Army Replaces Browning with Glock
Discussion
DanB7290 said:
While the Glock is a good choice, certainly better than the Beretta M9, what about the Sig P226? As I've heard that's what the SAS use
Service costs I suspect. Out of the box they could be viewed as marginally better than the Glock. I don't believe that the ones used by special forces are completely out of the box though. There is also the key element that it is .40 calibre and I guess the army wanted to stick with 9mm.
In bulk my guess is that the Glock is cheaper to buy and support as well.
As others have said it is amazing just how long the Browning has stayed in service. Something like a Glock is far more accurate, much easier to bring back to target and less prone to jamming.
Ah yes, I remember reading in the book about the Bin Laden raid (American I know, but surely applies to UKSF as well) that no weapon that any of the SEAL team members had was out of the box, all customised to how the user requires. For a mass rollout then, I agree the Glock is better.
Isn't the Browning we were using a variant of the M1911, a 102 year old design?
Isn't the Browning we were using a variant of the M1911, a 102 year old design?
Regiment said:
Surprised they didn't go for the Colt 1911, following the example the US Marines are making. I'd far rather have a Colt than any Glock any day, far better stopping power than the Glock or something like the Beretta which is described as an expensive pee shooter.
With the first round. Bad weapons for coming back to target or moving to another. It makes a very big difference in competition shooting, god knows how that difference pans out for some poor sod resorting to a side arm in a real close quarters situation.
Regiment said:
Surprised they didn't go for the Colt 1911, following the example the US Marines are making. I'd far rather have a Colt than any Glock any day, far better stopping power than something like the Beretta which is described as an expensive pee shooter.
Going from one outdated single-action pistol to another, that holds even less rounds than the Browning and is harder to shoot for people who don't regularly shoot pistol. 9mm may not have the stopping power of a .45, but a 7 round magazine versus a 17 round magazine is an absolute no brainer. The 1911 requires a degree of skill to shoot well, requires more maintenance, is less reliable, holds less rounds, weighs more... need I go on. Not everyone in the Forces trained to use a pistol is an experienced or even skilled shooter. To be in date, the shoot is very basic and you only have to pass it annually, for a lot of people (particularly in my service) this is the only time they'll fire the pistol. The beauty of pistols like the Glock and the Sig is that they are easy to handle and shoot for your average bod, not every service person is John Rambo, i've seen some right pot-messes handling a variety of weapons and a lot of the time it boils down to keeping things dead simple in order for them to remain effective. Personally, I think the MoD have made the right choice with the Glock, it's a proven weapons system that is both simple and effective.Regiment said:
Surprised they didn't go for the Colt 1911, following the example the US Marines are making. I'd far rather have a Colt than any Glock any day, far better stopping power than the Glock or something like the Beretta which is described as an expensive pee shooter.
But you have the disadvantages of heavier ammo and less capacity. Also I'm not sure how much they actually shoot these weapons so it's better to hit with a 9mm than miss with something more powerful. Really any handgun is just to get you to a rifle or a shotgun anyway.BaronVonVTEC said:
Going from one outdated single-action pistol to another, that holds even less rounds than the Browning and is harder to shoot for people who don't regularly shoot pistol. 9mm may not have the stopping power of a .45, but a 7 round magazine versus a 17 round magazine is an absolute no brainer. The 1911 requires a degree of skill to shoot well, requires more maintenance, is less reliable, holds less rounds, weighs more... need I go on. Not everyone in the Forces trained to use a pistol is an experienced or even skilled shooter. To be in date, the shoot is very basic and you only have to pass it annually, for a lot of people (particularly in my service) this is the only time they'll fire the pistol. The beauty of pistols like the Glock and the Sig is that they are easy to handle and shoot for your average bod, not every service person is John Rambo, i've seen some right pot-messes handling a variety of weapons and a lot of the time it boils down to keeping things dead simple in order for them to remain effective. Personally, I think the MoD have made the right choice with the Glock, it's a proven weapons system that is both simple and effective.
Very much this. For example, brownings issued to the armoured corps just end up in the bins on the back of the MBT/CRV(T) or whatever your flavour is. Never used outside of the range.
DanB7290 said:
While the Glock is a good choice, certainly better than the Beretta M9, what about the Sig P226? As I've heard that's what the SAS use
I've had both. The Glock is cheaper and just as efficient/accurate. The Sig wins out by virtue that it's easily adaptable for a left handed shooter I suppose but is it really worth spending so much more for the few serving lefties?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff