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

Big Bad

Big Bad

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
In The Year Of Our Ford #8.
The Glock unperfected. I will pass I think.


Want to buy the Glock that lost the Army handgun competition? You might just get your chance

Brendan McGarry Military.com
Aug. 31, 01:08 PM


Glock Inc. plans to sell the pistol it developed for the US Army’s Modular Handgun System program on the commercial market, a company official told a German publisher.

In January, Sig Sauer Inc. beat out Glock, FN America, and Beretta USA–the maker of the current M9 9mm pistol–in the service’s high-profile competition to replace the M9.

Glock protested the decision, which was upheld by the Government Accountability Office, and shortly thereafter released photos of its entries for the program: versions of its 9mm Glock 19 and .40 caliber Glock 23 pistols.

Earlier this month, Dr. Stephan Dorler, managing director of European Security and Defense, a publication based in Bonn, Germany, interviewed Richard Flur, head of international sales for Glock GmbH, based in Deutsch-Wagram, Austria.

GLOCKmhs1215_07-onWhite_0350-1.jpg

Glock, Inc’s one-gun entry for the US Army’s Modular Handgun System program. Photo from Glock, Inc.



Here’s a transcript of the interview, according to a PDF posted online and previously reported by The Firearm Blog:

“ESD: Will there be a version of the Glock Modular Handgun System pistol for the commercial market?
Flür: Yes. We think this is a great pistol and would like to give all interested parties the opportunity to try and purchase it. All costs associated with the development of the pistol were financed by Glock, so it is also possible to market the pistol independently. Of course, we will be able to make good use of the experience gained from completing this project. Some aspects will certainly be reflected in future Glock products.

A Glock official in the US said there is no timeline yet for such a plan.

http://www.wearethemighty.com/artic...un-competition-you-might-just-get-your-chance
 
talk about bungled procurement. The Army bought a gun that isn't drop safe. Ooops.

Sad to see the vaunted Aberdeen test facility fall sooooo low. They stopped the endurance testing at the halfway point - the sig had nearly twice the stoppages over the glock. It was also throwing groups roughly double that of the glock. It's all in the GAO report - fascinating stuff. But oh... that $120M discount on the sig. Better stop testing now boys, before we have to use more of the budget to buy something actually combat-ready.

I can't believe they let that one past. The FBI got it right picking the 17M in 9.

So to be clear: the Glock was deemed technically compliant (and performed much better), but they lost based on price.
 
Last edited:
All the MHS contenders had to add a manual safety. It was in the statement of requirements. Most of the entrants had to modify their existing offerings to qualify.

The MHS is why Glock (finally) had to invent Ambi controls for their gun.

The only problem with the MHS is the bbl is not Canada legal. We will have to settle for the FBI version, which is basically the 17M, now called the gen5.

The gen5, like the FBI offering does not have the added safety and has a 4.5" Glock 17 barrel, vs the 4" Glock 19 bbl on the mhs offering.

The rest of the two guns is pretty similar - maybe even identical.
 
jacotsmith said:
[Flame suit on] I agree.

I also like the full size grip / short barrel combo. And leave it to Glock to say "new and improved, now without finger grooves!" When they never should have been there in the first place.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, before Glock had a plant in the USA, the State department made them add the stupid grooves so it could qualify on their ret@rded points system for import as a target gun.

God only knows why they kept them in the gen4 - probably something about the cost of machining new moulds.

Ditching the grooves is the single best new thing in the gen5. [/FLAMESUIT]
 
Claven2 said:
Sad to see the vaunted Aberdeen test facility fall sooooo low. They stopped the endurance testing at the halfway point - the sig had nearly twice the stoppages over the glock. It was also throwing groups roughly double that of the glock. It's all in the GAO report - fascinating stuff.
Click to expand...
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
 
Glock and it's fans are kinda sore loosers ;) , reminds me a bit about democrats in US in 2016 elections ;)
 
Claven2 said:
talk about bungled procurement. The Army bought a gun that isn't drop safe. Ooops.

Sad to see the vaunted Aberdeen test facility fall sooooo low. They stopped the endurance testing at the halfway point - the sig had nearly twice the stoppages over the glock. It was also throwing groups roughly double that of the glock. It's all in the GAO report - fascinating stuff. But oh... that $120M discount on the sig. Better stop testing now boys, before we have to use more of the budget to buy something actually combat-ready.

I can't believe they let that one past. The FBI got it right picking the 17M in 9.

So to be clear: the Glock was deemed technically compliant (and performed much better), but they lost based on price.
Click to expand...

And that's the real story!! :cheers:
 
Opps, the 320 is not the only new offering having teething problems. Probably a minor issue. Like the 320's issue, this Gen 5 issue will be fixed.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/08/19/breaking-glock-17m-recalled-police-department/

Glock owners are going to have to get over the fact the US Army is going with the SIG 320. It is a better gun for their purpose. Why it makes a difference to Canadians in the civilian context is beyond me. Our law enforcement folks have to shoot what their departments buy, an option we, outside of law enforcement, are not limited too.

Claven2 if you bought your Glock to compete with in IPSC, it will serve you well. The platform does way better in IDPA/USPSA in the form of the G 34 but for most the gun will out shoot those who handle it anyway which is a nice way of saying it is the archer not the arrow.

Take Care

Bob
 
Claven2 said:
talk about bungled procurement. The Army bought a gun that isn't drop safe. Ooops.

Sad to see the vaunted Aberdeen test facility fall sooooo low. They stopped the endurance testing at the halfway point - the sig had nearly twice the stoppages over the glock. It was also throwing groups roughly double that of the glock. It's all in the GAO report - fascinating stuff. But oh... that $120M discount on the sig. Better stop testing now boys, before we have to use more of the budget to buy something actually combat-ready.

I can't believe they let that one past. The FBI got it right picking the 17M in 9.

So to be clear: the Glock was deemed technically compliant (and performed much better), but they lost based on price.
Click to expand...

The SIG M17 has both a different trigger and a manual safety, so unlike it's general public counterpart it is drop safe.
 
rkm456 said:
The SIG M17 has both a different trigger and a manual safety, so unlike it's general public counterpart it is drop safe.
Click to expand...

The new parts(to include a new striker and sear, a new trigger/trigger bar and a milled trigger disconnect surface in the slide) on the MHS 320's are what should have been offered via a RECALL for the consumer market. Instead SIG let the public rot with dangerous defective guns until the news got out, now they're playing damage control and pretending like they actually give a sh*t.. As you said, the 320 has been available for 4 years and this is what SIG releases? They claim 10 years of design and research and spending 4% of the revenue/budget on R&D and we get a sig 250 with a striker mechanism that isn't drop safe... Nothing to brag about there.

As for the manual safety, that's a bullsh*t excuse. Is it possible that a pistol might be dropped with the safety DISENGAGED???? Kind of the reason 1911's have a.... DROP SAFETY in the form of a grip safety. Drop testing a firearm with the safety on is retarded. It had better not fire with the safety engaged and that safety best not disengage on impact either. The real test of a design is dropping it in a ready to fire condition with safety OFF. But hey, SIG passed all the mickey mouse tests put forth by SAAMI and the military so it must be good to go. :rolleyes:
 
Kidd X said:
Kind of the reason 1911's have a.... DROP SAFETY in the form of a grip safety.
Click to expand...
The grip safety on a 1911 in NOT a drop safety. The original 1911 design does not have a drop safety of any kind. In the 80's, Colt introduced the so-called "Series 80" safety, which consists of a firing pin block that moves out of the way when the trigger is depressed. Some other 1911 manufacturers use lightweight (typically titanium) firing pins that do not have enough inertia to set off a live round in the event of a drop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom