Want to buy the Glock that lost the Army handgun competition?

[Kidd X]

By the same token, Glock's "safe action" safety becomes irrelevant too. Why not have a short and light 1911-style trigger with no safeties of any kind whatsoever. With 100% proper handling, you will never have an issue.

The problem is that it's easy to talk about proper handling in the abstract. In real life, things get complicated. When people are under stress (i.e. in battlefield conditions), proper handling goes out the window. If you are exhausted, getting shot at, maybe even wounded, and running for cover, the last thing you're going to worry about is making sure your clothing does not accidentaly get stuck in your pistol's trigger guard.

And it's not possible for the same individual to fail to decock his SIG or apply the mechanical safety on a 1911/BHP before ramming the pistol into the holster?

The Glock safe action system has more to do with dropping the gun than using the gun. The safe action system is PASSIVE and was intentionally designed to not impede the user when they've decided to draw and fire. Safe handling practices are still key and yes with training they become ingrained. It's odd how people like to hate on guns with no active/manual safety but no one ever mentions revolvers which also do not have active/manual safeties.

 

[Cameron SS]

The problem is that it's easy to talk about proper handling in the abstract. In real life, things get complicated. When people are under stress (i.e. in battlefield conditions), proper handling goes out the window. If you are exhausted, getting shot at, maybe even wounded, and running for cover, the last thing you're going to worry about is making sure your clothing does not accidentaly get stuck in your pistol's trigger guard.

Proper handling only goes out the window under stress if you are poorly trained. But in either case, under the circumstances you describe most people will tell you that a manual safety becomes a burden, not a benefit. One more thing to have to think about and keep track of, one more thing that can go wrong.

 

[Kidd X]

Proper handling only goes out the window under stress if you are poorly trained. But in either case, under the circumstances you describe most people will tell you that a manual safety becomes a burden, not a benefit. One more thing to have to think about and keep track of, one more thing that can go wrong.

Spot on post. ^^^^

The lack of common sense in this thread and others simply explains how inferior designs of firearms or anything for that matter are still being sold.

 

[Greenhorse six]

Doesn't it all come down to training , do we not all fall to our lowest level of training in times of stress ?

Proper handling only goes out the window under stress if you are poorly trained. But in either case, under the circumstances you describe most people will tell you that a manual safety becomes a burden, not a benefit. One more thing to have to think about and keep track of, one more thing that can go wrong.

 

[capp325]

And it's not possible for the same individual to fail to decock his SIG or apply the mechanical safety on a 1911/BHP before ramming the pistol into the holster?

The point that all of your are missing is that pistols are almost never actually used in combat. They are there for emergency reasons, and 99.99% of the time they are just dead weight. The safety is engaged before the start of the mission and almost certainly will not have to be disengaged before the mission is over. A gun that's never going to be used but is always ready to fire is more of a liability than an asset.

Double action and double action only triggers were designed primarily for law enforcement use, not military use. The idea is that a police officer's sidearm is his primary weapon and he may be called to draw it unexpectedly. A startled/surprised officer may then forget to disengage the safety. This is less of an issue for soldiers, who are not going to be reaching for their handguns to repsond to a threat unless their rifle fails.

 

[Kidd X]

The point that all of your are missing is that pistols are almost never actually used in combat. They are there for emergency reasons, and 99.99% of the time they are just dead weight. The safety is engaged before the start of the mission and almost certainly will not have to be disengaged before the mission is over. A gun that's never going to be used but is always ready to fire is more of a liability than an asset.

Double action and double action only triggers were designed primarily for law enforcement use, not military use. The idea is that a police officer's sidearm is his primary weapon and he may be called to draw it unexpectedly. A startled/surprised officer may then forget to disengage the safety. This is less of an issue for soldiers, who are not going to be reaching for their handguns to repsond to a threat unless their rifle fails.

The double action of a Glock for example is far easier to manage and master than that of a SIG or a revolver so there is little to compare there.

