MARSOC chooses 9mm
The Marine Corps Times reports that special operators in the Marine Corps will be carrying Glock 19s in 9 millimeter from now on instead of the venerable 1911 in .45 ACP;
“We put our money behind the 9mm round fired by an extremely well-trained marksman carrying a Glock 19,” [Major Nick Mannweiler, a spokesman for Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command] told Marine Corps Times.
Since last year, MARSOC has purchased and fielded 1,654 Glock 19s because Raiders needed a reliable secondary weapon “that could be used for both a concealed carry profile and a low-visibility profile,” and having one approved pistol for all special operators saves money, he said.
Of course, I disagree. They might as well go back to using the .38 Special. The 9mm performs better than the .38 but the bullet is about the same size – the .45 replaced the .38 during the Philippine Insurrection because doped-up Moros needed incentive to stay down and the .38 wasn’t doing it.
The low-visibility profile thing is bullshit – I have a Glock 30 (.45 cal double-stack 10 round magazine) that is one of my concealed carry weapons and it’s practically invisible in a waistband holster.
The .45-caliber round is also more expensive than its 9mm counterpart, Clapperton said.
Yeah, no one whose life depends on a weapon wants to hear that as a reason to get the other weapon.
Category: Marine Corps
As I’ve said before, glocks are popular because they’re cheap, not because they’re good.
And since when is a full-size glock 19 more concealable than a 1911? They’re the same Goddamn size!
As for the switch to 9, why not a Sig P-226/228, or perhaps Springfield XD (cheaper than the glock, still plastic, better gun than Glock ever dreamed of), or CZ (just acquired a -75B as a fun gun, wife loves it, easy to shoot, works BEAUTIFULLY)?
Glocks are cheap, and they give what you pay for.
I first owned a glock 19. I could fire any type of 9mm ammo in it and never had a jam. Only thing I didn’t like about it is that it’s so light. Then I bought a ruger p-95 and it jammed so I was told to use sand paper on it.
I know several people whose glocks run great. I also know others whose glocks run like jam-o-matic shit. My uncle’s .40cal glock exploded in his hand at the range this last spring–shooting factory ammo, no less! Yes, “glock kaboom” is a real thing. It seems to happen more with .40s, though. Higher-pressure load, makes sense. I do not own a glock, nor will I ever. I have shot several, and hated every one of them. Uncomfortable grip, horrible grip angle, didn’t point naturally, and no engageable safety. Why is the lack of an external safety an issue? I’m very safe with firearms, and haven’t had a single negligent discharge in my 32 years of breathing, but shit happens. I carry a pistol when I hike, which is often, as repellent for large felines that might otherwise dispute my claim to the dominant position at the top of the food chain. I carry cocked & locked with the safety engaged. I prefer a 1911, but can do the same with a HiPower (which I did until I got my first 1911, then gave the HiPower to my little sister) or a CZ-75. My 1911 has a lot more failsafe features than any glock, but I don’t take a chance: it rides the holster with the safety engaged. If I need to draw and fire, there’s no “extra step,” because my thumb disengages the safety as it naturally sweeps downward to get a shooting grip as I draw, and because I practice like a motherfucker to ensure that very natural motion is as natural and subconscious as possible. Am I a high-speed “operator?” No. I’m aware that these guys train a lot more than I do with their weapons. But shit happens. Ever seen a cop with a hole through his foot because he didn’t keep his booger hook off the bang switch when he drew his glock? I have. Shit happens. Why does an AR-15/M16/M4 selector have a SAFE position? Aren’t the guys running them sufficiently trained, proficient, and skilled to not need a safety? Like I said, shit happens. Glocks… Read more »
There’s more ignorant comments in those 5 paragraphs than I’ve read in the last 5 years.
Which part exactly? The part about not every glock being the most perfect and unbreakable thing they’ve ever shot, the part where it fails to be idiot-proof, the part where nobody is infallible, or the one where I admit that my own personal preference doesn’t necessarily make my favorite gun the best one ever in an objective sense?
All I did was offer some valid points, along with my own opinion that was admitted up front to be nothing more. Perhaps you’d care to offer a rebuttal, instead of just trolling?
I just find it funny that in one breath you claim not to be an operator, and in the next you opine what operators should carry.
