MOD Adopts Glock; Takes Stand on Side Arms

MOD Adopts Glock; Takes Stand on Side Arms

The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense recently adopted the Glock 17 to replace its World War II-era service pistol.

The move is significant and shows the importance the MOD places on individual soldier weapons compared to the leadership in the U.S. Military.

This is not to say that American military personnel don’t have high-quality infantry small arms; they do. But despite several past efforts, the U.S. Army – the Pentagon’s executive agent for small arms – has been unable, and in some cases unwilling, to replace the M4 carbine and the M9 pistol with more-modern, better-performing weapons.

Now to be fair, the Pentagon did replace its WWI/WWII-era 1911 .45 automatic pistol with the Beretta M9 9mm pistol in the mid 1980s. But after nearly three decades, the M9 has developed a mediocre reputation at best among Army and Marine combat troops.

Army requirements officials at Fort Benning, Ga., have made it very clear in the past that pistol engagements are rare and that armies don’t win wars with side arms.

 The MOD has a different view. “Pistols are vital in close-combat and are a key part of a soldier’s armory,” Warrant Officer Class 1 Mark Anderson in the Royal Marines said recently in an MOD release.

The MOD tapped Glock to produce 25,000 of its Glock 17 Gen4 9mm pistols to replace the venerable Browning L9A1, also known as the Browning Hi-Power. The L9A1 has been in service since World War II and is still considered to be a highly-reliable and accurate 9mm pistol.

Glock handguns, which are extremely popular with American law enforcement officials and elite U.S. Army special operators, are often referred to as the AK47 of pistols for their outstanding reliability.

The Glock 17 features a 17-round magazine compared to the Browning’s 13-round mag. It also has a polymer frame making it slightly lighter than the Browning. Glocks have an excellent trigger, a feature that makes it easier for a shooter to maintain very tight shot groups.

“We are determined to provide our troops with the best possible personal kit available, and these new Glock 17s will give them greater firepower and accuracy on operations,” said Philip Dunne of the MOD Equipment, Support and Technology.

Join the Conversation

The move isnt that BIG the FN Hi Power was adopted after WW2 for British troops who used Webleys revolvers during the War it offer not much over the Hi power both being 9mm pistols with mags over 10 rds. Hi powers see use around the world in large number today even.

The M-4 is still in service because there is nothing really better than it. all are 5,.56mm carbines and the M-4 most agree have better ergonomics and even reliability than the plastic guns companies showed at AUSA. Face it we have weapons that work and the M-9 is just as good as a G-17 for a 9mm pistol.

“Now to be fair, the Pentagon did replace its WWI/WWII-era 1911 .45 automatic pistol with the Beretta M9 9mm pistol in the mid 1980s. But after nearly three decades, the M9 has developed a mediocre reputation at best among Army and Marine combat troops.”

Completely absent from this article is any mention of how elite special ops units, with the authority to perform their own independent small arms acquisition, have repeatedly opted to dump 9mm and instead go with modern .45 pistols. The 9mm is demonstrably lacking in stopping power compared to the .45, which is why SOCOM types pack the forty-five.

The real reason why the services went to the 9mm in the 1980s is that, at the time of the acceptance trials, the diversity bureaucrats at DACOWITS had already issued directives indicating that the services had to lower barriers to women serving. And an uncomfortably high percentage of female recruits proved unable to qualify with the .45. More women were able to qualify with the nine, and so it was adopted. Combat effectiveness taking a back seat to gender norming.

There are parallels in civilian law enforcement. After the infamous 1986 Miami shootout, where several FBI agents died because of the lack of stopping power of the 9mm, the Bureau decided they needed something with more authority. They came up with the original 10mm FBI round, far more powerful and capable than the 9mm.

And then the Bureau had to hastily backtrack on that plan for “diversity” reasons, and scrap all that expensive new round development, because very few female agents were able to qualify using the new 10mm. They had to standardize on the milder .40 S&W instead.

Ideologically driven procurement decisions have unavoidable real world consequences. Such as sticking combat forces with underpowered weapons.

I should add.

That both Glock 17 and M-9 are good pistols why is Matt Cox whining over the Brits using Glocks and we use M-9s?

Both carry good amount of 9mm ammo M-9 15rds G-17 17rds.
Both shoot under water, Though stock Beretta can Glock has to be modified.

All the complaints is not the M-9 Beretta but crappy FMJ 9mm NATO ball ammo. The USAF solved this by using 147gr HP ammo in sidearms.

SO I agree both are good guns but one dose NOT offer any major advantage over the other.

I used a M-9 for over 4 years I stake my life on it never failed me.

Heck most Spec Ops staying with 1911A1s so newer is not better. I bet you see SAS and some Brits using Hi Power long after Glocks been in service.

GLAD you mentioned that history, torquewrench! All too few realize the width and depth of the cancerous spread of PC “diversity” concepts in the armed services and what it’s doing to combat effectiveness..

They keep the M16/M4 with that wimpy .22 cal round for the same reason. Haven’t you heard, one size really does fit all. Equality mean “equality of result” today, not “equality of opportunity” as was once the case. Otherwise we might be handing out .44 magnum handguns and .338 Lapua semi-automatic rifles to the 6′ 3″ 250 lb boys and let the rest handle the .308’s or .22’s as they can, but you need equality of result. No one gets to take advantage of their size, larger or smaller, because we’ve got a political agenda to serve and that’s what’s really important.

I agree the UCG went to .40 S&W and in fairness the M-9 can easily converted to shoot .40 S&W. I agree 9mm lacks power mostly because light 124gr FMJ doesn’t work the USAF had AP switch to 147gr HP and had very good success with them. Ammo change is necessary not gun change.

Well Lance, the point was that the MOD realizes that small arms, even side arms, have to be updated just like other piece of gear such as body armor, packs, boots, uniforms, cold weather gear and the dozens of other catagories of kit that the U.S. continues to upgrade.

I don’t know where you get you facts from, but as far as I know, the USAF has to use ball ammo just like the rest of the U.S. Military.

I’m also not sure what you mean by most Spec Ops units staying with 1911A1s — SEALS use Sigs, Delta uses Glocks, 75th Ranger Regiment uses M9s. Marsoc recently adopted a customized 1911A1, but that was only so they didn’t have to write a new requirement for a new pistol and open up a new funding line.

I don’t know if you have every spent any time with the Browning or the Glock, but it wasn’t hard for me to realize that the Glock is superior to the Hi-Power. The Browning design is great, but it is outdated. I seriously doubt that any British Special Ops want to use a Hi-Power after they feel how much better the trigger is on the Glock.

I like how the M4 is supposedly something that the US should be replaced with something more modern with better performance, yet it’s the chosen carbine of British Special Forces.

I am similarly disgusted by modern social acceptance of sexism against men and racism against Caucasians in the name of promoting “diversity.” However, I had thought that standardization of the 9mm round was mainly driven by the desire to standardize equipment across NATO countries, and basically the US decided to relent to the Europeans. I am not sure whether the G17 is better than the 92 — I think the bigger small-arms decision that the US has to make (no pun intended) is in regard to assault rifles: bullpup or traditional, direct impingement or piston-driven and 5.56 or some different caliber like 6.8 SPC.

I meet and talked to APs who said they have went to 147gr ammo. MARSOC uses M-1911s and Depends on operator some have 1911s some use Glock 21s some still use M-9s and SIG 226s. Even some Mk-23s still in SEAL use.

The M-9 has also been upgraded USMC M-9A1 example. M-4 is being upgraded by M-4 PIP to a better heavy barrel version. The US arms evolve too. Just nothing out there that such a huge leap that justifies replacement. Nothing really at all many are improved M-4 themselves.

As for Hi Power V Glock ts going to be up to the operator still some 1911s are out there so maybe some HPs in British use.

Most Allied Spec ops opted for the M-4 and one reason why SOCOM ditched the SCAR L for the M-4A1 didn’t offer anything over it. M-4 has better ergonomics.

I don’t see any discussion of the Beretta’s main competitor, the Sig Sauer. I recall the Navy’s pistol expert from WW2 (the famous Lt Brown (ret), who ran the Navy program from Crane up through and just after the selection of the Beretta) saying he wanted to reproduce the M1911 because of its stopping power, but the metallurgy couldn’t be replicated (and pistol manufacturers had tried a number of times). So, the Sig was his preferred replacement (he said it was better than the Beretta).

No that’s not correct. MARSOC has adopted new Colt 1911A1s, a similar version to the custom .45s they have been using. That is what MARSOC is using — not glocks, not sigs not M9s.

Now, since you know so much, I’m sure you are aware that the M4 PIP started out an ambitious effort to improve the M4’s barrel, rail system, bolt assembly and possibly the operating system.
After months and months of waiting, the only thing to come out of the PIP is the M4A1.
The M4A1 does have a heavier, more robust barrel and a better trigger.
See it is my job to ask questions, not just accept what each service spoon feeds me. What’s interesting is that real soldiers, shooters with a lot of trigger time, can’t believe that the Army couldn’t fine a better bolt than the one currently on the M4. There are companies that have made some impressive improvements to the design of the M4, but the Army doesn’t seem to want anything that isn’t created in house.

Lance if you are going to take the time to comment on a post, please take a little time to make sure you know what you are talking about.

Hello Matthew, it is good to read comments by an author defending his own article. I am curious what you think about a possible new combat rifle for the Army and Marines. What do you think about bullpup/traditional style, direct impingement/piston and 5.56 verus other calibers? One thing that I have always been curious about is the US military’s aversion to bullpup-style firearms. Within the most recent replacement programs, all weapons have been traditional-style guns. Several other countries have gone to bullpups (UK, France, Austria, Israel, Singapore, China, Australia) while others have stuck to traditional-style rifles (US, Russia, Germany). Why the difference?

I didn’t imply MARSOC was using M-9s SiGs ect. I read they used M-1911s (older style ones at first) and are fielding a upgraded M-45 MARSOC pistol. Its up to the operator some Spec Ops operatives use Glocks other 1911s some a M-9 its up to the operator.

As for the M-4 PIP. yes im also disappointed the BCG was dropped from PIP S&W made a excellent new carbine BCG. How ever the free floating rail system competition is still and may get a winner soon next year. M-4A1 I agree has better trigger dumps three round burst for full auto, and most importantly a heavy barrel. Overall two BIG factors lead to ICCs demise 1) there no rifle that much better than the M-4. SOCOM dropped the Mk-16 in favor of the M-4 is a good example. Most ICC entrees where improved M-4s Colt and ADCOR and HK. Two the Army is going to be and in many is broke so many ways lead to the end of some competitions. Overall two no one has a much better Carbine M-4 does well still over Europe’s weapons FNC, G-36 AUG FAMAS. Way better than China’s Type 95. Most of the world uses AK-47 and AKMs which are older and much less modular than the M-4. Fact two is even the SAS and most Spec Ops around the world us M-4s or copies of it.

As for JCP died more to the fact of no money and Army would not change from 9mm and so theirs no sense to switch to another 9mm pistol when the M-9 did very well. If any new pistol comes most support would be a new caliber like .40 S&W or 10mm AUTO. Until new calibers for both rifle and pistol come I dont see and so dose many Army Brass a need to change weapons. Id say Chris would you support going to 6.8mm or 6.5mm for a new Carbine and .40 or .45 caliber for hand guns again. I dont mind it but due to idiocy of NATO this isn’t going to happen.

His opinion. Ive out shoot Glocks and SiGs with my M-9 this is all shooter preference.

Possibly, but SAS use the Sig pistols and have done so for many years. The British forces in Afghanistan use Sigs as well, although it’s a slightly different model to that in use with SAS. When I lived in South Africa I carried a Glock 17, it has no safety to disengage so I could pull it and fire it. Glock 17 is an excellent weapon, far better than Beretta 92/M9 or Colt 1911.

“I don’t see any discussion of the Beretta’s main competitor, the Sig Sauer.”

The Sig is an excellent firearm.

“I recall the Navy’s pistol expert from WW2 (the famous Lt Brown (ret) … saying he wanted to reproduce the M1911 because of its stopping power, but the metallurgy couldn’t be replicated”

The stopping power of the 1911 is not a function of its mechanicals or metallurgy. It’s a function of caliber and bullet weight.

The 1911 was and is an absolutely brilliant design in the context of a hundred years ago. A modern design in the same .45 caliber should offer equal stopping power with lower mass and easier maintenance. Plus niceties such as accessory rails. For some reason, John Moses Browning didn’t anticipate strapping lasers onto pistols, half a century before lasers.

As a shooter (not military), The Browning is a great pistol, but it is a single action and the triggers are usually horrendous due to the magazine safety. I have little experience with the Glock and it’s not too bad. As an NRA instructor, I’m not happy with the lack of an external hammer and safety, but for professinal miitary folks this would be an advantage. If I have to defend myself, I will stick with my 1911 in 45. Somehow it works better for me.

I seem to recall hearing recently that the USMC just put an order in for 12,000 M1911’s. Did that get canceled? And does it signal a move back to a more reliable round for stopping an opponent?

Not true.

The British (and other Commonwealth countries) used the Hi-Power during the war (so did Germany).

The M9 is NOT just as good as the Glock.

As to other comments about .45 or .40, not necessarily true either. Special Operations units do get flexibility in chossing what tools they use, not all choose .45, few choose .40 and many already use a Glock 9MM.

As a retired USAF SF (Security Forces, no longer Air Police or AP), I have not heard that USAF SF has started using 147 gr HP ammo in their M9s, but there is no legal reason they could not do so for operations at bases within the USA. The requirement for military forces to use ball ammo applies only to combat operations against enemy forces, not domestic security and law enforcement activities. The same would apply to the Coast Guard while performing counter-drug and law enforcement missions off the coasts of the US. They could use something other than ball ammo for these missions if they wanted to, although their internal written directives may say otherwise. The Geneva Convention does not apply to non-combat activities by military forces.

My understanding from some former SOCOM operators is that they let the individual choose his side arm as long as he becomes an excellent markman with that weapon. There are alot of individual traits that lend themselves to if they use a Glock, Browning, M1911 clone, or Baretta 9 mm. I have shot most of them and when it comes to one is better than the other, it becomes a matter of individual preference. .The 45’s are hard to keep on target, but hit with alot of force. 9 mm is easier to control, but doesn’t have the force of a .45 and will require more than one shot to take down a target. I personally use a Czech CZ-52 in 7.62X25 for personal defense. Hits hard, but kicks like a .45. Seems that the Brits like the Glock and they are in use in alot of places.

pistol bullets do not have the velocity to expand and remain reliable. .45 has considerably better knockdown than 9m/m that is why the .45 is preferred. the m 9 is a great pistol, just in a cal. that is up for considerable debate. and m9 in .45 may be a good choice. the glock is a good choice for the UK as price means everything. the glock is a very poor choice for USA to replace the m9. my experience w/ the 9m/m is loss of accuracy in comparison to the .45. i have not shot match w/ the 9m/m but have been on several MTU teams using the .45 with results that are not believable to the average shooter, especially at the 50 yd. line. i carried the m9 and the 1911a1 in combat simply because that is what was issued, they both worked very well and i am here to testify to that. recoil can be tamed with the 2 hand hold and lots of practice, lots of folk just can’t shoot pistols. no matter which weapon is issued SOMEONE will have an opinion of something else, use what is issued and learn to use it to the max. of your abilities. stop sniveling and just do the job…

You aretalking about something thatwould be a logistical nightmare if they allowed every service member to do this. The ammo guys would have to order rounds for every caliber instead of just 9mm. Samething with spare parts.

i would carry a smith&wesson M&P in 357 sig or .45 auto. they have an excellent trigger and no safety and are quite reliable. but sig will work too.

Glocks take advanced training due to their unique trigger related safety. The P-35 they are replacing is a great pistol, the new DA version in .40 or 9MM should be a better replacement in a training aspect. Both are great guns in their own right and are better than the M9 Beretta. Sorry I am a 1911 fan!

Hey Dfens, l’l let you stand in front of my AR-15 and see if the 223s will just tickle you.

I’ll take a 1911 any day. The M9 shoots fine but not very concealable for civilian concealed carry.

Ive out shoot Glocks with my Beretta and have seen the M-9 do fine and seen Cops screw up there Glocks so Glock isnt better at all.

Your opinion Glocks are over rated the Beretta can do every thing a G-17 can Its personal preference you own a G-17 so you love it more simple logic.

Strange shoot 25 yards fine with a M-9 seen Glocks with far less accuracy. Seen both fail I think the M-9 is better you like the G-17 it both of our personal preference.

Sure, but you get to stand in front of my 30–06 first.

Where the action is relative to your face isn’t such a big deal as long as adequate porting is provided for gasses to escape in a safe direction in the event of a case failure. Similarly, you can use direct impingement if you don’t want your weapon to be reliable, or you can use a piston. That much is true regardless of the caliber of the ammunition.

The US has, I believe, the largest and heaviest built men on the face of the earth. Why saddle them with a gun designed for small women? It is all about equality of result, not opportunity. The fact is, one size doesn’t fit all. People have varying capabilities. A truly “diverse” society accommodates that, it does not penalize it. If we give everyone an equal chance to succeed then we allow the best to shine. If we force everyone to have equal results, then we are all dumbed down to the least common denominator.

Or we can trade fire at 800 meters and see what happens.

