Navy SEALs Switching from SIG SAUER P226/P229 to GLOCK 19?

GLOCK 19 (courtesy gunnuts.net)

The Navy SEALs Might Have Selected A New Pistol Of Choice foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com reports. The injection of the word “might” into the website’s clickbait paean to the glories of the GLOCK 19 gives foxtrotalpha plausible deniability. And rightly so. There’s no official statement that the SEALs are ditching their SIG SAUER P226 or P229 handguns for Gaston’s gat. Chasing the link backwards through four websites, we arrive at the original source: a post by a verified SME named Rana on M4Carbine.net. And here it is:

Looks like the Glock 19 will be the new 9mm pistol of Naval Special Warfare.

The SIG’s are still in service but are to be phased out in favor of the Glock Model 19.

I am not sure what generation, but based on those G19 already in service with SOF I’d say the Gen 3 is likely.

I will follow up when I get more issued than holsters et al.

The gunblogoshpere is alight with attaboys: armchair warriors praising the GLOCK 19. According to the aforementioned Rana it’s a “lighter more efficient package” than the SIG P229 and/or P226. Yes, well, if past experience is our guide, the swap, should it occur, is more likely to do with price and lobbying than anything else.

For my part, I reckon the SIG is just as reliable as a GLOCK and has a superior trigger. The SIG’s heavier weight tames recoil better than a GLOCK. And the SIGs’ ergos are superior to the GLOCKs. None of which makes any difference – unless accuracy is your number one priority. Say, if you were an operator operating operationally.

Not to mention the fact that the new SIG SAUER P226 and P229 Legion Series may be the best carry guns ever produced by hand of man – if you discount a well-made 1911. But what do I know? This much: the military’s definition of “best” doesn’t stretch to $1000 pistols for all Spec Ops folks. More’s the pity . . . [h/t GuyFromV]

comments

  1. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    “Say it ain’t so, Joe!”

    1. avatar Ben says:

      I think it makes a lot of sense for the military to phase out the old clunky metal framed DA/SA pistols. Lightweight, no bigger than it needs to be and one trigger pull to master. Also, easy as pie detail stripping and customizing.

      It’s about time the military started catching up to civilian pistol tech.

      1. avatar dd says:

        It’s too bad they didn’t consider a the South Korean Daewoo DP-51 service pistol whos 25oz weight is close to that of a glock and it’s made from forged aluminum.

        1. avatar Todd says:

          They can always use the LionHeart LH9CN which has a superior trigger, upgradeable sights and specialized polymer grips designed to assist in retention of the weapon. Frame is drop forged 7075 T6 aluminum alloy, the barrel is 4150 CrMo match grade chrome lined, the slide is 4140 CrMo and the entire gun, inside and out is Cerakote. Add to that an SRT plus world class durability and you’ve got a winner.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        It always stood to reason that for guys like SEALs who know what they’re doing (as opposed to e.g. most police forces around the country), a striker fired gun with no manual safety would be preferable.

      3. avatar Todd says:

        SEALS use a weapon based upon the mission requirements. Most of us who have actually shot a large number of different guns and prefer DA/SA can tell you that we understand and are capable of dealing with the first heavier trigger pull since it gives us extremely light and short secondary pulls.

        Only a fanboi would intentionally make the shooter seem stupid because he has to deal with a “crippling” initial DA pull and cannot adapt to anything other than their favorite gun’s trigger (which sucks, by the way).

        Anyone with any amount of experience understands that it’s a simple training issue that takes no time at all. Those who train and can only accommodate a single type of trigger pull are the handicapped ones, not the people who can handle them all with ease.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          +
          And, you need an alloy frame and a hammer. Don’t ask me why, I didn’t develop the “firearm hierarch of needs”, I am a slave to it like anyone else. You can kill the messenger, but you’ll still need an alloy frame and a hammer.

    2. avatar mark s. says:

      …………………..but Sig now has a big green light bulb for a front sight . Oh well , too late . That Glock 19 is fair . I have some better prefs but what ever .

    3. avatar Silentjim says:

      Was at Dam Neck over valintines day, nobody, I mean no-body, has heard about a switch . Anyway gear is mission specific .
      Ya gotta quit listening to the 12 yo keyboard commandos.

    4. avatar Stephen Davies says:

      I don’t like Glocks period. I shot competition for nine years and saw numerous Glock’s blowup on people. I’ll stick with a 1911 or a Sig

  2. avatar BillC says:

    Not really news. I could not care less about Glock vs. Sig debate because of SEAL use. It’s just fodder to make an owner feel good and validation for their choice. I’ve made my choice between the two, but I don’t “hate” the other pistol. Different horses for courses. This post was just you praising the Sig from the middle to then end of it.

    http://soldiersystems.net/2015/12/23/nsw-glock-19/

    1. avatar california richard says:

      Why settle for sig OR glock when you can have sig AND glock for only twice the price.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        . . . and carry the next gen M9 by Beretta.

  3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    I always thought it was interesting that both my Father and Father In Law were given choices between a 1911 or a Thompson, and both chose the Thompson.
    The M1 Carbine was developed because most servicemen were incompetent with a handgun.

    1. avatar int19h says:

      >> The M1 Carbine was developed because most servicemen were incompetent with a handgun.

      Wasn’t it rather because handgun was deemed to be too inefficient on the battlefield, and artillery etc needed something more substantial as a backup?

  4. avatar GusMac says:

    I love my Sigs I just wish I was as close to as fast and as accurate with them as I am with 3 other choices including GLOCK.

    Not a single aspect you listed as superior for the Sig hold true for me. Luckily I am not forced to use a pistol that FOR ME does not work as well as others. If a Sig works best for any given shooter that is what they should use unless forced to use something else.

  5. avatar Chuck in IL says:

    Why would they choose the Glock 19 over the Glock 17? It’s not like they are carrying concealed. Two extra rounds and a longer sight radius would be more conducive to combat one would think.

    1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      The G19 (and I do own one) just “feels right.” I have go admit, the G17 was the prototype, the G19 was the refinement. Yes, yes, we can all talk about ‘full size’ vs. ‘compact’ or ‘trimmed’ Glocks, but in the G19, it appears Glock got the dimensions, weight, magazine capacity and balance “just right” for a large number of applications and people.

      I have no trouble making head shots on an IPSC target with mine. I have to admit the G19 “just works.” The larger variants of the Glock don’t have the same balance.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        Balance, yes, that’s it.

        I was a proponent of the G26 or G17 mantra, just skipping over the G19 all together.

        But since, have changed my tune due to the balance difference, however slight.

        1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          Mind you, when I made my choice of 17 vs 19, those were the only two Glock handguns on the market. My G19 doesn’t have a wanker rail, thumb shelf, grip inserts and all the other fancy doo-dads they’ve put onto the gun since then. It’s just a 9×19 pistol that takes 15 round magazines.

          I suppose it is old enough now that I need to change the night sights on it. There are days when I become insecure in how plain my G19 is, and I think “Maybe I need to get in touch with the younger generations… so I should mill out some tacti-kewl slots on the slide, add some lasers, lights, sirens and multi-mission-capable sonar to the gun, then get me one o’ them kewl plastic holsters for it.”

          Then I sit down, drink a beer and wait until these insecurities pass.

        2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Glock could’ve stopped with the Gen2, IMHO.

        3. avatar larry says:

          I have all 3 and 3 of the 17. The 17 is the best shooter for me. The 19 is close but the 17 just feels best to me. The 26 is a summer carry gun. It shoots amazingly well for its size and takes 19/17 mags.

          In the winter I will carry a 19 or depending upon my cover garment 17. Car gun 17, beside gun 17 with X300, camping/hiking pistol 17, hunting sidearm 17. SHTF open carry 17.

          My 19 actually gets the least use.

        4. avatar Accur81 says:

          DG,

          I’ve heard you refer to it as a “wanker rail” on numerous occasions, but I wouldn’t want to search a dark building without a weapon-mounted light. I’ve shot courses in low light with a weapon light vs. a support hand light and the difference in accuracy is tremendous.

          I’ve never seen anyone shoot 5 rounds through the same hole at 8-10 yards while holding a flashlight in their support hand using what I call the “weak weaver” or the “weak isosceles.” A proper weaver stance is just more fast and accurate than having a separate tool in your support hand.

          Obviously sufficient training is useful to use any tool effectively under stressful circumstances. My $.02.

      2. avatar Lightfoot says:

        I own and train with the G34. I have owned and will probably own a G19 again. I find the G34 well balanced and a great shooter (with regular training). The only reason I would consider a G19 again is for carry purposes. The G17 is the best compromise between the two.

    2. avatar larry says:

      100% agree.

      G17 > G19 in every way except concealment. When that is not a consideration then choosing a 19 over a 17 is just limiting your choice.

      1. avatar HP says:

        I’d have to go with 19 at this point. The difference in size is negligible in terms of how I shoot and how the gun feels, but the 19 is at least sort of concealable. With the 17, I feel like I need to be wearing a hockey jersey or something similar to even have a chance.

        1. avatar Ed says:

          Do what I did: Get the 17 and grip chop it (correctly). Best of both worlds, sight radius and concealability. And if you really want those extra two rounds, pop a grip sleeve on a 17 rounder and you’re good to go.

          Edit: of course, I realize that .mil is not going to adopt a “modded” gun. But this is all the more reason why the G19L needs to be a factory offering from Glock.

      2. avatar Mark says:

        I carry my g17 everyday had a 19 it worked well but for me 17 just works. Better !! Also I live in rural area and open carry so size isn’t a concern

    3. avatar johannes_paulsen says:

      I’m with you, Chuck. I’m not the biggest guy out there, but between the extra rounds and the larger sight radius…plus the fact that the 17 “fits” my hand a little better than the 19, I’d carry the 17 every day, if I never had to worry about being discreet.

    4. avatar rmarshall says:

      I thought that as well about the Glock 17. Still do however im not positive on the facts but I heard through the friend of a friend(SEAl) of a friend(SEAL) who was said to be on missions that he was reqired to be covert thus leaving him little to no choice but to conceal. Again heresay.

  6. avatar Another Robert says:

    My guess is, if SEALs were issued cars, it wouldn’t be Honda Civics. I’m likewise guessing that the SEALs are not gonna be issuing Glocks. Just a guess, mind you. But I’m citing just as much “authority” as SME Rana did, so why not?

    1. avatar seans says:

      Well your guess is wrong. NSW was the last of Socom to not be running Glocks. They got approval around 6 months ato Now it just needs to start getting into the system.

      1. avatar Another Robert says:

        What does “getting it into the system” entail? Is this a done deal or not? And speaking of SOCOM, don’t the Rangers still use the M9? And the PJs likewise? And Force Recon the 1911? At any rate–fortunately, it was just a guess, not a bet…

        1. avatar seans says:

          The guns are authorized for use. That doesn’t mean they just magically appear in the armories. The teams haven’t even got MK25s fully issued yet.
          The Ranger RRCs and the PJs that do direct support run Glocks.

        2. avatar Another Robert says:

          OK, what is “direct support”?

        3. avatar seans says:

          Most PJs don’t actually roll out on OPs. They sit at base and wait to the (rarely) get called. The direct support guys are attached to a unit and go out on every op.

        4. avatar Another Robert says:

          Re PJ’s: Are you saying the ones who are sitting around the base are carrying the M9s but exchange them for Glocks when they get “called out” for an actual mission? Or that some PJs are always sitting around base waiting to be called out, and they may be carrying M9s, but some are always deployed and carry Glocks? I’m not seeing how the distinction works there. And that doesn’t address the Rangers at all. My google-fu indicated that Rangers are issued M9s, with the exception of some officers who carry , yes, Glock 19s.

        5. avatar seans says:

          The PJs are split into two groups, those who are assigned directly to other special operations units. And those that are not. The ones that get assigned to another SOF group get Glocks. The ones that don’t, are currently equipped with M9s, though they are slowly upgrading to Glocks, with priority to the active duty units.
          The Rangers are one of those weird groups. How they are SOF and kinda not. The Ranger RRC is a straight SOF unit within the Rangers. They all get Glocks. The Ranger recce guys within the Battalion get Glocks.

  7. avatar jwm says:

    Even the SF types use a pistol very little. They carry it a lot. But their primary is a shoulder weapon and that’s what they prefer to use. A sidearm needs to be 2 things to a soldier. Murphy proof and easy to carry.

    Between the 2 pistols mentioned I’d carry the Glock. Just cause it would weigh less. Ounces count when you’re on the hump.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The difference is 7oz. That’s hardly a brick we’re talking about. To give everyone else a comparison. That’s about the weight of a loaded 15 round 9mm magazine.

      I’d carry the SIG P229 every day and twice on Sunday. (In fact, now that winter has set in, I swapped my PPK/S for a M11A1.)

      1. avatar DrewN says:

        Ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain.

        1. avatar Mk10108 says:

          Pain of a long march builds character.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Pain of a long march wears on the troops and makes them less capable and less……..everything.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’m not going to argue that point, but I will point out that…

          1. It’s not a lot of weight savings. Basically, you’re ditching a spare magazine worth of weight.
          2. You are losing double strike capability and recoil management.

