Can the Glock Be Considered "Battle-Tested"?

[atblis]

Let's see

Popular in Israel
Popular in South Africa

I consider it battle tested.

Also, I believe for it to be a standard issue sidearm for the US doesn't it have to be made here? Wasn't there some hangup over this?

They work. I wouldn't waste my time looking for some reason to justify not owning one (other than price).

 

[PaladinX13]

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.

This is two different complaints... one is misplaced skepticism at best or disparagement of someone's character at worst... the other is the "science" of the testimony. Regarding the first point, if it's a hoax, it's an elaborate one that's endured several years despite risks which would make the testimony easily revealed as false, such as giving his location, place of business, the competitions he shoots in, involving pilots, friends, and customers. If it's an issue of integrity, then you'd have to have personal agenda of your own to doubt his.

As to whether it's scientific or not is not particularly relevant. It's simply documentation of testimony... testimony which matches others' experiences but not so extensively (or ridiculously) documented. A testimony like this does not say that your G21 will perform like that... but it shows that it can (if not better).

-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.

If you actually read the text, there were failures only for a few of the tests and still did duty as his IDPA 3Gun pistol. Taken at "face value" what we have here is peerless documentation of a gun operating through rather extraordinary circumstances.

We can pay lip-service to the idea that "any" service pistol of quality can do the same, but the fact of the matter is that they don't have the same level of documentation (or credibility) to back it up.

 

[AndyC]

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.

First, anyone who knows me would agree that I'm actually a very easy-going, affable, cultured man - I just happen to take exception to people attempting to demonise what I have done - excuse me all to hell if that sits badly with you, but I could give a damn what you think.

Second, I could care less what you consider good taste as I've probably forgotten more about taste than you'll ever learn.

Third, you're ignorant. My job-description was given to me by the US military - you might want to inform them that they're wrong. Good luck with that - pardon me if I don't hold my breath waiting for them to change it based upon your opinion.

Fourth, a mercenary fights for money, not a cause. If I had fought for money, I could have made more by offering my services to the opposition - shhhh, don't tell anyone but they have tons of cash.

And finally, if you don't like reading the nasty man's comments, don't read them.

 

[VMIRat1995]

I have to agree with Browninguy...

...a "military contractor" is just another "fancy" name for a "mercenary".

Same thing as a "janitor" versus "custodial engineer".

 

[VMIRat1995]

If that's the case..

...no offense, why not just enlist?

 

[AndyC]

Ahhh, someone else gives their professional opinion, do they?

Tell me, son, are you speaking from any actual experience - or do you just enjoy pulling an opinion out of nowhere? I am ex-military - I have served my country, how about you, hmmm?

 

[Geronimo45]

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

"I believe for it to be a standard issue sidearm for the US doesn't it have to be made here? Wasn't there some hangup over this?"
For SpecOps weapons, there are fewer restrictions on purchase. Smaller contracts involve less concerns over whose district gets the money.

As for Beretta versus Glock for the armywide pistol, the Glock never had a chance of winning those trials. Reliability wasn't an issue, IIRC. The Army wanted a DA/SA gun with a safety and other features that would specifically exclude the Glock.

 

[AndyC]

And the Beretta won over the SIG simply because their magazines were cheaper, IIRC.

 

[atblis]

Ha

...no offense, why not just enlist?

Why enlist? As a contractor You take the same risks and make much much more money.

 

[ny32182]

This is two different complaints... one is misplaced skepticism at best or disparagement of someone's character at worst... the other is the "science" of the testimony. Regarding the first point, if it's a hoax, it's an elaborate one that's endured several years despite risks which would make the testimony easily revealed as false, such as giving his location, place of business, the competitions he shoots in, involving pilots, friends, and customers. If it's an issue of integrity, then you'd have to have personal agenda of your own to doubt his.

I'm not "disparaging anyone's character", there, champ... my point is that just because one guy posted something on the internet, it isn't necessarily gospel fact, or 100% accurate. I realize that can be a bit of a stretch.

As to whether it's scientific or not is not particularly relevant.

No?

It's simply documentation of testimony... testimony which matches others' experiences but not so extensively (or ridiculously) documented. A testimony like this does not say that your G21 will perform like that... but it shows that it can (if not better).

If you actually read the text, there were failures only for a few of the tests and still did duty as his IDPA 3Gun pistol. Taken at "face value" what we have here is peerless documentation of a gun operating through rather extraordinary circumstances.

We can pay lip-service to the idea that "any" service pistol of quality can do the same, but the fact of the matter is that they don't have the same level of documentation (or credibility) to back it up.

Yeah... I did "actually" read the text. Did you?

As I said, it is an interesting read, but as far as *credible documentation, that actually proves something*.... that, it isn't. Not in the least.

 

[Stephen A. Camp]

The thread has drifted way off topic and is now in violation of THR's rules of conduct in that names have been called. If this just must be done, it should be done by private message or email.

Folks who insist on violating these rules will find themselves eventually banned from the site.

Perhaps it is time to move on to other topics?

Best.