[Opie 1 Kenopie]

Originally Posted by xsam138

I recently bought a 23. Standing at the counter with me were two Rangers from 2nd Bat. They said there sniper teams were carrying Glock 22's, as were other spec ops teams. The 9 (even with there non nato/le/civ loads were creating to many bad guy not going down, and the .40 was being used in with much more confidence .. and it was doing its job better, much better.

They were picking up G27's ..

this is all heresay. I was 1/509th, .. and chatted it up with them for a bit.

Oh, you're going to burn on GT for THAT one! Too many 9mm Fanboys here! I, for one, would carry a 9 if its all I could get but for CCW when my family's safety is in the line... it's .40, .45 or most often the 10mm Glocks that see the most carry time around here.

[JBP55]

Originally Posted by Opie 1 Kenopie

Oh, you're going to burn on GT for THAT one! Too many 9mm Fanboys here! I, for one, would carry a 9 if its all I could get but for CCW when my family's safety is in the line... it's .40, .45 or most often the 10mm Glocks that see the most carry time around here.

Ask Doctor Roberts for his opinion on the subject.

[Seawolf]

Originally Posted by spartanranger

That's not it at all. The military would love to have Glocks but in order to supply the US military, the design has to be open sourced. The army for example buys m-4s from several different suppliers, because they dont want the risk of one source drying up and their being left high and dry on their supply.

Glock has refused to do this, and why shouldn't they? They have more than enough business world wide and they are still backordered. Hell, everyone uses them but us.

Special Forces bypasses normal military channels for procurement; they get whatever they want with a huge budget to boot. So that is why you will see them with HK-416s, glocks, 1911s, or whatever else they feel like.

That sounds well and fine, but the real reason is the old grey haired Generals still make the decisions and they are afraid if they choose a gun without an external safety it will require more training and add more accidental discharges. SF guys get the added weapons training so they can shoot what they want, but the DOD doesn't think an 18 year old high school kid is smart enough to keep his/her booger picker off the bang button.

That and Beretta offers M9 pistols for peanuts and since the DOD already has a crap load of M9s in circulation it would just cost too much to switch.

To be honest Glock can't even handle keeping their guns in stock with the civilian market so they would need to open a new facility just for the military production. In that respect you are probably right. Beretta had to do the same thing when they got the contract. They were required to open a production facility here in the US and part of the contract stated that the M9 had to be 100% American made.

[cadillacguns]

I was focused on the Grunts gear, back in my days it was OD clothes and web gear, steel pot, and flack jacket....................now with the girls invited to play along, can we see some more pink holsters and hello kitty designer duds? Oh cant ask for you to tell me that!

[Bren]

Originally Posted by voyager4520

They still have that misconception that the average soldier needs a manual safety.

That's because the average soldier really needs a manual safety. The average officer needs 2.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by cadillacguns

I was focused on the Grunts gear, back in my days it was OD clothes and web gear, steel pot, and flack jacket....................now with the girls invited to play along, can we see some more pink holsters and hello kitty designer duds? Oh cant ask for you to tell me that!

Comparing the OD fatigues days to today is like looking back at the revolutionary war. Things have advanced more, between me getting out of the Army in the 80's and coming back in 2007 than they did between WW II and When I first joined the Army in the 80's. Both equipment and tactics are entirely different now - it's only since 2001 that the military really learned anything at all about close-quarters and urban combat or started using gear and techniques half as advanced as the police and civilians.

[carbuncle]

Originally Posted by spartanranger

That's not it at all. The military would love to have Glocks but in order to supply the US military, the design has to be open sourced. The army for example buys m-4s from several different suppliers, because they dont want the risk of one source drying up and their being left high and dry on their supply.

Glock has refused to do this, and why shouldn't they? They have more than enough business world wide and they are still backordered. Hell, everyone uses them but us.

Special Forces bypasses normal military channels for procurement; they get whatever they want with a huge budget to boot. So that is why you will see them with HK-416s, glocks, 1911s, or whatever else they feel like.

There are multiple vendors for the M9?

[nightstalker865]

Yes, there are a couple units here at Bragg that use the G22 and G23. Which one, depends on mission requirements and load out.

[Legacy Shooters]

I think the army should change to the G22 or G23. I hate the m9!!! I cc my G23 everywhere I go and just took it out to the range yesterday again and am still a dead eye with it more then any other gun i have.

[spcwes]

Originally Posted by SouthpawG26

Never noticed the "shoot'em in the nutz" kill box before....Very high speed and low drag...

Its made to shatter the pelvic bones. It takes the wheels out from under the target. Nice targets.

Also is good for body armor or people with stuff strapped to their chest you might not want to hit with bullets or allow them to close the distance with you.

[deadmanglocking]

You can expect around 1.5L of blood loss for each fracture in the pelvis. A lot of major vessels and arteries pass through that area and the pelvis itself is very vascular. Plus nobody wants to get shot in the nutz.

[spartanranger]

Originally Posted by carbuncle

There are multiple vendors for the M9?

Hmmm...you made me sit up and think on this one. Turns out no, not for the pistol, but the magazines seemed to have three different sources. Kind of confused me since the m-4s have had different suppliers.

I know Colt was the main supplier but have heard of FN guns. Now of course Remington is also making them, but that is because the contract with Colt is up...

Maybe I misunderstood and all that is required is the open source of the gun's design. After all, a lot of people make m-4 copies (ar-15s) and Taurus makes a Beretta knock off.

Anyone that can weigh in? I remember that there was a specific reason Gaston refused to participate in glock military trials here.

[Rustin]

More pics!

[21GlockStreet]

Originally Posted by spartanranger

That's not it at all. The military would love to have Glocks but in order to supply the US military, the design has to be open sourced. The army for example buys m-4s from several different suppliers, because they dont want the risk of one source drying up and their being left high and dry on their supply.

Glock has refused to do this, and why shouldn't they? They have more than enough business world wide and they are still backordered. Hell, everyone uses them but us.

Special Forces bypasses normal military channels for procurement; they get whatever they want with a huge budget to boot. So that is why you will see them with HK-416s, glocks, 1911s, or whatever else they feel like.

What about the M9? Does the military get them from anyone but Beretta? Just curious.

[4095fanatic]

In the competition held to select the M9 only pistols with external safeties were considered. GLOCK, understandably, was not going to design a whole new pistol purely for the competition


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[Captain Caveman]

Originally Posted by SouthpawG26

Never noticed the "shoot'em in the nutz" kill box before....Very high speed and low drag...

I've been teaching for 20+yrs..."if you can't kill 'em, don't let 'em BREED"

Originally Posted by spartanranger

That's not it at all. The military would love to have Glocks but in order to supply the US military, the design has to be open sourced. The army for example buys m-4s from several different suppliers, because they dont want the risk of one source drying up and their being left high and dry on their supply.

Glock has refused to do this, and why shouldn't they? They have more than enough business world wide and they are still backordered. Hell, everyone uses them but us.

Special Forces bypasses normal military channels for procurement; they get whatever they want with a huge budget to boot. So that is why you will see them with HK-416s, glocks, 1911s, or whatever else they feel like.

Beretta only has one plant is the US. Glock has one too.

[g2122]

Has anyone ever heard of any military units using the G21? I'm just curious since many of these units used 1911s.

[ChiTownPicaro]

Originally Posted by DFin

What model/caliber is it?

I believe they were trying out Glock 22s. This is why CAG ordered Glock 22 magazines in field dark earth.

[MrMunster]

At a recent armorers course, the instructor kept implying that the grip mods we saw with the RTF and gen4 frames were a direct result of input from an SF group that, "doesn't exist but is very opinionated." Something about extra purchase when gripped with a gloved hand...


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

[sgt rock]

Originally Posted by Arc Angel

Ahh, the average soldier DOES NEED a manual safety. They needed them in past wars; and they're going to need them in future wars, too. (It's just that, the way things are going, they're not going to have them!)

Hey! See that target? Anybody know where I can get about 50 of them? (I see Ayoob's, 'pelvic girdle shots' are back in vogue.)

http://www.thompsontarget.com/pages/defensetargets.html

[Bren]

Originally Posted by spartanranger

Hmmm...you made me sit up and think on this one. Turns out no, not for the pistol, but the magazines seemed to have three different sources. Kind of confused me since the m-4s have had different suppliers.

I know Colt was the main supplier but have heard of FN guns. Now of course Remington is also making them, but that is because the contract with Colt is up...

Maybe I misunderstood and all that is required is the open source of the gun's design. After all, a lot of people make m-4 copies (ar-15s) and Taurus makes a Beretta knock off.

Anyone that can weigh in? I remember that there was a specific reason Gaston refused to participate in glock military trials here.

The military does have plenty of exclusive contracts - not everything has to be "open sourced." Usually, the things made by multiple companies are a design that comes from the gov and the companies just manufacture it. Among current weapons, the M16/M4 are the only things I can think of made by more than one company. FN, Remington, Barrett, Beretta, etc., all have exclusive contracts for weapons.

[carbuncle]

Originally Posted by Bren

The military does have plenty of exclusive contracts - not everything has to be "open sourced." Usually, the things made by multiple companies are a design that comes from the gov and the companies just manufacture it. Among current weapons, the M16/M4 are the only things I can think of made by more than one company. FN, Remington, Barrett, Beretta, etc., all have exclusive contracts for weapons.

On that same note, who knows the story behind the military trials that resulted in all the cool .45s out there, and which guns are a direct result of that trial process?

[DFin]

Wasn't there a SF unit that was using G-21's a few years ago?

[jwest1967]

Originally Posted by spartanranger

That's not it at all. The military would love to have Glocks but in order to supply the US military, the design has to be open sourced. The army for example buys m-4s from several different suppliers, because they dont want the risk of one source drying up and their being left high and dry on their supply.

Glock has refused to do this, and why shouldn't they? They have more than enough business world wide and they are still backordered. Hell, everyone uses them but us.

Special Forces bypasses normal military channels for procurement; they get whatever they want with a huge budget to boot. So that is why you will see them with HK-416s, glocks, 1911s, or whatever else they feel like.

Glock does have an National Stock Number and can be ordered though the normal procurement system.

[jwest1967]

Originally Posted by spartanranger

That's not it at all. The military would love to have Glocks but in order to supply the US military, the design has to be open sourced. The army for example buys m-4s from several different suppliers, because they dont want the risk of one source drying up and their being left high and dry on their supply.

Glock has refused to do this, and why shouldn't they? They have more than enough business world wide and they are still backordered. Hell, everyone uses them but us.

Special Forces bypasses normal military channels for procurement; they get whatever they want with a huge budget to boot. So that is why you will see them with HK-416s, glocks, 1911s, or whatever else they feel like.

And BTW the NSN for a Glock 17 is
NSN 1005-01-571-9875