Not true many then woukd also say the HK USP and the M-1911 is the best. In the Spec Ops world its the operator gets to choose what he wants. SO bad argument there.

Because the cost of having more than one kind of ammunition is what’s really breaking the bank when it comes to our military forces. God knows it has nothing to do with the development costs of new weapons like the F-35.

I’ll hide, obviously. If you haven’t noticed, we haven’t played trench warfare since WWI. I don’t think you’ll be needing the 800 meter range on your infantry rifle.

As I made clear in my previous post, I absolutely agree with your position on promotion of “diversity” — it is essentially the idea that past racism/sexism can be corrected by more racism/sexism, which I believe is wrong. However, I just am not convinced that that was the reason 9mm was adopted by the US, nor 5.56 for that matter. As I said before, I was under the impression that it was due to NATO politics. In the case of 9mm, the US deferred to the Europeans, while in the case of 5.56, it was exactly the opposite — the Brits proposed a larger caliber, but eventually decided to submit to Stoner’s design.

A basic load of 30.06 is well over twice the weight of 5.56. Many who promote larger calibers have not had to hump the extra weight up and down mountains wearing body armor.

Torque — Do you have any references for the point on weapons. I don’t doubt you but it would be a nice nugget to have as the combat exclusion debate heats up.

Matt — Keep in mind the military’s aversion to privately owned properties has to do with the requirement to have to equip large forces, surge in the event of war, make changes and upgrades. When someone owns it one becomes reliant on their capability to deliver and prisoner to what they’ll charge to do it.

Also the old upgrade the M4 debate often ignores that everytime we’ve upgraded our main rifle there was a significant technological leap in lethality, accuracy, weight etc. The M1 is clearly better than the Springfield almost twice the number of rounds and semiauto). The M14 is clearly more lethal than the M1 (over twice the nember of rounds). The M16 is half the weight and provides a 30% increase in rounds over the M14. There is no weapon on the market that provides a similar technological leap.

Many malign the military for not “caring” without looking at the record in an attempt to justify the latest BFF rifle flavor.

torque — the MARSOC 1911 and many others have rails on them…

Hammer and safeties have always been my sticking points also.

“Because the cost of having more than one kind of ammunition is what’s really breaking the bank ”

Yes, it is an issue and not just cost. Imagine having to resupply a unit in an emergency and having to stock a variety of small arms ammo. Oh wait, you can’t imagine it. You’ve never been there.

Ignorance on parade.

The rifle competition going on that Lance loves to hate told the competitors that any caliber can be competed, but if it wasn’t 7.62 or 5.56 they had to supply their own ammo — 350,000 rounds to complete testing.

Hey, I know, we can both wear body armor. Good luck.

But since it only takes one hit with a 30–06 to kill someone, not 2 or 3 like with the .22 round (needing 2 or 3 hits often means many more than 2 or 3 shots), and since it performs well at the ranges our troops find themselves fighting in places like Afghanistan where 500+ meter engagements are routine, then the size of the cartridge is more than made up for by its performance. Also it destroys equipment like engine blocks quite well.

That aside, what are you so afraid of, that one size doesn’t fit all? That some people might be able to excel while not being dumbed down to doing exactly the same thing as you? You need that equality of result? Why?

I think you’re right, that those rounds weren’t adopted for women. That came later. Actually, I think it was worse reasoning. I think they were adopted as “semi-lethal” rounds that wound more than they kill as a part of the “just war” philosophy that has failed us so miserably.

I guess you haven’t heard of suppressive fire?

What evidence do you have that it takes one hit to kill with 30.06? If that were true German casualties in WWII would have been much higher because all the wounds would have been lethal.

M855A1 5.56 ammo actually has better armor penetrating capability than ball 7.62.

The last semiauto 30.06 we had was the M1. We’ve come aways since.

Not afraid of different ammo. You’re obviously ignorant to the fact that we issue three different types of ammo in the rifle platoon or how important weight is and that each squad has a 7.62 weapon assigned to a designated marksmansman in each squad for those long range engagements which are beyond the accurate range of the AK47.

Stick to the evils of the MDIC. Your weapon’s knowledge leaves much to be desired.

If 9mm was good enough for John Moses Browning, it should be good enough for you

Guess what all are 5.56mm so any weapon technological leap leap doesn’t exist in the ICC which may die finally when sequestration hits.

I agree if the Army wanted a better pistol a upgrade tp .40 S&W or .45 would work best and justify a new pistol. But they wont NATO rounds only so we are stuck with 9mm. For regular forces SOCOM is different thankfully.

Well when you handicap the competition by having the company pony up a fortune in ammo for testing then ask the most innovative among them for their patent protected secrets right off the bat, you’re going to end up with weapons that closely resemble what’s already in use.

The Army doesn’t really want to go through the trouble of adopting an entirely new round for their infantry rifles at this time. Given their history, they’ll sooner make the 5.56 perform better than take their chances with something new.

The most suppressive fire is the kind that kills in one shot. The squad designated marksman rifle is a step in the right direction, and other ammunition is made available to snipers such as the .338 Lapua, which right now has the record for longest sniper kill shot, and the .50 caliber BMG round, of which there are obviously many in any theater of operation. The .50 caliber semi-automatic gun is quite heavy, but certainly a .338 Lapua semi-automatic weapon could be fielded that would weigh about what an M1 does.

So why not mix it up? Let the big guy shoot the big weapon and the little guy shoot the little weapon. Use the diversity of our forces as their strength instead of forcing everyone to live with a weapon designed for the least common denominator. It is a fundamentally different approach to the philosophy of outfitting soldiers, and one whose time has come.

What political agenda was involved in selecting 5.56? Not the female agenda since the move to 5.56 was LONG before anyone even considered putting women in combat.

You’re probably right. I was pointing out that the RFP specifically stated that the caliber wasn’t a factor, though the logistical considerations are obvious.

And who said that you need to go with 30–06 (or 300wm) to engage past 500m? .243 Can do that, and have a low recoil. (though I hadn’t tried any of them yet, but not for very long)

One of the factor that hadn’t been considered is gun overheat, I am curious how many rounds a rifle of a comparable weight can fire before its barrel turn white-hot and became unusable. 30–06 is definitely out of the game but I wonder how caliber ranging from 5.56 to 7.62 (308 winchester). More powder means more heat, but I guess it’s not always as simple as that.

I’d say that the m-16 was 20 mils mistake. Perhaps it was a trade-off decision to favorize mass production, and ammo requiring less material could only be cheaper. Mass order reduce unit cost, but when the unit is 50% bigger it’s unlikely to make it cheaper than its smaller contender.

In the new caliber there is also a lot of noise about 6.5mm but I think it’s just too big.

The .22 won’t pop a soap bubble past 500 m. The 30–06 is lethal well past that, and the 300 Win Mag will reach out even farther. Hell, the way I load my ’06 cartridges, they only give up a couple hundred feet per second to the Win Mag. There’s no magic to it, just follow the recipe in the reloading manual. Hell, if I’d spring for a canister of that Superformance powder, I’d probably get even closer than that. The deer are just as dead either way, so there’s not much pressing need other than it’s cool to see the big numbers flash on the chronograph.

They’ll do anything to protect their pet weapons development programs. Cut the number of military personnel, stiff them for raises, screw them on health care, let them live in crappy housing. It’s all about procurement. That’s their baby. Beware the military industrial complex indeed.

Dfens – (facepalm) Obviously the most suppressive fire is that which kills the enemy. Unfortunately the enemy doesn’t often oblige (again if he did the enemy’s casualties would be greater. The most common type of suppressive fire is the fire that keeps the enemy pinned behind cover unable to return fire as one maneuvers on him. This requires a large number of bullets. Didn’t you know that?

.338 lupau is a great weapon as is .50 and .300 winmag. The only snipers in a BN of 800 men reside in the scout platoon and usually number about 12. They are equipped with these weapons. Didn’t you know that?

We are already employing these weapons and systems across the force. I guess they figured it out without your extensive experience.

BTW, .223 has terminal effects at 800m and beyond though M4s are good out to 500m if you have a trained shooter. as usual you have things backward. First address training and then look at material solutions unless you like putting money in the MIC’s pockets. Designated marksmen are reporting 1st round kill at 600m w/M855A1 according to PEO Ammo. Back to the books for you.

That’s not hunting. all you need for a lethal injury (without bulletproof vest) is 60ft-lbs whereas the standard for hunting deer at least 350-500ft-lbs (depending who you are talking with); a deer is way more bulky than a human.

To the 60ft-lbs standard, a .22lr is lethal at 400yrds, it’s just that the trajectory is not very flat.

Giys I can tell you MOD is buying Glocks because they are dirt cheap at about $450 retail. MOD goes for the cheapest option on everything they buy.

The Glocks are very reliable and durable. The Brits will need to do a lot of training with these weapons because if they dont they will have a lot of accidental dscharges like every Police department in america did when they first switched over.

