The Glock should be a better weapon for miltary applications, it was intended for such use from its introduction back in the mid-later 1970s. The Sigs and Berettas were designed more for the police market which does not place as high of a demand on personal firearms as military applications. I don't recall the actual reason for Glock's not participating in the trials but as they had been around for nearly a decade by then, that reason was not it. Most likely it was not having any manufacturing capability nor current intentions of doing so in the U.S. at the time. Another reason may be they did not meet specifications as those models that took part at the time were closer to conventional designs than the Glock.Roadkill Bill said:The Glock wasn't out yet when the military trials began. For a pure combat arm, I think it has the Beretta and the Sig beat.
My reasons for it not being at the top of the list are:Topmaul said:
*Glad you aprove :roll:Archie said:My reasons for it not being at the top of the list are:Topmaul said:
Too heavy for caliber - but it softens recoil.
*No heavier than competative pistols of similar materials.
* nothing wrong with the sights
Rather poor trigger.
*Dbl action is a bit heavy but not bad, single is fine and they make a real DAO
Grip is too big to get my smallish hands around.
*Beretta grip can be changed with grip panels, Glock requires work by a gunsmith making permanent changes.
*Don't like 9mm, then buy the 96 in 40S&W or learn proper shot placement.
They cost more than I'm willing to pay.
*Thats your problem,
And the military ones break slides more often than I like.
*WRONG, The slides that broke were U.S.Navy guns tested with proof loads under water.
Other than that, they're okay.
I use to have one it was a great shooting gun. Its just the weak 9mm people hate. But it is really one of the best pistols to learn to shoot with i started with it and moved to a Glock 22.Topmaul said:
Probably because they have never had to use a 1911 in combat.Topmaul said: