[real saxophonist]

I bet they won't take the Glock, because of its perceived need for extra training.

Same reason we Marines had to deal with the 3 shot burst on the M16A2. Army didn't want to teach trigger control.

[broken_arrow1]

If they’re not considering a model 1911 Colt .45, Glock 17 is the only way to go...

[CincyRichieRich]

I bet they won’t take the Glock, because of its perceived need for extra training.

Same reason we Marines had to deal with the 3 shot burst on the M16A2. Army didn’t want to teach trigger control.

---

Incorrect mode of thinking; Glock would be why they’d use it because this decision was from 0bama and his marxist cronies. No safety means danger, loss of life in accidents and loss of American pride. A perfect marxist match.

Remember who we are dealing with.

[j. earl carter]

Same reason we Marines had to deal with the 3 shot burst on the M16A2. Army didn't want to teach trigger control

The M16A2 was created specifically for the USMC. The army did not switch and kept their M16A1's (at least, this was the case back in my era. I spent time in both the Army and Marine Corps from '86 to '92)

The big difference between them was that the A2 has a dial to adjust the range on the rear sight. The Army goes with the philosophy of using fixed sights and Kentucky windage for range adjustment.

I don't know who came up with the 3-shot burst idea, but I do know it wasn't done for the Army.

BTW, AFAIK "trigger control" in the USMC refers to applying slow even pressure to the trigger in a manner such that you are surprised when the rifle fires. This is done to prevent reflexive flinching. If one practices good trigger control on an automatic weapon, there is no telling how many rounds will go down range before you let off the trigger. I suspect that this is the reason the M16A2 offered only semi-automatic and 3-round burst modes.