British forces to be equipped with Glock pistols for protection in Afghanistan

Well it looks like the good old Browning 9mm is being retired after many years.....

British troops in Afghanistan – and on future operations anywhere else – will be better able to defend themselves with the help of the first new standard pistol issued to the armed forces in more than 40 years. Faced with the threat of attacks at close quarters – not least from members of the Afghan security forces turned by the Taliban or bearing individual grievances – the new weapons will enable them to shoot faster and more effectively, troops say.

More than 25,000 Austrian-made Glock pistols will finally replace the clunky Browning sidearm that squaddies and commandos have had to cope with for decades, the Ministry of Defence announced on Wednesday. An £8.5m contract has been awarded to Glock after a tendering contest and trials stretching over two years. No British company competed; even the new pistol's holster is made abroad, in Italy.

I have never fired a the new weapon, so maybe our US members can fill me in on why these are faster to use?

I carried a Browning on duty for my entire service as an MP and i loved it. I could strip it down in just a few seconds and thought it was very accurate. Felt great, always handled great, and not once did i have a problem with it. Then again i put a lot of time into range practice. More than the 10 rounds a month they allocated you so you could carry one on duty.

Then again, i like the fact that Britain is moving forward with our forces handguns, even if there were absolutely no contract bidders from the UK. I love HK though, so although it will be sad to see the Browning go, i welcome this new side arm.

CX.

Trust me friend Im not knocking the old stand by, Id guess its because it's lighter, more durable, more accurate and can adapt to fire almost any pistol round.

British forces to be equipped with Glock pistols for protection in Afghanistan, . . . protection ? Lol
then they shouldn't be in other sovereign countries,
they are NOT an extended colony.

_______________________

Originally posted by ToneDeaf
British forces to be equipped with Glock pistols for protection in Afghanistan, . . . protection ? Lol
then they shouldn't be in other sovereign countries,
they are NOT an extended colony.

Fair point, but this thread is about the adoption of a new weapon for the soldiers, not whether we should be there or not.

More than enough threads for that.

CX.

reply to post by CX


British forces to be equipped with Glock pistols for protection in Afghanistan

we are talking Glock 17..

He explained that with the Browning, a soldier had to undo the holster flap, flick the safety catch and draw a bullet from the magazine before firing a shot.

The Glock has built-in safety catches, and the pistol can be kept fully loaded with a round in the chamber even when it is in the holster. Its magazine can hold 17 rounds, compared with 13 in the Browning. "

Pretty much everone I know that likes handguns likes Glocks, unless they like 1911s or a few others..

The Glock takes less than a second to draw and fire, compared to the Browning which even for an expert often takes four or five seconds to remove from its holster, load the chamber and shoot.

From source

The few seconds could be all it takes.

GLOCK is a great choice, and I support that decision.
My personal sidearm is a .45 and that is the caliber that I recommend.

There is just some thing about .45 ACP that says it all.

reply to post by CX


they are faster because they are easy to handle and can be drawn and fired faster than a "long" gun.

I think this is a great idea. Instead of using overkill like a machine gun for all purposes, use a small and to the point weapon.

I am a crack shot with most handguns and suck at everything else, so I am a little bias. I would want one if I was in the armed forces. Its cleaner and easier to maintain and use.

Also there is the benefit of only shooting the person you intend to most times.

Originally posted by zedVSzardoz
reply to post by CX

 

they are faster because they are easy to handle and can be drawn and fired faster than a "long" gun.

They are replacing a handgun with a handgun, but it remains to be seen how many actually get replaced.. They are keeping their "Long guns" as you put it hahhaa... Glocks are yummy though. I hope they like them.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
GLOCK is a great choice, and I support that decision.
My personal sidearm is a .45 and that is the caliber that I recommend.

There is just some thing about .45 ACP that says it all.

Except they chose already a Glock 17 9mm variant. What is that .35 ? Comes with a 17 round mag upping the single load capacity from the browning by 4 rounds.

reply to post by Dustytoad


ah, I thought it said they were being issued a side arm since a long time without one....

how else would you classify the many types of rifles and machine guns. I just said "long" guns because I thought the article was saying that the reason why they were being replaced was due to the need to use them in CLOSE QUARTER COMBAT and security, hence why they need SHORT weapons and not LONG WEAPONS.

Like the need of a knife in a hallway instead of a claymore.

Sorry if my lingo is not up to par....haha...? ha...

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


Sorry it's just I have been hearing long gun ever since sandy hook, when before that all I ever heard was rifle or "assault rifle" and it's just started to bug me in the last couple days.. I put hahas there though. I am almost never being mean on this forum.. I do like to smile and poke fun though.. We're all friends here is the way I look at it.

I actually know very little about firearms besides a little training with my baby.. Miss that M16. Her pins were reeeaally tight bahahah Made her hard to clean the first few times, till she got nice and ... oily.

reply to post by Dustytoad


no prob man.

