Bobson
Member
Touche. I stand corrected. Never heard of such a specimen, much less seen a picture of one.
Glock Officially Protests Army Selection of Sigs
- Thread starter tipoc
- Start date
- Status
Not rudeness or disrespect....just correcting. I am sorry some of the snowflakes that got trophies for being flat out wrong get their feeling hurt if told they are flat out wrong in clear terms.
The worst part about passing the kind of incorrect information out is that people that do not know better and actually come to places like this to learn something read the trash other people post as fact.
I offer an apology to those offended and offer up an I tried trophy so no little flower gets their feelings hurt.
No but there was a time when the different branches all wore different boots.....and this was stupid and expensive....going back to guns there was also a time when the Army had a different flavor of M16 over the air force and U.S. Marines.....this was also stupid and expensive. Some things got changed.
It is a machine and as such it does wear out....a carrier will wear out. So if you are looking at having to buy another huge batch why not look around.....yes you do have the devil you know side of things and you might find out that this widget just has an issue with x,y or z.
It is also not just the gun itself that costs....you have everything from holsters to training info that has to be made up again for the new item....whatever new item that is. This is a huge project.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
I don't have a 320 but I'm sure it's a fine gun. I also suspect the selection of the Sig had far more to do with politics than guns.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Just gonna drop this nugget here, in support of the folk who think that spending money on a new pistol may be cool but not the best use of taxpayer dollars:
https://www.facebook.com/ArmyFortLee/posts/1535352549863403:0
https://www.facebook.com/ArmyFortLee/posts/1535352549863403:0
Old Dog
Member
Just gonna drop this nugget here, in support of the folk who think that spending money on a new pistol may be cool but not the best use of taxpayer dollars:
https://www.facebook.com/ArmyFortLee/posts/1535352549863403:0
Wow -- entirely unrelated to the thread topic, but that's an egregious grip (look at that left thumb crossed over and the cup'n'saucer hold) and stance.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
I was thinking the same thing.
Must work for him, once a year anyway.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,132
True. The caveat with that is M4s get repaired and replaced far more often than M9s do. M9s are trained with less and shot less. But they still wear down. And the wear is more noticeable when they aren't as normally maintained as the M4s. I was trying to get a secondary MOS as a unit armorer by the time I got out. The gunsmith training would have mostly covered M4s with very little instruction into 240s, 249s, and M9s. Only about 10% of the course was M9 maintenance. As far as training cost with the new pistol, not much difference compared to M9. They kept the same caliber so much of the soldier training cost will be the same.
As for the General...he is a General. High ranking officers shooting weapons is a good photo opportunity but there is very little chance they will need that weapon proficiency.
rbernie
Contributing Member
It actually is related, because it illustrates a point made here in this thread - that many of those service members issued a pistol aren't being taught how to freakin' use it. Instead of spending money on buying a new pistol, that 'up to $580M' budget might have been better spent teaching folk how to use the pistol that they got.
You could do a lot of weapons training for 'up to $580M'.
JeffG
Member
I wonder if the drive to secure new pistols, was shooter dissatisfaction, and low scores that could have been addressed with better training?
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
I would bet the Sig vs Glock controversy is a far bigger issue on THR than it is to most soldiers especially if they are Major Generals.
lysanderxiii
Member
.308 Norma
Member
Now THAT'S funny! Thanks.
Who'd tell him?
You should tweet The Donald
from a library computer
in a neighboring town
Cannibul
Member
Not nearly as much as you think.
RON in PA
Member
The picture of the Major General and his apparent strange shooting form has generated much web chatter, but what is the possibility that we are looking at a peculiar camera angle of the General in the prone position?
It would seem to me that the single most important thing in a sidearm other than reliability in the military is longevity. How many years can it reliably work for a decent price point while still being a decent weapon.
Look how long the military stuck with the 1911. And it still almost is good enough in that role. The more of the next century the next handgun can last the better.
Face it a sidearm is something a small percent will ever rely on, and these guns will be shot a moderate amount to use up ammo each year and worn or moved about in abusive fashion a lot. They need to be light enough to not be a pain to wear, reliable enough to go bang reliably in harsh conditions, but last a long time so nobody has to keep buying handguns of little importance to the military to replace the worn out ones.
Handguns require precise shot placement to be useful in a military role where most people have rifles but are often the most neglected pieces of gear the soldier will have because they are not priority.
I don't like the Glock as much for the military.
Even though it is really cheap for big contracts, reliable, and probably the least trouble to carry it relies on Glock the company to replace damaged or overly worn plastic frames, because quite frankly a plastic frame may work for a huge round count, but can not take a lot of direct damage. What turn into dings or scratches on metal and remain cosmetic are gouges and structural issues on plastic. It is also more sensitive to temperatures and chemicals.
Glocks can even be reshaped in boiling water. That is just not military suitable in my opinion, your sidearm shouldn't melt if you have it next to a hot motor, machinegun barrel, or crack or break because you land on top of it while carrying a full kit. Yes I know plenty of military units use them, as do many police. I still think for our own military should have something that is more robust.
