M17, problems out of the gate. Meanwhile at SOCOM, the G19 quietly just works.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Sidearms & Scatterguns Army REJECTS Glock 19X, "It's a shitty pistol that is not worth the Army's time and money." - General James C. McConville, Army Chief of Staff
- Thread starter Fig
- Start date
As a reformed Sig fanboi, between the two, I would still pick the Sig. With the exception of the full sized 17, every other Glock was fine. But nothing about it said I needed one. And at it's core, the G19 is still a 30+ year old gun. The Sig is based around the chassis design they pioneered with the 250 series gun. The 320 goes to fix some of the complaints the 250 had. And the 320 does offer more out of the box and down the road. Being a modular gun, like what the military was looking for, allows upgrades down the road without having to reopen a new contract for a new gun.
Spoken like someone who shoots HKs!
i would, but i don't want to scratch one of my mags.
Spoken like someone who shoots HKs!
I will say I'm a sig guy and have been for years, while also not liking glocks. My recent deployment, we switched to glocks right before we left and not many of us were too happy about it. After deployment, I went out and bought myself a glock. I gave it a chance and shot a ton and fell in love. I still have and love my 226, 227, and 229, but I shoot my glock more. Thats not say I would or wouldn't like the 320 if that's what we were given, but I would now put myself in the glock fan section now.
Bought two more M17’s today from Euro Optic since they got a few in. That’s 4x M17’s now and 2x M18’s, and I still wouldn’t touch a 19X with a 10’ pole because the idea of a 17 grip on a 19 slide is just dumb. I will be buying a G19.5 MOS however just to have.
The 19X conceals great, shoots great. The only reason I still don’t carry mine is someone came out with 15 rounders for the 48.
I would go as far to say if a person has never been on a two way gun range their opinion of what works is moot.....
So, every PFC hit in an convoy knows more about pistols and shooting pistols than Jerry Miculek and Dave Sevigny? Furthering your thought process, their opinion is worth more on long range than David Tubb’s. You should think this through.
I was not sold on the 19x / g45 till we made the switch at my department. It’s the most shootable Glock, and I have shot every Glock model and series. But what I liked the most is the feel of the full size grip but how much faster it came out of the holster due to the shorter barrel. I know it sounds stupid that a 1/2” shorter slide makes a difference but it really does. And I think a lot of the shootability comes from the slightly less weight of the slide as compared to the full size. Mine also has the fbi contract u notched night sights from ameribold, not as nice as the trijicon hds but still really fast to pick up
Nah, it makes sense. The RPGs impart knowledge as the zip by. It helps to counteract the concussion. Heh.
Seriously, though, the number of folks with relevant pistol experience is a small population indeed. I recall, years ago, a buddy of mine (Elven10 guy) posted something, in jest I think, about 9mm vs. .45 ACP. I jokingly responded and it provoked an exchange that went something like this:
DJL2 - you know, pistols aren’t death rays, but some are better cod pieces than others
BTDT - I’ve killed people with pistols, 9mm does nothing, .45 destroys people instantly
DJL2 - bro, you’re a sample of one, there have been numerous failures to stop with .45 ACP
BTDT + everyone - combat experience makes my/his word law
To be fair, what he actually said was “when I shot someone in the chest with .45 ACP, there was no chest!” I’ve condensed the exchange. Was he right? Is the .45 ACP a chest cavity destroying monster to the 9mm’s total ineffectiveness? Or is he just a guy that served his country honorably, gained some unique combat experience (compared to most) and has both amplified and generalized from that experience?
I’ve known a lot of people across various disciplines that haven’t effectively analyzed and codified their life experience. First hand experience can be, and should be, part of the discussion. However, the gap between experience and knowledge can be a wide one...
Apples and oranges. The guns used by those top shooters have been in and out of custom shops so much that little of the original gun is left in it. Kind of like saying since the top NASCAR driver is winning races in a Chevy Impala, then the one I buy from my local dealer is just as good. The military needs to buy in bulk and it needs work out of the box. And yes, PFC Timmy who drove the LMTV for 12 months isn't exactly an expert either. If a top shooter's opinion is to be valid, and yes their experience is valuable, then when they evaluate a gun it should be a randomly selected box out of a warehouse. Otherwise any manufacturer that allows a gun to go to someone reviewing them that has not been been triple checked is either way overconfident or just don't care. Not a good sign either way.
