The SEALS pick the Glock 19. (merged)

One Lung Wonder said:
I would love to know what the procurement process was. I am betting some back room wheeling and dealing and some inside baseball was involved. There usually is in stuff like this. I wouldn't say 'they don't know what they're doing' so much...I would say rather that they could have done better. The Glock is great for soccer moms, mall cops and gun club duffers like Yours Truly...but elite warriors should carry elite guns. They are certainly qualified to do so.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should contact them and tell them what they should have selected instead, better be quick about it before they go out and waste money on those Glock 19s.

Really, elite guns? You should ask the USMC how their new Colt .45s are working out for them. They now use Glock 19s instead.

The SEALs need a gun that carries a reasonable number of rounds of a proven caliber, in a reliable, proven platform, that is easily concealable, and that will work in every environment they are likely to find themselves in, and that's exactly what they got. Besides the fact that they have already been using it for a while now, despite it not being their "official" handgun, and which is also in widespread use by much of USASOC, MARSOC, as well as other elite units around the world.

Regards.

Mark
 
Glock pistols are manufactured in two places: Just outside of Vienna, in Deutsch-Wagram, AUSTRIA and Smyrna, USA... Though there are some places that licensed assembly takes place and other places where unlicensed manufacturing and assembly takes place. You can probably guess where that stuff is going on. :)
 
madashell said:
Which actually makes us .... worse.
Click to expand...

If you take the time to investigate the rules surrounding election funding I think you will agree the Canadian public is well served by the restrictions placed upon campaign elections and rules regarding "gifts" to politicians. The fact Canadians are somewhat less engaged with the election process does not make one system better or worse than another. Just different.

Take Care

Bob
 
You'd have to be child to believe that US Army picks their guns on a purely meritocratic grounds. Just look into the politics that led to Beretta 92 making it's way into the army and why 1911 is coming back. To think that G19 of 1988 is so much ahead of the P226 of 1984 is ridiculous. I don't care much for either Sig or Glock but this decision means next to nothing to informed minds.
 
Still alive said:
this quote intrigued me. I did a quick Google search but found nothing except reviews of the Colt.
What issues did the USMC have with them? Source?
Click to expand...

Plenty of information if you know where to look. Here is just one example:

http://soldiersystems.net/2012/07/20/marsoc-winning-colt-guns/

I also have information from personal sources regarding issues. Effectively, the USMC has twice as many guns as it actually needs, because for each gun in use, a second gun is needed as a back up for when the first gun develops issues and needs to be returned to the armourers.

The 1911 is a very dated design, and while it may still work for those people that don't need to run them in combat conditions, or carry them a lot, and shoot them very little, for modern combat use, there are better options. That comes from people like Hilton Yam. Possibly, part of the problem is that the "loose" guns that were originally designed for combat, and worked well in that role at the time, have given way to accurized versions, that while more accurate, are not as well suited.

Regards.

Mark
 
Elegant? Yes. Reminder of a bygone time? Yes. I'd also like to own a Stutz Bearcat, but I don't fancy taking one for a drive in the snow right now. There are better modern tools for that. I'm even less likely to choose to use it in a situation where my life depends on it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a certified 1911 armourer, as well as SIG and Glock. I get to choose and use any guns I like. My company licence gives me access to suppressed belt fed machine guns, destructive devices, you name it. My industry, professional and customer contacts give me access to information from a variety of sources not publicly available, and I get to go to interesting places, see interesting things, and talk to interesting people. Not a big part of my job any more, but I also get to train and work with them on occasion.

Would I personally choose a Glock 19? No. Why? It doesn't fit my hand very well, and I don't shoot it as well as a Glock 17. But, I'm not a Navy SEAL. I don't do what they do, I don't have the same requirements as them. Does that mean I think their choice is wrong? Absolutely not. I've spent enough time with Specops guys, both professionally, and personally, that I trust them to know what they need, and to use it in the most effective way possible. Hell, those guys could have taken out OBL with nerf guns if that was all they had to choose from. Fortunately, unlike "big army", the guys at the very pointy tip of the spear get a lot of say when it comes to what they use, from boots to bullets.

Regards.

Mark
 
MWL said:
Plenty of information if you know where to look. Here is just one example:

http://soldiersystems.net/2012/07/20/marsoc-winning-colt-guns/

I also have information from personal sources regarding issues. Effectively, the USMC has twice as many guns as it actually needs, because for each gun in use, a second gun is needed as a back up for when the first gun develops issues and needs to be returned to the armourers.

The 1911 is a very dated design, and while it may still work for those people that don't need to run them in combat conditions, or carry them a lot, and shoot them very little, for modern combat use, there are better options. That comes from people like Hilton Yam. Possibly, part of the problem is that the "loose" guns that were originally designed for combat, and worked well in that role at the time, have given way to accurized versions, that while more accurate, are not as well suited.

Regards.

Mark
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff. I hear you on the tolerance issue. I have a WW1 1911 and a couple Inglis Hi Powers from WWII. They definitely have looser tolerances. You can see how that would have help avoid reliability issues. Accuracy still not too bad though.
 
98/29 said:
You'd have to be child to believe that US Army picks their guns on a purely meritocratic grounds. Just look into the politics that led to Beretta 92 making it's way into the army and why 1911 is coming back. To think that G19 of 1988 is so much ahead of the P226 of 1984 is ridiculous. I don't care much for either Sig or Glock but this decision means next to nothing to informed minds.
Click to expand...

Huge difference between how "big army" gets what it gets, and the guys in USSOCOM, CANSOFCOM, UKSF, etc. If by "informed minds", you mean people who aren't Navy SEALs, then you are correct. You don't do what they do, so you can choose whatever tool your mission dictates. You think you know more about what works best for them? Well, thanks for your opinion.

Regards.

Mark
 
gdawg said:
Interesting stuff. I hear you on the tolerance issue. I have a WW1 1911 and a couple Inglis Hi Powers from WWII. They definitely have looser tolerances. You can see how that would have help avoid reliability issues. Accuracy still not too bad though.
Click to expand...

I wasn't implying that they weren't accurate. They are accurate enough that they make good platforms, and the design lends itself to creating very accurate guns. But it is at the expense of looser tolerances that don't require hand fitting, or gunsmith level work, as opposed to being worked on by armourers.

Those same tight tolerances are what also cause issues when the guns are run hard in adverse conditions and the guns get coated in mud, sand, dust, snow, ice. Things that the original guns will probably shrug off almost as well as modern designs, and even more so than some. An example of this, would be the new SIG 320. Get too much gunk inside it, and they will lock up quicker than a Glock, and be harder to clean. An original 1911 will probably still run just fine.

I have seen 20 Glocks dis-assembled to their component parts, put in a large bucket, shaken around, and then helped assemble 20 working guns that run first time. Try that with any modern 1911s. Might work with the old ones though.

Regards.

Mark
 
MWL said:
I have seen 20 Glocks dis-assembled to their component parts, put in a large bucket, shaken around, and then helped assemble 20 working guns that run first time. Try that with any modern 1911s. Might work with the old ones though.

Regards.

Mark
Click to expand...

Mark this would be true of most modern pistols eg. M&P from S&W and the P-01/PCR from CZ.

Take Care

Bob
 
Darth Vaper said:
I thought it was wise to manufacture arms in your homeland in case war breaks out.
Your supply isn't then cut off.
Click to expand...

Glocks are completely manufactured in the US. Used to be assembled from parts made in Austria, but that is no longer the case.

Canada is currently attempting the same thing with a new handgun, but that's not going so well. No manufacturers are willing to hand over all their goodies for the sake of a contract that will probably be smaller than annual gun sales in any given US state.

Regards.

Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom