Glock Talk banner

Marines are adopting the MHS hangun, ditching Glocks

8K views 112 replies 50 participants last post by  Southswede 
#1 ·
So the MArines are adopting the SIG and using it to replace the M45A1, the M9, M9A1, as well as the Glock M007 pistol. So what's the chances we'll see some M007 marked Glock 19s....

As a Jarhead myself I'd pick one up if Glock would make it.
 
#3 ·
So the MArines are adopting the SIG and using it to replace the M45A1, the M9, M9A1, as well as the Glock M007 pistol. So what's the chances we'll see some M007 marked Glock 19s....

As a Jarhead myself I'd pick one up if Glock would make it.
You can always tell a Jarhead, but you can't tell them much. quote from the wife
 
#5 ·
But why, but why do we have to go through this all over again ? I've heard of, nor observed reports of ANY problems with the USGI issued Glock's ? Perhaps the powers that be wish to streamline the acquisition process, & or SIG needs more money or ??? From what I've heard, our military folks appear quite pleased with the various GlocK models they've been issued over the past few years, so is it just because the Army went Sig, or what, I'd like to know. As a closing thought, based on past performance issues & along with some failed issues, why can't put Govt. ever learn to go with a proven system, rather than one of relatively recent origin ? The Glock 9mm versions have been proven all over the world, for over 30 years now. ( And so have some of the larger calibers, though just not to extent of the 9mms models. ) To me, that's a reliable weapons system !!! But, my thoughts really don't amount to a silent fart in the Pentagon's men's room, so I guess we're again stuck with what the Govt experts & Sig' sales personnel think. Just my .02 cents.

Best, dpast32
 
#8 ·
I'm primarily interested in what MARSOC, DEVGRU, NSWG, etc do, not military issue in general. And even then, I'm only interested in a broad/conversational sense.

Big money contracts, squabbling between commands and procurement, lawsuits and Pentagon intrigue, are fun reading but don't really mean much, except as manufacturer bragging rights.

Glocks can and do ride and protect LOTS of Tier 1 shooters. Those are the ones who regularly practice and deploy handguns in much higher numbers than general troops.

While of course Gaston et al would have loved to have won the major contract, they're not hurting and will be in many military holsters for a loooong time to come.

Just my $.02. YMMV.
 
#85 ·
I'm primarily interested in what MARSOC, DEVGRU, NSWG, etc do, not military issue in general. And even then, I'm only interested in a broad/conversational sense.

Big money contracts, squabbling between commands and procurement, lawsuits and Pentagon intrigue, are fun reading but don't really mean much, except as manufacturer bragging rights.

Glocks can and do ride and protect LOTS of Tier 1 shooters. Those are the ones who regularly practice and deploy handguns in much higher numbers than general troops.

While of course Gaston et al would have loved to have won the major contract, they're not hurting and will be in many military holsters for a loooong time to come.

Just my $.02. YMMV.
MARSOC and NSW will keep their SOCOM owned Glocks.

Some of you lads just need to complete the grieving process and finally accept that Sig kicked Glock's axe in the MHS trials - fair and square. The never-ending butt-hurt is getting sad and pathetic.

In related news, there are still some fat chicks who refuse to leave Hillary's campaign headquarters.
I don't know if they kicked butt, but they learned from losing the M-9 contract that cost per delivery is the most important metric and made sure they beat Glock on price per unit.

By the way, far more people have shot themselves field stripping a Glock than have shot themselves by dropping the P320.
Poor analogy, how many people shot themselves field stripping a P320 would be a better analogy.

US Army Having Major Issues With Sig P320
Here is the report from the DoD, link : US Army Having Major Issues With Sig P320
We had problems with the M-9 when it first came in (slides breaking noses)

Once they figure out the whole double ejection issue, I’m sure it will.


However, that doesn’t make it a smart purchase.
This is probably the one issue I'd be most concerned about.

And don't forget that pesky slide not locking open after the last round has been fired. Those slide release levers can be tricky.....
Training issue, remember the complaints about troops locking the Beretta when racking the slide and engageing the safety/decocker? no different IMO.

Who the hell uses a pistol in war anyway.
Better to have and not need.


I think the Army stopped the test early don't think it ever was about the gun it was about the money !
Yep, one of the Protest issues was the Army didn't do the final round of testing. I agree with Glock on this point.

