Posted on 01/11/2013 2:47:11 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
British troops serving in Afghanistan will soon be issued a new sidearm, the Glock 17. The Glocks will replace the L9A1s—Browning Hi-Powers with an ambidextrous safety—in service that have been standard-issue for about 50 years.
The decision follows more than two years of evaluating the Glock for service, and calls for 25,000 Glock 17s to fill the £8.5 ($13.6) million contract. Some troops have been issued SIG P226 pistols to replace their aging Hi-Powers as a stop-gap measure, but it’s the Austrian pistol that has won the hearts and minds at the British Ministry of Defense.
(Excerpt) Read more at guns.com ...
I have a Browning Hi Power II Digital Camo....I absolutely love that little gun.....only thing is that it’s 9mm but an extremely well-built weapon.
So, Bond is going to have to go ‘plastic’, now, eh?
I have a MKII Belgian Browning, and a digicamo MKIII.
The late Browning Hi Power ‘guru’, former Texas law agency officer Stephen A. Camp said that the Hi Power was one of the best pistols in the world. It was his duty piece for many years, before he retired. his website still exists, “Hipowerandhandguns”.
The Canadians manufactured Hi Powers during WW2, under the ‘Inglis’ name, during a time when the Nazis overran Belgium, and took over the manufacturing plant.
Whether these pistols are ‘only’ 9mm or not, they are the last works/design that the venerable John Moses Browning was working on, at the time of his death. They are accurate enough and fit the hand well enough, for me.
Glocks rock.
The Glock is a good weapon for people who do not train with weapons regularly. The P35 is a SUPERB weapon for people who know how to use it. The 9mm caliber is vastly inferior to the 45 ACP, but IS adaquate. Also, the military has always had the heebie-jeebies about “cocked and locked” (as John Moses Browning INTENDED). I have clear memories of junior officers pawing at my M9 in my issue shoulder holster trying to place MY safety on “safe” (empty weapon secured in MY issue rig - yes the M9 is a SA/DA weapon - different entirely from the P35, but 100% safe carried with one in the chamber, safety off, ready to fire in the DA mode). I often asked the commissioned junior officers if they routinely snatched empty M16s (on which the safety CANNOT be placed on “safe” with the hammer down with an empty [or loaded] chamber). I got the deer in the headlights look, followed by a condescending bunch of commissioned BS. As a 1SG, I’d laugh and return my weapon to the condition that I wanted it in and carry on about my business. Point is - just like at Fort Hood, the politically correct BS is the driving thing. I love the Hi-Power. The Glock? A servicable, somewhat non-durable plastic pistol for non-shooters.
Glock; plastic frame, stamped parts, welded slide - a nonpermanent, disposable weapon.
Browning P35; All milled steel quality, robust design, absolute reliability, designed to last centuries.
Never settle for cheap stuff when your life depends on it.
I have own both for decades brought my first Hi power in the 70’s owned Glock from the time they were first imported.
Shot many thounsands of rounds through each. The browning is a good pistol. But the Glock will out last the browning for many reasons.
The US Marines went the right way.
It is somewhat similar to unarmed combat training. Most soldiers will not spent most of their time in hand to hand combat, and thus the training is not necessarily the best available. It is just the best available for someone not expected to spend most of their time in H2H combat. Thus, the perfect style for the non-H2H combatant. Hence the likes of MCMAP for the US Marines, and the basic levels of Krav Maga for normal Israeli infantry. Special operations forces definitely get better H2H training (e.g. DEVGRU and CAG do get instructors who teach some rather interesting things ranging from Apache knife fighting, Sayoc Kali, and some rather eclectic stuff like P.F.S and S.P.E.A.R; while the Israelis teach harder types of Krav Maga and KAPAP) ...but still ...these guys will spend most of their time practicing on their main weapons.
For the average soldier (read: not part of special operations) the time spent working on their side arm is less than that done by the average police officer, and the Glock is absolutely perfect for the average soldier. A member of DEVGRU or Sayeret can make a case for a different handgun, but the average soldier ...not really (apart from personal taste). The average soldier is a 'non-shooter' when it comes to handguns as compared to i) the amount of time spent on the handgun vs the primary weapon, and ii) compared to even civilian shooters who have decided to put serious time into handgun practice. Consequently, if the Glock is the perfect gun for a non-shooter, the British chose wisely.
If there is a bigger fan of the Hi-Power than me I’ve yet to find them. I’ve got a couple of dozen with all but two being made pre 1983. Calibers range from 40, 357 Sig, 9mm and 7.65x21. Now before anybody says Browning didn’t make one in 357 Sig which is true, this one started life as a 40 and was converted. NOVAK! I sure would like to pick a few of these up.
Thats all nice but why does that make a Browning better then a Glock.
What I see is a lot of reasons to chose a Glock over a Browning.
There is only one handgun in my book, M1911 .45 ACP. everything else is second rate.
I sure hope we see them on the surplus market!
With the growing green on blue attacks, soldiers will need more training with sidearms.
That was my point - that the Glock was a great choice by the Brits.
Based on the ones I saw in the field about 10 years ago, I would probably pass. They are in very rough shape, and some units have been cannibalizing older pistols to make decently working ones. They really did need to get new sidearms - the Hi Power is great but some of the ones I saw had first been issued in the late 1940s and looked like they had been beaten badly since then.
It is true that you use a pistol in the same circumstances that you'd use a knife but there is no excuse for carrying flimsy item just because it isn't used often or it's cheaper to buy.
As a Vietnam Vet, I'm sick of risking our lives on "least bidder" weapons. If the Brits have to go back to the Falklands, they'd better keep a few Brownings available, just in case.
They should have went .45acp.
Sure a 9mm works, the .45 works better.
Agree wholeheartedly with your caliber tag: if you can't nail it with a 7.62 NATO, you shouldn't be in this man's gun club.
Dear British Government...Please send your old Browning Hi-Power to ME!
I promise (wink wink) to sell them as scrap to those interested.
PS Please include the 12 round magazines with them.
I’ve had my Glock for 26 years, and my understanding has always been that it is tougher and more durable than the other pistols, not the weaker, drawer-gun that you guys are trying to claim.
Most writing that I saw when the US went to 9mm, was that the rules that kept out Glock, kept out the best, toughest, pistol.
I'm pretty sure the Marines still use the 9mm, a lot of people got confused because their Special Ops troops adopted the 45.
August 24, 2012: The U.S. Marine Corps has ordered 12,000 .45 (11.4mm) caliber pistols (for $1,900 each), mainly for use by its SOCOM (Special Operations Command) and recon troops. These MARSOC (Marine Special Operations Command) troops have, like the army, navy, and air force components of SOCOM, quietly replaced most of their 9mm pistols with .45s. For the last few years the marines have been supplying their special operations troops with older M1911 model .45s, refurbished (or built from scrounged up parts) in a marine-run facility.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20120824.aspx
Good grief! Thanks for the link. Incredible. That could possibly be the most abused pistol on the planet. (that still fires)
Good grief! Thanks for the link. Incredible. That could possibly be the most abused pistol on the planet. (that still fires)
The P35 highpower is a wonderful pistol. I would have no problem owning/using one for defensive purposes. But to all practical purposes, a Glock 17 is an updated P35 design using modern materials.
Had I not lost mine in a tragic boating accident, that’s the one I would continue to carry. That is, had it not been for the boating accident.
Nonetheless, I won't ever be a Glock fan: ugly, wide, square slide, lots of stamped cheapo parts, and no idea how long the polymer frame will age before embrittling/cracking. Plastic isn't really forever.
During the choreographed presentations at Aberdeen Proving Ground, the Army Colonel in charge asked if anyone had questions. I raised my hand and asked "if this the same 9mm caliber the Germans lost the last two wars with?" and was told to shut up and sit down.
I bet the SAS will acquire some Glock 18s as well, and having a 33rnd mag for the 17 in some situations is an advantage.
I remember that era, but as far as the Germans, I wouldn’t complain about their pistols, and they out killed us and the Brits and everyone else they fought, but luckily it was them versus the world, and we overwhelmed them.
For a guy who was aware of guns during the period, I don’t know how you missed learning about Glocks in the early and mid 1980s, their durability and ability to function under bad conditions and it’s level of technological advancement, was a major gun story for years.
There was some bitter anger at them having been kept out of the American running for a new pistol, it was believed that the US should have adopted them if they were going 9mm, and that it was superior to the pistol the US military ended up with.
