British Army switching over to the Glock 17
 

After almost sixty years of using the Browning High Power the British Army is switching over to the Glock 17. Not being political here. Just thought some would findit interesting. The Brits are pretty conservative when it comes to small arms and this is a big change for them. They're not changing calibers of course, but still.

They said one of the big selling points was that the soldiers can safely carry one in the chamber, pull it out of the holster and start to shoot it without having to hit a safety lever or rack the slide. Evidently they've had some unpleasent experiences in Afghanistan

Article here (love the silly but catchy title).

A little surprised they didn't decide on SIGs, since that's what the SAS has been using for over 20 years, but the Glock isn't a bad choice given their needs.

Is the cord attached to the pistol really necessary? I would think it would snag on things.

They also said that it is faster to shoot a Glock than a Hi Power. I don't see how other than not having to work an external safety switch

I would personally rather have a SIG than a Glock, but i can understand their decision. First off you have the bottom line that the Glock is cheaper. I would also say that it is more idiot proof for a mass issue service weapon than the SIG requiring less training, along with less to possible go wrong.

The Glock is also arguably tougher and more reliable than the SIG, and I think this is one of the underlying reasons for not going for a proper order of P226s. The current UOR P226s that the UK got are absolutely knackered, and the magazines in particular cannot be filled to capacity or else they bind up and fail to feed. This is mostly due to the fact that the pistols have been intensively used and shared around, and the magazines were commercial OTS rather than mil-spec, but it still may have left a bad impression in terms of durability.

Yes, yes the Glock is a good weapon. And yes it is cheap.

But is anyone else just a tad nostalgic about the Hi-Power going away?

The British seem to drag their feet when it comes to sidearms. They stuck with the Webley and Enfield into the sixties, well after most countries had switched to automatics.

Are officers still expected to purchase their own sidearms? If not, is that still even an option?

I loved the Browning, all the photos that were comparing the old L9A1 to the Glock did was get me to remember how great the Hi-Power was (assuming you can get a friendly armourer to "accidentally" remove the magazine safety).

No, the only pistol you will ever have in the British forces is an issued one. Seeing as how all pistols are 99.9% illegal in the UK for private ownership, that system wouldn't really work anymore.

It's my understanding that the British had to carry the BHP with an empty chamber and had to rack it when preparing to use it. At the close range of a pistol fight that can be a pretty critical time. They'll be able to carry the G17 loaded with one in the chamber all the time.

The Glock design works. It's a utilitarian pistol designed to be used by those who aren't gun people and also designed to function under bad conditions.

I think that sometimes those of us who are immersed in the gun culture (which I think is very true for those who frequent this forum) tend to forget that not everyone is that interested in firearms, but they need a firearm because of the their work or for protection. They don't want to learn how to work a 1911A1 or a BHP or even a Beretta 92 (which by the way is a pistol that I actually like). They want a simple and easy to operate pistol or revolver (S&W Model 10 for example) that will go bang when they press the trigger.

I have two Glocks and that is probably all I will ever own. I keep toying with the idea of buying a Glock 35 or a Glock 17 just because, but then I find a real nice S&W Model of 1899 M&P (exposed ejector rod) a K-38 4 screw or a pre-war Colt Officer's Model Target or a S&W Model 745. Those I want and the money I have saved up for the Glock just goes to something else I really want. So I've conluded that my two Glocks are strictly tools to me and that is that.

Anyway that's what a Glock pistol is to me. A good solid reliable tool which I use and I have seen work for others.

Meanwhile I have more money saved up an a line on real nice Colt Offical Police with a 4" heavy barrel. Unusual and something that I want in my collection. So no Glock 17 this time either. Oh well.

Yeah, the English, and to some extent the Americans, never really embraced the manual safety on a single-action pistol.

My Grandpa Eli was a machine gunner in WWII. And he said that he would chamber a round at night before he went to sleep and engage the safety, but when he woke up, he would revert to Condition Three.

JCordell makes a very valid point. Most folks who strap on a gun for a living aren't shooters as we all are, for the most part.

Heck, my PDM never fired anything bigger than .22 LR at Boy Scout camp before he went through Basic. And he just took to it.

I too am a fan of the Beretta. I like big, solid steel handguns. I got away with shooting in Single Action when I shot for score with it. I even used it once in lieu of my carbine. Got myself a shiny trinket for it, too.

My only problem with the M-9 is the 9x19 FMJ is crappy self defense round.

Given the number of people who CC M1911s, I'd say we Americans embrace it a bit too much.

Oops...meant to say American military there.

Which is wierd because the requirement of a frame mounted safety is a continual requirement for service pistols. :rolleyes:

I don't see the problem with carrying condition one, in fact, I feel safer when a carry my M-1991A1 in condition one than I do with my Glock and just the DAO trigger pull as my safety.

Well the Glock trigger isn't a double action trigger nor is it really a single action trigger. But all guns of its type are advertised to be safe without a manual safety

Ah yes, the SAFE ACTION TRIGGER. :D

DA by any other name.

No argument from me.

As I said, it doesn't feel like a DA trigger because of the reset

good choice, hope they get night sights instead of the crappy stock ones though.

I wonder if on all Ministry of Defense paperwork they have to type it out correctly as GLOCK?

Sorry my inner anti-GLOCK persona is coming out in despair over the passing of the Hi-Power from front line service with a western power. Sad, sad day.

Don't worry; the Canadians will probably be holding onto their BHPs for a long time.

it's funny you mention that, the few Canadians I saw in the big sandbox all had Sigs of some sort attached to thier chest rigs.

im real picky on glocks, i LOVE my glock 19 but hate the 17. They have a very different feel. The g21 sf feels real good to me too. the 26/27 are too small.