          For me, I’ll take the extra seven ounces. Especially as I have a tendency to minimize weight in other portions of my system.

        4. avatar SkyMed says:

          The weight savings on a single item (in this case a pistol) may not be great, but it can be significant if a few ounces are saved on several items.

          I think the second strike capability is moot. Granted I was never a Navy SEAL, at no point in my Army career was I ever instructed to try firing again rather than performing immediate action.

        5. avatar James in AZ says:

          Just why won’t anyone mention swing speed between targets? A real gunfight is not like a drill where you can plan the swing while you’re on the first target. The lighter the gun, the quicker the swing and most importantly, the less the overshooting over the second target after which you have to swing back. A ligher gun will give slower followups, but faster time onto the second target. Everyone gets firsts before seconds. And it’s not like glocks are too slow on target anyway. Couple this with lower load, less complication than DA/SA, higher beavertail, and cheaper costs, I’d say it’s a wise choice, if it’s official.

        6. avatar int19h says:

          >> It’s not a lot of weight savings

          Think about it this way. If you’re doing stuff like this, you’re already probably loaded to capacity (meaning that carrying any more than you already do would make you slower than you need to be) – armor, ammo etc all add up really fast.

          So now you have to pick a pistol. Remember, you’re already loaded to capacity – your “pistol quota” is limited. So your choice is either Glock with 3 mags, or SIG with 2 mags. Your pick?

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          @int19h

          Honestly? My personal SHTF setup is a SIG P229 and a single spare magazine. (I was not issued a sidearm what I was in, so that was a non-issue.) These days, I put most of my weight budget into my primary fighting weapon and ammo for that.

          The main reason I like the SIG is the more controllable recoil. (Same reason I carry a PPK/S over an LCP.) I can shoot the SIG with my off hand one handed and still hit the broad side of a barn. Seven ounces is not a lot of carry weight, but it’s a lot of weight to help keep that muzzle down.

          But if we’re talking about total load… I’m not sure how seven ounces makes a difference in a 100+lb load.

        8. avatar int19h says:

          >> But if we’re talking about total load… I’m not sure how seven ounces makes a difference in a 100+lb load.

          Like I said, it’s because 7 oz here and 7 oz there all add up really quickly. If you’re willing to trade 7 oz of extra weight for a better pistol, why not a pound of extra weight for a better armor, say? And maybe some extra ammo (a spare AR mag is, what, just under a pound)? And water? And … and …. and at the end, you have a 120 lb load.

          And no, it doesn’t make sense to look at the pistol only and ignore everything else. If only because before you do so, you have to prove that spending those extra 7 oz on the pistol has a better ROI than spending it on something else. Which is almost certainly not the case, given that pistol is a backup weapon. I think pretty much everyone would rather take more mags/ammo for their primary weapon.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        James, what you pick up in swing speed, you lose in recoil management. Don’t forget, they aren’t packing custom tuned compensated barrels with minimum recoil loads in their magazines.

      3. avatar James in AZ says:

        @ikari kun
        Yea, target acquisition speed and followup speed, you can only have one. Either won’t hurt. I run guns as light as possible just for that swing, but I’m not worried if you choose the SIG.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You’re not wrong, but I think that part of the reason why Glocks are so common as bases for IDPA race guns is because of the ease of modification. If you’re looking at a militarized G17 or G19 versus a Mk25 or M11, you’re trading weight for controllability and a bit of mechanical redundancy. That’s really the bottom line. I will be happy to agree that this is a personal preference thing, and that I am firmly on the SIG side as I’m nowhere near good enough to get top performance out of an IDPA gun anyway.

  8. avatar redwards says:

    Any thoughts why they would chose the compact Glock 19 as opposed to the full size Glock 17? I know the size difference isn’t drastic, but I would think they would adopt a full size service weapon to replace a full size service weapon.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      Reading some of the above posts, I would guess (again) that maybe it’s the weight difference??

      1. avatar larry says:

        22 ounces vs 20 ounces. I doubt they could feel the difference. However that gives you 2 more rounds, .5inc longer sight radius and probably a tad more FPS with the longer bullet.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          I personally don’t think 7 ounces would make much of a noticeable difference, if you are already packing something like, what, 60 lbs? anyway. But some of the commenters here certainly do. So why not 2? For a military sidearm, I’m not sure why you would give up additional rounds, longer sight radius, and maybe improved ballistics.

        2. avatar int19h says:

          >> I personally don’t think 7 ounces would make much of a noticeable difference, if you are already packing something like, what, 60 lbs?

          I don’t know if you’ve ever tried assembling a loadout like that, but if you do, you’ll quickly find out that the reason why it’s 60 lbs and not 80 lbs is because you save 7 ounces here and 5 ounces there…

          (True for pretty much every case where you need to carry at capacity. E.g. for multi-day hiking backpacks.)

    2. avatar seans says:

      It’s phasing out both the 226 and the 239 that was for low vis ops.

      1. avatar Stuki moi says:

        Makes sense. Like ditching a 911 and a Panamera for just an M3. Also explains why 19 over 17.

  9. avatar Charles5 says:

    I think Glocks are fine pistols and I really like the ergonomics of the Sig 226 and 229. However, if I was on a combat operation, I would rather have a Glock 19 than a 226, all other things being equal. That being said, I would rather have my Sig P320 over a Glock any day.

  10. avatar pwrserge says:

    The only thing that a Glock has going for it is weight. A Glock 19 weighs 23oz unloaded while a P229 tips the scales at ~30oz. In terms of everything else the Glocks, are at best, a wash with the P220 series. Take aways the double strike capability of the SIG and you’re left with a mechanically inferior but lighter gun.

    1. If that were true you’d see more 226s in the winner’s circle at uspsa and IDPA events, where nothing but performance of the task matters. But you see it ruled by glock, m&p, and XDm… so. We are talking a game where tenths of seconds count and practical accuracy counts. Cz, witness, and sphinx are coming up, but very few people run a 226.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        I’d say that has more to do with the third party part support for the tactical tupperware than the capabilities of the P220 series. Race guns have vastly different performance specs than military side arms. Nobody runs stock Glocks in competition and it’s simply easier to customize a Glock than a P226.

        1. You are talking abut a sport where in the divisions where allowed, people spend upward of $200 per mag on 4 tuned mags to work just right in a race tuned $4000 double stack 1911, riding in a $200 dollar holster, with $30 mag puches on a $60 dollar belt. All trying to reduce their times by tenths.

