That is part of my point... it isn't their regular weapon or a weapon that they have lots of familiarity with. Your example better illustrates the aspect of having safety in function and disassembly a priority in the spec makes sense, from a lowest common denominator point of view.

But again this solicitation was for the Army only. The Marine Raiders (prior carry special 1911) and SEALs (prior SIG P226) choose the Glock 19 recently, and given their special weapons training it eliminates some of this concern.

---

Suffer Well.

Haters gonna hate. But seriously are you sober enough to have a rational discussion on this?

Both are good handguns. They both have their pros and the both have their cons. My Facebook feed is full of reputable experts taking sides on this. Thing is nearly all of them have histories with their guns. In the end tncones down to preference. You obviously prefer Glocks. But consumers are increasingly choosing the 320 mainly due to grip.

The contract called for modularity. Sig was able to produce comparable reliability under the terms of the contract for a lower price. It is what it is. The consensus seems to be that either was better than the Beretta.

They selected two configurations. Both are suppressor ready, with cross mag capacity. Glock doesn't even make their own threaded barrels. That would require an outsource. They also selected the extended mags. Glocks do not have a fitting on their extended mags. That again would be an outsource.

Glock excels at making very basic utility pistol. They do not excel thinking beyond that.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Except if you read he original articles of the various switches, they were going to dovetail off the mhs results. I would not be surprised if it moved over.

Let's not forget, the move to the 19 more to donwirh cost and maintainability over operator preference. A MK 22 sig cost 900+. A marsoc 1911 probably 2000 after all the admiring and smithing involved. There is no such thing as a drop in part to a 1911. The switch to the g19 is a stop gap that only special units would have the freedom to implement. My guess is based on these results there will be pressure to switch but if operator preference for the 19 remains strong it will require some additional testing and research for each individual branch.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I wouldn't either... but sometimes the Marines just like to do things differently- usually cheaper and better- than the Army.

Exhibit A the "new" camouflage pattern pattern change over that the Army did. ACU/UCP was $3.2 million to develop and a $5 Billion waste, followed shortly thereafter by MulitCam at $4 Billion now being replaced with Scorpion. The Air Force developed their ABU Tiger Stripe for $3.1 Million.

The Marines developed MARPAT for $319,000, and all the other services wish they could have done it as well for 10x the budget. So who know what they will do when they replace M9.

---

Suffer Well.

We aren't having a serious conversation? What is glaringly apparent in our discussion is that we have a guy who spent years with an issued Army firearm vs. a guy who is/was a competition shooter.


I don't prefer Glocks. As I said very, very clearly, above, we are not talking about the best gun, we are talking about the best choice.


GREAT POINT! I remember when the Army issued me my suppressor! It was awesome!


Which is why Glock was the best choice here.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

I am not and have never been a Glock fanboi. I have 2, but I don't particularly like Glocks and I have never carried a Glock.

Seems people are having some reading comprehension issues here. This isn't about the "best" gun. This is about the best choice. Glock makes the most sense and should have been the Army's choice. But, the Army put too many requirements on the bid, for things that are not important and never will be, given the limited role of handgun in the Army. The biggest carriers of handguns in the Army are MPs. There is no reason Army MPs should carrying anything different than that carried by the vast majority of civilian law enforcement.

As I mentioned above, if the Army really needed "the best" handgun for mission critical tasks, it would have been the FNX .45 tactical. Period. But, that is gross overkill for 90%+ of the handgun carriers in the Army. The mission served by mass-issued handguns, the Glock 17 makes the most sense.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Well I think we all know that "the mission" is not the only, or sometimes even the most important, criteria when selecting a new weapons system.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

One could argue it wasn't even considered in this selection process, which is exactly my point.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

And your point makes a lot of sense.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

On this we absolutely agree.

---

Suffer Well.

Now if you think DoD procurement is messed up... how about Canadian DND procurement... it's sidearm was outdated 25 years ago and at least another 10 to find a replacement.

http://news.nationalpost.com/...ake-another-10-years

What does infantry use a pistol for in post 9/11 world? During the first Gulf War, it was my understanding the handgun was often used in Infantry Specific CQB because they were still issued M16s. But with the M4 being standard issue, I would assume the need for a pistol by main infantry is strictly a last resort, or even an option to get to cover safely in order to fix a rifle that failed (double feed, or failed closed bolt)? Officers were often issued only side arms, but it is my understanding they have been issued m4s. Tankers? Getting PDWs or M4s? I've even heard of instances where handguns weren't issued to infantry. I have never confirmed that.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Here are the actual versions approved to my knowledge



Looks like it is using the carry module on a full size frame for the full size model (full size module extends to the front of the dust cover. The carry module also only has three rail slots, vs four on the compact. So in essence it looks like one module with FCU will be the standard issue across all occupations, but the slide and barrel different based on "mission".

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

Mind you, this was a while ago, but, I was deployed with an armor brigade and joined with couple infantry brigades. A lot of the tankers were issued side arms. Most of them, in fact. On the infantry side, I don't remember anyone other than the officers and, I think, the first sergeants. We were also tied to special forces. Those guys all had side arms, but they chose what they wanted to carry.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Spent my entire adult life in the Infantry and can say that (within the infantry) who gets issued pistols certainly changed over time As a mechanized LT I carried a M16. As a paratroop LT and later as the XO of the company I carried a M16 and a .45. As a company commander in 10th Mountain I carried only a M16- the only folks w (by then we had 9mm) were M60 gunners, some mortar men, and battalion staff

Then came 9/11 and extended combat operations that have changed everything. As a TF commander in Iraq I carried a 9mm and an M14 (because I could). Virtually every Soldier in my TF that was involved in routine combat patrols carried a 9mm and either an M4 or a M249

I've been working as a contractor for a while now cause I still have some relevant skillz. In fact I write this from Bagram Airfield, Afghanistan. Almost everyone here in uniform is carrying a 9mm except the lowest ranking NCOs and Soldiers and even then many of them carry both pistol and carbine. When I go to Mass on Sunday's everyone is wearing a pistol except the priest and me :-)

/r

---

Steve

97-00 1st Cav Tanker. We carried M9s and M4s (cant recall in M4s were phased in or if I started with one). Both were required for enlisted and officers.

Sure there is. The 320 has been shown to be a very fine weapon and the troops that need them most (not MPs) now have a fine weapon that can be adjusted to different sized soldiers, conditioms and is extremely accurate and is reliable in adverse conditions. Its a yuuuuuge upgrade.

BTW I hope Rogers thanks his receiver. I was almost pulling for the non Americas team becauee the thought of Rogers crying in his boyfriends arms was so sad.

---

~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson

I agree. I could shoot with my Glock but it was never comfortable so I sold it.

Just returned from the range today at lunch, shooting 200rds. I don't know jack about Glocks. Anyway, got a chance to load up my bulk reloaded 9mm ammo ($195 for 1000) into a Glock. 4 out of 14 didn't fire from light strikes. The grip is completely unlike other guns I've shot and I wasn't impressed. The same ammo run through my CZ-75D is a perfect 600/600 for no misfires. I gave the gun back to the owner and lied saying that it was pretty cool.

I realize people like what they use, but the Glock was just different and not in a good way for me...

I think the simplicity, affordability, ease to find make Glocks the first guns for many people. I think this is more so for cops who didn't shoot anything else. When that is the case, you don't realize how unnatural the grip is to people who learned with other popular guns.

I've owned several Glocks and got pretty good with them. But I could never appreciate hem beyond being a simple tool. Not a weapon that is an extension of the hand. It got worse after I got more into longer distance triathlons and rarely shot for about four years. Going maybe every month or other month to practice. Often with a 1911 or revolver. I bought the 320 when they first came out. And having never held one it pointed naturally. Glocks required regular use to stay natural. A month off and it would poa low for me. Requiring a split second to adjust. Not a big deal for lostni supoose. But for e type of shooting g I do that makes a difference. I also hated the feel of the polymer triggers with the tab inside.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden

I've only recently started shooting again since my teen years (42 now), so very very new. That is a good perspective, grip felt totally unnatural. It's almost like having to strain a little to bring the gun sights lower. The other thing of note, this particular glock had a red dot sight. From shooting a red dot sight on a rifle, I thought that it would be a good addition to a pistol. The dot was too big and really pretty obtrusive, accuracy suffered greatly. Would've never guessed that..

adding levity ....

http://taskandpurpose.com/...es-armys-new-pistol/

Always wondered if gold plating offsets recoil and increased follow up shot speed.

---

---

"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden