British Army switching over to the Glock 17

[Jcordell]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

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

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.

[Jcordell]

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.

[SPEMack618]

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.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by SPEMack618

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

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

[SPEMack618]

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.

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.

[Excalibur]

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

[SPEMack618]

Ah yes, the SAFE ACTION TRIGGER.

DA by any other name.