Striker fired guns are ready for use but still completely safe in the holster unless it's a SIG 320.

Having to resort to a sidearm if your rifle fails is even more reason for the pistol to be immediately ready for use without the need for flicking levers or switches. LEO's rarely use their guns and if given the chance would grab the long gun if they knew lethal force may be needed. Soldiers rely on their rifles which are far superior to handguns, but if their rifle should fail then they have little choice but to resort to the inferior handgun. Why handicap the soldier more with a manual safety?

You're right, regular force soldiers will carry a pistol a whole lot more than they will ever use one. The more switched on and highly trained personnel will use their pistol and they deserve the best option for their needs and a manual safety is not a wanted or needed option.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen shooters at the range or at a match or at a class fail to disengage their safety and attempt to fire. This is closely followed by forgetting to apply the safety or activate their decocker prior to reholstering. For folks who CHOOSE to shoot their handguns and shoot them a lot in some cases the issue of failing to engage/disengage the safety is still very much present. Cardboard targets and steel plates don't shoot back so the issue of flinching with the safety engaged is nothing more than embarrassing. The safety on flinch when someone is trying to kill you may result in your own death. As you say(and we all know) the training, experience and use of sidearms by the main line military is very limited, so why handicap the soldier with a more complex system than is necessary??

 

[CV32]

Worth noting that the soldiers who are typically issued sidearms are those who are not expected to be always carrying a primary weapon like a rifle (although they may do so under certain deployment circumstances).

 

[Canuck44]

Striker fired guns are ready for use but still completely safe in the holster unless it's a SIG 320.

You do realize the US Army got a different trigger set up then the Commercial models you speak of...right. No probably not. Not sure what issue the 430 has while in the holster the other striker fired guns don't share. Striker fired guns go bang if a shirt or jacket cord gets caught in the trigger area while holstering. Pistols with the manual safety applied don't.

Why handicap the soldier more with a manual safety?

You do realize anyone armed with a manual operated safety is not going to be handicapped. The US Army seems to have done quite well using pistols with either manual operated safeties or safety/decockers since 1911.

You're right, regular force soldiers will carry a pistol a whole lot more than they will ever use one. The more switched on and highly trained personnel will use their pistol and they deserve the best option for their needs and a manual safety is not a wanted or needed option.

That is why up until recently the pistol of choice was the SIG 226 using a decocker. Still lots of pointy folks using them. Weight is the biggest issue not the safety or lack of one.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen shooters at the range or at a match or at a class fail to disengage their safety and attempt to fire. This is closely followed by forgetting to apply the safety or activate their decocker prior to reholstering.

You are discussing trained combat soldiers are we not or are you on about your week-end pals. IPSC Open shooters and IDPA CDP and some ESP competitors do quite well every week at major matches using their manual safety style guns.

KidX the SIG 320 won the largest pistol contract in the free world....Glock lost. Get over it, I am sure Glock has already moved on albeit with a couple less marketing executives. I would not be surprised to see Canada follow suit, if and when the Liberals come around to realize they have to eventually properly fund our forces.

Take Care

Bob

 

[ipscgraz]

I hope things have changed now but I can remember lonnnnnng ago being handed an empty BHP after 2 minutes of listening to a familiarization speech about it, and moving to the line to fire two magazines at a stationary target. That was the extent of my handgun training in a reserve regiment.

I wonder how many other old guys remember the odd AD or ND during range days with the Sterlings; as they fired from an open bolt, people who did not understand that, wanted the bolt closed like the FN...quite often resulted in a loud and unexpected noise from someone down the line. And that was with no stress, standing still on a one way range.

The point of this ramble is that proper training and testing is the only way to make anything work well.

 

[OntarioTim]

I hope things have changed now but I can remember lonnnnnng ago being handed an empty BHP after 2 minutes of listening to a familiarization speech about it, and moving to the line to fire two magazines at a stationary target. That was the extent of my handgun training in a reserve regiment..

