Raiders Choose Glock 19.

[FONT=&amp]http://kitup.military.com/2016/10/marsoc-chooses-glock-19s-45s-raiders.html

Marine Corps Special Operations Command has decided to shelve its custom .45 pistols and outfit its elite Raiders with Glock 19s.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]MARSOC has not yet responded to Military.com’s questions for the story, but a source familiar with the effort said the command made the decision within the last month.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The move follows a Marine Corps decision in February that MARSOC operators carry Glock pistols, since many of the elite outfit’s members prefer the popular Glock 19 9mm handgun over the custom .45 pistols the service bought them in 2012.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The reliable, easy-to-maintain 9mm pistol features a polymer frame and a 15-round magazine.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The Marine Corps just completed an exhaustive search for a new MARSOC pistol in 2012. The service awarded a $22.5 million contract to Colt Defense LLC., for up to 10,000 Close Quarter Battle Pistols.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The custom, 1911 design replaced the fleet of worn-out MARSOC M45 pistols. It features a rail for mounting lights, a custom trigger, a manual safety, improved ergonomics and glowing Tritium sights for low-light conditions.
The new .45's are nice, but many MARSOC troops prefer to carry Glock 19's instead.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]One reason for the change is that 9mm ammunition and Glock replacement parts are available almost anywhere in the world, the source said.[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]The decision is not that surprising since U.S. Army Special Operations Command has also chosen the Glock 19 for its elite units such as the 75th Ranger Regiment, the source said.

List of U.S. military forces who have now chosen to carry the Glock 19.

1. U.S Army Special Operations, Rangers, Green Berets etc.
2. MARSOC, Marine Recon etc.
3. Navy SEALS
4. Possibly U.S. Army after trials
5. And now U.S Raiders


[/FONT]

Interesting. Thanks for posting.

Wonder why not the G17?


AA

I think this move within SF groups, shows what [MENTION=65861]John[/MENTION] (Nortac) always says.

"No one who has ever been in a gunfight, chooses to carry less rounds."

Ad Astra said:

Wonder why not the G17?
AA

Click to expand...

I would think that amongst line personnel, but SF groups do alot of clandestine, concealed stuff and the 19 probably packs outta sight better. And it's a perfectly balanced weapon in the hand.

I always said 9mm was a superior round for use in a defensive pistol.

A while back I went stock shopping; turns out Glock is not a publicly traded company (wound up buying S&W and Ruger which BTW have reclassified as "high risk" stocks). Boy...with this news I sure wish I could have picked up some Glock shares.

G17 holds two more rounds.*

And with the right ammo**, 9mm is a stopper. But these guys have to carry ball FMJ, do they not?


AA


*https://us.glock.com/products/compare?g1=g17&g2=g19&g3=&g4=

**Cor-Bon or Buffalo Bore +P+ SJHPs - IMHHO

I think the specops guys choose the G19 over the G17 just to save a bit of space and weight. There isn't much of a performance difference between them.

Recently the military got cleared to use hollowpoint ammunition (http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/0...numental-shift-hollowpoint-pistol-ammunition/) which makes perfect sense. The initial (century old) demonization of "dum dum" fragmenting bullets doesn't really apply to modern high velocity rounds (which tumble and fragment like crazy anyway) and modern medical tech (we have x-rays now for finding fragments). Now if someone were to develop a bullet that could break into radiolucent fragments that we couldn't detect and remove, I'd have an issue. But really, of all the current weapons of war, hollowpoint pistol rounds is an inhumane weapon? Really?

If anything, we get (and will continue to get) issued FMJ because of COST. No one cares what pistol we use, or even that we have pistols, outside of a very few specialized units. No mechanized infantry battalion commander is sweating the problem of the M9 and FMJ. He wants to make sure his chain guns, mortars, heavy machine guns, guided missiles, and tank cannon are up to snuff!

G19 is smaller and lighter while only carrying two rounds less. Overall it is a better defensive pistol and many prefer how it shoots, feels in the hands, etc over the G17.

The fact that the FBI and so many spec ops military units have moved to the Glock is a clue. Glock is one of the best defensive pistols period. For real world non flat range application it is likely one of the most reliable pistols as well. I'd put Sig Sauer up there also but honestly the G17 is more compact, lighter, and holds the same number of rounds. The trigger on the G17 is also good and consistent. The only time the trigger sucks is when organizations put in heavier springs to make the trigger harder to pull. Some organizations still see this as a safety measure which it surely is not. The old 9mm vs 45 debate has been beaten to death, scientific testing and real world performance has proven that with today's cartridges there is little if any difference between the two. Plus as was said in another post having 15 rounds instead of 7 is a big bonus in a gunfight.

The other main reason for these organizations moving to Glock is cost. Glocks can be had on a unit purchase much more cost effectively than other pistols. The bigger the unit the better the price. Glock apparently also will replace/refurb pistols for an excellent price for unit purchasers.

IMHO on a cost/performance ratio basis Glock is very hard to beat.

Scientific testing and real world performance has proven what?!!!

With military issue FMJ?!!!

It's funny how it's the 9mm fans who launch into a spiel about how their champion is just as effective as any larger cartridge and, when pressed, falls back on a faith in the "technological advancements" in expanding bullet design as if "trick" bullets makes up for everything from bullet weight and diameter to bad hits.

This may say more about current marketing and the suggestibility of the consumer than it does about actual performance improvements in bullet design.

Personally think our guys SHOULD carry the best in JHP ammo. War is war; Nazis were shooting explosive 20mm cannon shells at our troops. Anyways.

.45 ACP would be even better, but hey: carry 250 rounds of both to the range and notice the weight difference.

Can agree on Glock: the Bic lighter of pistols; has no soul, no style, no charisma; just works every time.


AA

In addition to the attributes of the Glock 19 and it's popularity with the end users, I'm sure the afore mentioned logistics played the biggest role in it's adoption. As far as caliber choice, it's already in the system, it's the NATO round, again logistics trumps any perceived performance differences compared to other calibers.

Good decision in my opinion. Adapt, adapt, adapt, in this case to the natural conditions.

noelekal said:

Scientific testing and real world performance has proven what?!!!

With military issue FMJ?!!!

It's funny how it's the 9mm fans who launch into a spiel about how their champion is just as effective as any larger cartridge and, when pressed, falls back on a faith in the "technological advancements" in expanding bullet design as if "trick" bullets makes up for everything from bullet weight and diameter to bad hits.

This may say more about current marketing and the suggestibility of the consumer than it does about actual performance improvements in bullet design.

Click to expand...

My intention was not to turn this into another 9mm vs .45 ACP thread so I am sorry I brought it up. I don't have a dog in either fight but it appears others may. I said the testing with today's cartridges, should have said with today's modern controlled expansion cartridges certainly not with FMJ. Expansion of rounds will not make up for bad shot placement, nothing will. It can however make up for a certain amount of bullet weight. At the end of the day neither 9mm or .45 ACP have enough MV or kinetic energy to wound in any way except the permanent cavity. The difference in permanent cavity is minor between the two. Now will the same design of 9mm perform better than .45 ACP, no. However the performance difference is minimal and overshadowed by being able to carry almost twice the amount of rounds per given pistol size with improved shoot-ability (hopefully improving shot placement). Cost is also a major consideration, even with SF's impressive budgets (custom 45's are more expensive than Glocks and .45 ACP ammo is more expensive than 9mm). We'll likely have to agree to disagree but I appreciate the discussion.

noelekal said:

This may say more about current marketing and the suggestibility of the consumer than it does about actual performance improvements in bullet design.

Click to expand...

Actually, the article I linked, reads that They had just purchased and issued as recently as 2012, custom 1911 45's, but ended up shelving them in place of the Glock 19 because so many of their very own operators kept voicing and clamoring that they wanted Glocks.

We might just as well face it. Highly trained, professional operators, prefer the Glock 19 over heavier and bulkier pistols of larger caliber that carry less rounds. But it doesn't mean those great firearms/brands/pistols don't still have their place.

Somewhere.

^+1 "Highly trained, professional operators, prefer the Glock 19".....just sayin.

OkieStubble said:

Highly trained, professional operators, prefer the Glock 19 over heavier and bulkier pistols of larger caliber that carry less rounds. But it doesn't mean those great firearms/brands/pistols don't still have their place.

Somewhere.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's just your opinion.



via Imgflip Meme Generator

Lol'd. I know when I think of a name of a highly trained professional operator,
It's Pancho Villa...

It's likely these same operators have Glocks as personally owned firearms, and hence, have shot a lot of rounds through them.

Another reason it's a good idea.


AA

I completely trust my Glock 19 to go bang every time. My 1911 can be squirrelly depending on the ammo I'm feeding it.