Glock MHS Entry Pistols

[spinmove_]

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2017/6/27/the-keefe-report-glock-s-mhs-pistols-unveiled/

Interesting. Is it just me or does the grip on those pistols appear to be G17/G22 length and shape?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Mjolnir]

Yes, it appears that you are correct.

Good catch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

Do want, don't need the extra safety.

[call_me_ski]

Do want, don't need the extra safety.

Given the popularity of the carry sized pistols from Sig there is definitely a market for this gun. Id pick one up in black. Not sure that I would want the safety but that is another hole in Glock's offerings and would serve as a meaningful expansion of their line.

With the lull in the market we are more likely to see these offerings as Glock needs to do more than simply make more Glock 19 pistols. I think we will see the FBI and the would have been Army guns in time.

Also of note is that a lot of people speculated that the "new" 2 pin design of the 17M/19M would limit the design to 9mm. Glock seems to feel otherwise as their 23MHS is of the same 2 pin design and the M guns.

[ralph]

Interesting pistol, but I can see why it was rejected...After all this was a "Modular" pistol contract we're talking about here. I'm not seeing anything modular about it. Still if they offered it for sale to the public, I'm sure they'd sell like hotcakes. Myself? I'll pass, I don't see how it does anything better than my g17..

[call_me_ski]

Interesting pistol, but I can see why it was rejected...After all this was a "Modular" pistol contract we're talking about here. I'm not seeing anything modular about it. Still if they offered it for sale to the public, I'm sure they'd sell like hotcakes. Myself? I'll pass, I don't see how it does anything better than my g17..

MHS was just a catchy acronym for the solicitation. It actually met the demands of the RFP despite it not fitting the Internet's definition of modular. Also modular in this case if vastly over rated. Glock proposed to do with one pistol what Sig submitted two pistols for. The extra frames that ship with the Sig pistol will just be more for units to keep accountability over and add little to the readiness or combat effectiveness while still having duplicate parts for the M17 and M18 pistols in the system. I am not saying that this is a better option than the Sig but other than being under bid by 100 million dollars by Sig I don't see any compelling reason it should have lost on merit alone. But 122 million dollars is a very large hurdle when the two guns were very similar in performance. On that alone the Army picked the right pistol.

[GardoneVT]

The entire point of a Glock pistol is to have a relatively inexpensive, basic service pistol. This will neither be basic or inexpensive ,and does nothing a currently sold Glock 17 can't already do.

[warpedcamshaft]

How SIG is going to build m17's at a little over 200 bucks a pop is beyond me.

[call_me_ski]

Gardone, what do you believe will be fundamentally more expensive than current pistols available? The pistol shown does not stray far from the Glock recipe.

And while I do agree that the entire reason for the Glock to exist is for an inexpensive service pistol, the current market for 1500 zev pistols of questionable quality is proof that the market as grown beyond the basic Glock.

People complain that Glock is stagnate and when they do change their products people complain too.

We shall see how Sig does with the actual contract pistols. Contracts have been canceled in the past due to production guns not living up to the test guns(Remington MK21 PSR is recent example that comes to mind) and Sig has a history of tinkering with long established designs for cost cutting measures resulting in new rounds of issues. I wonder what pressure engineers will be under to squeeze wider margins out of these pistols.

[Wondering Beard]

Do want, don't need the extra safety.

Don't really want (I like the finger grooves), don't care for the safety, but that lanyard loop/plug has me interested.

[Manbearspider]

So that frame is a 17 length with a 19 dustcover. To make the lot for the testing in the right polymer, they likely had to cut tooling for that, and those aren't cheap.... I wonder if this kind of frame will see the consumer market now that the Army doesn't have dibbs on it.

[call_me_ski]

Considering that Glock is making RTF 2 pistols with gills again to jump start sales, I would say that the likelihood is good that we will this on the market in some form. They are no longer selling every Glock 19 pistol they make without question.

[ralph]

How SIG is going to build m17's at a little over 200 bucks a pop is beyond me.

What are their current building costs?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If it starts four thousand new Internet threads about safeties on Glocks and striker pistols, curses upon them.

[call_me_ski]

Blame the Army for that one.

[MSparks909]

What are their current building costs?

This isn't Sig but I remember reading or heading from someone "in the know" that it costs Glock about $110 to build a pistol due to economy of scale. I imagine Sig's cost for the P320 is under $150 to manufacture.

[Cory]

The deletion of the finger grooves is the only thing I really like about these. If these ever hit the shelves I would look forward to handling one. But it doesn't offer much to me that the Gen 4 doesn't already do. I would love to have a family of Glocks with no finger grooves, but already owning a 17g4 I'll probably just wind up getting more gens to keep it all the same. The finger grooves aren't that big of a deal, and a Glock without them isn't worth the premium they will probably carry, in my mind.I don't have a lot of need for a "commander" set up on a Glock. If that's what other folks are looking for, then go for it.