I was part of the conversion in the 1990s and I disagree that there were a lots of accidental discharges when LE agencies switched to the Glock. Many agencies, including my own, were already carrying single/double action semi-autos like the S&W when they went to Glocks, and carrying a weapon like the S&W in your thumbreak holster with a round chambered, hammer down, and the safety off was no less risky that carying a Glock or a 1911 “cocked and locked” (or cocked and not locked, as many did). I found the conversion to be very easy, despite the fact that I was philosophicaly opposed the the plastic gun in the first place. I became a convert and now own several. As far as the MOD is concerned, I congratulate them on being willing to break with decades of tradition and select a good, modern weapon with which to equip their forces. Now if the Brits would just issue one to every police officer as well.…

I find the posting system’s automatic editing and deletion of a particular word in my previous post to be quite humorous! Looks like that particular combination of four letters is on the baned list.

A few years ago there was a home invasion I read about. The invader was 6′ tall and weighed about 240. He was shot at least 4 times at point blank range with .22 long rifle rounds. He ended up in jail on other charges and eventually was discovered to be the home invader because he was carrying those bullets in his body with no noticeable effects beyond some discomfort. Clearly there is enough performance difference between the .22 our troops currently use and the .338 some snipers already use that making these rounds available to the wide range of troops we have in combat today could only make their units more, not less capable. If they ended up standardizing on one round, at least I’d believe research based on combat experience as opposed to the usual propaganda.

If the bulgar was shot in the head, a single shot would suffice. Yep even .22lr kill.

>If they ended up standardizing on one round, at least I’d believe research based on combat experience as opposed to the usual propaganda.

Which exactly contradict everything you just said.

.338 lapua have been specificly designed for an intermediere sniper caliber, the goal what that it has to be able to make 1,000yrds and pass through 5 military grade ballistic protection. This is NOT a caliber for an assault weapon, and you’ll never see a 300$ stevens 200 in .338 lapua because the pressure develloped by the cartridge are insane! At 60,000–65,000psi, it devellop more pressure than the .50bmg.

And you clearly forgot about barrel wear, all your lovely caliber are hard on barrell, something quite undesireable on mass deployed firearms.

The only propaganda that I see is about your 30–06.

Dfens, the .22lr is not the same as 5.56mm M855A1. They’re not even in the same ballpark. The .22lr is pretty much a low velocity pistol round. The 5.56 is a rifle round with at least twice the velocity and several times the energy of the .22lr. Not to mention the .22lr has a fraction of the range of the 5.56.


AGREED! Berettas used to have a problem. They’re slides used to crack under +P ammo after @500rnds. As a taxpayer myself, I’m happier to pay for the Sig .45’s for our troops. Whether it’s rifles, pistols or Naval gunnery it’s marksmanship that wins wars. Screw gender norming & screw standardizing our ammo stockpiles with NATO. If you’re going into combat develop marksmanship & stick with rounds that are proven manstoppers.

It’s absolutely amazing that after 102 the 1911 is the most popular pistol in the world. There’s good reason for this guys. It works. U.S. Marine Force Recon units will have the Colt Rail Gun for many reasons, but the best are because both the gun and the .45 acp cartridge work. Case Closed.

“Now to be fair, the Pentagon did replace its WWI/WWII-era 1911 .45 automatic pistol with the Beretta M9 9mm pistol in the mid 1980s. But after nearly three decades, the M9 has developed a mediocre reputation at best among Army and Marine combat troops.“__________________________________________________HMMMM! Thats strange because the 9mil is made the exact same way today as it was made three decades ago. The weapon has not changed, the people(troops) carring them have. I’am not saying they don’t need replacing, what I’am saying is, thats not a good reason to replace them.…lacking the knockdown power required is a much better arguement for replacement. If I had a choice, I would prefer the 45 over a 9mil anyday, because of the knowkdown power.

Me also.
I’ve shot both .45s and 9mms. I just shoot better with the 1911A1 style. It’s the first pistol I ever shot, the pistol I learned pistol marksmanship with. I couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn with those **** 9mms. I just think the best gun is the one you can hit your target with, where you want to hit it. Whatever the caliber.

I’ll take my Walther in .45 Auto, left handed Whitworth. Don’t want anybody claiming my hits !!! ROFL.…

Hmm, sorry, I was wrong. Clearly one size does fit all.

Glock or Hi Power?
Hard decision!
I’d have to go personally with the Hi Power cause I like it.
But, A Glock will do just fine.