Your beef about the lack of safeties on the Glock is a training issue, not a hardware issue. The first safety on any weapon system is between the ears. I’ve have witnessed a loaded Glock 21 be dropped on a concrete floor and nothing happened. Try that with a 1911 and see what parts need replaced after. Glock has 3 built in safeties, the classic 1911 only two. The Series 80 guns have 3, so its a wash.
In my time as a cop, rangemaster, instructor and working in gunshops, I’ve heard all the bullshit arguments and seen what works and what doesn’t. There’s a good reason Glock has an 80+% share of the US police market – they work.
I would challenge you to look up and join the Primary & Secondary forum and repost what you’ve posted here. I guarantee you will get an education, IF you have an open mind.
I never said my opinion was gold, just that it was my opinion. I didn’t say they should pick anything else, either. I discussed why I personally prefer a 1911, HP, or CZ, but nowhere did I say that any of those is THE end-all-be-all of sidearms. The closest I got to saying anything like that was “why not the_____?” You act like I insulted your mom.
I get the “training issue” argument, and don’t necessarily disagree. But nobody is immune to human error, no matter how badass they are. And those passive safety features don’t do a damned thing about human error.
Personally, I find it funny that I always hear how absurdly-perfect glocks are, yet my own experience includes some glocks that run great, quite a few that run like ass, and one that blew the fuck up from a factory-standard .40-cal load, despite having been clean and functional immediately prior (and owned by a guy who knows his guns and takes care of them, glocks included. Keeping in mind that my experience as a recreation/hunting/home defense shooter is somewhat limited in scope, why have I seen so many glocks fail to live up to the hype? If they’re so great, I would think that I should see few, if any problems. Despite my personal dislike for glocks, I took the “glock kaboom” issue with a grain of salt until it happened with my uncle’s glock 22. Am I just a magnet for the shitty outliers, or is the hype perhaps a bit exaggerated?
If I had to guess, you’re a magnet for shitty outliers. Have a great day. And, please visit Primary & Secondary and get some education.
Touching on the “safety” issue, essentially, they lack one. A “safety” in the classic sense prevents the pulling of the trigger. The Glock trigger has a pivoting piece of plastic on it that prevents pulling the trigger as long as the trigger isn’t pulled.
I am really puzzled as to what it is intended to accomplish.
Revolvers, usually, have no trigger-blocking safety, other than a very long and heavy trigger pull. The Glock, in effect, behaves as a revolver with a relatively light trigger pull.
Contrast the M-1911 or HP-35 design with a thumb-operated trigger-blocking safety. If the safety is on, the trigger cannot be pulled, and the safety is not on the trigger where both are operated by the same force.
I wouldn’t feed unsafe or unarmed carrying any Glock product. I particularly like the G29 small-frame 10mm. But I am double-extra careful hostering/reholstering any Glock product, as a shirt-tail in the holster top is a potential “Kaboom” that is absent in sidearms with a more conventional safety.
Provided, of course, that one actually remembers to put that conventional safety -on-, before holstering.
I much prefer the M-1911. Of course, it was my first non-.22 pistol, I trained and competed extensively with it,and my ability to hit with it quickly is far and away better than any other handgun I have ever used. I have shot single-action revolvers in competition for over 15 years, and I am sill far and away better with a 1911. (Pop was demonstrably a master trainer and instructor.)
Cut your teeth on a Glock, use it for 20 years, and the 1911 would probably be the anti-Goldilocks gun.
The Glock will work in a military environment. There will be costs associated with the design. This is true of any handgun. We shall see.
They actually do make a cz in 45, look up the cz 97.
That’s bullshyt! Glocks hold up to any treatment thrown at them….! as for a Glock 30 being low profile, my ass, it is thick and big and does not conceal well…don’t ask me how I know!!
Some glocks do. Others evidently don’t. YMMV concerning what percentage fall into each category. I just roll my eyes every time I hear the “indestructible glock” spiel, for the reasons listed above.
“Concealment” is highly dependant on body shape and what one wears.
I am a rather tall, wide, bulky person. With a jacket a size or two big I can conceal -huge- sidearms. With a single-point sling and a too-big topcoat, I can conceal a Winchester 94 -rifle- with a 16″ barrel.