I’ve had enough infantry guys show me their $300 AR’s with polymer lowers and $200 uppers to disagree with that. The SF dudes are the only ones who seem to be consistently knowledgeable on the technical stuff, their feedback is certainly important, but so is the engineers who are making these things.
The 45 may be the first Glock to make me go back to the brand after over a decade of nothing but CZs.
CZ (in Europe only at this time) sells the opposite, a P-10SC, which is a P-10F slide on a P-10C frame. I think that's the worst of both worlds.
They need to copy Glock with a P-10F frame with a shortened dust cover and a P-10C slide on it. The shorter slide really does make shooting at speed easier as there is less mass moving around and driving the gun up and down less; plus the draw is even easier as you noted. Sight radius is irrelevant to me since all the handguns I use regularly have RDS.
I thought about making my own (chopping and beveling the front of a P-10F frame and dropping a C slide) for USPSA Carry Optics but such frame mods would put me in Open.
I’ve no idea how you got to that conclusion, but that’s not even close to what I was getting at. I was speaking of the validity of their opinions, not what they shoot.
What I was getting at is what the pros shoot and what gets issued are two separate things. Do you think that the Glocks that Team Glock shoot are randomly pulled off of the shipping dock and are identical to the ones that you or I would buy at out local gun shop? And also these shooters get paid by someone to shoot those guns. So their opinion has some bias, even if they are talking about another gun, because they might want to work for them down the road too.
The military needed to buy a gun that is good to go out of the box. And between the Glock9 and the P320, the 320 has room to grow.
The military needed to buy a gun that is good to go out of the box. And between the Glock9 and the P320, the 320 has room to grow.
Wasn't a huge glock fan, but bought the g19x I picked up thirty seconds after handling it.
Have subsequently replaced all primary handguns with the glock 19x. It's fantastic minus one small issue; trigger guard is too thick and in a long class will rub the shit out of your knuckle if you have large hands.
Twenty minutes with a dremel and it's perfect
Have subsequently replaced all primary handguns with the glock 19x. It's fantastic minus one small issue; trigger guard is too thick and in a long class will rub the shit out of your knuckle if you have large hands.
Twenty minutes with a dremel and it's perfect
Ugh...had an awful day at the range today. I feel like I out shot myself with my brother’s Gen3 19...not sure how upset to be, heh.
The P320 did print this 25 yd group with Norma 115 target/range ammo off a rolled up sweatshirt on top of a barrier. Yes, my trigger control sucked today...
The P320 did print this 25 yd group with Norma 115 target/range ammo off a rolled up sweatshirt on top of a barrier. Yes, my trigger control sucked today...
Attachments
Last edited:
Every PFC has nowhere near the level of skill that Jerry Miculek has. The army is buying a pistol for the people that serve in it. I would venture to guess that people who shoot like Jerry Miculek are few and far between even in the elite units.
No its not.
This is the kind of low information BS that gets spouted and other people read it and take it for granted.
The M&P was such a piece of shit just about every agency who adopted it went back to Glock or Sig becuase they were trash from the factory and required replacing all the guts with aftermarket to even make them serviceable. S&W bassicaly stole all the fixes that the aftermarket did and incorporated them into the 2.0 MANY years later while deniying there were any problems with their guns. S&W incompetance basically created APEX's success. Thats why they are dirt cheap, and still no one buys them.
Glock had been beating sig in trials even back when they made the 22X guns correctly in Germany/CHE. Glock is simply a better gun for institutions. Easier to shoot, easier to teach, less things to go wrong, easier to maintain,ect. If you can't shoot a glock well, you are the problem.
Every single firearm has characteristics that previous ones do. There is only so many ways to skin a cat and only a few good ways.
To say the glock was not innovative or at the least revolutionary, just shows your ignorance on the subject and lack of understanding.
From Materials, to Manufacturing , To repeatability, To ease of parts replacement , to ease of of use it changed the game, and it did it cheaper than anyone else could at the time. It changed the game the same way the 1911 changed the game.
Nothing is emotional, these are facts.
USAJOBS - The Federal Government's official employment site
Search and apply for federal jobs. Learn about unique hiring paths for veterans, students and graduates, individuals with a disability, and more.
www.usajobs.gov
You can learn first hand.
The requirements were written for sig before the RFP ever got out.
If you understood how government and specifically DOD procurement worked, you would know this.