A safety on a Glock would be okay. I'm not against them offering a version with a safety. I don't know if I would buy it, but I think that a lot of folks would be more comfortable with a weapon that has a safety. If that makes sense or not, or is the right choice or not is probably a great discussion for another thread (which I'm pretty sure has already been beat to death). The market for a safety frame Glock is definitely out there. I know both my parents would love a Glock if it came with a frame safety. They like everything about the Glock except it's lack of a safety. Regardless of if it's a need or not many people perceive it as one.

TL;DR Not for me, but could introduce some cool new stuff to the Glock line.

-Cory

[Gray222]

Ambi Safety? Lanyard loop?

No, thank you.

I like the finger grooves but I understand those that do not.

[TheNewbie]

I wonder how user friendly that safety is.

[Inkwell 41]

I dunno... It seems that a G19 with a G17 frame falls in to the same category as all the other manufacturers that produce a gun just a bit bigger, or too much smaller, than a G19. It's almost as if Glock themselves are missing the mark they established with the G19. Oh, the irony.

[call_me_ski]

I dunno... It seems that a G19 with a G17 frame falls in to the same category as all the other manufacturers that produce a gun just a bit bigger, or too much smaller, than a G19. It's almost as if Glock themselves are missing the mark they established with the G19. Oh, the irony.

Not really. The Glock 19 as it exists is not going anywhere. Sig sells a lot of their carry pistols, which have a similar compact slide on a full size grip, despite the availability of compact models. Also, The sig p320 compact is much closer in height to a glock 17 than a Glock 19. So another way to look at it is that Glock is able to offer a full size grip while giving up very little to "compact" sized competitors in the height department.

[RAM Engineer]

I wonder why the need for a lanyard plug when they've already got a lanyard hole in the backstrap of every gun. Also, that's a new mag release profile isn't it?

[JonInWA]

It looks somewhat interesting; I'm fine with Glocks either with or without the fingergrooves. I assume the logic for a full-size frame on a compact slide is to provide increased capacity with a slightly decreased draw time. Personally, I'm again fine with the capacity of my G19 as it is, and equally so with my G17...

The safety probably appeals to the appendix-carry advocates (i.e., a OEM out-of-the-box solution as opposed to having to go The Gadget route; great for some, but I don't appendix carry, so I don't personally desire the safety. Presumably the lanyard loop also provides a plug for the receiver cavity, so that's a good idea.

Nice, but I'd not feel particularly compelled to run out and buy if/when they became available. But that's me.

Best, Jon

[BigT]

Considering that Glock is making RTF 2 pistols with gills again to jump start sales, I would say that the likelihood is good that we will this on the market in some form. They are no longer selling every Glock 19 pistol they make without question.

RTF2 guns (without fish gills ) and Olive guns have been available all along. Just not for the US market.

[Qaz98]

There are so many variations out there now - I would have thought they would just consolidate the features for MHS. Gen4, MHS, Summer Special, 19M...

[STI]

Right side safety looks incredibly dainty to me for a duty pistol

[call_me_ski]

RTF2 guns (without fish gills ) and Olive guns have been available all along. Just not for the US market.

Yup and they are bring them back onto the market in the US with and without the Gills.


Right side safety looks incredibly dainty to me for a duty pistol
I would like to get one in hand. I don't think it looks dainty per se. It seems similar to all the other safeties on striker fired pistols of late.

[JSGlock34]

I wonder why the need for a lanyard plug when they've already got a lanyard hole in the backstrap of every gun.

I'm guessing it has more to do with military environmental testing (i.e. dust) than lanyard utility.


I wonder how user friendly that safety is.

Apparently it was an issue during testing according to the GAO response.