The Glock did not meet the modularity requirements. So there was no need to continue testing a submission not meeting the basic requirements.
Define modularity? Sig puts three frames withe a single trigger group. I'd rather have multiple backstraps and a smaller log footprint then have to tote additional frames.

We are just wasting money with all the switching. If a soldier needs a handgun, and they all are 99.99% to 99.97% likely to fire when needed, how much money should we really be spending for a device that should never even need to be used? Why switch from a Beretta to a SIG or to a Glock, or whatever? The incremental gain is negligible in terms of performance.

If the cost savings translates to millions of dollars of savings, that is fine, switch. But given we already have a sunk cost, any switching costs make REAL savings unlikely. As noted above, nice boots may be a better expenditure. More/Improved/Current body armor would be good. a guaranteed fund to ensure our troops get paid during government shutdowns so they don't have to worry at things at home would be nice.

None of this really matters, and the troops will ultimately be well served by the old 1911's, Beretta's, new SIG's, or Glock's. As previously noted, it is possible that having the lowest possible weight for the rarely used boat anchor hauled around may be the most appreciated element, and perhaps we should design sidearms for THAT metric.
Beretta offered the M9A1 at the same cost as the M9, but only the Marines took them up on it.
The decision was made to go from a hammer fired to a striker fired pistol, the amount of money and various fan-boy factions means you have to have a competition.

Going Sig means SOCOM can continue to buy Glocks.
 
#99 ·
Maybe should of just stuck with the M9 then. ;)

That being said I am sure all the same comments were made when the military ditched the M1 for the M-16, and all the trouble it had when first deployed, albeit was due to the lack of issuing a manual along with the first M-16's.
There was a bit more wrong with the M16 adoption than not issuing manuals.

Shame Glock couldn't produce a product that met the contracts requirement.
They did, it just wasn’t selected.

By the way, far more people have shot themselves field stripping a Glock than have shot themselves by dropping the P320.
Shooting oneself while pulling the trigger is user error. Advertising a gun to be drop safe, without needing a trigger blade safety, and then having said gun fire from a 4 foot drop, is a defect.
 
#13 ·
I think it boils down to $180 a pistol contract, which is substantially lower than the M9A1, 1911A1. Keep in mind most of these Marine's don't get issued Glocks. MARSOC will get what they need to get the job done period: including phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range..
 
#18 ·
it’s good to have multiple agency’s using the exact same gun. common ammo and common training and common spare parts. i think the sig will end up having a great reputation in ten years.

every rifle and handgun change seems to bring out the folks saying that the older technology was more reliable and better. yet after ten or 20 years the newer stuff seems to always be respected.
 
#24 · (Edited)
it funny all this hoopla over the MHS contract. Yes glock is a fine weapon, without a doubt. But it does have its drawbacks and glock will not budge from its design parameters. Therefore the door is open to many other companies willing to try new techniques and designs.

That being said I am sure all the same comments were made when the military ditched the M1 for the M-16, and all the trouble it had when first deployed, albeit was due to the lack of issuing a manual along with the first M-16's.

The same comments were made when the military replaced the 1911 with the M9. I was around for this one and heard them all.

When NYPD adopted the G19, and all the issues it had.

Every platform has to start somewhere, and while I feel like the glock would have served the military well, the went a different route.

No one can say with certainty that is was a poor decision, and that argument can't be won until the 320 has been in the troops hands for a period of time. If 5 years down the road the 320 is still choking, then yes, it was probably a poor choice.

Then again 5 years from now the 320 may have excelled, and I'm sure a different tune will be playing.

A track record is something that must be earned and back in the 80's the Glock had no such record, and a lot of people were talking trash about the plastic gun, I was one of them...

Many crows were consumed over the years as the Glock pistol earned its reputation.

The same may come of the 320, but only time will tell.


TXPO
 
#26 ·
Really, it doesn't matter all that much. It's not like it's a rifle or belt fed weapon so really, it can be most anything that goes bang and will work just fine. I carried a 1911 then an M9 Botha's security forces in barracks duty and as a pig gunner in the fleet. The pistol is primarily backup to either a rifle or shotgun in guard duty and as a machine gunner, I always wondered why I was humping that damn pistol with crappy 9mm M882 ball ammo when I had an M60E3 with a belt of 7.62 NATO? Other than a couple posts during barracks duty, it just wasn't something we would grab first especially when there are better weapons available.
No, Sig, Glock, Beretta, hell, throw a freakin' Taurus in the mix for all I care, really it doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
 
#37 ·
The 1911A1 I carried as a tanker was older than I was, still performed admirably. Switching manufacturers every other President just seems foolish to me. Wasn't the M92 a good choice? Did it wear out too quickly? Was it too heavy? What?

Don't forget that spare parts, magazines, and the like must be carried in Quartermaster stores for each type of weapon. That's no small part of the eventual cost of a firearm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FullClip
#38 ·
I think it was only logical that the Army would, at some point, go with a polymer-frame pistol that was lighter to carry, and a striker-fired pistol that did not require troops to have mastery of a double action trigger or deal with a DA to SA transition. The M9 is also a rather chunky pistol and the reach to the trigger shoe in double action could be problematical for those with smaller hands, which seems to constitute an increasing percentage of our armed forces.

I say that as someone who generally prefers all-metal pistols to polymer-framed pistols, and hammer-fired traditional DA/SA pistols to striker action pistols. I also own model 1911s and a Beretta 92FS and I am a fan of both. But I think the move makes sense.

I am not going to get into the argument as to whether making the change over at this precise time made sense from a cost standpoint, or whether the choice of the SIG pistol was best or appropriate. Obviously, cost and politics enter into every weapons acquisition decision the government ever makes. And Glock has certainly played the cost-undercutting and political games very well over the years.
 
#46 ·
I could care less one way or the other being a fan of Glocks, Sigs and HK’s. That said, in my life, I’ve always been better off not following the judgement of any Federal agency or the military when it comes to things like caliber choice, handgun choice, vehicle choice, etc. I really don’t see the need to get worked up about another DOD price-driven race to the bottom.
 
#47 ·
I think everyone is well aware of the documented issues that have shown up with the MHS guns. While I am not beating Sigs drum per se, they are working on if they haven't resolved the issue by now. Likely something minor that can be easily addressed.

As I said in my earlier post, it's not like the M9 or Glock didn't have major issues when they were new and chosen by their respective buyers, see NYPD G19 malfunctions, and Military's new M9 slides cracking.

So IMO it would have been an absolute miracle if the M17/M18 was fielded and didn't have any issues.

I'm a glock fan and that is no secret, but I also carry a P320 Xcarry on duty and have thousands of rounds through the 320 platform without a single issue. I am at least giving it the chance to show what it is made of before I pass any judgement.

If the 320 continues to exhibit issues over the next few years, then we will all have a definitive answer. Until then, it is just everyone opinion, on which one is better.


TXPO
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmorejon
#52 ·
Ah yes, this was the same group that was stumped by the slide not locking open after the last round was fired. Seems this is the result of holding the slide release down.

Hundreds of thousands of Sig owners follow safe gun handling and don't drop our guns. This same group has reported no issues shooting ball ammo or the mysterious "double ejection". I'm sure hundreds of thousands of happy P320 owners all must be doing something wrong.....
 
#50 ·
So the MArines are adopting the SIG and using it to replace the M45A1, the M9, M9A1, as well as the Glock M007 pistol. So what's the chances we'll see some M007 marked Glock 19s....

As a Jarhead myself I'd pick one up if Glock would make it.
That could take any amount of time. I was around a bunch of em at LeJuene a week ago and they were all toting M9s.
 
#61 ·
This is a report on the progress of the XM17 project from last year. IF you really understand the acquisition process you would understand the Army and Sig corrected any issues with the weapon prior to type classification and general issue or the problems were deemed isolated irrelevant to the future of the weapon system. To date the Army has not issued a single XM17 to the troops...do you know what that is?

If you actually read the report you would understand the issue with ball ammunition isn't with the current standard GI issue 124gr. 9X19 NATO round....its with a new experiental ball round still under development....which is why the ammunition referenced also carried the XM classification.

The Army isn't having major issues with the MHS...this is simply fake news generated off old in-progress reports. Its like taking the reports about the XM1 tank when it was still going through operational tests and revealing that the Army has all kinds of problems with its new M1 tanks. I was there when that happened. The press did the same thing then...and guess what...the tanks worked great.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top