They also bundled the ammo award into it, which was fucking retarded. Its not like that hasn't bitten them before. If they actually had any interest in running a legit procurement, they would have tested a bunch of ammo and selected the new round BEFORE the gun. If you watch kevin owens various videos he even goes into how they selected the optic seperate from the MK22. Bundling shit from different manufactures limits your options and you usually end up with garbage.
Your reading comphrehension is lacking. I am quite detached from consideration of glock, neither for, or against.
I don't care for them, but I could not care less if you like them.
Again, H&K pioneered the use of polymers. Not glock. He made it affordable.
Glock used an existing recoil operating system.
Nothing really to see here.
I can see I ruffled your fanboy feathers.
Glock fanboys are like vegans.
How do you know someone owns a Glock?
Just wait, they'll tell you.
LOL you are funny.
You are spouting the same bullshit lines as the fanboys you claim to hate. Its hilarious and anyone reading this sees the irony. Going out of your way to talk shit about them is the same as being them.
Glock is not my primary or even backup sidearm. Sorry to disappoint you. Try harder.
Armalite/Stoner pioneered polymer in firearms before HK did so HK sucks too right?
Fred Flintstone invented the first feet powerd car a million years ago so every modern vechicle is just a poor stolen idea from that too. I saw it in a picture documentary many years ago.
Yes, H&K sucks. Mostly because of piss poor after purchase customer care.
Fred Flintstone did not invent the car, he purchased it from his earnings at the quarry.
Armalite did not pioneer polymer framed firearms, they used polymer in the stocks and forends.
That is not the same.
You have yet to contribute anything to this entire site and are nothing but a troll.
Yup HK sucks, Glock Sucks. They suck soo bad people who shoot others for a living overwhelming choose between those 2 platforms.
The only troll here is you. At least you are consistent with your irony.
I think demographics also is going to play a role.
People tend to think of the mil as these ninja hero munks, real world many (but not all ofcourse) are not gun people, and most of this stuff is built for the lowest common denominator, for Timmy whos only other prospect with join the army or work at Walmart, similar to why the HMMWV is AWD vs 4WD like the CUCV was.
It’s not that these weapons have to be the best high speed tack drivers, it’s they have to be cheap enough and pumped out fast enough to ship by the pallet, able to be operated, and mis operated, by say the folks who work at Walmart, and still go bang good enough to hit a minute of man.
People tend to think of the mil as these ninja hero munks, real world many (but not all ofcourse) are not gun people, and most of this stuff is built for the lowest common denominator, for Timmy whos only other prospect with join the army or work at Walmart, similar to why the HMMWV is AWD vs 4WD like the CUCV was.
It’s not that these weapons have to be the best high speed tack drivers, it’s they have to be cheap enough and pumped out fast enough to ship by the pallet, able to be operated, and mis operated, by say the folks who work at Walmart, and still go bang good enough to hit a minute of man.
Last edited:
That's nothing new. Between him and 308buttpirate their stupidity is always entertaining. Bless their hearts.
Thats why i kinda think they missed the mark. As a fleet weapon and something issued to the lowest common denominator, the glock would have been a better choice. Easier to teach, easier to maintain and you will find glocks anywhere in the world. We give then to oir partner nations and it just makes to much sense. The econsystem is already there for it.
From the lowest conscript to an assaulter in delta or a ranger in batt, the gun just works, is simple and easy to use.
The brits did the right thing when they replaced the legendary hipower with glocks. G17 for general issue and g19 for those who need concelement or tight space.
From the lowest conscript to an assaulter in delta or a ranger in batt, the gun just works, is simple and easy to use.
The brits did the right thing when they replaced the legendary hipower with glocks. G17 for general issue and g19 for those who need concelement or tight space.
The lack of a manual saftey is another advantage, especially for those not getting constant trigger time and training.
Personally I’m a SA condition 1 kinda guy,
But, for use by the lowest common denominator and wide spread standardization, I do get why the Glock style striker fire internal safety system makes sense for mass mil/army/police issuance here
Wow, this looks like a first time pistol owners CCW course photo lol
Last edited:
Unless you are in a sof unit your going to get little to no pistol training. The little training you do get will be garbage. Very little trigger time even for those that carry them like CID and MPs.
Which makes picking an easy to use, easy to train, simple , mature and reliable platform that more important.
Its remarkable that from the lowest novice to black side master shooters, the same gun is the correct tool.
Which makes picking an easy to use, easy to train, simple , mature and reliable platform that more important.
Its remarkable that from the lowest novice to black side master shooters, the same gun is the correct tool.
I see it's a Glock Bashing thread.
In my 21 year career in Armor, We carried pistols, I started out with the 1911A1 and later transitioned to the M9. As an E7, I ran all our Weapons qualifications at both Company and BN level. So I got to see lots of people come thru my range to qualify.
You know what was common to both pistols?? Most of the Soldiers struggled to qualify. Because handgun training in Big Army is a joke. The only advantage was on average, a higher percentage of shooters scored better with 9mm then 45ACP. Contrary to popular belief, most are not "Gun Guys" Even in SOCOM... Yeah, I know, shocking.
Sig won for two big reasons.
There gun was more modular (Part of the requirement) had different grip sizes, could take a Suppressor, RDS ,etc
and they low balled the price (Lowest bid that meets the contract).
Glock half assed it with grip panels and an after thought safety as a attempt to make the requirement.
Sig needed the work way more then Glock. Glock is plenty busy churning out guns for the public, while SIG is closing there manufacturing facility in Germany and relying solely on the US factory. Given time, SIG will be like Colt and FN, busy chasing after the .Gov Teat as that's where the big bucks and steady work is.
Beretta had a cost effective gun to fix most of the issues (Locking blocks and trigger return springs) but Uncle Sugar was not interested.
Did the Army need a new hand gun??? No, they wanted one, Just like all the millions they poured into the various M4 Carbine competitions they conducted over the years, and came to the conclusion that there was nothing that was head and shoulders better then what they currently have.
's
Is the M17/18/P320 a good gun??
Sure, it's shoots fine, has a decent trigger. I just shot one last Thursday and It had a SIG RDS mounted on it... I shot a 10 rd group at 25 yds slow fire for score and then did the same with my Gen 3 G19 with a RDS.
the results... pretty much a wash, because I can shoot a handgun pretty well.
How reliable are Sigs?? the old 226's (All metal) had a good rep. Time will have to tell on these, as they are the new kid on the block. Glock has had a proven track record and my Gen 5 G19 shoots everything I feed it (Mostly Steel Wolf and Tula) had excellent accuracy and is stone cold reliable.
It also has a huge aftermarket of parts, accessories Holsters, etc.
Will the SIG have that in time? Most likely.
But at the end of the day, if you're a decent pistol shooter, You can pick up any Handgun and shoot it well. Be it a Glock, SIG, Beretta, CZ, 1911, etc.
When I retired in 04, I had a Beretta 92FS that was my training gun to allow me to practice. I sold it to buy my first Glock as I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. It shot point of aim, was simple and reliable and you could run it dry and it still worked. It was what I expect a tool to do, work every time I need it.
Switching to another platform, for me, makes little sense as the cost to switch over gun, magazines, holsters, would not give me any measurable benefit.
But don't fool yourselves into thinking the Army "Chose" the SIG as it was a better gun. Outfits like the Unit can pick any gun they want, Green side SF will shoot what ever is in inventory, it was M9's, soon it will be M18's.
I remember when the Ranger BN's started using the SCAR16. Eventually most went back to the M4, because it was lighter, they were more familiar with it and the SCAR16 didn't really offer a huge improvement.
Unless you are in a SMU and get not only good training, but time and ammo to become proficient, Handguns are just something to inventory, keep clean and verify serial numbers during arms room inventories. And Dudes issues them , will wrap them in ziplock bags and tuck them in there holster to make turn in easier......
Any unit that has special criteria, will buy what ever they want.
The Military, like all Government, is good at spending other folks money.
Just my 02...Flame away..
In my 21 year career in Armor, We carried pistols, I started out with the 1911A1 and later transitioned to the M9. As an E7, I ran all our Weapons qualifications at both Company and BN level. So I got to see lots of people come thru my range to qualify.
You know what was common to both pistols?? Most of the Soldiers struggled to qualify. Because handgun training in Big Army is a joke. The only advantage was on average, a higher percentage of shooters scored better with 9mm then 45ACP. Contrary to popular belief, most are not "Gun Guys" Even in SOCOM... Yeah, I know, shocking.
Sig won for two big reasons.
There gun was more modular (Part of the requirement) had different grip sizes, could take a Suppressor, RDS ,etc
and they low balled the price (Lowest bid that meets the contract).
Glock half assed it with grip panels and an after thought safety as a attempt to make the requirement.