Manual Safety
Glock also alleges that the Army deviated from the solicitation by assigning extra weight to the manual safety in the joint warfighter ergonomics subfactor and the early warfighter acceptance subfactor. Protest at 9. The Army contends that evaluation of the safety was reasonably part of the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria. MOL/COSF at 24-25.
In reviewing a protest challenging an agency’s evaluation, our Office will not reevaluate proposals or substitute our judgment for that of the agency, as the evaluation of proposals is a matter within the agency’s discretion. Computer World Servs. Corp., B-410513, B-410513.2, Dec. 31, 2014, 2015 CPD ¶ 21 at 6. Rather, we will review the record only to determine whether the agency’s evaluation was reasonable and consistent with the stated evaluation criteria and with applicable procurement statutes and regulations. Id. In evaluating proposals, an agency may take into account specific, albeit not expressly identified, matters that are logically encompassed by, or related to, the stated evaluation criteria. MINACT, Inc., B-400951, Mar. 27, 2009, 2009 CPD ¶ 76 at 4; Independence Constr., Inc., B-292052, May 19, 2003, 2003 CPD ¶ 105 at 4.
With regard to the joint warfighter ergonomics subfactor, the Army assigned Glock’s proposal a weakness after “[DELETED]” which could result in an “[DELETED].” AR, Tab 3, SSDD, at 14. In addition, during testing under the early warfighter acceptance subfactor, the Glock handgun [DELETED] was “[DELETED].” Id. Offerors were informed that the Army would evaluate the ability of the user to operate the safety as part of the joint warfighter ergonomics subfactor. RFP at 390, ¶ M.3.2.2.4. The solicitation also highlighted that overall safety was a priority, noting that proposals could be disqualified for “safety issues,” as determined by the agency testers. RFP at 6. The [DELETED] on the handgun was reasonably encompassed by the factors disclosed to Glock. MINACT, Inc., supra. Furthermore, [DELETED], we do not think that the Army placed undue emphasis on the safety in the evaluation. This protest ground is denied.

[TiroFijo]

Right side safety looks incredibly dainty to me for a duty pistol

Better this than the push-through safety Glock has put in some guns... :rolleyes:

Local police bought some (bunch of corrupt idiots), and of course some more with no safety.

[call_me_ski]

JSGlock34, That is interesting. I didn't have an opportunity to read the entire GOA report. Shame that so much was redacted. I would like to see how these feel in the hand. I prefer the grip hum profile on my 17 pistols to my 19 pistols. I never really tried to imagine what the addition of a safety might do to the ergonomics.

[TheNewbie]

Better this than the push-through safety Glock has put in some guns... :rolleyes:

Local police bought some (bunch of corrupt idiots), and of course some more with no safety.


Are there elements of the police there that are squared away, or is corruption pervasive?

The way the cops carried their gear in Mexico D.F. was not impressive. There were a few federal police at the airport who looked highly professional.

[TheNewbie]

Right side safety looks incredibly dainty to me for a duty pistol


That's what I thought. I don't see why a well executed safety could not be given as an option.

[TiroFijo]

Are there elements of the police there that are squared away, or is corruption pervasive?

The way the cops carried their gear in Mexico D.F. was not impressive. There were a few federal police at the airport who looked highly professional.

Some guys are well trained and professional, most don't. And even with good training, the elite units don't have the funds to train on a regular basis.

Corruption is pervasive at all levels, but specially at the higher ranks.

[MAP]

Given the popularity of the carry sized pistols from Sig there is definitely a market for this gun. Id pick one up in black. Not sure that I would want the safety but that is another hole in Glock's offerings and would serve as a meaningful expansion of their line.

With the lull in the market we are more likely to see these offerings as Glock needs to do more than simply make more Glock 19 pistols. I think we will see the FBI and the would have been Army guns in time.

Also of note is that a lot of people speculated that the "new" 2 pin design of the 17M/19M would limit the design to 9mm. Glock seems to feel otherwise as their 23MHS is of the same 2 pin design and the M guns.

Last word I had from a Glock rep was that the FBI M model would never be released in its current form to the public. Blue Label may see it in 2018. I agree that Glock needs to do more. However, when has Glock ever given the consumer exactly what they want?

Mike

[call_me_ski]

Last word I had from a Glock rep was that the FBI M model would never be released in its current form to the public. Blue Label may see it in 2018. I agree that Glock needs to do more. However, when has Glock ever given the consumer exactly what they want?

Mike

Considering that GSSF members qualify for one Blue label gun a year I don't think that there is much distinction. Joe public can still buy them, they just need to buy a membership into a club. It would be like saying that CMP Garands are not available to the public. Those that want them will seek them out and eventually glock will likely ship them out with red and white stickers to sell to customers that see it as too much of an inconvenience.

[JSGlock34]

JSGlock34, That is interesting. I didn't have an opportunity to read the entire GOA report. Shame that so much was redacted. I would like to see how these feel in the hand. I prefer the grip hum profile on my 17 pistols to my 19 pistols. I never really tried to imagine what the addition of a safety might do to the ergonomics.

There are a bunch of redactions, but still some nuggets. Make what you will of this as both pistols were rated 'Outstanding' for Initial Reliability...

13 Under the factor 1 reliability evaluation, Sig Sauer’s full-sized handgun had a higher stoppage rate than Glock’s handgun, and there may have been other problems with the weapon’s accuracy. AR, Tab 3, SSDD, at 12. Due to the Army’s redactions of the agency report, the results of Sig Sauer’s compact handgun test are unknown.

Granted this is pistol-forum.com and not ammunition-contracts-forum.com, so we focus on the handgun, but the SIG submission for ammunition was consistently related 'Outstanding' compared to Glock's ratings of 'Good' and 'Marginal'. Considering that this contract was not just for the pistol, but accompanying accessories and ammunition, the merits of the pistol are only one part of the contest.