Unfortunately that's about all the actual range time with live ammunition the troops get with any of their equipment. It's all training in a SAT range (simulator) and one final trip to a range with only a couple of mags to qualify. Many reservists, depending on their primary roles, won't see a range again for several years.

 

[Claven2]

Striker fired guns are ready for use but still completely safe in the holster unless it's a SIG 320.

You do realize the US Army got a different trigger set up then the Commercial models you speak of...right. No probably not. Not sure what issue the 430 has while in the holster the other striker fired guns don't share. Striker fired guns go bang if a shirt or jacket cord gets caught in the trigger area while holstering. Pistols with the manual safety applied don't.

Why handicap the soldier more with a manual safety?

You do realize anyone armed with a manual operated safety is not going to be handicapped. The US Army seems to have done quite well using pistols with either manual operated safeties or safety/decockers since 1911.

You're right, regular force soldiers will carry a pistol a whole lot more than they will ever use one. The more switched on and highly trained personnel will use their pistol and they deserve the best option for their needs and a manual safety is not a wanted or needed option.

That is why up until recently the pistol of choice was the SIG 226 using a decocker. Still lots of pointy folks using them. Weight is the biggest issue not the safety or lack of one.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen shooters at the range or at a match or at a class fail to disengage their safety and attempt to fire. This is closely followed by forgetting to apply the safety or activate their decocker prior to reholstering.

You are discussing trained combat soldiers are we not or are you on about your week-end pals. IPSC Open shooters and IDPA CDP and some ESP competitors do quite well every week at major matches using their manual safety style guns.

KidX the SIG 320 won the largest pistol contract in the free world....Glock lost. Get over it, I am sure Glock has already moved on albeit with a couple less marketing executives. I would not be surprised to see Canada follow suit, if and when the Liberals come around to realize they have to eventually properly fund our forces.

Take Care

Bob

Lol. There you go again.

Thinking the competition was bungled, or believing that the Glock performed better and performance should have beat out price does not make one a glock fanboi.

It's not Glock love on our part, it's Glock hate on yours!

The competition doc's are in black and white. The Sig was less accurate and less reliable, but still win based on being cheap. Period. It's not even in debate.

Clear enough?

And for the record, the Glock in the MHS competition has a manual safety as well.

Ps: the socom operators who can buy any gun they want set the cheaper Sig aside and bought Glock. Fwiw.

 

[Canuck44]

Lol. There you go again.

Thinking the competition was bungled, or believing that the Glock performed better and performance should have beat out price does not make one a glock fanboi. Where did I ever imply the competiton was bungled.

It's not Glock love on our part, it's Glock hate on yours! Grow up.

The competition doc's are in black and white. The Sig was less accurate and less reliable, but still win based on being cheap. Period. It's not even in debate. Read my reply. The Glock offer was $100,000,000 more than the SIG offer. No government is going to ignorethat amount of money.

Clear enough? Well clearly you have convinced me you are comprehension skills are not your forte.

And for the record, the Glock in the MHS competition has a manual safety as well.

Ps: the socom operators who can buy any gun they want set the cheaper Sig aside and bought Glock. Fwiw.

You are one sweet expert. This has nothing to do with hate or dislike. SIG won Glock lost.

From GUNS.COM

"The 17-page decision chronicled the Army’s efforts between August 2015 and August 2016 when the field of nine proposals from five companies was reduced to an offering by Glock and another, ultimately winning bid, by Sig Sauer.Then the two designs were judged competitively on eight factors as well as price. On seven nonmoneteary factors, the Sig offering, a version of their popular Model P320, was found to be “acceptable” in one category, “good” in three, and “outstanding” in three while the Glock, by comparison, was found “acceptable” in one, “good” in five, and “marginal” in one."

I guess you read the report differently then they did. Glock has been winning LEO contracts for years based upon price. This time they lost on price big time, to the tune of $100MM. As for accuracy the exisitng M9 won last time by having to consistently shoot 3" Groups at 50 meters. Can your Glock 34 do that now?