Yeah, I like my 21, and the 17, but not fan of the compacts or sub-compacts.

As far as ankle guns go, I think I'll stick with S&W M36 or perhaps an LCR.

But then again, I born old fashioned.

Even though I don't like to admit, and Pop enjoys haranguing me about it, in the 6th or 7th grade, right when they were first being imported, I wanted an XD something fierce.

I carried a 1945 Inglis BHP (fresh out of war stores and never previously issued) on my tour. Aircrew and MPs get issued P225s and SOF types P226s, but the Hi Power is still general issue. There was briefly a tender out to replace them but it was quickly cancelled. Frankly there are better things to spend the money on.

I kind of want the US military to get a new carbine and pistol. And really study it up. the marines new colts were cracking frames. The m4 is okay but other desighns have surpassed it. And say what you want about spending money elsewhere but new guns for all soldiers costs less than a fighter jet.

It's hard for a military the size of the US to change over to new calibers or new rifles. Right now it's at least feasible to change over to different rifles that take the same caliber and magazines as previous rifles.

I don't know if they can justify that much money for a new pistol. I think almost everyone who actually uses pistols (aviators, SOCOM) already got them. Who does that leave, MPs? Tankers?

I don't know if they can justify the costs of replacing the M4 either. Maybe just new uppers?

I think all combat troops need a pistol. Not just sf. Cue the "id rather have another mag" crowd but a pistol is mighty handy for transitions. theres a reason every carbine course out there teaches handgun transition.

And this goes back to costs. It would costs too much to give every man a sidearm. Some do get them depending on their jobs.

handguns for combat troops is not that expensive in the big picture, look at the cost of a icbm. The glorious leader has had 1.4 billion spent on his vacations.

That is eight tons of awesome Nyles.

Yeah, no clue who the guys I saw were. They were wearing what I would call the Army Combat Shirt in that multi-cam type pattern you guys wear with subdued Canadian flag patches on one sleeve and the ISAF patch on the other.

They all had M-4 variants of some type and one guy had an M-249 of some sort.

Oh, and they were all wearing soft patrol caps.

I would rather all the money spent on new/more sidearms and a new rifle/round be spent on better training with what we have now.

As in more #$%@!* money to spend on ammo to train with.

Well, everyone wears that. In tans the only way to tell Army, Navy and Air Force apart is the crest on the name tag. In greens the t-shirt's and berets are at least a different color. The M4 variants, depending on when you were there, were likely C8A2s, with the 16" heavy barrel. Most infantry troops carry C7A2s (20" barrel, M4 style stock), at least when I was there with 1 PPCLI it was mainly M203 gunners and LAV crew that had the C8s. The M249 would have been a C9, again depending on year probably the C9A2, which comes with an 18" and a 14" barrel and a folding stock.

Excaliber: Can't speak to US military, but as far as Canadian military goes, yes. Money would be much better spent on training than new kit. Hell, it's a good thing I'm a shooter in civilian life, because in Army life my training with the Browning amounted to "here's a 9 mil, try not to shoot anyone". As Checkman said earlier, civvie shooters tend to forget that most people who carry a handgun for work aren't gun people, and espescially in the case of those who don't carry it as a primary weapon, probably aren't espescially interested or well trained in its use. I'd be more concerned with it being as simple and light as possible rather than a favorite of competition shooters or Guns and Ammo.

In all honesty, I think a Glock 17 would be a good general service sidearm.

Cheap, light weight, easy to use, nice big mag, reliable, simply manual of arms.

But for good or ill, the U.S. military likes external safeties for the masses.

Nyles, I'm guessing then that they were MPs.

They had that MP sense of "I'm watching you Trooper, regardless that you're in a different uniform" versuses that whole SOF "yeah, you know and I know I'm cool. We can be friends but I don't want to waste the effort right now" swagger of SOF dudes.

The big green part of the US military, at least. Keep in mind SIGs and Glocks are quite popular with SOF units. ;)

I remember reading an article a few years ago where a Green Beret unit was given permission to use the Glocks they've been picking up in Iraq and they got to customize the Glocks they keep confiscating.

whats the point of the glock 30s? I mean, glocks one big product is....fail?

When will they make a single stack 9 which people have been BEGGING for. Seems smith and wesson and springfield have the right idea.

It was Glock vs M9 article from the 2011 American Handgunner Tactical Annual, written by Randy DeHay. Got them from corrupt police. Major grip modifications were done to them. Hey they were free.

I doubt they want to go into the R&D to make one since they don't feel the need to compete, both because they are so secure in the market and because of the stiff competition you've mentioned, as well as the offerings from Kahr and all the micro 9s coming out. What I want to see is all these companies, making gigantic fat double stack 20+1 service guns and then going to the opposite side of the spectrum and making slim, light single stack guns for micro carry, go balanced tier and make trim double stack guns with the slimness of the singles and a significant increase in capacity, around 12 rounds or so. There is very little good competition in this market niche, most of which are still pretty chunky like the Glock 26, hard to find like the 6906, or hard to find and expensive like the P7M13, and I know there's demand for it. If Kahr started making double stack K9s/P9s, I'd surely be a happy camper.

As far as the British's switch, it's interesting to see them go from a gun with a manual safety to one without though. Of course I still don't like safe action guns for duty use as I don't think they're that "safe" still, but if an operator, soldier or military bureaucracy weighs that next to ease of use, instruction and the tenth of a second faster one will be in deploying the weapon, go figure.