          In the division where ‘tuperwear’ rules there is no limit on the amount of internal action work, but guns must remain stock on the outside.

          So if there was as much performance as you are suggesting laying hidden in the 220 series, people would pay to find it.

          Bottom line, 226 has a higher bore axis, so even running sd loads the glock tuperwear feels less snappy.

          Reliability is a wash.

          Weight in favor of the G19 for the same mag capacity (7 Oz difference.)

          G19 sight radius is 6″. 226 sight radius is 6.3″

          G19 has a 4″ barrel, 226 has a 5″.

          I understand the 226 is a decent gun and has served well, and will continue to serve well for those who choose it.

          But I don’t think you are being very objective about how and why a sidearm is employed. Or the true performance of these two firearms.

  11. Apparently there’s no opsec in procurement anymore. I’m sure that’ll never have a negative consequence.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      Please clue me as to how your opponents knowledge of what your sidearm is specifically gives them an advantage in combat?

      By the time the spec op folks are in pistol range your chance of survival is close to zero.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      OpSec is for things that matter.

      It’s a Glock, not a new missile.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      ermahgerd.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    I would take a Sig over a Glock any time … without a second thought and without ever looking back. Alas, I cannot justify the nearly $1,000 price tag. The Navy, however, who is not spending their own money, must surely be able to justify that price tag.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      You’d be surprised at how procurement decisions are made. Easy one: savings on pistols (and other stuff) can be accounted for by having more money to put into F-35 procurement; (or billion dollar torpedo boat destroyers). Every dollar counts when trying to save a bad program.

  13. avatar bob in IN says:

    Seals can afford the best of the best equipment because there are so few, I.e., stealth helicopters, .etc. I doubt any decision will be based on cost alone.

    1. avatar SkyMed says:

      The SEALs don’t have stealth helicopters. In fact, the SEALs don’t have any helicopters.

      1. avatar southof16 says:

        Roger that. Those belong to the Army’s 160th SOAR.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Sure they do. You just think they don’t because they’re secret! See?

  14. Gun bloggers calling people armchair warriors… Sorry if the Navy isnt cooperating in bolstering your purchasing decisions. Buy another Kimber and tell people you are a gunfighter.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Bolstering your purchasing decision.

      You just summed up every “well this unit/team/group/branch/agency uses X brand gun” argument, ever.

      1. Exactly, I sure wish the SEALs or Delta would start rocking the M&P so I’d feel more operator at the next match. Imagine all the butt hurt SIG posers who can no longer play the DEVGRU card.. Nothing against SIG mind you, excellent products, but buying one because you favorite alphabet soup agency uses them… DERP

        G19/17, M&P or Sig320 would all make the list for me.

  15. avatar gcfish says:

    Glock 19
    – 11oz lighter and smaller with same capacity as a 226. Quite significant
    – There is the need for concealed at times, hence the choice over the 17
    – can also fill the role the HK45c as the suppressed sidearm
    – already in use by other SF units
    – single trigger pull and easy manual of arms
    – simple field maintenance
    – significant cost advantage

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      The best comparison is a 229, not a 226. Let’s keep it apples to apples.

      – Weight difference is 7oz empty, not quite as significant. It’s basically a 9mm magazine.
      – The P229 is just as concealable as the G19.
      – I really don’t see how a 9mm round becomes more suppressible out of a G19 than a P229. Both guns can accept similar threaded barrels.
      – JSOC weapons commonality on side arms is fairly low on the priority list. IIRC, the Raiders are still schlepping around with 1911s.
      – The P229 manual of arms is just as simple as the G19. If anything, it gives the user more options that don’t interfere with the gun’s primary function. The SIG also has a blatantly better trigger.
      – Simpler field maintenance? Really? Have you tried to field strip a Glock in gloves before? The SIG takedown lever is a far better option. Anything beyond that is an armory job anyway.
      – Pretty sure the NSWC isn’t going to be buying these in any quantity where the cost difference will have a significant impact on their budget.

      1. avatar gcfish says:

        Considering this a switch from the 226 to the 19, it’s the only comparison that matters. A move to 229 makes no sense, Giving up capacity for 4oz of weight savings.

        Who said the glock is more supressable ? The glock 19 due to its size, weight and capacity, can fill the roles of both the 226 and hk45c. That’s a training and cost advantage.

        The 19s manual of arms is simpler. Period. Yes, the sig gives options but so what? Don’t see how that matters to .mil. Again. Advantage in training.

        Both are easy to field strip and clean. But the glock is simpler to fix when something goes wrong and your miles from a armorer. Both pistols can fail.

        SF units work together in many cases. Commonality, while not a priority, is a consideration

        As is cost. Sure gov wastes tons of money but cost IS a factor in everything they do.

        Both are great platforms, but if you remove the sig and glock glasses, the move makes practical sense. Doesn’t make the glock better.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You’re not very familiar with SIGs are you? The P229 has the same capacity as the P226 or the G19.

          You can’t suppress a 9mm as well as .45 ACP. The former round is inherently supersonic, the latter is not.

          Have you tried to fix a Glock? It’s not something you’re going to be doing in the field. It’s not like an M4 where you can just drop a new BCG into it. Getting a Glock to run with replacement parts is a neat trick. It took me almost a month of fiddling to get my Timberwolf to run reliably.

          As for practical sense… Depends on your priorities. I own all three guns and guess which one I carry? (Hint: Never carried a Glock)

      2. avatar seans says:

        Marsoc has been running Glocks for a while now. The 1911 was not a popular gun.

  16. avatar Hellbilly says:

    As a police officer, I carry an issued SIG 229R in .40SW as my primary sidearm and a Glock 19 as a back-up gun. In terms of ergonomics and reliability, I much prefer the Glock over the Sig. When I was first issued the Sig, I had to swap out the poorly-designed new-style trigger for the older, fatter, and more comfortable trigger. The bulbous left side grip panel causes my dominant (right) hand thumb to constantly bump the slide catch while firing, so the slide rarely stays locked back after firing the last cartridge in the magazine. Every once in a blue moon I will get a mis-feed while shooting the Sig (using well-maintained factory magazines).

    In the 7 years of shooting thousands of rounds and carrying it on a daily basis (on and off-duty), I have had zero issues and zero malfunctions with the Glock 19 – other than the pistol exhibiting finish wear. With that said, both pistols are quality guns and both are more accurate than I am. The ergonomics of the Glock simply suit me better than the Sig.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      In my opinion, that has more to do with the cartridge than the gun. The 40 S&W is possibly the least reliable cartridge I have ever shot. I make it a point of pride to not own a single gun that runs it.

  17. avatar Stompy says:

    All handguns should be GLOCKs
    All GLOCKs should be 9mm
    All 9mm GLOCKs should be GLOCK 19s.

    1. avatar Nate H. says:

      [/sarc]?

      I hope…

      1. avatar Sam I A, says:

        Actually, it makes sense. All this crap about which gun is best for whatever would be eliminated if there were only GLOCKs to choose from. Freedom is nice and all, but with guns, there should be only one that does everything needed, and does it well. Brand is not important, but if GLOCK tickles all the feathers, GLOCK should be the single available handgun for anyone wanting the best self-defense handgun available. Enough with all the filters and features. The company that can make one service size and one concealed carry handgun that does it all should be the only self-defense handgun available to purchase; anything else will, by definition, be inferior.

        1. avatar Another Robert says:

          The problem with that is, when you are talking about the variety of potential users, no one gun “does it best” for all. I’ve seen bigger, stouter folks than me say they hated Glocks because of the recoil. So no, in the real world that doesn’t make sense.

        2. avatar Sam I A, says:

          Well then, if no gun can (or can be made to) do it all, then the forever war about which handgun is supreme is just a time killer. Maybe we should have something more important/interesting to discuss on the blog ?

          And no, I do not have a fave gun; don’t own any, rent them all. Just an interested bystander.

        3. avatar Another Robert says:

          It is something of a time killer. Somewhere along the way someone might say something that causes someone else to find a gun that actually works better for him or her, so it’s not entirely a waste of time. And if there were only one handgun available ( and one rifle, and one shotgun)–well, that would cut down the utility and entertainment value of a gun blog considerably, wouldn’t it?

        4. avatar Sam I A, says:

          No one asked, or cares but….I would welcome a sea change on the blog where we see many more gun and equipment reviews, as a means of doing what you suggest is a valuable resource for someone to read about other experiences with guns. In addition, more information about gun laws (laws, enforcement and DGUs) from some of our legal contributors. It would be really helpful if the subject matter led to more serious detail questions, and way less “fanboy” comments (and get rid of the “I hate anybody who doesn’t agree 100% with me.” rants. We too often sound like the Taliban, or the type of people the anti-gun crowd believes we are.

  18. avatar Hayabusa says:

    Robert Farago dismissing a former Marine infantryman as an “armchair warrior”…

    Hahahahahahahaha!!!

    You’re such a badass, Bobby. Please tell us again what you did in the war.

    1. avatar Hellbilly says:

      I am also a former Marine, a current police officer, combat veteran, and a fan of the Glock 19. I guess I need to pick up some “Armchair Warrior!” stickers for my vehicles.

  19. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

    Given Glock’s past examples of business ethics, or the lack of same, I’m sure the deal was won with a C-130 full of college co-eds on spring break, a vat of some Irish whiskey and a conex container full of cash.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I’m sure the deal was won with a C-130 full of college co-eds on spring break, a vat of some Irish whiskey…”

      That’s closer than you realize.

      A bar in Tampa’s Ybor City district has a barrel of bourbon bought and paid for by the Spec Op warriors (or their fan club, perhaps?) that’s designated ‘SEALs only’ for when they’re in town doing SEAL things at MacDill AFB.

      Some sort of ‘special program’ thing by the distillery.

  20. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    If there’s any reason to change, I’d venture it’s cost per unit.

    We’re taking about secondary weapons here, people…

    Sig, Glock, Berreta, HK, 9mm, .45acp; whatever.

  21. avatar Tyler Runo says:

    Oh jeez. It reminds me of being a kid and arguing on the court about whether real basketball players wear Nikes or Reeboks. Really it comes down to the dude making the dunk or sinking the three pointer.

    Both are fine weapons with their own merits. I’m sure you’ll see teams guys going with whatever they feel works best for them regardless of what they’re issued.

  22. avatar stateisevil says:

    Why do glocks feel so unnatural in my hand compared to other pistols? Why are they so ugly?

    1. avatar george from fort worth says:

      think of the GLOCK as a zip-gun, with a magazine. ugly gets the job done.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      How a gun feels is very subjective, and a valid reason to not like a carry gun, as far as I’m concerned.

      But, ugly, not so much. It’s not supposed to be a work of art, it’s supposed to be a weapon.

      Weapons are not meant to be a decorative fashion statement.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Yeah, my kilt is a fashion statement, not my guns.

      2. avatar Nate H. says:

        Yea, but the general concensus is that until you get used to it, a Glock does feel funny in the hand. And the fact that most people have to angle their wrists down to get a good sight picture doesn’t help either. It’s definitely one reason I don’t particularly care for Glocks. I had one for years, got used to it, but it kinda messed me up when I picked up my next pistol.

  23. avatar Aven says:

    I’m not a Glock fan but I think it comes down to price, weight and reliability. I chose a SD9VE from S&W because it was so similar to the Glock 19 and was considerably cheaper. I think it comes down to the same reason companies bought IBM computers years ago. I asked why we were given IBM over other choices and was told “Nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM”.

  24. avatar Wv cycling says:

    @TylerRogoway – Shots fired!!! ???

    #brownmanualdieselwagon

  25. avatar Peter says:

    Because they pick the weapon that will work the best for their needs.
    IIRC, the SEALs carried stainless Mini-14s in the late 70’s early 80’s time frame,

    1. avatar seans says:

      Where did you get Seals were running Mini 14s in the 70s and 80s from?

    2. avatar Chuck in IL says:

      That was the A-Team.

    3. avatar tester says:

      I think you need to check your facts.
      they carried M-14’s not mini 14’s.

  26. avatar B says:

    I like the Glock trigger better than the P226’s. I’ve got both, and while the Sig is fun to shoot and historical, being a West German DoE pistol, that reset is long, and then the wall is further back again. With both being 15 rounders, the Glock being lighter, cheaper, and easier to maintain, I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s not like Seals are raw recruits you have to teach not to pull the booger hook, like the LASD.

  27. avatar jlp says:

    The Glock has an inferior ignition system. I have tried to set off high primers and could not do it. The Sig does it with no problem.

    The Glock’s firing pin channel is open on the underside and any excess lube that congeals or traps dirt or gets stiff from cold weather will stop a Glock cold. The Sig does not have an open firing pin channel and does not have these problems.

    The Glocks grip frame has an opening that lets in dirt and grit and should be plugged shut right from the factory but it is not.

    The Glock has fragile plasticky sights that go snap, crackle and pop when you bump them hard and they also wear away from abrasion being made of soft plasticky material.

