Why didn't the army go glock

>>34791890
the army doesn't trust soldiers without safeties

>>34791890
Because they were already issued hand grenades.

SIG was cheaper. In fact, SIG was so much cheaper they didn't even bother to do the final round of torture testing.

>>34791890
Post the version with the bloody hand

>>34791925
Which is exactly the fucked up part. I understand that cost counts, but the companies competed for the contract on the premise that they would be thoroughly tested. For all we know all that money Glock spent and asked for was meant to compete in those rounds

I know that Glock is a meme around here and I can see some reason why, but they've largely earned their good reputation and deserved the opportunity

>>34791890
Because they wanted to save $100 million. No more than a handful of men will die due to misfires/unreliabity so it was the better choice for the army.

>>34792124
>Because they wanted to save $100 million.
More like they wanted to pocket $100 million.

>>34791890
What Sig model?

File: 1502137767685.jpg (39KB, 720x403px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 720x403px

>>34791890

>>34792583
p320, the ones that fire when dropped.

>>34792583
P320. Not an off-the-shelf contract though, so we won't know how the contract P320s compare to civilian P320s until they arrive.

>>34792667
What caliber where they choosing for the glock and the Sig?

>>34791894
Army trusts soldiers not to drop shit?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (60KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1280x720px

>I TOLD YOU MOTHERFUCKERS JUST GIVE ME A CREDIT CARD AND LET ME BUY GLOCKS

>>34792720
Kek

>>34792709
As I recall the competition did not specify calibre
Looking at wiki now - as long as it was as good as M882 9mm (pretty hot 9mm) and capable of handling loads 20% above SAAMI spec.
20% is essentially +P+ (blah blah, no official standard, we know)

>>34792607
Does it not have a drop safety?

>>34792784
I heard they do, but the problem is the trigger mechanism that causes discharge when dropped.

>>34792849
Shucks, I was really looking into picking that as my first hand gun. I think I'll look around more.

>>34792861
I was going to pick one up next week but ill wait. plenty of other options for your first handgun anon.

>>34792599
Where's the glock version

File: 1501957957227.jpg (53KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 600x800px

>>34791890
Who honestly gives a fuck? These are the equivalent of sabers except for the fact that they may be able to stop "workplace violence."

>>34791890
You really think the army would adopt a 10mm handgun?

>>34793023
They should

>>34792914
File size was too large, it blew up.

>>34793023
I constantly hear about 9mm not having enough stopping power

>>34793040
You're stupid and here's why
>high increase of wear and tear on the gun
>springs need replacing much faster
>recoil is too harsh for the people who actually have some use for a pistol, back of the line semi POGs
>too heavy and bulky as an ornamental pistol
>limited to FMJ so you're basically just making 40 caliber holes anyway
>won't pentrate steel or ceramic body armor
>loses the logistic efficiency you had with 9mm
>decreased capacity
>slower follow up shots
Shall I continue? You 10mm fags are insufferable.

File: 1501536075112.png (137KB, 1000x618px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1000x618px

>>34791970

>>34793115
Why is it so detailed

>>34793098
>9mm fmj makes a .355 caliber hole
>10mm fmj makes a .4 caliber hole
>both will go right through someone at the distances a pistol would even be used
>5.56 is always better than 10mm, very few reasons you would even use the pistol anyways

>>34793115
Kek saved

>>34792050
Totally speculating here, but I'm guessing that SIG really took a hit on price because they didn't wan't to lose out again to Glock since it's become obvious that us cosplayers get whatever the badasses get. Also in part, I don't think Glock really offers anything better than many other companies since they have rested on their laurels for over a decade. Had the Army decided to go with a striker fired polymer pistol 5-10 years ago, I think Glock would have handily won.

File: 1474792622068.jpg (49KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 640x640px

>>34793115
>that hand

>>34792050
If you'd said literally any gun company other than Glock, you might have maybe had a valid point.

