OK...I admit it...I like to stir up trouble...so... :) a 1911 vs. Glock thread....

[JT]

Do any of you plan on submerging your gun in seawater for a couple of weeks?

Thanks for reminding me. I need to get down to the beach and pick mine up. It’s been about three weeks.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Tangle]

True, but it could also have to do with issues such as no external saftey, no follow-up shot capability, etc.

It is also said that the reason that Glock would not get a military contract is they would not agree to license other manufacturers to make their product if the government determined there was a need. That was probably not a factor here (except maybe for the Coast Guard), but just as an example.

That's doubtful. It was very expensive and time consuming to participate in the ICE test. Lot's of pre-test paper work and planning had to be done.

They would have known before hand about things that would eliminate them. No one would go to the time, effort, and expense unless they thought they had a good chance to prevail. Plus, the Sigs (DAK models only) and H&K (LEM trigger only) don't have external safeties. Like it or not, and I don't and I'll admit I'm both surprised and disappointed at Glock, I think we need to accept that Glock simply didn't make a good showing in the testing.

[Tangle]

Thanks for reminding me. I need to get down to the beach and pick mine up. It’s been about three weeks.

Actually, Chuck Taylor left his Glock 17 in the sea for about 6 months and it had very minimal damage on it and still functioned reliably.

[JT]

That's doubtful. It was very expensive and time consuming to participate in the ICE test. Lot's of pre-test paper work and planning had to be done.

They would have known before hand about things that would eliminate them. No one would go to the time, effort, and expense unless they thought they had a good chance to prevail. Plus, the Sigs (DAK models only) and H&K (LEM trigger only) don't have external safeties. Like it or not, and I don't and I'll admit I'm both surprised and disappointed at Glock, I think we need to accept that Glock simply didn't make a good showing in the testing.

I knew the SIGs didn't have external safeties, I wasn’t sure about the HKs. And they do both have follow up shot capabilities, which the Glock does not.

They also may not have known what would eliminated them before hand. They could have been eliminated for a list of reasons that were not necessarily known disqualifiers before hand. Or those reasons could have turned out to be the deciding factors when everything was added up. With the size of the contracts available, Glock would want to submit to the tests even if they knew going in that there were some possible strikes against them.

I think we need to accept that Glock simply didn't make a good showing in the testing.

But we don’t know what happened. All we know is they didn’t get the contract. It could have been for any number of reasons. What about all the contracts Glock has gotten?

[JT]

Actually, Chuck Taylor left his Glock 17 in the sea for about 6 months and it had very minimal damage on it and still functioned reliably.

And has about 200k through the weapon by now.

[Tangle]

And has about 200k through the weapon by now.

I heard that it's over a million now!

[Bud White]

Glock didnt proform some way to there likeing and didnt get the contract .. Get over it ..

Simple as that

[JT]

Get over what? All I said is we don’t know why they did not get the contract. We don’t know if it was reliability, or design, or what.

[Tangle]

Get over what? All I said is we don’t know why they did not get the contract. We don’t know if it was reliability, or design, or what.

I thought everything was ok myself.

[JT]

I heard that it's over a million now!

Actually it's my Glock that has a million rounds through it.

Chuck had 186,000 rounds through his model 17 by 2004 according to the Glock Annual. They didn't do a story on it in the 2005 Annual but it should be up to 200k by now. They do an article on it every other year.

[Tangle]

Actually it's my Glock that has a million rounds through it.

Chuck had 186,000 rounds through his model 17 by 2004 according to the Glock Annual. They didn't do a story on it in the 2005 Annual but it should be up to 200k by now. They do an article on it very other year.

It's likely my source got it wrong, 186k - 200k does seem more like it. I'd be hard to get a million rounds through a gun from cost, time, and endurance considerations. But still, 200K is a lot of shootin'.

[firefighter4884]

[QUOTE=JT]I knew the SIGs didn't have external safeties, I wasn’t sure about the HKs. And they do both have follow up shot capabilities, which the Glock does not.
[QUOTE]

JT

Can you define the "follow up" shot you're talking about? As far as I know, none of the service Sigs have an external safety. With the HK stuff it depends on which model and variant you go looking for.

My USPc does have an external safety, so some do. The LEM (Law Enforcement Modification) does not have a safety...

--Jim

[JT]

Can you define the "follow up" shot you're talking about?

I guess I should have been more specific. I’m referencing one of the reasons Glock did not get the US military contract in the 80’s. Since Glocks do not have an external hammer and the trigger does not reset if the slide does not cycle, if a round fails to fire you cannot pull the trigger again or recock the hammer and try to fire the failed round again. On a Glock you will have to rack the slide to chamber a new round. The military thought this was important. I don’t agree, because if a round fails to fire the first time, it will often fail to fire the second time (assuming the round was to blame – if the gun was to blame, such as the gun not being fully in battery on the first shot than it could fire on a follow up). So it comes down to do you want to spend time trying to fire the failed round multiple times, or do you want to immediately get on with the next round which has a much higher probability of firing. The military thinks one way and although I do see valid points on their side of the debate, I am of a different opinion.

[Tangle]

JT,
I think the term is re-strike capability instead of "follow up".

I think the benefit of re-strike capability depends on whether a second strike will fire the round. It's been about 50-50 for me and I don't like those odds. If the second strike fires it that's great; but if it doesn't, one would be in deep, deep, uh.....stuff.

I'm stickin' to the slide rack.

[JT]

Yeah, I used the wrong term. Follow up simply means subsequent shots.