Sig needed the work way more then Glock. Glock is plenty busy churning out guns for the public, while SIG is closing there manufacturing facility in Germany and relying solely on the US factory. Given time, SIG will be like Colt and FN, busy chasing after the .Gov Teat as that's where the big bucks and steady work is.
Beretta had a cost effective gun to fix most of the issues (Locking blocks and trigger return springs) but Uncle Sugar was not interested.
Did the Army need a new hand gun??? No, they wanted one, Just like all the millions they poured into the various M4 Carbine competitions they conducted over the years, and came to the conclusion that there was nothing that was head and shoulders better then what they currently have.
's
Is the M17/18/P320 a good gun??
Sure, it's shoots fine, has a decent trigger. I just shot one last Thursday and It had a SIG RDS mounted on it... I shot a 10 rd group at 25 yds slow fire for score and then did the same with my Gen 3 G19 with a RDS.
the results... pretty much a wash, because I can shoot a handgun pretty well.
How reliable are Sigs?? the old 226's (All metal) had a good rep. Time will have to tell on these, as they are the new kid on the block. Glock has had a proven track record and my Gen 5 G19 shoots everything I feed it (Mostly Steel Wolf and Tula) had excellent accuracy and is stone cold reliable.
It also has a huge aftermarket of parts, accessories Holsters, etc.
Will the SIG have that in time? Most likely.
But at the end of the day, if you're a decent pistol shooter, You can pick up any Handgun and shoot it well. Be it a Glock, SIG, Beretta, CZ, 1911, etc.
When I retired in 04, I had a Beretta 92FS that was my training gun to allow me to practice. I sold it to buy my first Glock as I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. It shot point of aim, was simple and reliable and you could run it dry and it still worked. It was what I expect a tool to do, work every time I need it.
Switching to another platform, for me, makes little sense as the cost to switch over gun, magazines, holsters, would not give me any measurable benefit.
But don't fool yourselves into thinking the Army "Chose" the SIG as it was a better gun. Outfits like the Unit can pick any gun they want, Green side SF will shoot what ever is in inventory, it was M9's, soon it will be M18's.
I remember when the Ranger BN's started using the SCAR16. Eventually most went back to the M4, because it was lighter, they were more familiar with it and the SCAR16 didn't really offer a huge improvement.
Unless you are in a SMU and get not only good training, but time and ammo to become proficient, Handguns are just something to inventory, keep clean and verify serial numbers during arms room inventories. And Dudes issues them , will wrap them in ziplock bags and tuck them in there holster to make turn in easier......
Any unit that has special criteria, will buy what ever they want.
The Military, like all Government, is good at spending other folks money.
Just my 02...Flame away..
“Green side” SF (whatever that is) has had Glocks for a long time. I got there in early 2005 and never had to shoot a Beretta, but we had them assigned. Group will get Sigs because they’re free from the Army and the support personnel don’t get Glocks. Unlike the Beretta I can actually see some guys choosing to carry the Sig since they’ll have both as options.
I've always seen the term "Green Side" used to describe the Normal SF units Not the SMU like CAG. I'm sure over time the G19's have made there way into the Arms rooms as SOCOM has built up an inventory of them. It's my understanding that the M9 is still on the property books of most SF BN's as it is part of there TO&E and they don't (Or didn't) have the luxury of going out and getting what ever they want.
I'm no SF Expert, but am a Platinum Holiday Inn Member...
**Spoiler alert** everyone generates, informs, procures, and fields to a requirement the same way: legally, as a part of the same procurement system. 250, 2500, or 2.5M people, backed out a step or two it’s all the same. With the very refined requirements, relatively small quantities, and less commas in the price the first two groups are a lot easier. TL;DR: everyone has the same ability to get what they want, it’s just a lot simpler when the guys you’re buying for all have the same job and needs more or less.
Last edited:
So then why not educate me and correct it, it's not like were giving up the go codes for the Nuclear TRIAD, were talking Pistols.
I'm no Expert (Even admitted as much) and this is a Discussion Board, where we ...Wait for it .... Discuss. guns and such.
I'm a Big Boy, I can take it.
Maybe Reub just does not want to admit his Very Special Forces team uses High Points with the dolla' bill paint job?!?
I have a Hi Point with a $100 paint job
I paid $176 for it and it’s got $1600 printed on it. It’s called investing fellas, look it up.
I paid $176 for it and it’s got $1600 printed on it. It’s called investing fellas, look it up.
