Posted on 01/11/2013 2:47:11 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
British troops serving in Afghanistan will soon be issued a new sidearm, the Glock 17. The Glocks will replace the L9A1s—Browning Hi-Powers with an ambidextrous safety—in service that have been standard-issue for about 50 years.
The decision follows more than two years of evaluating the Glock for service, and calls for 25,000 Glock 17s to fill the £8.5 ($13.6) million contract. Some troops have been issued SIG P226 pistols to replace their aging Hi-Powers as a stop-gap measure, but it’s the Austrian pistol that has won the hearts and minds at the British Ministry of Defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at guns.com ...
For a guy who was aware of guns during the period, I don’t know how you missed learning about Glocks in the early and mid 1980s, their durability and ability to function under bad conditions and it’s level of technological advancement, was a major gun story for years.
There was some bitter anger at them having been kept out of the American running for a new pistol, it was believed that the US should have adopted them if they were going 9mm, and that it was superior to the pistol the US military ended up with.
Some of you guys sound like the media, calling it “plastic”, “ugly”, “cheapo”, rather than the break through beast that it is, a wonderful tool, famous for reliability.
For 30 years I have been amused by guys who talk about Glock like women talk about purses, they think the Glock is ugly, too purely functional.
There are claims that Delta is/was using Glock.
“”There was a down select to the STI 2011 and Glock 22 in .40S&W. The 1911 were costing us way to much per gun to keep them running. Parts, labor, X-rays, you get the picture. Even when Kentucky (Lexington Depot) would build a gun, the unit gunsmiths would practically and literally rebuild the gun for the individual operator during the training course. There was a contract let years ago for a select manufacturer to make the frames and slides and several different parts and barrel manufacturers to make the internals. Much like the MEU/MARSOC pistols a while ago they just got to expensive.””
The SAS replaced their P35s with SIGs back in the early/mid 90's. The rank and file actually preferred the CZ75, but the MOD pushed for a weapon that had been built by a cold war ally, as the future prospects and allegiances of Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic were uncertain at the time.
As a Glock snob I’m happy for those servicemen, however now all those Glock makers will be busy filling that order. How will that affect the Glock inventory in the US?
Not hardly, Big Guy! The Germans never had a prayer against the US Army once we got our act together through some tough experience. The M-1 rifle was far and away superior to the German rifles and even the introduction of the StG43/MP44 couldn't bring the balance back. I had an older friend who had been hit by five 9mm slugs from an MP-40 at Normandy but survived - know any Germans who took 5 .45 slugs and saw daylight again?
I am a combat veteran of the Vietnam War and I remember all too well the "hi-tech"/least bidder weapon we got to replace our M-14s with. Cost a lot of our lives, but what the hell, it's only somebody else's kids.
My understanding is that the Germans out killed us man for man, as they did the Brits, although we controlled the skies.
Your remark about Germany losing the war and that having some connection to the pistol that the officers carried, was pretty silly.
We didn’t have the Glock during the Vietnam war when I and my brothers were serving, but it’s reliability and ease of maintenance, and light weight, and high capacity would have been useful for our American GIs, when the American made Colt rifles jammed.
My remark about the Germans "losing the war" with the 9mm was meant to be silly - I was just fencing with a set of colonels who were determined to change our primary caliber to 9mm para come hell or high water and it was my chance to tweak their noses in public. .40 S&W would have been a better choice if they really had to replace the .45 but they had their own agenda.
Gun snob. Get it. Hear it for wine. Hear it for colleges. Hear it for just about anything. My Glock will fire perfectly well when my life depends on it. I will bet my life on it. I was in the service and my weapon was a 1911, and if I had to choose the weapon I have in my hand in a life and death situation I will choose the Glock.
Oh, well if you walked around and counted grave stones, that clearly proves everything.
Here is another claim.
“”According to calculations by the US Army the results of the battles in World War II were only possible, when the soldiers of the Wehrmacht - man for man and unit for unit - were 20 to 30 percent more effective then was the British and American forces they faced.
Extrapolating the individual soldiers against each other - and although the Wehrmacht was far lower in numbers - so the German troops that faced British and American troops under all combat conditions (for assaults with the usual factor of 1.0 - in the defense in carefully selected positions with view by a factor of 1.3 - in prepared defense positions 1.5 - in fortified defense positions by a factor of 1.6) cause approximately 50 percent higher losses than they suffer.
This was accessible whether the Germans were in attack or defense, if they were locally in place with higher numbers or - what was the rule - in lower numbers, if they had air cover or not, whether they had won the battle or lost at the end.
Even in the bitter years of defeats on the Russian front, the German combat effectiveness superiority over the Russians was even more pronounced. In the early days of the campaign in the east, one German division could take up with three Russian divisions of comparable strength and power. And, theoretically, under favorable defense conditions one German division could stand against no less than seven comparable Russian divisions.
