If Not A Glock, Then What?

A 1911 with pachmayr rubber finger groove grips fits my hand perfectly. a 1911 naturally points perfectly for me, a Browning Hi-Power seemed to do the same but with more ammo capacity. None of the standard frame polymer guns fit my hand as well, not Glock, not Sig, not H&K, and only the budget S&W Sigma or whatever they're called today pointed fairly well for me. There is a Steyr that looks promising, but for now I will stay with Glock because its my issue gun, its easy to find anything for it, and with the extra grip adaptor can point fairly well with it without having to go to the larger framed G21 which does fit my hand perfectly for what it is.

Cannot ... resist ... any ... longer ...

Old Dog said:

Cannot ... resist ... any ... longer ...
View attachment 951146

Click to expand...

Apart from those 320s you've got in there ( ) I'm right with ya!

Mr. Mosin said:

That, and we all know the military is run by bureaucrats and bean counters, neither of which have ever set foot in a combat zone in their lives. They don't know which is *better*. All they know is who we need to make allies with and how many pennies we can pinch in the process.

Click to expand...

I doubt the bean counters do the actual testing. Something tells me the folks that do the testing have skills and knowledge, although I could be wrong. However since my son is now in the ARMY National Guard and wants to go full time Army, I am going to purchase a Sig which I will later give to him. It is what the ARMY has chosen so that is the gun he should become well acquainted with. Even though I do not think Troops shoot that often. He does however.
Besides I think they are nice guns from the one's I have shot.

What would I choose? Good question. Give me a about 20 thousand rounds and let me shoot them side by side and I will make a decision and submit it to the Military.

No matter what pistol they choose, there are going to be many that despise their choice.

Ernie Bass said:

No matter what pistol they choose, there are going to be many that despise their choice.

Click to expand...

Yup, and for no other reason than it wasnt a 1911.

It seems to me, most complaints about this or that, are from those who dont have, and probably never shot this or that.

Of the two military handgun choices Ive heard the most about, all the complaints were proven wrong, when I actually got one, and learned to shoot them. Funny how that works, isnt it?

I quit paying much attention to "war stories" and the such, a long time ago. The only way to know, is to actually get one for yourself, and figure it out.

I have a Glock and haven't wanted anything else.

I have some buddies who are die hard 1911 fans. They have spent more on upgraded parts than I paid for my Glock. I have put night sites on my Glock but it's otherwise out of the box stock.

Kleanbore said:

Soe people may think that.

There are a lot of things wrong with the military procurement process, but you description does not fit any of them.

That's absurd.

It has been well understood for over a century that service autos are much more easily cleaned and serviced in the fields than DA revolvers.

Try field stripping a Smith or Colt Model 1917 that has been in the mud, and compare that with a Model 1911.

That's folklore that does not reflect the realities of handgun wounding mechanics.

Can you share any facts to support that assertion?

Click to expand...

Folklore my foot. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that a .357 Magnum and a 9mm Luger (both fired from service weapons with equivalent type bullets), the .357 Magnum will do more (broadly speaking) damage to a given target than 9mm Luger.

Both will kill, with a good hit, and both wont, with a near miss. Id say they were about even.

AK103K said:

Both will kill, with a good hit, and both wont, with a near miss. Id say they were about even.

Click to expand...

If anything, in many (perhaps most?) gel tests with modern ammo the 9mms often actually expand more than a lot of their .357 mag counterparts.

They are so many reliable semiautomatic pistols being produced... I lean toward Glocks.. myself, but Im sure they are not alone in reliability..

WrongHanded said:

So if it's not a Glock, what is it?

Click to expand...

WrongHanded said:

What beats a Glock when you're choosing one pistol for everyone?

Click to expand...

After trying and owning a lot of different handguns, I respectfully have to say that the question is irrelevant and unanswerable. there are guns that just don't work for some people. Best is a false premise, and so is choosing one gun for everyone.
"Glocks are the greatest ever." Not for me. They feel like crap in my hand and because of that I have no desire to own or shoot one. Maybe a Glock 29, but only because there is no equivalent.
"1911's are the greatest ever." I love 1911's but the web of my hand gets pretty sore riding the safety. So nope.
"Sigs are the best ever." High bore axis doesn't agree with everyone. I like em, but you may not."

We could go on and on. I really like CZs and find the Shadow 2 and other models are ideal for me, but there's all sorts of criteria that would make them terrible for others.

There is no best. There is only best for you. That's why military and police contracts suck. Everyone gets issued what they get issued. I'd much rather see military personnel and police be given a stipend that is the same amount as they would spend on their issue gun setup, and allow personnel to buy what suits them. But this is impossible for a huge number of different and obvious reasons, and while it may result in more effective individual skills, it would lower the overall effectiveness of a unit. It would be impossible.

WrongHanded said:

If you don't want to play. Don't play. But there no point in complaining about the question, is there?

Click to expand...