    The Glock is noted for numerous accidental discharges because it has a short stroke single action type of pull and with no manual safety snagging the trigger will set it off. The trigger safety is an obscene dangerous joke that does not work as intended.

    The Sig is the better pistol but it is not perfect either. It has a delicate fragile aluminum frame,

    It is put together with stamped sheet metal roll pins,

    It has MIM cast internal parts,

    Its mains spring and shaft can be bent and put out of action if the grips are shattered in a fall.

    It is top heavy and points no better than a Wal-Mart electric hand drill.

    Its slide release lever and de-cocker are way too close together and it is easy under stress to hit the wrong lever because they are too close together.

  28. avatar Mike says:

    Glock 19 is the right gun everyone can use it, if you can’t you should never shoot any thing. Army and Air Force already use it, (one nsn/mag for all spec ops), easy maintenance, inexpensive, parts, and inexpensive initial purchase. Individual officer price is 398 a copy with 3 mags at GT distributors, agency price is below that.

    Now the Sig’s shoot better but are instinctively wrong with the controlls, and repair is a pain, and theybcant always be returned to spec. Had to have several scrapped.

    With a glock as long as the frame is good I can fix or replace the rest in half the time it takes to swap the trigger sear and hammer in a Sig.

  29. avatar AlanInFL says:

    To paraphrase an old SEAL saying: “Real SEALs eat Italian steel out of a tuperware box now.”

  30. avatar Nate H. says:

    The only reason I could see them switching is because a Glock goes bang every time. Why they’d chose the 19 over a 17 is anyone’s guess. I don’t find this to be entirely credible though. The gubmint shut down the 9mm replacement program, didn’t they??

    1. avatar seans says:

      The Glock 19 has been authorized Socom wide for years. It replaces both the 226, and 239 for low vis use. By choosing a weapon that is already in the system, it prevents needing to write a contract.

    2. avatar Mike says:

      It is credible, Air Force Spec Ops got them before I retired last year. They were getting them to align with army spec ops. Sure that’s why the seals are picking them up. I heard some AF pilots may have been issued them but that made no sense cause I saw the numbers ordered. (They were shipped New with under weight connectors which had to be replaced) OSI may be switching too.

      Hand gun replacment program does not apply to Spec Ops. They don’t have to use the normal procurement channels. They can contract or add to a contract for an existing item without competition if they need that item for commonality.

      Handgun program is supposed to be back on. But I doubt it will go thru untill someone makes phasers.

      1. avatar seans says:

        They still can’t just decide to buy a new pistol without running a acquisitions program. They can write it specifically to favor a weapon like the SCAR program was run. But they cannot just make a purchase to become standard for a new weapon without circumstances like the HK416.

  31. avatar Tacbear says:

    As an operator/instructor (Military and Civilian) for most of the last 30 years I have shot or been issued Glock, Colt, S & W, SIG, H & K, Springfield and FN. When I retired I got rid of ALL Glock’s except the one I was presented with at my retirement (which I immediately performed a gripangleectomy on).

    ALL of my carry guns now are Springfield XD’s (4″ Compact XD45 w/Crimson Trace Railmaster Light/ Laser and TFO sights for Daily Carry/ 5″ Tactical XD45 full size with Insight LED light and TFO sights when doing high profile contract security or teaching on the range).

    The number one requirement for a Military Pistol IMO is RELIABILITY and I have seen Glock reliability 1st hand. When I did our departments’ change over to I was a witness to about 600,000 to 700,00 rounds shot during a 3 month period. During that time I remember less than 10 malfunctions that were weapon related. My pistol has digested about 25,000 rounds and I don’t remember a single malfunction. There is no doubt about Glocks’s reliability but I can’t stand the grip angle and I love the ergonomics of the XD’s…andthey are proving to be very reliable!

    1. avatar Nate H. says:

      I’ve fed a few thousand rounds down the pipe of my XDm-9, in a pretty short time, and I’ve had zero malfunctions. Not weapon or operator related. Zero. I’m really digging this thing, had to sell 2 guns to make up part of the cost for it, and I have no regrets, whatsoever. She’s a shooter!

    2. avatar James in AZ says:

      Would it be unsafe to pin the grip safety on an XD? I mean, it still has the trigger tab and striker block after that.
      I’m with you on the hump removal which I’ve done to all my Glocks. But after that I don’t see an angle problem though.

  32. avatar David says:

    For crying out loud, how many here bothered to go to M4carbine.net and read the original postings?

    I love my keyboard, in my dreams I’m a commando, and the Sig P226 in 9mm is one of my all time favorites, but some of the posts here are forcing blood from my eyes.

    G19, thumbs up from me, as if that matters to anyone who matters.

    1. avatar Another Robert says:

      I did. What’s your point?

  33. avatar Dave in VA says:

    Blaming them for clickbait? Come on TTAG, that’s the pot calling the kettle black.

  34. avatar Sean says:

    Cheaper. More simple to operate, and maintain. Better around water. Makes total sense. And made sense 20-25 years ago too, when it should have been done.

    1. avatar george from fort worth says:

      didn’t someone previously note there are openings in the GLOCK that allow debris, and an open firing pin channel that can clog? and that the SIG did not have these limitations?

  35. avatar Andy says:

    I too can write an article like this: “The Glock 19 is the best pistol in the world! How do I know this? Because I believe it to be true, therefore it is. Oh, and I don’t like that other gun so obviously it is inferior.” See how authoritative that was! Just like the author and his OPINION about the Sig. Rarely have I seen a more apparent case of near-fatal butt-hurt syndrome.

    This article was simply moronic. I love how anytime a Glock is picked by a unit or police agency it is ALWAYS said to be because of cost considerations and cost considerations only. Yet when it is one of the “superior” brands like Sig (which I have wanted to like since early childhood but can’t because they feel awful to me), HK or any of the other snob guns, it was chosen simply due to it’s superiority and awesomeness.

    And no, I do not own either gun.

  36. avatar int19h says:

    I suspect it has very little to do with which one is better directly. It’s still mostly a backup weapon, even for SEALs, so reliability aside (of which Glocks have plenty) it’s not that important. More likely they’re just trying to unify with others who’re already using Glocks – there’s obvious benefit in a unified service pistol, makes logistics that much easier. Price tag probably matters, too – budgets are limited, and a dollar you don’t use here can be used on something more important.

  37. avatar Fred Frendly says:

    They wanted the best. Notice they didnt order Faragos beloved Caracals. Somebody remind Farago cost doesnt automatically equate to quality.

  38. avatar john doe says:

    What difference does it make, why they switched? And does the switch affect anyone posting on this forum? The powers that be decided they wanted a new pistol. Why they chose to switch to Glock 19, none of us here know. Everything posted here is speculation. However, I doubt they were forced to change pistols after 20+ years of successful (Sig P226) use. And if properly advocated they probably could have any pistol they want. Oh and for you Sig boys or Glock boys, you don’t get any extra cool points, it does not validate your skills or lack of because the weapon is only as good as the operator, not the reverse.

  39. avatar jlp says:

    I think this decision just show how little Military Clerks know about weapons or about Human frailties.

    The better gun would be the H&K P30S. Notice I said the “S” model. It stands for the model with the 1911 type safety.

    The H&K can be loaded and unloaded with the safety in the on position which makes this gun way safer to use than the Glock or the Sig or even the 1911.

    The H&K has a de-cocker which the Military Clerk Morons have outlawed in the requirements. Com one now how dumb can you get when dealing with troops under stress. The Glock has no de-cocker.

    The H&K can be taken down without pulling the trigger and shooting yourself when you forgot to unload the chamber as in the UNSAFE GLOCK TAKEDOWN SYSTEM. PEOPLE ARE HUMAN AND THEY MAKE MISTAKES NO MATTER HOW MUCH TRAINING THEY RECIEVE.

    The H&K can also be carried with the gun cocked with the safety on or can be thumb cocked on the draw or can be fired double action on the first shot, EVERY CARRY CONDITION MENTIONED IS FAR SAFER THAN THE UNSAFE GLOCK MECHANISM.

    The H&K is hammer fired AND ITS IGNITION SYSTEM IS WAY STRONGER THAN THE GLOCK

    The H&K has a hammer which acts as a cocking indicator, the Glock has no cocking indicator that can be instantly seen. The Glock has A SORT OF cocking indicator but it is very hard to see under stress or in poor light. Do you know what I am talking about?

    1. avatar int19h says:

      If you’re field stripping a gun with a round chambered, you just plain shouldn’t own one, period.

      It’s way beyond the level of a simple mistake, and into gross negligence. Millions of gun owners manage to do this just fine. I’m very confident that SEALs, of all people, can do it right every time.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        Yet that simple mistake of checking the chamber is done every day. There have been some horrific pictures of people who shot themselves with a Glock because they got in a hurry or were distracted or were fatigued or even on over the counter cold medicine and ended up shooting themselves. Trying to give the impression that military men are super-human is a tragic myth and a joke. They make the same mistakes civilians make and plenty of military men have told of instances where one military man accidentally shot himself or someone else. To say military men are incapable of making a mistake is to ignore all the ones that ended up being buried because they did make a mistake either in combat or out of combat.

        1. avatar int19h says:

          Statistics, please. How many people, exactly, have shot themselves by forgetting to check the chamber before field stripping a Glock?

          FWIW, I’d also want to see the same for some other popular handgun that doesn’t require pulling the trigger when stripping, for comparison. Simply because disassembling a firearm with a round chambered is dangerous regardless of its design.

          Personally, I find it hard to believe that it is an issue, if only because for me pulling the trigger is a routine procedure in disassembly of EVERY firearm – i.e. detach magazine, check the chamber, pull the trigger while pointing in the safe direction just to be sure, cock it again (if necessary), and disassemble.

        2. avatar jlp says:

          You seem to forget that guns like the Beretta 92 or H&K P30 make it mandatory that you pull back the slide to disassemble the gun making it very unlikely there will be an accidental shooting because when pulling the slide back the loaded road will fly out of the gun. There is no such requirement on an unsafe glock mechanism. Forget just once in your life to check the chamber and you accidentally shoot yourself or someone else. This is reality and everyone is human. No one who is sane can say they will never make a forgetful mistake when using the unsafe glock takedown procedure.

    2. avatar John doe says:

      Who doesn’t safety check their weapon before field striping? And if H&K was the better or preference they would have picked it, however they did not and they probably have their reasons not choosing it, get over the fact the NSW does not favor your weapon of choice.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        Again you and others missed the entire point. It was not that H&K was the best but rather it had safety features and reliability that the Glock lacks. Despite all the hyperbole on Glock reliability it is always quoted under the pristine conditions of the shooting range such as we shot so many thousand rounds through it. Little do they think about the combat conditions in the field and with the Glock weak ignition system coupled with its open firing pin channel and its hole in the grip frame it does not take rocket science to figure out that this is not the gun for the military and we have not even discussed its propensity to go off when people handle it.

    3. avatar John doe says:

      FN Herstal makes a firearm with all those and some called FNX .45 which surpasses those H&K features. So those features you mentioned are meaningless. Get over it H&K lover.

      1. avatar jlp says:

        you missed my entire point. It was not that H&K is the best but rather its features contributed to a safer and more reliable handgun. I do not dispute that your FN gun also is a good gun for the very fact it too has desirable features. These features are not found on the Glock.

        1. avatar John Doe says:

          I understand your point. Safety is with the user not the firearm. All users of firearms must adhere to the four basic safety rules and a gun won’t discharge, especially a Glock. All those other features add complexity and increased learning. Not that it is hard however more things to learn. While a Glock is simple and parts are easily fixed and serviced unlike any other firearm.

        2. avatar jlp says:

          You live in a dream world. People are not robots, they make mistakes and when you are walking around with a gun that is at full cock like a Colt Single Action revolver with the hammer cocked back which also has no manual safety it can accidentally go off instantly with a brush of the trigger in a multitude of ways, in other words an accident waiting to happen and it was found by Massad Ayoob that when Police Departments switched to double action only guns like the double action only version of the Beretta that accidental killings and discharges went down dramatically. So we have irrefutable proof that humans make lots more mistakes with unsafely designed weapons like the Glock and way less mistakes with guns that were designed to avoid accidental discharges. Guns like the Beretta get the job done and do it in a way more safely manner. If this were not so we would not have safety glass in Automobiles or cut off back up switches on riding lawnmowers that keep parents from running over their own children and slicing them to pieces. The best safety is not between your ears because many times the human brain does not work like it should and that is why we have devices to prevent accidents and they work.

        3. avatar John Doe says:

          Humans are machines, but that is a different conversation. If you as a guns owner or handler don’t repetively follow the gun safety rules, no manual safety will prevent you from having a ND. We have to be robotic in following safety. Else something we don’t want to happen, will happen.

        4. avatar george from fort worth says:

          does the old saw need repeating? “there are only two types of gun owners: those who have had a negligent discharge, and those who will.”

  40. avatar Idar Olsen says:

    What a dumb ass conjured this up? It would be the dumbest thing to do ever. Go from somthing that is god to somthing horrible… Retards….. Glock is usless and moronic at best.. PPQ NAVY is about 10 times better stright out of the box.

  41. avatar Vann says:

    Well, I’ve owned 4 or 5 Sigs, liked them all. Now I own three Glocks and have carried them for the better part of 25 years, just happen to like them better than Sig, find them faster going through tactical training and shoot houses. But that’s just me.

    If everybody else likes Sig or M&P or something else have at it. I don’t hate any gun. In fact I like all guns, I just prefer to carry a Glock.

    1. avatar John Doe says:

      One of the primary Glock Armour…who trained me confirmed it…and communicatEd he would be training them in the servicing of the pistols.

  42. avatar Terry says:

    I am glad that I am a newbie when it comes to handguns. I bought my 1st and only handgun earlier this year. I did research for weeks and decided what I wanted. I bought it and I love it, the feel, the weight, and the accuracy. Mind you that I am new, but my groups arent great, but they are good. If I ever buy a different gun, then it may feel funny in my hands or maybe muzzle flip too much for me. I love what I bought and dont regret the purchase of my p226. I would also like to shoot a different brand gun just to see what else there is out there, but when I pjcked up that sig, I knew that my hands were telling me, thank you sir.

    1. avatar dd says:

      Try the HK P30 or the Arsenal Strike One.

      1. avatar Terry says:

        Ok, thnx for the tip dd. If I can find them then inwillbask to shoot them ?

  43. avatar Ronnie cochran says:

    The entire debate is over what is called a “service” pistol, i.e. Sig P226, and what is called an “operators” pistol. NSW chose the latter. SEALs have been carrying Glocks since 2010, in a TEP program. It was only a matter of time. The cost of a G19 to the .mil is roughly 300$, & a P226 is closer to 600$. Simple economics and logistics

    1. avatar jlp says:

      Ok lets look at both new modern “Wonder Turds” neither which are the best pistol for the Military

      The original Sig had junk stamped sheet metal slide which was not durable enough which was exactly why the Military rejected it and later Sig discontinued the stamped sheet metal slide. Of course the Beretta broke slides too but the design was not so bad that Beretta had to completely scrap it like Sig had to scrap the stamped sheet metal slide.

      The Sig’s aluminum frame is not as durable as a steel frame gun as the soft aluminum rails soon wear away. The Glocks rails actually last longer. And the Gocks slide is more robust than even the current Sig bar stock slide.

      The Sig’s main spring hangs naked on the outside of the rear portion of the frame. Fall down and break the plasticky grips, they shatter and then the soft main spring strut gets bent that holds the main spring. Result: the gun is out of action.

      The Sig is hammer fired which makes its ignition system much more reliable than the weak striker fired System of the Glock. And if you do not believe it try seating a high primer in an empty case. Attempt to fire the high primed case in both pistols. Only the Glock with its weak ignition system will fail 100 per cent on every try.

      The Glock has an open firing pin channel. It collects dirt and grit and being a weak ignition system to begin with will fail. Even over lubing the firing pin channel on a Glock will cause it to fail in cold weather.

      Now lets look at safety. If you are ever going to accidentally shoot yourself or some one else you will do it with the safety less Glock as the idiotic trigger safety is a complete joke and does not work and it deactivates anyway when anything snags the trigger. The Sig has the traditional hard double action pull which makes it a far safer weapon to handle but with the military it should have also had a manual safety as well to make it “soldier proof”. I predict many, many accidental shootings once Glocks are issued to soldiers, just look how many the police have had and continue to have that use the Gock.

      The Glock can be disassembled far more easily than the Sig can and the Glock does not have any fragile cheap junk sheet metal roll pins holding in the internal parts like the Sig does.

      The newly made Sigs have unreliable MIM cast parts. As far as I know Glock is not using them yet but this may change. Lets hope not.

      The Glock has an extremely dangerous take down system requiring that the slide be in the forward position and that the user must pull the trigger. Wow, what kind of a Moron invented such an accident waiting to happen. At least the Sig makes one lock the slide back.

      Neither gun is the equal in reliability or safety as the 1911 or Browning High power is. I would have chosen a modern gun like the Star Model 30 which is so far above the Glock, Beretta, and Sig it would be ludicrous to even compare them to it.

      I think choosing the Glock shows that the Military really does not know how inherently dangerous the safety less Gock is or how much less reliable it is under severe conditions than the 1911 is or even the current Beretta. The Beretta was not perfect but with its manual safety, safer takedown procedure and superior ignition to the Glock the Beretta was really not that bad a choice. For soldiers with smaller hands or those wanting a more concealable pistol a single column 92 Beretta with a shortened barrel would have been much preferable than the accident prone, unreliable Glock.

      I will stick with the Star Model 30, built like a tank with solid steel forgings. It had an endurance record with no parts breakage of 180,000, had a manual safety, could be disassembled with the extra long shaft of the slide release lever that removed the firing pin and the fire control system out of the rear of the frame. It had w & e adjustable sights, top notch accuracy and a great trigger pull in double and single action compared to the gritty trigger pull of the Glock.

  44. avatar 0861 Scout Observer says:

    Seems like the writer is pretty butt hurt. The switch to Glock makes sense to me, when you’re already carrying the weight of sapi plates, camel backs, extra rifle ammo, radios, batteries, GPS, laser designators, sat phones, NVGs, hand grenades, and med kits; light and compact is the name of the game. It’s going to be a backup pistol anyways, if you’re pinned down by a stream of automatic 7.62s and your shooting back with a 9mm then you’re already in trouble, I don’t think it makes much difference wether it’s a Glock or Sig in your hand. If those few ounces of weight carrying a Glock saves enable me to carry another mag for my rifle then that’s what I’d choose.

  45. avatar TGugs says:

    I really don’t give “Sh!t” what they use…… I just know that the proficiency of operation of whatever handgun they choose will be above 99.5% of the clowns posting opinions to this article….. myself included.

  46. avatar jim says:

    I like both Glock and Sigs. My opinion is the new sig 320 would be a good choice. Modular and fairly accurate. Dont like my comment? Go cry to your mama ….

  47. avatar Richard Lutz says:

    The simpler and more proven Gen3 is better for military use than the Gen4 and has full parts compatibility with other Gen3 Glock 19s used by the US military whereas the Gen4 does not. The double recoil spring on the Gen4 was a mistake. You don’t want soldiers configuring their pistol with a right side magazine release while others use a left side magazine release as is possible on the Gen4. Left handed users can readily use the left side mounted magazine release on Gen3 Glocks. Pre-Gen4 magazines will not work in a Gen4 Glock with the magazine release placed on the right side.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email