TexasCHLforum.com

So much for the G19, I guess. I'm a little surprised.

no clue what design they submitted. It could be a polymer design like the the P320 Series.

Apparently it's the P320, or a variant of the P320

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017 ... istol.html

Modified P320 is what is being reported according to TFB - M17
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... s-shot-17/

ETA: noooo you beat me

The Annoyed Man wrote:So much for the G19, I guess. I'm a little surprised.

Not too surprising when you consider that big army caters to the lowest common denominator. Unless Glock was willing to mass produce a variation with a manual safety, they were ruled out from the start.

jkurtz wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:So much for the G19, I guess. I'm a little surprised.

Not too surprising when you consider that big army caters to the lowest common denominator. Unless Glock was willing to mass produce a variation with a manual safety, they were ruled out from the start.

P320 has a manual safety?

Breaking news: It is reported by NRA Rifleman mag's O'keefe that it is P320 variant

WTR wrote:

jkurtz wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:So much for the G19, I guess. I'm a little surprised.

Not too surprising when you consider that big army caters to the lowest common denominator. Unless Glock was willing to mass produce a variation with a manual safety, they were ruled out from the start.

P320 has a manual safety?

Not as originally released. I think it's an option they added. There is no retrofit currently available.

My P320's don't have safeties. I'd say they are disasters waiting to happen but they are curiously satisfying to shoot and very reliable.

treadlightly wrote:

WTR wrote:

jkurtz wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:So much for the G19, I guess. I'm a little surprised.

Not too surprising when you consider that big army caters to the lowest common denominator. Unless Glock was willing to mass produce a variation with a manual safety, they were ruled out from the start.

P320 has a manual safety?

Not as originally released. I think it's an option they added. There is no retrofit currently available.

My P320's don't have safeties. I'd say they are disasters waiting to happen but they are curiously satisfying to shoot and very reliable.

The is a Glock variant with an external safety: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock

The Glock 17S is a variant with an external, frame-mounted, manual safety. Small numbers of this variant were made for the Tasmanian, Israeli, Pakistani, and perhaps several South American security forces.[77] They are stamped "17", not "17S". They resemble, but are distinguishable from, standard Glock 17 pistols that have been fitted with the after-market Cominolli safety.[78] An additional safety variant Glock 17 that was tested by the British Military included a frame safety similar to that found on the British service rifle, the SA-80.

Given the shear numbers involved, I can't believe that Glock couldn't have added an external safety to the G19 or 17 in order to win the contract. I can only conclude that they weren't that interested in winning it.

As far as the P320 not having one either, the one time I handled one, it seemed that the trigger was a LOT like a Kahr trigger — quite long, but light and very smooth. The length of pull IS the safety. The Sig is a good gun. I almost bought one once. The main reason I was surprised that Glock didn't win is the recent adoption of the G19 by both Army Special Forces, and the SEAL Teams. If Special Forces likes 'em, why not the regular Army?

WTR wrote:

jkurtz wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:So much for the G19, I guess. I'm a little surprised.

Not too surprising when you consider that big army caters to the lowest common denominator. Unless Glock was willing to mass produce a variation with a manual safety, they were ruled out from the start.

P320 has a manual safety?

Sure does, if you order one with a safety...

The Annoyed Man wrote: The is a Glock variant with an external safety: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock

The Glock 17S is a variant with an external, frame-mounted, manual safety. Small numbers of this variant were made for the Tasmanian, Israeli, Pakistani, and perhaps several South American security forces.[77] They are stamped "17", not "17S". They resemble, but are distinguishable from, standard Glock 17 pistols that have been fitted with the after-market Cominolli safety.[78] An additional safety variant Glock 17 that was tested by the British Military included a frame safety similar to that found on the British service rifle, the SA-80.

Given the shear numbers involved, I can't believe that Glock couldn't have added an external safety to the G19 or 17 in order to win the contract. I can only conclude that they weren't that interested in winning it.

As far as the P320 not having one either, the one time I handled one, it seemed that the trigger was a LOT like a Kahr trigger — quite long, but light and very smooth. The length of pull IS the safety. The Sig is a good gun. I almost bought one once. The main reason I was surprised that Glock didn't win is the recent adoption of the G19 by both Army Special Forces, and the SEAL Teams. If Special Forces likes 'em, why not the regular Army?

I have heard of Glock making a model with a manual safety before, but the wiki article says they only made a small number. Maybe they just weren't willing to mass produce it.

As far as SOF units selecting Glock, unfortunately that doesn't mean too much. While SOF will make common sense decisions, big army typically does things the hardest and least sensible way possible, often times caring more about appearance than actual performance.

The timing of all this is quite interesting.

A few days back at General Mattis's hearing on Capitol Hill they made a big deal about how slow the Army was at deciding this and how much money they had spent then....whatta ya know! :)