Now, a person who is 5’6 and weighs 110 pounds, athletic build and wears form-fitting clothing, will have trouble concealing a J-frame Smith & Wesson.
Wider guns are harder to conceal, as are ones with long grips. But if you are willing to dress around the gun, you can conceal almost any handgun, -provided- you are not -tiny-.
The almost-always missed topic on concealment? -Body language-. Stop “checking” the gun. Stop tugging down at the shirt/jacket hem (Picard maneuver) every time you move. Stop “hovering” the gun hand near the gun every time you notice something. If you have to fuss with the rig or the covering garment, they are -wrong- for you. Fix it!
One other item: stop going cheap on the belt! Don’t build a building on loose sand, get a real, purpose-made -stiff- gunbelt. Ditto cheap/garbage holsters. Get real ones purpose made by a decent maker.
Might want to encourage the men who carry these to also carry a good knife — that way they don’t have to resort to their fists when they get overhauled by a crazy, jacked-up, wounded jihadi.
Corps got a new bayonet in 2003. It’s a serious blade.
Well, they have to buy the cheapest weapon they can find since they need the savings for all those gender bending operations.
Oh, and before I forget – Fuck off, Lars!
In that case, they should have bought Hi-Point (laughing self damn near to death).
As long as it goes ‘BANG!’ and is reliable, is it really important what the size is?
High velocity, low weight 9MM can often go through with little damage to critical organs Ex-PH2. But a low velocity, high weight .45 stops inside and does its damage and the energy lose on the target is nearly full, meaning they should hit the deck on a center mass hit. Not just my target practice experience with the .45 either, but seeing it in the real word of Infantry combat as well.
You know, we keep telling women that, but some of you women folk are just unsatisfied with smaller sizes.
Oh, not that I know anything about that, I’ve just heard it from a couple friends.
We Irish after much harassment throughout the ages have decided to use millimeters when discussing “equipment” – therefore we start with a “yuge” 10 millimeters (instead of inches) when getting personal hoping that the opposite party is half deaf and mostly blind.
We girls keep saying it’s not the size of the equipment that matters, it’s how well it functions that is most important.
It ain’t the train…it’s the Engineer!
Oops, hit report not reply. Sorry
Your comment leaves the proverbial barn door wide open
Like Jonn I carry a .45 Glock 30 with double stack 10 round. Conceals well, low profile and with range time, hits what I want it to…every time. 9MM? I don’t want to use 4 or 5 rounds out of 19 to put a threat down. Cheaper ammo? Probably because they still have a shitload of stockpile left over from the Beretta days. MARSOC as are all Operators are expert small arms marksmen and 1 or 2 rounds from a .45 center mass sure a shit “puts them on the ground” and if you then need a head shot to keep ’em quiet, okay.
I’m sure some politician somewhere got a nice little kickback for getting them to switch to the glock. A proven inferior weapon.
I take your point well Wompwomp and understand the issues some have had with Glock. I have never had a Glock fail on me. But I am persistent about maintenance and parts inspection after every outing at the range. But…I do so love my 1911 as well as my Sig P220 Carry.
I love my Sig P2022, great gun.
You are correct about local politics driving weapons selection though. here, they decided on the 9MM for 2 years and when the officers complained to high heaven they went to the .40
I have a friend who has a personal M9. However, he doesn’t by the ammo that the military does. He buys much better and more powerful ammo for his. He likes it for himself, which is his choice.
However comma the military doesn’t buy the best of anything. (i.e., F35) The lowest bidder gets the deal and the cheapest ammo is what they get.
I tried out glock along with a bunch of other brands when I was buying my pistol years ago. I really really didn’t like firing it. I ended up settling on an HK USP .40. I was hoping for a .45 but that was back when Obama was gun salesman of the year for about 5 years straight so it was tough getting a .45 but I do like my HK.
But if you believe that they chose just on what the best pistol is with zero other factors (politics, influence, lobbyists, ammo stock piles, etc), I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.
How as a vet can you sit there and type out such bullshit about “lowest bidder”? You know damn well that’s not realtity. I’m so tired of hearing this bullshit myth and you should know better.
Contracts go to the lowest qualified vendor whose product meets the specification. This has been true since the Roman Legions (when troops were issued gear instead of providing their own) and will be true until Jesus comes back. It is true in government, education and industry. Not myth, not bullshit. Faulty specifications and criminal behavior can and do happen but they are exceptions to the rule.
yeah, but they write the specifications most of the time to meet the product they want – which is not just the ‘lowest cost’. If it were, we would not constantly see the Feds buying the $600 hammers and whatnot.Gotta agree with fatcircles on this one. Otherwise they would buy KelTecs.
As long as 9mm is NATO standard it will be the caliber of choice. And with ball ammo, real-world data says first-round stops with EITHER .45 or 9mm hovers in the 70-75% range. Why do you think we are switching to JHPs?
I have long heard the arguments of 9mm vs .40 vs .45 in law enforcement circles. Last year I attended a LE course and the FBI gave a presentation on ballistics. 9mm rounds have improved to the point where their performance is at or better than the .40. You also get the added bonus of less recoil and more bullets. You don’t need a cannon to kill or wound.
As far as Glock vs other brands. Its nice always being in single action, not worrying about a safety, its light and modular
And then they’ll put the cheapest piece of crap 9mm bullets in those glocks that don’t live up to the 9mm variety you refer to by a long shot.
I have seen a few such comparisons, but they often compare a high-tech / new-tech 9 mm with an old-tech or even ball ammo .40 or .45.
Now, if the comparison is for same tech at similar velocities, then the advantage usually goes to the bigger round.
Compare say, a 9mm +P 147 grain high-tech hollowpoint with a .45 +P 165 grain high-tech hollowpoint. The 9mmm will be going a bit faster, but the .45 is wider and more massive.
I find it fascinating that no-one in their right mind sets out to hunt dangerous animals with either a 9mm or .45 pistol, unless they are hunting Man.
But to your point, I think the gap between 9 and .45 has narrowed, but there is still a noticeable gap, that is sufficient to warrant a preference for larger projectiles. My preference is for 10mm or .45, a the high end of “oomph” for the launching platform.
This is exactly why the Marine Corps did not allow SOCOM to control what Marines did. If you let the Army have command of Marines…they start acting like it.
MARSOC is now FAUXMAR. They have a fancy new tiara and matching cuff links for the special little guys.
It won’t be long before they have some patch/tab thingy so they can use the Velcro that is everywhere these days.
Now the overpriced brick in 9mm. It works. All the debate about the capabilities of the round better take into account that only ball ammo will be used.
Much better penetration than the .45 and blah, blah, blah.
FAUXMAR seems to be forgetting they are a whole lot less than a MEU. But hey, if a few Marines want to go ARMY who am I to stop them.
You all do know that 356 years from now, when Earth is under attack by reptilian robots, that none of this will matter because hand guns will be the size of a large meat cleaver and shoot bullets composed of solidified light instead of metal-jacketed stuff, right?
You do know that, right?
You’d be amazed what you can do with fullerenes and cornstarch.
What about the MEU(SOC)?
Shhhh…they are called Marines…always have been.
I meant the handgun…
Oh, good question. I have no idea but would also like to know. My guess is since they don’t have to answer to an Army desk jockey they will just go about being Marines.
No special pins, badges, tabs, or pistols.
Time to face the Mewsoc?
Specials are special. Whatever is standard issue won’t suffice. I already expect there are guys not using glocks.. These type of units always chase the gear dragon and no matter what the final decision is it’s a moot decision in the end.
Marines use to get the job done with whatever hand me downs they were stuck with. That seems to be lost on these specials marines and for something so irrelevant like a handgun in 2016 for a military unit it is hilarious. This is their 3rd handgun in less than a decade and I’d like to know why these special marines are engaging so many bad guys with handguns in the first place to warrant such immediate changes in models and caliber.
Really? You’re trotting out the Moro argument? That has to be the most clichéd 45 fan boy argument ever. Setting aside for a moment that 38 colt, (not special, there’s a difference ) is ballistically a different gun then 9mm, it asks us to ignore the fact that the rifle of the period had similar issues of stopping the natives. All this proves is that metaphorical cocaine is one helluva drug.
