US Ground Forces are getting new Pistol

SEALs drop the Sig in favor of the Glock. MARSOC drops the 1911 in favor of the Glock...

Standard forces drop the Beretta in favor of a Sig.... Color me confused as fuck about this.
 
Last edited:
Yeh peculiar choice. I mean it's nice and a very good gun but I would've stuck with the Glocks
 
What is so great about the Glock? They have done anything new with the look of the Glock in a long time. Its just that box, right angle slide design.
 
MadSquabbles500 said:
What is so great about the Glock? They have done anything new with the look of the Glock in a long time. Its just that box, right angle slide design.
Click to expand...

Glock is tried and true. Thing has an epic track record, great mags, tons of parts, etc. I'm really not the biggest fan of them tbh but if I wanted a shtf pistol, a G17/19 would be it.

While I really like shooting the P320 it is a relatively new pistol.
 
MadSquabbles500 said:
What is so great about the Glock? They have done anything new with the look of the Glock in a long time. Its just that box, right angle slide design.
Click to expand...
The AK47 hasn't changed in almost 70 and is still in use with new versions being issued to Russian military all the time.

Also look doesn't matter in guns.. operation is what matters.


The best part about a Glock 19 is you could use a 17 magazine, the big 30 rounder magazines all in the 19. It's also SUPER easy to field strip and clean/repair if needed. The only major issue with the Glock imo is the factory iron sights are fucking ass.

Also, my biggest thing is if the JSOC guys are all switching to G19s... why are standard infantry shifting to something that is
A.) Relatively new

B.) Something that seems to have so many goddamn moving parts in it.


There's a reason that virtually every LEO group in the country at the county, state, and Federal level use some form of the Glock whether it's a 9mm or the .40 S&W though most LEO groups are dropping the .40 in favor of the 9mm
 
Last edited:
Still going to have the same issues with terminal ballistics if they stick with ball ammo.

Also if you look at the required thumb safety, it pretty much threw Glock out of the running.

The funny thing was my PD did a firearms test a while back to pick our new guns and we tested almost all these same guns.

We ended up with the Smith & Wesson M&P 9 but we can use hollow point rounds which makes the difference.

The SIG 320 didn't perform well in our testing. That said I'd pick it over the M9 any day.
 
This decision shouldn't have been made by just the Army. If a new service pistol is being selected it should be military wide.
 
Protectandserve said:
Still going to have the same issues with terminal ballistics if they stick with ball ammo.

Also if you look at the required thumb safety, it pretty much threw Glock out of the running.

The funny thing was my PD did a firearms test a while back to pick our new guns and we tested almost all these same guns.

We ended up with the Smith & Wesson M&P 9 but we can use hollow point rounds which makes the difference.

The SIG 320 didn't perform well in our testing. That said I'd pick it over the M9 any day.
Click to expand...
Wait, the Army requires a thumb safety for their pistol?

ThisIsMySafety.jpg


I know ultimately of all my friends that served they all DESPISED their M9s and the guys that ended up with even old ass 1911s and those newer Colt ones the Marines used for a bit much preferred even those over the M9s,
 
The required thumb safety is stupid. I can't believe that was a requirement. Actually, my memories of Ft Hood remind me EXACTLY why conventional forces need a thumb safety. The shooting of most troops was absolute shit.

When you can get to range more frequently than once every 6 months as a unit, it becomes a little easier to develop good shooters. Thumb safeties are just an unnecessary obstacle, allow the shooter to swap out the sights, and change the junk factory trigger parts to something a little lighter, and Glock becomes the obvious choice. EVERYONE makes Glock parts too, so doing modifications becomes easy.
 
sub_thug said:
The required thumb safety is stupid. I can't believe that was a requirement. Actually, my memories of Ft Hood remind me EXACTLY why conventional forces need a thumb safety. The shooting of most troops was absolute shit.

When you can get to range more frequently than once every 6 months as a unit, it becomes a little easier to develop good shooters. Thumb safeties are just an unnecessary obstacle, allow the shooter to swap out the sights, and change the junk factory trigger parts to something a little lighter, and Glock becomes the obvious choice. EVERYONE makes Glock parts too, so doing modifications becomes easy.
Click to expand...
I read someplace a goddamn loaded chamber indicator was a requirement too. WTF? Do these guys not know how to brass check a goddamn gun?

Also, if the thumb safety and loaded chamber things were requirements I am curious why they didn't go for a more prolific option like an XD or M&P given how much aftermarket support there is for those.
 
If they go with 40 S&W they are absolutely idiotic. Everyone on the LE side is moving away from it and it is abusive to most frames.

Just need to issue hollow points and get with the times.
 
Protectandserve said:
If they go with 40 S&W they are absolutely idiotic. Everyone on the LE side is moving away from it and it is abusive to most frames.

Just need to issue hollow points and get with the times.
Click to expand...

Is there any other reason for LE moving away from 40 S&W? I'm asking because I'm hunting around for a p226 and I'm still undecided on caliber. I'm already leaning towards 9mm in that particular gun as the .40 S&W didn't even exist when the gun was designed, but still curious as to why a mass exodus is happening away from the round.
 
Last edited:
Gregolian said:
SEALs drop the Sig in favor of the Glock. MARSOC drops the 1911 in favor of the Glock...

Standard forces drop the Beretta in favor of a Sig.... Color me confused as fuck about this.
Click to expand...

Government contracts are nebulous lowball bids at best, backdoor shit deals at worst. You said it best in a different thread about the land of 700$ hammers.
 
Ashton said:
Is there any other reason for LE moving away from 40 S&W? I'm asking because I'm hunting around for a p226 and I'm still undecided on caliber. I'm already leaning towards 9mm in that particular gun as the .40 S&W didn't even exist when the gun was designed, but still curious as to why a mass exodus is happening away from the round.
Click to expand...

I have a Shield in 40 and have shot a couple other 40's. I'm not really a big fan.

To me its probably snappier than 45 with less capacity than 9mm. Somewhat marginal performance gain over 9mm for the negatives. I find it more difficult to shoot well and quickly.
 
RerouteToRemain said:
I have a Shield in 40 and have shot a couple other 40's. I'm not really a big fan.

To me its probably snappier than 45 with less capacity than 9mm. Somewhat marginal performance gain over 9mm for the negatives. I find it more difficult to shoot well and quickly.
Click to expand...
I've heard it described as a "pud" 10mm essentially
 
I like the .40. Both in my Baby Eagle and P30L. But I don't shoot people, just targets at the range.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,058
Messages
55,464,143
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top