Some of you guys sound like the media, calling it “plastic”, “ugly”, “cheapo”, rather than the break through beast that it is, a wonderful tool, famous for reliability.
For 30 years I have been amused by guys who talk about Glock like women talk about purses, they think the Glock is ugly, too purely functional.
There are claims that Delta is/was using Glock.
“”There was a down select to the STI 2011 and Glock 22 in .40S&W. The 1911 were costing us way to much per gun to keep them running. Parts, labor, X-rays, you get the picture. Even when Kentucky (Lexington Depot) would build a gun, the unit gunsmiths would practically and literally rebuild the gun for the individual operator during the training course. There was a contract let years ago for a select manufacturer to make the frames and slides and several different parts and barrel manufacturers to make the internals. Much like the MEU/MARSOC pistols a while ago they just got to expensive.””
The SAS replaced their P35s with SIGs back in the early/mid 90's. The rank and file actually preferred the CZ75, but the MOD pushed for a weapon that had been built by a cold war ally, as the future prospects and allegiances of Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic were uncertain at the time.
As a Glock snob I’m happy for those servicemen, however now all those Glock makers will be busy filling that order. How will that affect the Glock inventory in the US?
Not hardly, Big Guy! The Germans never had a prayer against the US Army once we got our act together through some tough experience. The M-1 rifle was far and away superior to the German rifles and even the introduction of the StG43/MP44 couldn't bring the balance back. I had an older friend who had been hit by five 9mm slugs from an MP-40 at Normandy but survived - know any Germans who took 5 .45 slugs and saw daylight again?
I am a combat veteran of the Vietnam War and I remember all too well the "hi-tech"/least bidder weapon we got to replace our M-14s with. Cost a lot of our lives, but what the hell, it's only somebody else's kids.
My understanding is that the Germans out killed us man for man, as they did the Brits, although we controlled the skies.
Your remark about Germany losing the war and that having some connection to the pistol that the officers carried, was pretty silly.
We didn’t have the Glock during the Vietnam war when I and my brothers were serving, but it’s reliability and ease of maintenance, and light weight, and high capacity would have been useful for our American GIs, when the American made Colt rifles jammed.
My remark about the Germans "losing the war" with the 9mm was meant to be silly - I was just fencing with a set of colonels who were determined to change our primary caliber to 9mm para come hell or high water and it was my chance to tweak their noses in public. .40 S&W would have been a better choice if they really had to replace the .45 but they had their own agenda.
Gun snob. Get it. Hear it for wine. Hear it for colleges. Hear it for just about anything. My Glock will fire perfectly well when my life depends on it. I will bet my life on it. I was in the service and my weapon was a 1911, and if I had to choose the weapon I have in my hand in a life and death situation I will choose the Glock.
Oh, well if you walked around and counted grave stones, that clearly proves everything.
Here is another claim.
“”According to calculations by the US Army the results of the battles in World War II were only possible, when the soldiers of the Wehrmacht - man for man and unit for unit - were 20 to 30 percent more effective then was the British and American forces they faced.
Extrapolating the individual soldiers against each other - and although the Wehrmacht was far lower in numbers - so the German troops that faced British and American troops under all combat conditions (for assaults with the usual factor of 1.0 - in the defense in carefully selected positions with view by a factor of 1.3 - in prepared defense positions 1.5 - in fortified defense positions by a factor of 1.6) cause approximately 50 percent higher losses than they suffer.
This was accessible whether the Germans were in attack or defense, if they were locally in place with higher numbers or - what was the rule - in lower numbers, if they had air cover or not, whether they had won the battle or lost at the end.
Even in the bitter years of defeats on the Russian front, the German combat effectiveness superiority over the Russians was even more pronounced. In the early days of the campaign in the east, one German division could take up with three Russian divisions of comparable strength and power. And, theoretically, under favorable defense conditions one German division could stand against no less than seven comparable Russian divisions.
In 1944 this superiority was still about 2:1, and one German soldier at the front caused an average loss of 7.78 Russians for one German. These figures need to adapted to the fact that the Wehrmacht in 1944 was almost always in the defense, had a relatively higher mobility and at this time the German weapons were better than the weapons of the Russians. But even if you take into account these considerations, the ratio for the infliction of losses was more than 4:1 and the German fighting power in battle was - man by man - about more than 50% better.””
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.