However, literally the ONLY SINGLE FUCKING REQUIREMENT for the trials the Glock submission met was "it's a handgun"
>NO external safety
>NO threaded muzzle or factory supported option of adding a threaded barrel
>NO modularity (they submitted a gen3 frame so it didn't even have the interchangeable backstraps)
>NO suppressor height sights
>NO ambidextrous controls
>NO loaded chamber indicator
>NO front serrations
>NO factory supported option to add an optic (no they did not submit an MOS variant)
They literally didn't even try.

File: 1502164384039.jpg (423KB, 900x2822px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 900x2822px

>>34791890

>>34793443
Look it up, retard, I don't like Glock's for the MHS winner but they submitted a gun that met many requirements, including the manual safety.

File: Glock MHS.jpg (22KB, 777x437px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 777x437px

>>34793443
Only some of what you claim is correct.
>No external safety
See attached image. Looks like a safety to me on that Glock.
>No threaded muzzle
Sure,but neither did the SIG that was submitted. Both have factory supported threaded barrels.
>no modularity/ gen 3 frame
See image its clearly a gen 4 frame so stop with your "no back strap" BS
>No suppressor height sights
Neither did the SIG but both have the option available from the factory though they should have sent them with the guns to the trials.
>No ambi controls
Glocks can flip the mag release over fairly simply on the Gen 4 frames, plus other pictures of the Glock MHS show ambi safety and slide release.
>No loaded chamber indicator
Neither of them did that as far as I can tell.
>No front serrations
Sig did that, not like its impossible to do with Glcok now producing the 19/17 steel models with front serrations. Again they should have been sent with them on the gun.
>No factory supported option to add an optic
True. Shoulda coulda woulda with an MOS slide.
>literally didn't even try

>>34793443
>>34793587
Meant to continue from the blow post.
>They literally didn't even try.
Just like you trying to validate your claims.

>>34793607
*below

>>34793483
If the M9 didn't get dropped when it's rocket slides were mangling faces back in the late 80s, I don't think SIGs P320s are going to get dropped before SIG fixes this drop fire problem.

>>34793607
>>34793613
>struggles to post his shitty comeback
Just give up

>>34793624
>Fixes
Are we talking about the same company that just offered their guns at an extremely cheap rate because we know they're going to suffer from bad QC? They aren't going to fix jack shit

>>34793587
Wasn't an under barrel picatinny rail a requirement? Not sure why glock is so attached to their own rail system.

>>34791925
And thats why none of them are drop safe

>>34791896
underrated as fuck post

>>34793483
10/10

>>34793851
I don't think you know what that word means.

>>34793098
Given the frequency of pistols being use in combat they can adopt .32acp one just as well as 9mm. The only reason 9mm is here is because it's NATO standard and back in the times they've used SMG's chambered in it.

10mm is something that's good for civvies and LEO but military will never bother with it.

>>34792968
Sure thing fool. Full sized pistols are sabres for officers but a compact pistol for back up when vehicle mounted can save your fucking life.

>>34792968
>w-who gives a fuck?
>m-my sig isn't junk guys

>>34793023
>>34791890
>10mm

The military would sooner adopt .40S&W as "10mm Nato" than adopt full sived 10mm you are getting a larger framed gun with more recoil and weight that is only slightly better than .45acp

glock failed to submit something that even met the required specifications.


they were DQ'ed before even being considered because their fucking idiot's.

>>34793933
Do you have the proofs for that

>>34793633
I don't understand why everyone on this board cares so much. It's not like anyone that comes here actually owns guns or has ever served in the military

>>34793972
There is a multiple generals full of people more than ready to laugh at this stupid post you just made.

>>34793898
Lets not be facetious, while back up weapons are rarely deployed, but they do get used and many veterans wouldn't be here if they didn't have a pistol.

One could argue that full sized pistols with full features should be issued to only specialized units but even officers and support personel should have a carbine when in the field and not soley rely on a pistol as their PDW.

Really a light weight compact pistol should be the main side arm of everyone.

I'd say 5.7mm from the FN pistol should be the next pistol, light weight, high capacity what else do you want.

>>34794050
A cheaper bullet