Can the Glock Be Considered "Battle-Tested"?

[ForeignDude]

It is true that the Glock is currently serving as the sidearm of a large number of police departments, and has demonstrated substantial reliability "under fire".

On the other hand, no army in the world carries the Glock as standard issue, in any caliber. I believe that the Austrian Army issues the Glock 17, and Iraqi security forces have received Glocks (G19's and G17's) in large quantities. (Are there other armies that use Glocks? Jog my memory, if I've forgotten...)

I've finished reading a couple of books on Private Military Companies in Iraq: "License to Kill" and "A Bloody Business". In reading these, I noticed that Glocks figure prominently in the kit for many of these contractors (especially the G19). IIRC, the Glock is standard issue for Blackwater security contractors. However, beyond listing their presence, the authors do not address the proliferation of Glocks versus other types of pistols, their performance, etc. (This is to expected: the books are about the companies, not the firearms those companies choose to issue to their employees in the field.)

Anyway, my question is this: Can the Glock be considered "battle-tested", based on its use in Iraq among non-traditional military forces?

Do we know what the performance of these Glocks has been in-country?

 

[TimboKhan]

I don't know if you could call it battle-tested based on your question, but I think it would be safe to call it that if you consider how many are in the hands of our police buddies. Why not? The design has been around a quarter of a century, they developed and have hung on to a reputation of reliability, they pass most "torture tests" thrown at them, and they are easy to repair when they break. I am not a particular fan of the Glock personally, but it would be both foolish and hard to argue that they are bad guns. That being said, as military guns I can see a lot of downsides, which means that it would be difficult to really say "battle-tested" in the traditional sense. But, if you rule out actual battle in favor of looking at them from the perspective of proven service pistols, I think you can say yes.

 

[sm]

Do Internet Gun Forum Flame Wars count?

 

[GeorgiaGlocker]

The main reason that the military have not endorsed the Glock is the simple reason that they do not have the external safeties that the military require.

 

[CWL]

I think that the G17 can be considered a battle-tested design. It was originally designed as a military sidearm by Gaston Glock and went thru severe testing before they were adopted.

Many nations have adopted them for issue to military, military police, and police (which in some cases are the same as military). Isreal, Thailand, Iran come to mind.

I do have an issue about whether pistols really count as battlefield weapons, though. They are defined as "sidearms" for a reason.

Lastly, Glocks have been disqualified by the SEALs because they can fail in inter-tidal areas. Wet sand can get into the space between magwell and magazine and can cause jamming. This makes sense because I can see how sand particles can 'bite' into the soft polymer. I would not carry a Glock or other polymer firearm in sandy areas.

 

[PILMAN]

I've seen some of the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) carrying Glock 17's, look like they are mainly reservist or armored core.

Lastly, Glocks have been disqualified by the SEALs because they can fail in inter-tidal areas. Wet sand can get into the space between magwell and magazine and can cause jamming. This makes sense because I can see how sand particles can 'bite' into the soft polymer. I would not carry a Glock or other polymer firearm in sandy areas.

Apparently the Glock 21 torture test shows that the polymer frame was fine in sand, it even fired with sand gunked in it and after being run over and dropped from a plane.
http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Item

 

[BB93YJ]

Foreign Dude:

" On the other hand, no army in the world carries the Glock as standard issue, in any caliber. I believe that the Austrian Army issues the Glock 17, and..."

Huh?

 

[CWL]

Hey Pilman,

I'd still rather trust what 12-year SEAL member Jeff Gonzales told me when I spent 4 days shooting with him last year.

While I am impressed that the G21 survived an airplane drop (into dirt), I am unimpressed at guns being put into buckets of sand or being run-over, most if not all modern pistols would survive this. Try carrying a firearm through rough surf and see where all that wave action will deposit sand particles.

 

[GTSteve03]

I believe Sweden issues the Glock 17 and 19 as standard sidearms for its troops.

I'm not sure if Finland does also.

 

[outofbattery]

The Israeli naval commandos carry the Glock 19 ( and strangely enough,the AK-47)-they have seen much action.The Norwegian,Swedish,Belgian and Dutch armies all issue the 17 and they have all been to Afghanistan.

 

[Soybomb]

I would question what the value of "battle tested" really is today. What percentage of military fighting is done with rifles versus handguns. My understanding is that its quite rare for our servicemen to draw their handguns. A bunch of them carrying them and never using them, doesn't really equate to much of a test. LEO's carry them in great numbers and are, I'm guessing, more likely to use their handguns than long guns. I'd settle for field tested with actual use.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Foreign Dude:

" On the other hand, no army in the world carries the Glock as standard issue, in any caliber. I believe that the Austrian Army issues the Glock 17, and..."

Huh?

I'm happy to see that I wasn't the only reader to pick up on this non sequitur

 

[CountGlockula]

Not sure about "Battle Tested"...but I know about "Torture tested"....
http://www.theprepared.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=90&Item

 

[Teufelhunden]

In reading these, I noticed that Glocks figure prominently in the kit for many of these contractors (especially the G19).

Consider that people who pursue post-military-discharge 'contract' work in a combat zone are probably the folks who were warriors when they were in, and are measurably more adept with small arms than your average box-kicker or pencil pusher. The military, however, has to accommodate the lowest common denominator in its ranks, so requires a pistol with an 'Off' switch. When these folks go to the sandbox they are free to choose their kit, which for most folks does not include the Beretta M9. Any reliable sidearm in 9mm would be a good choice; the gun goes *bang* every time you pull the trigger and the spread of 9mm ensures that there is plenty around.

While I'm on the topic, I wish we'd call them what we call every other non-enlisted person that takes money to fight: a mercenary. Calling them contractors makes it sound like they're over there to hang drywall.

-Teufelhunden

 

[ny32182]

The guy saying he dumped his G21 in buckets of this, that, and the other is interesting and all, but two things have to be considered:

-It is one guy you've never met, who for all you know could be making the whole thing up. The test isn't scientific in the least. There is no control sample, no nothing.

-If you read the text, you will find that the guy actually states that the pistol malfunctioned in one way or another during most of the tests. Even if taken at face value, to me it is more a testament to the durability of the Tenifer finish and plastic frame and other parts than it is a testament to the reliability of the design. A blued gun, for instance would be rusting like crazy under the conditions described.

 

[MikePGS]

I find it interesting that they would use 9mm's when its beaten into everyones head that 9mm's are inadequate for a military round. Are contractors (mercanaries... whatever) bound by the rules in regards to hollowpoints?

 

[ny32182]

The 9mm is by far the most proven military pistol round in the history of the entire world; I'm pretty sure it is mostly just in the USA where it is "beaten into everyone's head that it isn't adequate"...

 

[Geronimo45]

Mike: 9mms are probably around for logistics reasons. The Glock is a proven weapon in police departments. So is the Beretta... but I think that Glocks are a cheaper weapon.

 

[MikePGS]

Usually though the police departments use JHP's, whereas the military has to use ball ammo. I was being somewhat sarastic in regards to the countless tales of "only .45's were capable of taking the Moro/Taliban soldier down", but at the same time from all the information i've seen, generally a 9mm doesen't generate sufficient energy to qualify for various "one shot stop" standards i've seen. I don't mean to derail the thread any further, but i was mostly curious as to whether or not mercenaries in employ of a government are bound to said governments restrictions in regards to ammunition selection.

 

[AndyC]

While I'm on the topic, I wish we'd call them what we call every other non-enlisted person that takes money to fight: a mercenary. Calling them contractors makes it sound like they're over there to hang drywall.

Teufelhunden, consider yourself fortunate that you didn't call me a mercenary to my face, although you're more than welcome to make the attempt next time you're in Dallas.

I was a military contractor and I'd have done the job for the same wages as the soldiers just for the opportunity to serve over there. Calling me, and by implication every other contractor over there, a mercenary, spits on our honour and pisses on our patriotism. I fought for this side - not the highest bidder. Take a good look at your own sig-line sometime; we are the rough men to which it refers, so take your sour grapes and shove them deep, pal.

I find it interesting that they would use 9mm's when its beaten into everyones head that 9mm's are inadequate for a military round. Are contractors (mercanaries... whatever) bound by the rules in regards to hollowpoints?

The military uses the 9mm, so it's easy to get stocks thereof. No, we carried whatever we decided we needed to get the job done, but we're less concerned with one-shot stops because the primary function of a particular load in battle is reliability, so almost everyone carries ball. We pull the trigger until the bad guy drops, and there's no prosecutor asking us to justify each and every round. That's war - it's played by quite different rules to your average American street.

Back on-topic - I personally dislike Glocks, but if I were given my choice of handgun with which to equip my team, it would be Glock all the way. It's simple, reliable and more accurate than most folks can shoot it. Hell, yes, it's battle-proven.

 

[Lonestar.45]

I think that it's law enforcement record qualifies it as being "battle tested". LEO's have put the glocks through just about everything a soldier would, and to LEO's, they are PRIMARY weapons. Not so in the military. When so many agencies choose Glock as their primary weapon and continue to do so after all these years, I'd say they're "battle tested".

 

[Geronimo45]

"LEO's have put the glocks through just about everything a soldier would"
Except for the ubiquitous sand and salt water treatment that the SEALs don't approve of. A SEAL is a water rat. They have a habit of swimming to shore, being dropped into the water, and similar things. They'll encounter a lot more bilgewater than land-based soldiers ever should, and for a longer time period.

 

[AndyC]

If you're a SEAL, I imagine that would be relevant. However, back in the real world...

 

[MythBuster]

Glocks have been carried and used in combat in every ****hole in the world.

 

[browningguy]

Teufelhunden, consider yourself fortunate that you didn't call me a mercenary to my face, although you're more than welcome to make the attempt next time you're in Dallas.

Well at least you sound like a really bad man. Threats to others normally are not considered in good taste, just so you know.

And there is no reason to get uptight because someone calls you a mercenary, it's been a professional trade since time began. If you don't like the job title, change careers.