Replies

I have to respectfully disagree. The Glock purchase makes a lot of sense, and not just from a financial perspective. The Glock is a good pistol, and for both shooters and non-shooters (to use the dichotomy brought up by Nathaniel). And, to be very honest, I'd say the average soldier - when it comes to pistols - is a non-shooter. Most of the shooting is focused on his main weapon, which for virtually every soldier (apart from tank crews, who in some nations carry personal defense weapons ranging from MP-5s to FN P90s) is a rifle of some sort. Most of the firearms training is rifle based, with not that much time spent on pistols (compared to rifles) for most 'ordinary' soldiers. Thus, if the Glock is the perfect handgun for the 'non-shooter,' then it is perfect for the British troops when it comes to handguns.

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.

Agree with many of your points but you are missing one important element: the combat environment. We never fight wars in vacation paradises (Grenada being the exception) and it's either wet and hot or dusty and hot, or North Korea cold. The Glock is a civilian pistol, made for light duty or desk drawers. The Browning, like its grandfather, the 1911 is made for the severest environments and the toughest duty. I had a radio operator in Vietnam who never cleaned his .45 and told everybody that he'd never fire a round during his whole tour just to prove a point. Ir was covered in scale rust and nasty looking but when a VC came running out of a house straight at our company commander, our radio operater drew and shot his .45 and nailed the bastard. It worked fine, despite all of his abuse.

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.