The more modular the firearm the easier it should be to swap parts. So the military can keep some running a lot longer with spare parts and parts from cannibalized ones. That is cheaper to the nation to provide a high quality firearm to its troops. You want to be able to stick with a handgun until some technological leap requires them to need an update. Right now a handgun is a non body armor piercing sidearm that is not particularly effective per shot on people that will typically be armed with long guns, often body armor, and close to you if you are within effective handgun range and willing to engage them with a handgun.
So using a handgun already sucks in combat and is mainly useful to MPs and special units.
We have a big military that needs handguns that will last a long time, can take some abuse and make reliable sidearms.
That said I love a Glock for civilian use. They get less abused carried by private owners, and are reliable and light weight and can go a huge number of rounds while at the same time making good shooters. Good weapons that can be carried easily.
Privately owned Glock the company at this point in time with its very old owner is a company that honors its product.
But things change, Gaston won't be around much longer, things may be changing for Glock, and the military is really better served by a gun you can drop on the ground, stomp on, drop a 80 pound pack on and then pick up and use, after previous soldiers issued the gun did something comparable during their service. Handguns need to be tanks in the military, and I dare say the aluminum frame M9 was barely enough and are getting to be rattle traps at this point. Yet they are certainly tougher than many popular civilian firearms. Something steel even tougher is probably a better direction than something plastic. Look how robust the m9 is for a 9x19 on the civilian market yet is still taking a beating in the military.
Now if I was that individual soldier I would rather carry the light weight plastic (and have it properly maintained and swapped out when it wore out), but logistics is very important in the military and I think the steel guns if treated appropriately will outlast them. Now when you get to rifles the size is significant enough that weight saving material starts to make more sense than hamstringing your troops with a rifle that will last a century but weighs so much it reduces their mobility and ultimately how much they can get done. But with a handgun the weight savings I don't think make up for the trade off in its ability to take a beating for general use.
Look how long the military stuck with the 1911. And it still almost is good enough in that role. The more of the next century the next handgun can last the better.
Face it a sidearm is something a small percent will ever rely on, and these guns will be shot a moderate amount to use up ammo each year and worn or moved about in abusive fashion a lot. They need to be light enough to not be a pain to wear, reliable enough to go bang reliably in harsh conditions, but last a long time so nobody has to keep buying handguns of little importance to the military to replace the worn out ones.
Handguns require precise shot placement to be useful in a military role where most people have rifles but are often the most neglected pieces of gear the soldier will have because they are not priority.
I don't like the Glock as much for the military.
Even though it is really cheap for big contracts, reliable, and probably the least trouble to carry it relies on Glock the company to replace damaged or overly worn plastic frames, because quite frankly a plastic frame may work for a huge round count, but can not take a lot of direct damage. What turn into dings or scratches on metal and remain cosmetic are gouges and structural issues on plastic. It is also more sensitive to temperatures and chemicals.
Glocks can even be reshaped in boiling water. That is just not military suitable in my opinion, your sidearm shouldn't melt if you have it next to a hot motor, machinegun barrel, or crack or break because you land on top of it while carrying a full kit. Yes I know plenty of military units use them, as do many police. I still think for our own military should have something that is more robust.
The more modular the firearm the easier it should be to swap parts. So the military can keep some running a lot longer with spare parts and parts from cannibalized ones. That is cheaper to the nation to provide a high quality firearm to its troops. You want to be able to stick with a handgun until some technological leap requires them to need an update. Right now a handgun is a non body armor piercing sidearm that is not particularly effective per shot on people that will typically be armed with long guns, often body armor, and close to you if you are within effective handgun range and willing to engage them with a handgun.
So using a handgun already sucks in combat and is mainly useful to MPs and special units.
We have a big military that needs handguns that will last a long time, can take some abuse and make reliable sidearms.
That said I love a Glock for civilian use. They get less abused carried by private owners, and are reliable and light weight and can go a huge number of rounds while at the same time making good shooters. Good weapons that can be carried easily.
Privately owned Glock the company at this point in time with its very old owner is a company that honors its product.
But things change, Gaston won't be around much longer, things may be changing for Glock, and the military is really better served by a gun you can drop on the ground, stomp on, drop a 80 pound pack on and then pick up and use, after previous soldiers issued the gun did something comparable during their service. Handguns need to be tanks in the military, and I dare say the aluminum frame M9 was barely enough and are getting to be rattle traps at this point. Yet they are certainly tougher than many popular civilian firearms. Something steel even tougher is probably a better direction than something plastic. Look how robust the m9 is for a 9x19 on the civilian market yet is still taking a beating in the military.
Now if I was that individual soldier I would rather carry the light weight plastic (and have it properly maintained and swapped out when it wore out), but logistics is very important in the military and I think the steel guns if treated appropriately will outlast them. Now when you get to rifles the size is significant enough that weight saving material starts to make more sense than hamstringing your troops with a rifle that will last a century but weighs so much it reduces their mobility and ultimately how much they can get done. But with a handgun the weight savings I don't think make up for the trade off in its ability to take a beating for general use.
Last edited:
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
This sounds like a Hail Mary by Glock. I can't imagine the army tearing up a signed deal with Sig, pry lasting decades and paying out hundreds of millions of dollars. They wouldn't have very many bidders if they did business that capriciously.
