'd just stuck with what worked with the .45 we wouldn't be going through all the wasted time and money looking for a new handgun every few years.
dajowi is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:37 PM   #9
cannonfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 497
Because they only go for the aesthetically pleasing.
1911, M9,.... Han Solo's blaster...
__________________
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti - Dante

Blaming guns for crime is like blaming the planes for 9/11
cannonfire is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:42 PM   #10
9mm1033
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2005
Location: A big city with far too many cars and people.
Posts: 932
Why not the S&W M&P as well. Why advertise M&P when only police use it, not the military. I always thought any military issue "stuff" was the lowest bid. Plus any unknown shady negotiations that we the public are unaware of.
__________________
No one reads or cares what is written in ones signature box. So I'm not writing anything worth reading or remembering.
9mm1033 is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:43 PM   #11
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 4,349
Quote:
If we'd just stuck with what worked with the .45 we wouldn't be going through all the wasted time and money looking for a new handgun every few years.
I think far more speculation about service sidearms occurs on the internet than the actual military. The Join Combat Pistol program is long dead, as is its successor the Combat Pistol program. The US military recently bought a large quantity of new Berettas. The M9, or M9A1, isn't going anywhere any time soon. There are a lot more important problems on the table right now.
__________________
Guns don't kill people. Apes with guns kill people! - Robin Williams
TunnelRat is online now  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:44 PM   #12
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 4,349
Quote:
Why advertise M&P when only police use it, not the military.
It's the spiritual successor to their older M&P line of revolvers.
__________________
Guns don't kill people. Apes with guns kill people! - Robin Williams
TunnelRat is online now  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:46 PM   #13
Crow Hunter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2012
Posts: 1,078
Actually some of them do.

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=115792

1st SFOD-D has been using them for a while and according to my Glock Armorer's course they were the driving force behind the creation of the extended .40 Glock magazine. I think there may be others that use them as well. But they are highly trained units that get to pick what they want, not a general issue item.

There hasn't been a Joint Service Pistol trial for Glock or any of the new polymer handguns to compete in.

The one that chose the Beretta happened before most of the polymer 9's existed.
__________________
I am no longer participating in gun forums.

Good luck.
Crow Hunter is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 01:48 PM   #14
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Its possible that the M9 could be replaced, at least according to the article below, from last years Army Times.

Pistols with a shot at replacing the M9
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 02:33 PM   #15
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,892
There's a number of reasons, from features not present (decocker/safety) to location of manufacture (the US government prefers its weapons to be produced on our own shores; Glock until recently has only made them in Austria), to other things too.

Moreover, the G17 was developed in 1982; the Beretta M9 was selected in trials in 1985; while the G17 could have taken part in that trial (it was in existence), it wasn't part of them.

The Glock design makes for a good gun, but it's hardly the only good pistol out there. Short of a huge advantage (which, in truth, it doesn't have), there's little point in switching everything over from the M9 on a large scale. It's not good enough for a potential replacement to be marginally better, it has to be good enough to justify millions (if not billions) of dollars spent to buy the guns, train the troops, get all the spare parts and magazines, and so on. I just don't know that anything out there is good enough to justify a change of that scale.
Technosavant is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 02:47 PM   #16
TMD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2011
Posts: 489
Funny thing is I was in the service when we switched over from 1911's to the M9. Before the M9 came into service everyone hated their 1911's and couldn't shoot them from crap. No sooner then we get the M9's everyone started saying I miss my 1911 even though their qualification scores improved. I've bet a dollar to a doughnut that if the military today switched to the latest wiz bang handgun a majority of service members would cry foul and say how they miss the M9.
TMD is online now  
Old November 19, 2012, 02:47 PM   #17
leadchucker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2011
Location: NC
Posts: 252
I would bet that Glock could produce a model with a safety if that would land them a lucrative contract with the US military.
leadchucker is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 02:52 PM   #18
PH/CIB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 281
As I have stated before I would prefer, for the size and weight, to carry an extra fully loaded rifle magazine and/or a hand grenade or two and skip the pistol.

That being said if I was going back into combat and had to carry a handgun, I would pick the Glock. If you have ever lived out of a rucksack, with everything food, water, shelter, defense being carried in a pack on your back, you want to shave every ounce that you can....the last time I did a comparison the Glock while not the best at anything was the best compromise and the lightest still reliable still combat accurate high capacity handgun made.

The Military does not like it because it has no safety,,,I see that as a huge advantage as no handgun should be carried without a holster that completely protects the trigger guard and if I draw the handgun I intend to use it and the safety is just something to get in the way and take precious time even if it is just a split second, also something to potentially forget in the stress of potential death.

Remember Mil-Spec,,,is not always the best but the best the Military is willing to pay for that gets the job done,,,if you have the time to do the research and the extra money to spend you can in many cases find better than Mil-Spec but as the other posters have noted,,,it probably makes no sense economically or politically to replace the Beretta at this time except for special missions requiring a special handgun somewhat better for the job.
__________________
Life Member,,,Military Order of the Purple Heart, Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion, Amvets, Disabled American Veterans, 173rd Airborne Skysoldier Association, National Rifle Association, Member,,,IDPA, USPSA, Iowa Sheriffs and Deputies Association,,Website http://www.handgunholsters.net
PH/CIB is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 02:52 PM   #19
Eppie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 795
I agree with Leadchucker, if it had a safety switch it would be no contest. Especially if they fielded a G34.
__________________
"Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.” -Vladimir Lenin
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson (An early warning to Obama care)

Last edited by Eppie; November 19, 2012 at 02:57 PM. Reason: I agree wit Leadchucker
Eppie is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 02:54 PM   #20
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,690
Short answer:

Because the military already has hundreds of thousands of M9s, and the Glock does not offer enough advantage to justify their replacement (and associated training & parts costs). So what if the Glock offers some incremental advantages (lighter weight, etc.). The M9 is already "good enough".
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 03:30 PM   #21
ScotchMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2011
Posts: 1,354
What they're interested in doing is going back to a .45. The 9mm in FMJ just isn't good enough. So the question isn't why not Glocks, its why not a .45. The answer is money and politics. The military isn't in the habit of buying the best of anything. Cost plays a much larger role.
__________________
Everyday Loadout

NRA Instructor
NRA Member
ScotchMan is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 03:33 PM   #22
drail
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2008
Posts: 3,150
"Because the U.S. doesn't need cruise missile bases in Austria." LOL, there's more truth to that statement than you would probably believe. Defense spending is all about politicians making money for their buddies.

Last edited by drail; November 19, 2012 at 03:39 PM.
drail is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 03:35 PM   #23
TMD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 9, 2011
Posts: 489
Unless NATO adopts the .45acp as the standard the US military will not go back to it. Yes I know the Marines Special Ops is going with the .45 but thats a different story all together. What SOCOM wants SOCOM gets.
TMD is online now  
Old November 19, 2012, 04:02 PM   #24
drail
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2008
Posts: 3,150
All hail SOCOM.
drail is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 04:09 PM   #25
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 4,349
Quote:
I've bet a dollar to a doughnut that if the military today switched to the latest wiz bang handgun a majority of service members would cry foul and say how they miss the M9.
+1x10^9.

Quote:
I agree with Leadchucker, if it had a safety switch it would be no contest. Especially if they fielded a G34.
There are striker-fired pistols out there with safeties and have been so for years. Honestly I still think they'll prefer a hammer fired gun. Think about Tevye in Fiddler on the Rood: "Tradition!". (and yes I know that striker fired pistols have been around a long time).

Quote:
The military isn't in the habit of buying the best of anything. Cost plays a much larger role.
Yes and no. The idea that all military gear is crap is simply wrong. The M9, the M16, the M1A1 Abrams, from small to big these are all decent tools. Are they the absolute best? No probably not, though I'd argue "best" is subjective. In terms of performance, in terms of cost, or in terms of a mixture of both?

I'll say this again, how important is a military sidearm, really? Now for us civilians who mostly carry sidearms, it can be very important. But wars are not won/lost on pistols. The primary issue to US soldiers is a rifle for good reason. A pistol is a last ditch defense. In the grand scheme they are not that important, and with the deficit we're facing and the DoD cuts to come it isn't even on the list to worry about.

Quote:
What SOCOM wants SOCOM gets.
This is no exaggeration. The amount of sway they have and their budget per capita are nuts.
__________________
Guns don't kill people. Apes with guns kill people! - Robin Williams
TunnelRat is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14457 seconds with 7 queries