I have tried to educate myself recently on the subject. I plan on enlisting as soon as I get back to the sates and I dont want to go in sounding like a complete retard. Also I advocate gun ownership, so I dont want to be an ignorant hypocrite when advocating something and not even trying to understand it. I am trying.....

Thanks for the correction in any event. I tend to get adversarial to quickly (something I am working on)...

have a good one bud.

reply to post by zedVSzardoz


First thing you should say to your Drill Sarge at the first time they stop yelling...

"when do I get my GUN."

Your whole platoon will love you after that. Freaking Williams.. That Kid.. I do miss my Army days, but they also screwed me over, so your mileage may vary.

I still keep my dog tags by my bed, and wear em now and again. Thinking about all the guys I trained with, and wondering how many of those guys are still around. I'd probably go back if I could.

Good luck.

Double...

Check out the post 2 down from here though..

Good info.

Ok by my simple arithmetic, the British government are paying GBP£360 per pistol. A quick tour around US gun websites suggests a retail price of apprximately USD$575 ...... or GBP£356 at today's exchange rate. Just about bang on the nail.

So where's the discount for such a massive order ?

British Ministry of Defense procurement ... they're so hopeless they can't even get Tesco reward points. Always paying over the odds. I wonder if the trade off is a maintenance contract or something along those lines.

The Glock is not being adopted as a primary weapon to replace any "long" guns. Outside certain very specialist roles the pistol is issued as a secondary weapon for instances that the rifle suffers a malfunction at close quarters, or where the user needs to sling the primary weapon to use both hands. The pistol is faster to get into action from the holster than a rifle slung on the back. A pistol is also useful for WMIK or Jackal crews in close quarters where the user needs to be able to engage fast-appearing targets from a vehicle.

It is being issued as a replacement for the ageing crop of Brownings we have. The SIG P226 is being used in Afghanistan at the moment because of several problems found with the Browning. However the SIG was issued as an urgent operational requirement (UOR) as it was already in use by certain elements of UK forces and therefore already had training materials in place. As it was a UOR it bypassed several of the testing phases that are required for putting a piece of equipment into the field army, and was not tested against other weapons. As such it cannot be issued to the field army outside the operation that it was purchased for, i.e. Afghanistan.

Bids then went out to other manufacturers to provide options for a permanent replacement for the Browning. Examples were provided by all of the usual suspects (Glock, SIG, Beretta, H&K etc). After a long period of testing it was found that the Glock 17 gen 4 came out on top. This was in terms of actual weapon performance, accuracy, reliability in a range of environments, post purchace manufacturer support and training packages and of course overall cost.

I think that the Glock 17 is a great choice for a pistol. It is reliable, combat accurate, has a decent magazine capacity and is lightweight. I have found from a personal perspective of firing Glock 19s that the polymer frame helps absorb recoil, making it easy to fire rapidly with accuracy. It is also really easy to use and can be safely carried loaded and made ready.

Originally posted by NorthernThird
Ok by my simple arithmetic, the British government are paying GBP£360 per pistol. A quick tour around US gun websites suggests a retail price of apprximately USD$575 ...... or GBP£356 at today's exchange rate. Just about bang on the nail.

So where's the discount for such a massive order ?

British Ministry of Defense procurement ... they're so hopeless they can't even get Tesco reward points. Always paying over the odds. I wonder if the trade off is a maintenance contract or something along those lines.

The cost is inclusive of long term manufacturer support, ancilliary costs such as parts and repairs, training for armourers and so on. It is not just the price per pistol.

The Brits have been using the glock for years now
It just depended on who you were working for but more importantly your role
The browning 9mm ( high power in china ) has remained the standard side arm for many trades
With the sig 226 being phased in and issued to dismounted close combat troops ( combat infantry ) for atleast 7 years
But from what I can gather the contract isn't getting renewed with sig and your now going to switch to the glock

I find the sig the better of the 3 weapons .......not sure why over the glock .....it just feels better in my hands ......but they are equally fine weapons ( though the sig did have a problem with shattering barrels at one point which has been rectified )

As someone's states the browning wasn't really what I'd call a combat pistol with its independent safety catch, where as a deco king lever / duel pressure trigger is incorporated in the sig

The only advantage the browning had was its slightly better accuracy at longer ranges ........I always found the drop off was less on the browning at 25 meters or more

But it's just another expense on you guys
Not only the money spent on the sigs themselves but also all the ancillaries
Like cleaning kits
Simunition conversion kits
Moulded holsters
Drop legs
Ect ect
All kit that's gonna have to be re bought for the glocks

But all in all - bout time you modernised your standard ish side arm

reply to post by PaddyInf


Knowing the MoD, it probably was never price per pistol anyway. They're probably paying Glock £9 million now, leasing the pistols, with an option to lease them again in 10 years for £150 billion but only after the Treasury has paid for each gun to be covered in gold.

There's got to be a flaw in this deal somewhere ; it makes too much sense

Good call! Glocks are almost indestructable...