I’m surprised that more attention hasn’t been given to the .40 caliber Smith & Wesson cartridge in a 165 grain, jacketed hollow point. If the USAF can use a hollow point why cannot the rest of our military? While I prefer SigSauer, cost for a massive buy wouldn’t work for the US military. But a Glock in .40? Seems like a good fit. I grew up with the .45 caliber ACP and as a twelve year old, 150 pounds had no problem with control. The 9mm conversion by the US Military was a PC decision to standardize with NATO… but then why didn’t we switch back to the 7.62 mm also? Pure B.S.

Also, to all the proponents of the 5.56 mm cartridge, I would not consider taking a 160 pound White Tail deer with it, never mind a 180 pound, AK-47 wielding human. NATO’ is on the way out in the next twenty years, the U.S. should adopt an AR-15 frame cambered for 6.5 mm Grendel and a Glock in .40 S & W and let our allies follow or not..JMO.

And further hypocrisy, why didn’t we shift back to the 7.62 mm NATO from the 5.56 mm at the same time?

It’s really to bad. The 6.5 Grendel is a far superior cartridge than the 5.56mm/.223 Remington and would only require new upper receivers.

You lost me at “The Glock has an excellent trigger.” It has a mushy, excessively heavy trigger with a mushy break and excessive takeup.

Brownings have triggers that are heavy but crisp, unless (until) someone with a set of punches takes ten minutes to remove the magazine safety, which renders the Browning’s trigger quite satisfactory in all respects.

Dfens has obviously never been in the military… much like Ted Nugent.

Errrrrrrr.…… and what EXACTLY is wrong with letting the user community select the weapon that MIGHT end up being their weapon of last resort in life-or-death situations? What am I missing?

Just another IMO , either conceal carry , competion or instructing civilians to military pistol as primary or secondary weapon , Glock’s are the only choice when it’s for real . If stock modified regarless I’ve experienced and witnessed hard and soft malfunctions from Glock pistols in all conditions and calibers .
Equipment , either by human or mechanical fails , fact most other DA/SA comparable production pistols witnessed in a three day to week course under extreme consecutive daily use and thousands of rounds rendered useless . Glocks like a duracell.
HK, Sig 226 MP’s rarely a issue , 1911’s , 92’s, m9’s have a backup.
The M9 can be a issue when emergency reload ( or tactical ) by sling shot or rackig the slide rather than utilizing slide release load , the safety can be accidentally engaged , your out of the fight

Personally, I can’t wait for all those surplus Brownings to git the market!

hit…not git. or maybe git to…if i was a redneck. ;-)

I don’t understand the author’s comment :
“[US] Army requirements officials at Fort Benning, Ga., have made it very clear in the past that pistol engagements are rare and that armies don’t win wars with side arms. The MOD has a different view. “Pistols are vital in close-combat and are a key part of a soldier’s armory,” Warrant Officer Class 1 Mark Anderson in the Royal Marines said recently in an MOD release.”

How is that “a different view”? I don’t see these two organizations in disagreement, but the author poses it that way for some reason. Why can’t you say that pistol engagements are rare, armies don’t win wars with side arms, pistols are vital in close-combat, and are a key part of a soldier’s armory. None of that is contradictory. Why are we artificially pitting MoD vs DoD in this article. Am I missing something, Mr Cox?

The Glock will conviently fit in older browning high power holsters perfectly. The Glock is more compact than the P226 and i think more ergonomic.
I am a paint-baller and i just acquired a Glock style .43 cal marker. I also have the bulkier RAM x50 (p226).

I will be able to tuck this away under my left arm in a shoulder holster.

One thing I like about the browning was its flat compact shape.

A 9mm hollow point works just fine.NOT to take away from any 45

Highly energetic blog, I loved that a lot. Will there be
a part 2?

Just to be clear here.… it is true that the FN Hi-Power has a less-than-ideal trigger pull, out of the box. But it’s a fairly straightforward process to remove it and make that trigger pull 100x better. Alternately, a good ‘smith can do wonders with the FNHP’s trigger, even if one insists for whatever reason on leaving that mag disconnect in place. Granted, even a rather simple process such as this still qualifies as a “modification”, and thus probably not ideal when we’re talking about tens of thousands of sidearms being issued. But for the Browning fan who prefers the style/feel of the FNHP over a more modern/industrial look like the Glock possesses, the stock trigger action should not be a dealbreaker.


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.