That being said, on the tiny chance that they do overturn the deal, Glock might stand to make a truckload of money. Low risk, high reward as far as they are concerned.
Kind of tangential, but I wonder how modular these modular pistols will really be. I've heard that when designing the M16A2, the Army (Marines? I forget) intended for the shorter A1 and the really long A2 stocks to be interchangeable. The removable spacer in the A2 stock seems to support this. Of course, that went out the window when the new rifles actually shipped, and everyone just got stuck with the long stock. I could see that happening with the Sig - just throw a factory pistol into the hands of whoever's issued one and pile up the spare frames in a warehouse somewhere.
That being said, on the tiny chance that they do overturn the deal, Glock might stand to make a truckload of money. Low risk, high reward as far as they are concerned.
Kind of tangential, but I wonder how modular these modular pistols will really be. I've heard that when designing the M16A2, the Army (Marines? I forget) intended for the shorter A1 and the really long A2 stocks to be interchangeable. The removable spacer in the A2 stock seems to support this. Of course, that went out the window when the new rifles actually shipped, and everyone just got stuck with the long stock. I could see that happening with the Sig - just throw a factory pistol into the hands of whoever's issued one and pile up the spare frames in a warehouse somewhere.
Last edited:
TrickyDick
Member
Yeah, 6 years in the Army.
It's not clueless, it's optimistic. You do realize not every soldier gets a handgun right? They'll be issued to officers, MPs, and medics, perhaps others. I know everyone is convinced that it'll be the standard "one size fits all" approach. But with a modular system, that doesn't have to be the case. Initially, it will be used as one option, but I imagine down the road, they'll be able to trade in frames.
What would be the point of different size frames if they're not going to use them?
Deus Machina
Member
I'm really betting the use of the modulate system will be limited to, perhaps, different barrel lengths for MPs or very specific missions, or keeping in mind perhaps transferring all the military branches to it.
More likely it's to fit different hands, especially now that women are more likely to join. For instance, a friend of mine bought a M92. Nice gun but it's big and the grip is a giant 2x4 compared to more current designs. Even he comments that it feels like the largest grip he owns, and with my hands smaller than his (medium gloves fit me well, as opposed to 90% of stuff on store shelves being 'large') I just cannot fire it as quickly and accurately as anything I own. And with handguns, quick and accurate is what's needed, to get you to something bigger.
More likely it's to fit different hands, especially now that women are more likely to join. For instance, a friend of mine bought a M92. Nice gun but it's big and the grip is a giant 2x4 compared to more current designs. Even he comments that it feels like the largest grip he owns, and with my hands smaller than his (medium gloves fit me well, as opposed to 90% of stuff on store shelves being 'large') I just cannot fire it as quickly and accurately as anything I own. And with handguns, quick and accurate is what's needed, to get you to something bigger.
entropy
Member
That doesn't change the fact that it looks like he got his grip from 80's TV cop shows. And yes, I'd tell him his grip was wrong, like I had to teach the LTC that commanded our BN how to shoot the 1911. He had been issued a .38 revolver his whole career to that point. (Dustoff pilot in VN, Huey units until our Med BN.) And like I told a Brigadier Gen. sent from the Pentagon to ask me (and the other Armorers who got a test steam-operated weapons cleaner) how the weapons cleaner system they sent worked, I told him very honestly that used correctly BY TRAINED ARMORERS it would be effective, but when some idiot who outranks the Armorer pulls rank to take it over, he might burn himself with it. That happened, and I couldn't even tell the E-5 who pulled rank on me, "Told you so." Still chuckle about it every time I picture his bandage-wrapped hands.
For those who keep postulating on how the SIG's modularity is intended to be used-it doesn't matter how it's intended to be used. What will happen when the parts get NSN numbers and become available will be that Supply personnel (Who are also your Armorers, at least in the Army) will order the different grip parts , barrels, slides, etc. despite any official admonition for them not to, unless modular modifications will only be done at higher levels of Maintenance. (There are ways around that, also.) It will first happen with the "high speed, low drag" community, then will spread throughout the military. Since only the FCG is the serial numbered part, which must be ordered and signed for by an officer, I suspect all other parts will be orderable at Unit and Post Maintenance levels.
I highly doubt they will use them....I think this things claim to fame is going to be the "gun" part is just the little stamped metal inside.....after the plastic gets fubar, a new bit of plastic gets stuck on and away you go.
Do you really think the military is going to be stocking hundreds of thousands of different sized frames for everyone....this is not boots.
Everything will be standard....it is just the way it is.....if not it is going to be a huge waste of money.....I can see tons of frames sitting for years not going anywhere and being sold off or given away to law enforcement like all the other crap they give us. I have 100 new back packs all free, not to talk about hummers, trailers and our "tac" vehicle. All free, and most of it with very little use. Who knows it might make us give up our old sig's for these new one if the army is going to give away grips they have no use for.....great use of tax payer money.
I think we're seeing a (probably highly classified, leaked) quantum advance in technique, that will probably take years (decades?) to filter down to training allowed for civilians.
- Status