I apologize for poo pooing. And like I said, I mean no disrespect. I've just seen this topic come up over and over in one form or another, and the reality is that politics, elbow rubbing, budgets, and I'm sure other completely non-gun related issues that we are not even thinking about come up in these types of large scale decisions.

Sorry

The appeal of Glocks, SD's, M&P's is something I will never understand. They aren't on my radar. I have a family friend who just loves anything Glock. I like DA/SA hammer fired guns, preferably in all steel configuration. My P226 SSE is one of my favorites, along with my Tanfoglio TA/90 "Mossad", my P220 DAK, and various revolvers are the ones I really like. I do have a few polymer guns, but I see those being sold off, with the exception of my Taurus PT111 G2, which has been modified with upgraded sights and a metal recoil assembly, and has been 100% reliable after jamming on the first shot out of the box. It has about 1000 rounds through it and I really love the thing. Can't say the same for my Canik Tp9v2, my Taurus PT809, a couple of others. My CZ P07, SAR CM9 G2, and my Sphinx SDP's are nice, but the only one that seems to be a long term keeper is the Sphinx, at least at this point.

Given that the handgun is the absolute least combat worthy firearm, outside very specific and limited purposes, discussing what makes the best really amounts to a lot of todo over nothing much.

Here are, essentially, the bare bones military performance criteria:

It eats the caliber desired. It goes "bang" when the trigger is pulled. It has a manual safety.

Beyond that, it's got to have a contract for parts and whatnot and be field serviceable.

It has no real penetration criteria at any real range, because it's not a rifle.

So pick a caliber (like 9mm). Meet the criteria above (in mil-spec terms) and that's it.

WrongHanded said:

Absolutely. Honestly, this thread was just to see if 30% or more could agree on one pistol other than a Glock. So far it's not looking like it.

Click to expand...

You need to start a thread on which cartridge is best for a service pistol...

Personally, I don't have a dog in this hunt... I don't know enough about modern service pistols to make even a WAG. I think the Glock is a good choice, I just don't like the Glock trigger, and I think a service pistol should have a positive, manual safety... neither the Glock, or my favorite, the Kahr, have those. I never thought the 1911 should have been replaced... but it DOES require a fair amount of training to be carried and handled safely, and a competent operator. I also understand the 1911 doesn't fit everyone... just like any other pistol extant.

Charlie98 said:

You need to start a thread on which cartridge is best for a service pistol...

Personally, I don't have a dog in this hunt... I don't know enough about modern service pistols to make even a WAG. I think the Glock is a good choice, I just don't like the Glock trigger, and I think a service pistol should have a positive, manual safety... neither the Glock, or my favorite, the Kahr, have those. I never thought the 1911 should have been replaced... but it DOES require a fair amount of training to be carried and handled safely, and a competent operator. I also understand the 1911 doesn't fit everyone... just like any other pistol extant.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth the Glock submitted to the DOD did, in fact, have a thumb safety.

I go back and forth over the thumb safety for my carry/SD firearms. On the one hand I do like having th ability to hook a thumb under the safety to ensure a very safe holstering, and haven't yet had an issue "forgetting" to disengage the safety as part of my positive firing grip.

On the other hand, I'm undeniably faster out of the holster with the Glock, and I do have a slight apprehension about getting the safety off in a close retention situation, despite practicing it quite a bit (because one hand close retention is the only time where I have to actually think about the safety instead of it just being part of my firing grip).

JR24 said:

For what it's worth the Glock submitted to the DOD did, in fact, have a thumb safety.

I go back and forth over the thumb safety for my carry/SD firearms. On the one hand I do like having th ability to hook a thumb under the safety to ensure a very safe holstering, and haven't yet had an issue "forgetting" to disengage the safety as part of my positive firing grip.

On the other hand, I'm undeniably faster out of the holster with the Glock, and I do have a slight apprehension about getting the safety off in a close retention situation, despite practicing it quite a bit (because one hand close retention is the only time where I have to actually think about the safety instead of it just being part of my firing grip).

Click to expand...

My EDC is a Kahr... with no external safety. I decided the simplicity of draw and fire beat trying to disengage a thumb safety while doing it... certainly during an adrenaline rush that would kill my fine motor skills, and whatever else might be going on in the instance where I would have to draw my weapon. It's my personal choice, I'm not recommending it to anyone over any other option. I think, for a service arm, where you have to have safety boiled down to the least common denominator, an external safety makes sense... with the training to reinforce it.

WrongHanded said:

Yeah, err it's only an exercise. However, just because some guns don't work for all people, doesn't mean there aren't some guns that do (with training). I'm fairly sure militaries around the world don't let soldiers pick and choose "what works for them".

But as I mentioned in a later post, part of why I asked the question was to see if any other make and model was popular enough to see a substantial preference for it over a Glock. It's not looking that way. Though I think the Sig P320 is the closest.

If you don't want to play. Don't play. But there no point in complaining about the question, is there?

Click to expand...

You should probably start a poll ... oh wait