The reality is that the difference in terminal ballistics between modern service calibers is neglible, a quality jhp round is going to have similar effects regardless of size*. At that point, capacity and follow up shots become a lot more important, as well as the ultimate decisive factor, shot placement. To paraphrase a noted guru of modern combatives, “amatures argue caliber, professionals talk about placement, and masters are to busy practicing dry firing.
*I realize that access to said ammo is limited by international law, but let’s be honest, at the end of the day, marsoc is going to use the ammo that they want.
Not true, as far as this country goes, Av. The US never signed onto that restriction of the Hague Convention of 1899. We can, we have been and we’re going to continue to use special ammunitions.
I’m aware that we never signed the Hague convention, but the vast majority of the time, there is an attempt to follow it, which is why the majority of the rank and file is stuck using fmj. Maybe the MHS will change that, but if you look at the phrasing on it, they ask for the capability to reliably feed hollowpoints. That doesn’t mean that they are going to set aside years of common practice, it means that they want to make sure it works reliably for the units that do use them, such as CONUS mps, or special operations.
The lesson of the Moros is that someone forgot to tell the Moros that the .38 was “good enough” as a fight stopper.
Bigger, heavier projectiles will typically do the job better. (people or critters)
But lets keep this apples-to-apples. If we posit a super-duper high-tech never-fails-to-expand 9mm bullet, we mist also posit the same for the .45, right?
So which hits harder? A 9mm 147 grain +P HP, or a .45 165 grain +P HP? If neither open up? If both open up? Contrast both with 10mm in 165 to 200 grain weights?
The 9 in a military or police sidearm is primarily intended to allow small hand / small size folks to use the gun easily. Anything the 9 can do, can be done better by a wider, similar velocity projectile in the same platform.
Again, considering rifles are considered to preform better ballistically then handguns, when the rifle of the time, the krag-Jorgensen was facing similar issues, the cartridge isn’t the issue.
Again, ballistically, the difference between most modern calibers is neglible. There are documented cases of people soaking up 45 and dropping after a single 22. Therefore, discounting stopping power for the fairy tale that it is, capacity, recoil, the ability to place follow up shots, the ability to carry said load in a subcompact package all go up on the list of priorities.
For your consideration, the works of Jim Cirillo, who has probably shot more people than anyone posting on this forum.
I met him several times through a relative, and was able to spend several hours conversing with him on the topics of gunfights, bullet performance, etc.
His opinions were based on his personal use of various loads, attendance at autopsies of same, and use of his recommended loads by various partners and associates.
Absolutely essential reading on the topic at hand.
shot – with a handgun.
I’ve been responsible for the care and feeding off about 45ea Glock pistols that were purchased in 2001. In that time, I’ve seen exactly 1 (one) broken part. On the range, I’ve seen a very small (<5) number of malfunctions due to a partially disconnected magazine (arguably, shooter error). Even my least enthusiastic shooters can maintain 3" groupings at self-defense ranges. The armorer class is ONE day and fully prepares the student to do complete teardown/inspection/replacement/reassembly. A single punch, a pair of needle-nose, a small flathead screwdriver, and a set of sight tools constitutes a complete armorer kit. A lifetime supply of spare parts for an entire company will fit in one parts tray, and I'd bet most of the replacements would be due to individuals going beyond their training to completely disassemble the weapon and then losing a part in the process. It is an inferior weapon if you think that machine-rest-fired group size matters. Aesthetically, it is inferior. However, if one looks at handguns realistically, it does everything it needs to do, it does those things very well, provided the shooter does his/her part. I had nothing to do with the selection of Glock as my department weapon, but I have no anxiety betting my life on them daily. I lose no sleep about my fellow officers carrying them. We recently replaced or gen 3 pistols with Gen4, and I was the project lead on that… It never entered my thought process that switching brands might give us any real improvement in officer safety. The only two reasons we replaced the old ones was to A) take advantage of the grip-sizing options and B) our old night-sights were nearing end-of-service-life and cost about $100/ea; the trade in of old + some seized weapons have us a per-pistol cost in the $80 range.
Caliber selection is another conversation, but until NATO gets off top-dead-center with regard to 9mm, that cartridge is going to have a head-start in the process.
