If Not A Glock, Then What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would prefer a Glock of some combination, probably the 17, as a "combat gun". Reliable accurate and light.

But the Sig 226 is a close second, losing only on weight.
 
Got a new list of audiobooks to listen to. Thanks

Great books. A little rough in parts (graphic in nature) but very excellent. Also look at Peter Nealen (if you haven't) for some real good military fiction, though Peter's (especially American Praetorian) is more straight military over Jack Carr's more thriller with action.
 
The 'is Glock the best combat handgun ever' thread got me wondering. Only about 30% voted Yes. I was one of them. But that means around 70% think the Glock isn't the best choice. So if it's not a Glock, what is it?

I don't mean for you personally, though CCW and Home Defense firearms are obviously still combat handguns. But what about Military and LE as well? Imagine that you had to pick one and only one service caliber full size (or compact) pistol, for any and all combative pistol roles, for the entire Country. What would you choose? What beats a Glock when you're choosing one pistol for everyone?

I never shoot my G22 since I bought an XDm .40, which is a big, bruising, highly accurate and reliable full size pistol and has great mag cap at 16. Springfield should restart that line IMO, .40 isn't going anywhere. I also have a 4.5" 9MM OSP with the extra threaded barrel and an XDm-10 5.25". I still shoot my G19 but the Springfields are better IMO in several areas, most notably accuracy with factory barrels, sights, ergos.
 
For today's fuzz ? S&W Mdl 19/66. More "friendly", easier to clean and maintain than *any* service auto. You got six shots and a reload, I'd advise you to learn your gun.

For military usage ? A steel framed Beretta 92 G
 
My bedside/end table/carry/toolbox/ travel/carrytruck guns are either M&Ps or SD40VEs in either 40s&w or 45acp from the Shield to fullsize, I've not had problems with any and they all shoot the same, I feel the M&Ps would serve any department well and would pacify the bean counters also, the adjustable back strap and the safety option is a plus.
 
For today's fuzz ? S&W Mdl 19/66. More "friendly", easier to clean and maintain than *any* service auto. You got six shots and a reload, I'd advise you to learn your gun.

For military usage ? A steel framed Beretta 92 G

I'm not sure most people would agree that a DA revolver is easier to clean than a modern polymer semi-auto. Some might say the opposite is true. And I think if "learning your gun" was all that was required to make a 6 shot revolver sufficient for police departments, they likely would do just that with higher capacity semi-autos. I think a 6 shot revolver would result in a lot more cops being found incapacitated or dead, with empty guns in their hands.

As far as Beretta 92s for the military goes, they did that, and now they aren't doing it anymore.

But anyway, the idea was to pick one gun for everyone. Not two different guns. So which gun do you think would work for all combat handgun roles better than a Glock?
 
I'm not sure most people would agree that a DA revolver is easier to clean than a modern polymer semi-auto. Some might say the opposite is true. And I think if "learning your gun" was all that was required to make a 6 shot revolver sufficient for police departments, they likely would do just that with higher capacity semi-autos. I think a 6 shot revolver would result in a lot more cops being found incapacitated or dead, with empty guns in their hands.

As far as Beretta 92s for the military goes, they did that, and now they aren't doing it anymore.

But anyway, the idea was to pick one gun for everyone. Not two different guns. So which gun do you think would work for all combat handgun roles better than a Glock?


Combat Handgun ? Mmm. You wanna stop your target. 9mm doesn't do that. .357 Magnum does. So.... S&W Mdl 19
 
I'm not sure most people would agree that a DA revolver is easier to clean than a modern polymer semi-auto. Some might say the opposite is true. And I think if "learning your gun" was all that was required to make a 6 shot revolver sufficient for police departments, they likely would do just that with higher capacity semi-autos. I think a 6 shot revolver would result in a lot more cops being found incapacitated or dead, with empty guns in their hands.

As far as Beretta 92s for the military goes, they did that, and now they aren't doing it anymore.

But anyway, the idea was to pick one gun for everyone. Not two different guns. So which gun do you think would work for all combat handgun roles better than a Glock?

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.
 
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.

Probably true. But this post from up thread by FL-NC, suggests maybe the 92 (M9) wasn't the best choice regardless of what the bean counters thought.

Well, my command chose the Glock to replace the M9 way before "big army" moved to the Sig. My old command elected to stay with the Glock. My understanding is that "big army" didn't want a pistol without an "off switch". I was issued 5 different pistols at different times during my military service (1911, M9, Sig 228, MK23, Glock 19) and opportunities to train with many more pistols. My opinion and the general consensus among my contemporaries is that the Glock was and is ideal for us.
 
Combat Handgun ? Mmm. You wanna stop your target. 9mm doesn't do that. .357 Magnum does. So.... S&W Mdl 19

Well, that's up for debate. Many people would argue that the 9mm with modern JHPs does that more than adequately. And you might want to consider how many LEOs didn't transition to the .357 mag from the .38 spl precisely because the recoil was too much for them. Now consider that more women are in LE than back during the .357 mag's hayday. The 9mm is now a popular choice because pretty much everyone can shoot it well. But if you think the .357 mag is so much better, how about more than twice the capacity and a faster reload courtesy of the .357 Sig?

Revolvers just don't have what it takes to keep cops safe in this time of social and political division, now that higher capacity firearms are easily available not just to LE, but to criminals too.
 
Well, that's up for debate. Many people would argue that the 9mm with modern JHPs does that more than adequately. And you might want to consider how many LEOs didn't transition to the .357 mag from the .38 spl precisely because the recoil was too much for them. Now consider that more women are in LE than back during the .357 mag's hayday. The 9mm is now a popular choice because pretty much everyone can shoot it well. But if you think the .357 mag is so much better, how about more than twice the capacity and a faster reload courtesy of the .357 Sig?

Revolvers just don't have what it takes to keep cops safe in this time of social and political division, now that higher capacity firearms are easily available not just to LE, but to criminals too.


Well... from my understanding, and what minute research I've done on it; cops were, generally speaking; more accurate shot for shot with wheelguns than they are with automatics, of any sort. I've spoken to a few local old-timers, and their general consensus is "Of course we were more accurate. We had six shots, twelve spare rounds, and a five minute reload. We made every shot count."

And honestly, nothing says LEO couldn't care more firepower in the trunk, or in the seat by em. Nothing like a 12ga shotgun or patrol rifle to tip the odds in their favor.
 
Well... from my understanding, and what minute research I've done on it; cops were, generally speaking; more accurate shot for shot with wheelguns than they are with automatics, of any sort. I've spoken to a few local old-timers, and their general consensus is "Of course we were more accurate. We had six shots, twelve spare rounds, and a five minute reload. We made every shot count."

I've seen statistics from LAPD that show the same sort of thing going from a 6 shot revolver to a high cap 9mm. I don't have a link to the article, but IIRC they claimed hit rate was around 2/3rd with the revolver, compared to 1/3rd with the "wonder nine". And fear of running dry before solving the problem does seem like a pretty plausible reason. But that's not a great argument to limit capacity or increase reload times.
 
I am sure that if you took away all my other guns and gave me plenty of time and ammo to shoot nothing but a Glock, I would get adequate with it.
But as an individual, you could just leave me my Colt (Smith, Sig) that I can already shoot pretty well. And I am not an A.G.E. so I can do that.
 
The S&W M&P has excellent ergonomics, does not have a trigger with a dingus and in my experience is very reliable. That's my choice.
 
Well... from my understanding, and what minute research I've done on it; cops were, generally speaking; more accurate shot for shot with wheelguns than they are with automatics, of any sort. I've spoken to a few local old-timers, and their general consensus is "Of course we were more accurate. We had six shots, twelve spare rounds, and a five minute reload. We made every shot count."

And honestly, nothing says LEO couldn't care more firepower in the trunk, or in the seat by em. Nothing like a 12ga shotgun or patrol rifle to tip the odds in their favor.
From what I remember back when they made the switch from revolvers to autos, besides the increase in onboard ammo, the increase in accuracy/hits with the autos was one of the big things about going to them.

I remember reading (I think it was one of Ayoob's articles) that the average hit ratio with the revolvers was something like 25%, and that went up to something like 40%-50% with the autos. Either way, so much for cops being highly trained. :)

From personal experience, when shooting for groups (deliberate target style), I know I generally do shoot tighter groups with my revolvers (and DAO yet) than I do my autos.

Switch that up to more realistic shooting, from a holster and moving while I shoot, its the complete reverse. The autos win hands down.

And as soon as you add additional targets and complexity to the problems, the revolvers are quickly empty.

I am sure that if you took away all my other guns and gave me plenty of time and ammo to shoot nothing but a Glock, I would get adequate with it.
But as an individual, you could just leave me my Colt (Smith, Sig) that I can already shoot pretty well. And I am not an A.G.E. so I can do that.
If you spend a little time with any of them, they all are easily shot, and without issue. The grip angle and other complaints you always hear about Glocks, which usually come from people with experience with other things, and no experience with Glocks, quickly go away as you gain familiarity, and you have no troubles switching back and forth.

Whats funny too, once you do get used to shooting Glocks, Id be willing to bet, if someone laid out an assortment and you had to choose, the Glock would be your choice. Once you see how well and naturally they point and shoot, even if you were indoctrinated with something else, its kind of hard not to.

While these days I do use Glocks as a primary gun, and carry one daily, I also shoot 1911's, SIG's, Berettas, HP's, and a number of S&W revolvers, all on a regular and basically weekly basis, and have no troubles switching between them.
 
for me you can't beat a CZ 75 Compact. No plastic, it's IMO the most ergonomic handgun ever made, they feed and eject every round they load. For my money CZ makes an affordable, heirloom quality, end of the world reliable handgun.
 
for me you can't beat a CZ 75 Compact. No plastic, it's IMO the most ergonomic handgun ever made, they feed and eject every round they load. For my money CZ makes an affordable, heirloom quality, end of the world reliable handgun.

Heirloom quality o_O It's a stock CZ.. :D:D

Now, I don't necessarily disagree, I do love me some CZ 75. The compacts, something changed in their grip profile doesn't work well for my hands, something with the beaver tail leaves my main hand really sore after a few hundred rounds, the full size don't do that and do feel like absolute heaven in my hands. Probably me trying to get to high in the grip and pushing on the beaver tail in a strange way.
 
no less so than a Browning Hi Power or a 1911. It's metal, my grandson will be shooting mine. That's heirloom in my book.

Ok, I get that. I guess I associate that word with more .. gravitas.

But fair enough, got a few shotguns from grandpa I wouldn't get rid of for the world, despite them being a pretty basic option. One H&R and one Stoeger.

(Also, I was poking a bit of fun)
 
What beats a Glock when you're choosing one pistol for everyone?

I have never chosen pistols for everyone, we spent two weeks figuring out what my wife liked years ago and it was something I would have never picked.

I suppose in 1985 the military chose the M9, before that the 1911.

I like my glocks but understand they are not for everyone. In divisions that allow them I prefer my SVI/STI pistols over the glocks.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top