Army Chief Eyeing Glock Pistol as Service's Next Sidearm

[JU-87]

This should have been done in 1985.
Although, I think 45acp is a better choice with FMJ ammo.

Army Chief Eyeing Glock Pistol as Service's Next Sidearm

The Army launched its long-awaited XM17 MHS competition in late August to replace its Cold-War era, M9 9mm pistol.
Milley criticized the program's 356-page requirement document and lengthy testing phase slated to cost $17 million for technology that has existed for years.
"The testing itself is two years long on known technology," Milley told law makers at a March 16 House Armed Services Committee hearing.
"We are not talking about nuclear subs or going to the moon here. We are talking about a pistol."

Milley recently asked the Army Special Operations Command's G-8 office, which oversees fielding of equipment, if there is room for the Army to join its pistol contract to buy Glock 19s, according to a source who asked to remain anonymous because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

The compact Model 19 is one of Glock's most popular handguns. The striker-fired, 9mm pistol features a four- inch barrel and has a standard capacity of 15 rounds, although 17-round magazines are available. The polymer frame features an accessory rail for mounting lights.
New Glock 19s retail for $500-$600 each. USASOC is currently paying a base price of about $320 for each Glock 19, the source said.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016 ... _160322.nl" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mr. Glock]

[BobK]

Why wouldn't they go Glock 17 for a service weapon?

Only 30 grams difference in unloaded weight, longer barrel, longer sight radius and 17 round magazines standard.

[WY_Not]

Silly frog. You bring logic into military decision making.

[sodbuster95]

Why wouldn't they go Glock 17 for a service weapon?

Only 30 grams difference in unloaded weight, longer barrel, longer sight radius and 17 round magazines standard.

Since they have almost the same capacity (2 round difference), the smaller size is likely preferred as my guess would be that someone considers the full size Glock too large for a "universal" fit.

[Mr. Glock]

Why wouldn't they go Glock 17 for a service weapon?

Only 30 grams difference in unloaded weight, longer barrel, longer sight radius and 17 round magazines standard.

A number of folks, me included, find the G19 much more comfortable to shoot quickly, due to the shorter grip and thus higher palm swell. Most people who talk about Glock grip angles forget the length of the grip affects where that rear palm swell hits the hand.

Size of the grip is also important in a male and female army, especially as the incumbent M-9 is a like holding a 2x4.

The extra length of the G-17 barrel/ sight length is helpful, but doesn't make that big a deal in a secondary weapon system.

[Greg the baker]

Size of the grip is also important in a male and female army, especially as the incumbent M-9 is a like holding a 2x4.

I whole-heartedly agree with you, and I think the next service pistol should be something with a grip that can be modified. Whether that means the palm swell like most Tupperware guns or palm swell as well as the side grip panels like the H&K P30. Either way.

I agree w/ BobK about the g17 over the 19 however. I'm 6'4" and have huge hands and am unable to get a comfortable grip on a Gen 3 or 4 Glock 19 due to the short frame as well as the position of the finger grooves. I realize my size is not average, but I think a more modular pistol would be the one-size-fits-all pistol they seem to be looking for.

[Brian D.]

Somewhere in the spec writing, the military will probably insist on features that will add nothing useful, but greatly compromise the Glock's reliability. Then there will be years of revamping the thing, the long way around, to make the military version work right again.

That has happened before with service weapons adopted, or I should say adapted, by our armed forces.

[sodbuster95]

Somewhere in the spec writing, the military will probably insist on features that will add nothing useful, but greatly compromise the Glock's reliability. Then there will be years of revamping the thing, the long way around, to make the military version work right again.

That has happened before with service weapons adopted, or I should say adapted, by our armed forces.

I'd be shocked if, at minimum, the powers-that-be don't insist on adding a thumb safety. Likely an ambidextrous one, at that.

[CCIman]

Isn't the Ruger American pistol designed in anticipation of the next mil-spec? Anything Glock is way too logical.

Mil logic is not predictable-- the Beretta M9 is the clear example.

[JU-87]

... I'm 6'4" and have huge hands and am unable to get a comfortable grip on a Gen 3 or 4 Glock 19 due to the short frame as well as the position of the finger grooves. I realize my size is not average, but I think a more modular pistol would be the one-size-fits-all pistol they seem to be looking for.

I'm guessing you've never been in our Armed Forces.
Our military usually buys a "one size fits most", and care's nothing about the one's it don't fit.

If someone your size was drafted, they would make you a Tanker, or someone who only repairs electrical equipment with extremely small screws and tiny, fragile parts.

Best regards.