There have been a large number of reports that gen 4’s are not reliable due to some type of design flaw. Have you found this?
Not to this point (they are less than a year in-service). The transition went smoothly, my shooters actually improved (mostly because the old pistols had + connectors, where I talked the administration into standard connectors this time). My only problem is the same I’ve always had: not enough time and ammunition for training.
“My only problem is the same I’ve always had: not enough time and ammunition for training.”
That is and will always be a critical factor. All pissing contests regarding weapons and calibers aside…
You are absolutely correct. If the training and mindset are “well regulated”, then the spec sheet for the weapon and cartridge are less relevant.
New guns, including iterative improvements (ie Gen 4), do usually have a shakedown period to find manufacturing bugs or design tweaks.
Hand them to high-volume competitors, who beat the crap out of them. What happens? How about high-volume-of-practice military and police? Actual military combat use?
Hard to predict a long-term gun behavior at 200-400 rounds a year.
What none of you are factoring into the discussion is the fact that Special Operators already have access to more lethal hollow point rounds for their 9mm’s. Also, according to Wikipedia, the entire Army is going to begin using such specialty ammo in pistols by 2018.
The heightened lethality provided by heavier grain bullets configured in a variety of hollow point designs could well explain the decision by MARSOC. Incidentally, the FBI is also going back to nines after ballistics data repeatedly showed that 147grain 9mm hollow points will get the job done just fine. Combine that data with the weight and magazine capacity advantages of the nine, and you can better understand the decision.
Just traded for an G17L (long slide).
It looks fun.
I have fired the G17L (early ones).
Like!
How One Hero Texas Cop With a .45-cal Glock Took Out Two Suspected Terrorists With Rifles, Body Armor
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/05/05/how-one-hero-texas-cop-with-a-45-cal-glock-took-out-two-gunmen-with-rifles-body-armor/
Should have stuck with the .45 round or upgraded to the 10mm.
I lost count of the number of trauma patients in Baghdad that came through my double doors that had to get ventilated multiple times with 9mm before they stayed down.
Unless it went through the head or heart, it did very little to slow down anyone high on adrenalin or hash.
Most people survive getting shot w/ a handgun. Pistol rounds do a good job poking holes, but lack the kinetic energy to inflict massive tissue trauma. The old saying: A pistol is a tool used to get to a rifle.
Anyway, I wouldn’t want to get shot w/ any caliber round…yeah even the tiny .22LR is not a joke.
So when do the MilSurp 1911s go on sale?
Under the current
gang of damned fools and leftist tools running DCAdministration? Try never.Things might – or might not – change after 20 January 2017.
I am just wondering why they went with the 19. When I finally crossed over to the dark side earlier this year, I thought I wanted the G19. After comparing the two models , I found the slightly larger G17 fits my hand so much better. It is as concealable as (and feels lighter) my daily carry pistol (P-250SC in 40S&W). I suppose the G19 can be made to fit bigger hands with the modular grips easier that the G17 can be made smaller. Maybe I just answered my own question.
Easier for the big guy to use the little gun, than the other way around.
Easier to conceal the short-butt gun than full-sized.
Hmm. G-19 with a G-17 sized slide group? Hmm.
I have said this before and will repeat it again – I am not a shooter nor do I own any guns. The arguments for or against a weapon and different calibers goes slightly over my head simply because I don’t have the inclination to do the research.
That being said, the local police department a few months ago replaced all of its 9 mm Glocks back to a 1911 .45 caliber hand gun.
The Glocks were purchased in 2010 and were deemed to need replacing because of maintenance and corrosion issues. (Which surprised the heck out of me.) Other than range time and training, from 2010 until now, a weapon had been fired in anger 3 times in the city over that time. (Less than 10 shots in total.)
As I said, this is an area out of my expertise, but it seems to me that a Glock (or any weapon that is maintained) should last more than 6 years of use, even on a police force.
Am I out in the woods on that?
Thanks in advance.
The SEAL Teams are in the process of switching over to Glock 19s from the venerable Sig Sauer P226. Some of the reasons cited was Glock’s superior corrosion resistance (sea water ops), ease of maintenance, parts availability, etc. I don’t own a Glock, but I’ve read/seen so many rave reviews in guns mag articles,and You Tube vids about Glock’s reliability/durability. Yeah, something doesn’t sound right. The answer is the 1911? Former Delta guy & the unit’s 1911 gunsmith MSG Larry Vickers has said “If you treat you’re guns like a lawn mower, don’t get a 1911 – get a Glock”.
Is the P-226 still available? Saw one not long ago and understood that it was not. May well have heard that wrong.
Just curious. Sounded like it had a very reliable history to it.
Yes it is. One of the most ubiquitous handguns around the world not named Glock or maybe Beretta. The SEALs adopted the P226 as their sidearm in 1985 around same time Beretta M-9 tests were going on by the Army. From all I gathered the P226 is very popular, and has a tremendous reputation for performance & reliability.
A big knock on it is it’s high cost at typically well over a $1000. Additionally, concerns by some SEALs about marginal corrosion resistance, the more “complicated” external hammer & SA/DA mechanism, and the heaviness of the mostly steel pistol probably compelled NSW to look around for a “better” more modern gun – namely Glock 19. Yeah, I’m sure many SEALs gripe about Glocks. There is no such thing as a gun that’s a good fit for everyone. Different strokes for different folks.
Never had an issue with the 226 or 228. I liked the exposed hammer, you can go Gunfighter Cool and thumb roll to SA ‘BANG’ with 1 in the pipe.
Liked the 220 as well.
But let’s all be honest, for most it’s a secondary (barring rare and special duties/assignments) and at the end of the day we’re all really arguing about ‘implants on a solid 9 vs. the real thing on a solid 7.5’ but changing the actual topic to pistols.
When it’s really needed… 😉
Could have been the age out of the tritium night sights as mentioned by Tom (above).
I am not a glock fanboy and dont own one. I dont like the looks or how one feels in my hand but…
I think that for any firearm to be that sucessful there must be something to it. When elite units and a number of militaries around the world adopt it they are not doing it for no reason. Much like ak47 they are not the most polished handgun but they work in all conditions. If a gun jams everytime it gets dirty or is only reluable with certain types of ammo its useless.
Modern bullets and propellants have negated the arguement that the 9mm is too small to be an effective stopper. Combine that with cost, availability, reliability and access to hi capacity mags and glock makes a great deal of sense.
Would a glock in 40 cal be better? Maybe but you cant find 40 cal in every third world shithole around the planet like 9mm
Im probably still not going to buy one
Valid points.
The US Military does not plan for ammo-scrounging to meet supply needs, so “availability” is moot. Commonality with allied nations is considered, but we are so overwhelmingly adept at moving huge mountains of stuff that “allied hand-off” is more the other way, outbound.
True but i was not talking about scrounging in itself although it is a consideration. I was thinking more along the lines of availability with allies and non allies. Its much easier to be able to acquire ammo on site than cart a huge amount around. 9mm is a universal caliber, .40 despite being superior not so much and temembervwe are talking specialists here who may need to acquire ammon on site far from supply sources
Does it make any more sense to apply the one size fits all principle to handguns than to anything else?
As with anything else, the mission dictates the needs, but individuals carry out the mission even when part of a team effort. Those individuals have various skill sets, hand sizes, jobs to carry out, etc. They don’t all wear the same size boot, so why would we expect them to adapt to a single weapon? Seems like it would make much more sense for there to be a standard requirement for things like caliber, frame size limits and such but that the individual could select their own within those parameters.
Perhaps it would make more sense to say that whatever they opt to carry it must fire the selected ammo?
Logistics. The less you have to put in the pipe, the more likely you are to get what you need out the delivery end.
Way back when, “Indian Wars” era, the US Army had two official sidearms: The Colt Single-Action Army (aka peacemaker) and the Smith & Wesson Schofeild. Both were .45 caliber single-action revolvers. The Colt used a fairly long case with a vvery small rim. The Smith used a shorter case with a much larger rim, and a somewhat reduced bullet weight and charge.
Guess what? They were not interchangeable. (-sometimes- the .45 S&W would fit Colts, but often the rims were too big.)
And, of course, the logistics folks of the US Quartermaster had a distressing habit of sending the wrong rounds to units way out on the frontier. Pistols for that era’s Cavalry were -not- “spares” or “backups”. This logistic nightmare -really- sucked when one was up to one’s ass in hostiles.
That is an example of why simplifying supply of arms is generally a good idea.
And Custer was last reported to say, “You know, someone should build a loader that puts six rounds in at once…damn…another arrow.”
At least half of the forces attacking Custer had repeating rifles. The evidence of the fired cases lies all over the battlefield.
Custer’s forces had single-shot rifles, and the cartridges for them were made of soft copper. The extractors thended to rip rims off when extracting form hot and fouled rifles. This led to disabling jams and soldiers trying to pry out stuck shells.
Army Ordinance types felt that repeaters would encourage soldiers to waste ammunition, thus they mandated single-shots. This view lasted up through the 20th Centrury Springfield ’03, which included a magazine cutoff to allow single load and fire.
Imo, the reason for going 9mm is so that the average 5’2″, 180 lbs fat assed female can pretend to be able to use the weapon once such personnel start getting pumped into the Spec Ops units by quota.
Logistics is about planning ahead.
I had a relative in Law Enforcement who felt that 9mm was selected primarily for Runts and (other folks) with small hands and low strength.
Demonstrably, they tend to do better with the 9mm, given minimal training and practice.
I also know several rather dedicated-to-shooting “small” ladies that are demonstrated experts with M1911 and other “big” guns. Attitude, training, and lots of practice can reduce the problems of large handguns for small folks, but not cheaply.
When they were switching over in the ’80s that was published fact – ran along the lines of “the average trainee can be brought to the same level of competence in about 2/3 the rounds on the 9mm compared to a .45. The training time to do so was correspondingly shorter, about 2/3 as long. And the number of people who just could not be trained adequately was about 2/3 as high.”
Have to laugh at the comparisons above… every one compares the 9mm 147 grain bullet (about the slowest 9×21 made) to a high-velocity lightweight .45. Or the .38LC comnparo, in which Jonn matching a 700 foot per second black powder round to a modern 1200 fps 9mm. Apples to apples.
Then again, the “slow” +P 147 9mm is in the velocity neighborhood of the “fast’ +P 165 .45. These appear to be the most ballistic similar for “apple” comparison.
The +P 115 9mm is way faster than any .45 of similar construction. But it is way different at the terminal phase. Now we are orange.apple, light-fast versus big-slow.
Not fast -enough-, as the king “orange” in that field is the 125r .357 magnum. The .357 Sig seems like the winner in the “realistic for military use” category, if we want a small projectile.
I still think the 10mm has been overlooked for military use.
LOLOLOL……….what would Hillary say?
I have a feeling I know your answer.
A little out of the loop as far as current info goes.
I know the guys in various SOF units were trying to pin things down accuracy-wise *along with consistent results* and they really liked match barrels for the glocks from Wilson Combat (?).
Anyways the guys who are going to be carrying them were involved in the analysis and discussions to some extent. That’s about the most you can hope for, in my experience.
Basically all the posts I have read above are a rehash of the decades old argument of 9mm vs. .45ACP.
The bottom line…if you shoot them in the face will they really know the difference in bullet size?
Guess I’ll add some fuel here. My agency switched from Glock 22 (.40) to FNS-9 (9mm). We were told the agency examined .40’s that we’d shot people with and were unhappy with the expansion. They cited the updated FBI study that compared new 9mm to .40 and .45 and decided to go with a 9. We use a fairly advanced bullet (FTP?) that has a plug in the cavity. This allows a sharper nose profile so it feeds reliably and creates consistent expansion or so we’re told. I’m ok with the bullet but I really don’t like the FN vs the Glock. I didn’t care for Glocks for a long time but when I finally got used to mine, I loved it. Crisp trigger, great sight picture, little maintenance and reliable. The FN is worse in every category. I actually had a stovepipe on the range last week. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a stovepipe jam in real life before. If I could I’d keep my Glock. I was able to purchase mine and I carry it off duty but I wish I could still carry it on duty. I am not sold on FN.
This is a real nice gun discussion, but no one’s mentioned the Golden Rule of Acquisition and Contracting: Acceptable is Awardable.
It is NOT about getting “the best” of anything.
If the equipment meets the requirements, the next job is to get it at best value to the Govt.