In 1944 this superiority was still about 2:1, and one German soldier at the front caused an average loss of 7.78 Russians for one German. These figures need to adapted to the fact that the Wehrmacht in 1944 was almost always in the defense, had a relatively higher mobility and at this time the German weapons were better than the weapons of the Russians. But even if you take into account these considerations, the ratio for the infliction of losses was more than 4:1 and the German fighting power in battle was - man by man - about more than 50% better.””
Despite your obvious affection for the losers, they were well-dressed butchers, not effective combat troops.
I’m not a Germanophile, but like everything else, you just leap to uninformed conclusions.
Your uniformed yet passionate opinions on the Glock seem to fit your general approach to things.
The Glock appears to be a reasonably useful pistol. As far as something for the defense of my home and family - and maybe to pass on to my children and grandchildren - I'll take the real steel deal, thank you.
Actually I think post 50 should have given you a clue about how people came to the conclusion of the superiority of the individual German soldier over 70 years of looking at data and breaking down details of losses and assets and so on, but when you argue that you counted tombstones, or post disputed gross totals for the entire war, I’m not interested in getting into more wasted time with you.
You don’t know much about Glock, and you don’t like it. I understand why you say the things you do, a lot better now than when I first posted to you.
I have zero doubt that the Germans lost, big time. Warms the cockles of my heart -they were despicable. Conversely, I congratulate those Allied men who had the courage to wipe that nest of vipers out -and liberate the few survivors of their infamy. As far your Glock goes, enjoy - but life is too short to put up with a ugly pistol.
And there it is.
Jeff Cooper was opinionated, to be sure. He DID write that the Glock IS a “good” pistol. I didn’t always agree with everything he wrote, but I do on this. The Glock IS a “good” weapon for its genre. It DOES have legions of fanatical devotees who will cite a rebuttal for every criticism of their favorite. It is true that the regular Infantryman is not a pistolero. He is a rifleman. Hence, the Glock is fine for him. The goof-ball safety lever pawing types won’t have the M92’s useless safety to paw at with the Glock, so they’ll start demanding carry with an empty chamber – just watch. The Glock’s unsupported chamber is another concern for me (civilian carry). I very much prefer the 45 ACP, but carry the 9mm because of contingency and ammo availability. It IS effective when used properly and that effectiveness is magnified when +P or +P+ loads are used with good bullets – such as the Buffalo Bore 115 grain Speer Gold Dot +P load. Tim Sundles, Buffalo Bore’s owner, states that the Glock’s unsupported chamber is a concern with +P loads, and I believe him. The other considerations for replacing the P35 are that the cost of purchase outweighs many other factors and POLITICS, pure and simple. The Glock is the darling of the neuvo cool bunch. As for me, a forged Hi-Power cocked and locked would be my choice, followed by a CZ 85, or a Ruger P89DC (decocker model). I prefer single action, but the latter two DA/SA weapons would work fine – and are not “polymer” (PLASTIC). The fad of projections on trigger faces as “safeties” is just that – a fad. They DO work. For the regular grunt, they’re fine – as I wrote, he is a rifleman first and foremost. My absolute choice would be a 1911 in 45, but that is not the subject here.
Just like any Army or fighting force, there are exceptions to every rule. The German army was NOT a legion of butchers – many German servicemen were NOT Nazi party members. Many units fought with distinction and valor. There were some units – even in the American military – that did not. You mentioned the Bulge – the green, poorly trained US troops were RAN OVER in the initial stages of the German assault – it was not because of cowardice on their part – they were utterly unprepared. However, the professional Heer troops many times fought with honor. There were atrocities on all sides, and thank God the allies prevailed. Your abject hatred of all things German clouds your selective “facts”.
I would agree with you that today's Germany is not anything like the Germany back then but it is wrong to say that the German armed forces of WWII did anything but support the inhuman objectives of the Nazis. The sole exception was Oberst Von Stauffenberg and his conspirators but it was too little and too late.
However, I completely agree with your comments about the Glock: it's plastic, it's trendy, but it isn't a 1911A1. I carried the .45 in combat as a backup to my M-14 and it always worked perfectly in all conditions. When your life depends on it, never go for the least-bidder weapon.
I guess we can agree to disagree on the subject of German morality - what I can say is that many German professionals were not Nazi party members and fought NOT for the death camps or Hitler or gas chambers or Himmler - but for their families, their country and their honor. I remember a line from a film - “Why are you still fighting?” (answer): “Because it’s our land, and you’re on it.”
OK - the Glock - I naturally rebel against convention. Yes, it DOES go “bang” every time the (goofy) trigger is pulled. Yes, it IS reliable, (until the plastic wears down). Make mine steel, preferably in 45 ACP, but a Hi-Power over polymer all day long and twice on Sunday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.