Hate, hell I have four striker fired pistols for competition. The four I have don't point high because of the grip angle like the Glock nor do they hurt my palm or my trigger finger (I has shingles in my right hand about 12 years ago) due to the trigger safety. Those are the two reasons why I don't own a Glock. No other. They are great guns, but a dated design. The Gen 5 is almost a complete redesign of the "perfect pistol" including redesigning the trigger group to bring it up to date. Unfortunately for me the trigger safety and grip angle remain the same or the new gun would be in my safe the moment they are available.

Your problem is you bought a Glock and just don't understand why anyone would buy something else. Hell I just bought three of the very guns the US Army is ending their relationship with because the three will do well in the sport I enjoy.

I know the Glock issued their entry with a manual safety. Unlike some here, they didn't argue it wasn't necessary. They did it to meet the US Army's contract requirement.

Ooooo really the socom guys bought the Glock do you feel validated. Adding that really changes the fact SIG won...Glock lost.

Did you know out of 62 countries listed by Wikipedia 11 use Glocks in their inventory, 8 use 92 Variants leaving 43 who use neither. Just a useless piece of information for you to grind on from a dubious source, but the fact is SIG won...Glock lost.

Why Canadian shooter should get so butt hurt over the decision is beyond me. And they with all the expertise, with all the superior knowledge, that one of the most capable armies in the world seems to lack is simply amazing.

I just have to think the guys who play for real on this forum are finding most of this amusing, but surely not enlightening.

Take Care

Bob

 

[j2kool]

You are one sweet expert. This has nothing to do with hate or dislike. SIG won Glock lost.

From GUNS.COM

"The 17-page decision chronicled the Army’s efforts between August 2015 and August 2016 when the field of nine proposals from five companies was reduced to an offering by Glock and another, ultimately winning bid, by Sig Sauer.Then the two designs were judged competitively on eight factors as well as price. On seven nonmoneteary factors, the Sig offering, a version of their popular Model P320, was found to be “acceptable” in one category, “good” in three, and “outstanding” in three while the Glock, by comparison, was found “acceptable” in one, “good” in five, and “marginal” in one."

I guess you read the report differently then they did. Glock has been winning LEO contracts for years based upon price. This time they lost on price big time, to the tune of $100MM. As for accuracy the exisitng M9 won last time by having to consistently shoot 3" Groups at 50 meters. Can your Glock 34 do that now?

Hate, hell I have four striker fired pistols for competition. The four I have don't point high because of the grip angle like the Glock nor do they hurt my palm or my trigger finger (I has shingles in my right hand about 12 years ago) due to the trigger safety. Those are the two reasons why I don't own a Glock. No other. They are great guns, but a dated design. The Gen 5 is almost a complete redesign of the "perfect pistol" including redesigning the trigger group to bring it up to date. Unfortunately for me the trigger safety and grip angle remain the same or the new gun would be in my safe the moment they are available.

Your problem is you bought a Glock and just don't understand why anyone would buy something else. Hell I just bought three of the very guns the US Army is ending their relationship with because the three will do well in the sport I enjoy.

I know the Glock issued their entry with a manual safety. Unlike some here, they didn't argue it wasn't necessary. They did it to meet the US Army's contract requirement.

Ooooo really the socom guys bought the Glock do you feel validated. Adding that really changes the fact SIG won...Glock lost.

Did you know out of 62 countries listed by Wikipedia 11 use Glocks in their inventory, 8 use 92 Variants leaving 43 who use neither. Just a useless piece of information for you to grind on from a dubious source, but the fact is SIG won...Glock lost.

Why Canadian shooter should get so butt hurt over the decision is beyond me. And they with all the expertise, with all the superior knowledge, that one of the most capable armies in the world seems to lack is simply amazing.

I just have to think the guys who play for real on this forum are finding most of this amusing, but surely not enlightening.

Take Care

Bob

this ^^^ please close this thread we're just going back and forth LOL

 

[Claven2]

Lol whatever. I have more Sig guns than Glock ones. I pasted the actual report test results back on o1 of this thread and the actual test showing the reliability and accuracy difference between the guns.

I give up. Facts don't work against zealots on a crusade.

And for the third time, I don't own a Glock 34!?!

I could give a rat's @ss that you like the Sig. I'm sure the M17 is a nice gun that has more stoppages and throws wider groups than the Glock MHS. GAO and the us dod agree with me. Get over it.

 

[Canuck44]

I could give a rat's @ss that you like the Sig.

I
I don't. the US Army does. SIG won....Glock lost.

:>}


Bob

 

[yohann160]

They should have completed phase 2 testing before selecting the Sig.

 

[GuiltySpark]

The Sig vs Glock thing is pretty humorous. Even when people say it doesn't bother them or they don't care it really seems like they do.

(Claven2 hook me up with a G19)

It's interesting that SOFCOM went with the G19 and not the 320 like the army, maybe I'll try and dig up the user trials from the G19 and why they went with it. A standard issue weapon in the military has to be tough and simple because a lot of soldiers treat their weapons like ####. Handling a 320 it felt kind of cheap to me and I can see a lot of them broken.

 

[Claven2]

The Sig vs Glock thing is pretty humorous. Even when people say it doesn't bother them or they don't care it really seems like they do.

(Claven2 hook me up with a G19)

It's interesting that SOFCOM went with the G19 and not the 320 like the army, maybe I'll try and dig up the user trials from the G19 and why they went with it. A standard issue weapon in the military has to be tough and simple because a lot of soldiers treat their weapons like ####. Handling a 320 it felt kind of cheap to me and I can see a lot of them broken.

The Sig is not a bad gun. I had a chance to shoot the 320 last weekend, the guy at the range who owned it had not even heard about the recall. Now he's all paranoid as sh!t after I showed him the first three hits on youtube - lol. Otherwise it felt OK, but truth be told I didn't really like the grip ergonomics. That's a very personal thing though. The P226 grip fits me far better.

I keep hearing the military variant doesn't suffer the issue (supposedly), but if so, what does that say about the company that they offered a cheapo less-safe clone to the public? Sounds like awful corporate behaviour to me. No way they didn't know about the issue these last couple years with all the online bad press about it. I guess it took a major PD withdrawing the model for them to decide they needed to do the right thing. Sad.

As for SOCOM and handgun selection - it's pretty simple. Just like CSOR and JTF2 in Canada, SOCOM is outside the normal military procurement system. They have fast-tracked funding from Congress and don't have to run fair, open or transparent procurement processes. They simply internally test the gear they like, pick the best one, and buy it with a "price is not object" mentality. They are about maximizing the performance of the elite solder, who may go up against other elite soldiers. They want their guys to have every possible edge, including the best possible performance from reliable gear.

In the case of SOCOM, where they didn't care about unit cost, intellectual property, or GAO oversight - they bought the pistol with the best raw performance and paid dearly for that privilege. They likely barely glanced at the price, if they are anything like our operators.

https://sofrep.com/53591/socom-adopts-glock-19-will-big-army-follow/

The SOF guys were getting the Glock 22 in .40 for the last few years, but have now stared issuing the slightly smaller Glock 19 in 9mm NATO. Since it came out, the Glock 19 outsells the Glock 17 and 22 - except in places like Canada (lol).

Great quote from the above article:

The U.S. Army remains committed to the Modular Handgun System program despite high costs, low performance and heavy criticism. The Army’s Chief of Staff General Mark Milley has publicly complained about the Army’s broken procurement system.

In private, General Milley’s staff has asked the Army Special Operations Command’s G-8 office (responsible for procuring new equipment) about the possibility of the Army joining the contract to buy Glock 19s. This kind of contract sharing is common with federal law enforcement.

I wonder how Gen Milley feels about a handgun winning the MHS contract that had more stoppages and less accuracy than the G19 he wanted to buy? FWIW - SOCOM pays $320 per copy for the G19 - actually not a bad price and much cheaper than Glock was going to charge for the particularized MHS gun with a safety.

On a side note - SOCOM and FBI went to .40 in the 1990's because with the projectiles of the day, it was a better performer than 9mm. Fast Forward to today and the FBI and SOCOM now believe the ammo has gotten better and are swapping back to the softer shooting 9mm. I suspect after a few years, there will be a movement to got back to .40 again - just like the USMC went back to .45 for a while.

Flavor of the month kinda stuff...

FWIW - My only glock is a G22 Gen 2 in .40 and it works very well. Currently my favorite range toy as I just dropped in some aftermarket goodness, so it's like having a new handgun to try.

 

[yohann160]

Is that so? Below is a link to the GAO report. Please point out where it says that endurance testing was stopped at the halfway point, that the Sig had "nearly twice as many stoppages", or that Sig was "throwing groups roughly double that of Glock"?

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf

Under section H’s reliability subfactor, handguns were to undergo extensive reliabilitytesting, “using up to 35,000 rounds.” RFP at 298, ¶¶ H.5.1, H.5.2.2.1.

Page 4

The Solicitation Does Not Require More Than One Award Under Section M - Glock contends that the Army was obligated to award at least two base contracts, and was similarly required to complete the section H testing, prior to selecting a single awardee. Glock Comments at 1-11. In contrast, the agency argues that the section M provision allowing award of “up to three” base contracts permitted an award of a single contract at that stage, and that it has the discretion to not conduct the section H testing, evaluation, and final selection. MOL/COSF at 16-17.

Page 7

Section M allows the Army to “make up to three (3) base awards.” RFP at 387. Those“base awards” are limited, however, to the purchase of “the Weapons System Component Package requirements in accordance with CLIN [0]001 of the base contract and Statement of Work [SoW] C.3.1 . . . .”7 Id.; id. at 296, ¶ H.3.1. After receiving abase contract award, offerors (now contractors) may downwardly adjust their prices and update their proposed license rights. Id. at 295, ¶¶ H.1.1.1, H.1.1.4. Evaluated prices will consist of all CLINs except CLINs 0001 and 0002, which were previously ordered.Id. at 295. Next, “[t]he Government will then make a final down-selection to a single contractor by following the evaluation procedures contained in section H of this RFP.”Id. at 2.

Page 8

10 Glock also contends that the solicitation structure shows that the section M evaluation was designed to be an “initial evaluation of all MHS proposals that were received in order to eliminate those that did not meet the requirements . . . .” Glock Comments,Apr. 10, 2017, at 2. The protester argues that “if there are two proposals in the competitive range after the BST conducted pursuant to Section M [. . .], then the Solicitation unequivocally requires both of them to proceed to the Section H” evaluation.Id. at 3. Although the solicitation provides that section M is an “initial evaluation,” we do not find support for the position that a minimum of two technically acceptable proposals must receive an award under section M. RFP at 2.

Page 10

13 Under the factor 1 reliability evaluation, Sig Sauer’s full-sized handgun had a higher stoppage rate than Glock’s handgun, and there may have been other problems with theweapon’s accuracy. AR, Tab 3, SSDD, at 12. Due to the Army’s redactions of theagency report, the results of Sig Sauer’s compact handgun test are unknown.

Page 11

To summarize, phase 1 testing was completed and 2 proposals were left standing; Sig and Glock. The Army's position is that they were not contractually obligated to perform phase 2 testing (section H) on multiple proposals to pick a winner. They chose Sig's proposal after phase 1 testing based on price even though Glock's proposal had better performance. They did not bother testing Sig's compact pistol proposal either. Presumably, they will conduct phase 2 testing with Sig Sauer alone before the pistol is adopted and issued.

 

[trebor2880]

Can't beat a Glock for military and law enforcement. I hear tell the OPP are going to the Glock in 9mm.