[Polecat]

Glock should just make a "tween" model between the G17 and G19, and then one between G26 and G19. Reduce 4 models to 2. There ya go!

I like the full grip short frame. I would love to see a G19 with 26 upper. I like a full grip, less fumbling, easier to grasp under pressure.

Dave

[Mjolnir]

How SIG is going to build m17's at a little over 200 bucks a pop is beyond me.

DHS, Coast Guard, ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MSparks909]

DHS, Coast Guard, ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Economies of scale. Also chassis striker fired guns are cheaper to manufacture than traditional striker fired guns where the frame is the serialized part (ala Glock). Striker guns such as Glocks are cheaper to manufacture than alloy/steel framed guns. Simple economics. Sig Sauer can knock the cost wayyyyy down when they have orders for literally millions of handguns. Gun companies are in the business that make money. I can guarantee a healthy profit margin was still built into their MHS Proposal.

[Wondering Beard]

However, when has Glock ever given the consumer exactly what they want?

Mike

When they first brought out the G19?

[JTQ]

Glock should just make a "tween" model between the G17 and G19, and then one between G26 and G19.
This makes me chuckle a bit after reading countless posts on numerous forums asking for an M&P that was G19 size.

Essentially, you want Glock to make a gun that is M&P 9 full size, and one that is M&P 9 compact size.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I've often compared the G19 to a smallish college defensive end, who ends up being a "tweener" in the NFL - too small to play defensive end, and too slow/not athletic enough to play linebacker. I think the G19 is kind of small for a duty gun and a little large for a concealment gun. M&P does a much better job covering those bases, in my opinion.

I think the M&P is a more useful full size gun than the G17 and G19, and the M&P 9 compact is a better concealment size than a G19 and more useful as a shooter than a G26.

[Greg]

I do like that they bevel the front of the slide like they have been doing on the baby Glocks for some time.

[Guinnessman]

Where is the G19 frame, G17 slide pistol?!!!!!! Dammit! The G19 grip is perfect and they do this shit!;):p

[JSGlock34]

Given the popularity of the carry sized pistols from Sig there is definitely a market for this gun. Id pick one up in black. Not sure that I would want the safety but that is another hole in Glock's offerings and would serve as a meaningful expansion of their line.

With the lull in the market we are more likely to see these offerings as Glock needs to do more than simply make more Glock 19 pistols. I think we will see the FBI and the would have been Army guns in time.

Also of note is that a lot of people speculated that the "new" 2 pin design of the 17M/19M would limit the design to 9mm. Glock seems to feel otherwise as their 23MHS is of the same 2 pin design and the M guns.


Considering that Glock is making RTF 2 pistols with gills again to jump start sales, I would say that the likelihood is good that we will this on the market in some form. They are no longer selling every Glock 19 pistol they make without question.

I see these recent runs of RTF2 as Glock milking the last dollar out of the GEN3 guns before shifting production lines over to a next generation design. The recent runs of GEN4s with front cocking serrations have a similar feel to me. The innards of the 'M' guns and their small parts are considerably different than the GEN3/GEN4 - in my mind Glock didn't set up the 'M' production line just for the relatively small (but nevertheless prestigious) FBI contract. I agree that we will see some of these features in commercial guns.

We can speculate all day about what a 'GEN5' will have, but I think looking at the common features of the 'M' and 'MHS' entrants probably gives us a sense of where Glock is going. The frames are similar - no finger grooves and ambidextrous slide stops are common to both pistols. As you pointed out, even the .40 entrant is a two pin design, contrary to some media reports. However the magwell on the MHS entrant differs considerably from the flared opening and half moon cut on the 'M' gun (and to complicate matters further there have also been some photos of 'M' guns without the half-moon cut). Glock has quietly produced manual safety models for various agencies for years, but not for civilian customers. I'm doubtful the MHS safety will ever see the US commercial market.

The slides of the 'M' and 'MHS' are similar, both featuring the front bevel, though they have very different finishes. I wonder whether Glock would use the IonBond finish of the 'M' guns for commercial sales, or use something different? The combination of the 17 grip with the 19 slide is intriguing. I think this combination would make for an interesting MOS pistol, but I suspect we'll see the standard 17 and 19 sized guns before any 'tweens' are introduced.

[HCM]

DHS, Coast Guard, ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Coast Guard is part of DHS.

The only DHS component which has bought the 320 so far is ICE. while 15k to 18k pistols is a decent contract, CBP and USCG are the two biggest groups of gun carriers within DHS.

[YVK]

JSGlock34, That is interesting. I didn't have an opportunity to read the entire GOA report.
.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf

Is this it, or is this a redacted version?

All is see there that I can more or less understand is licensing rights and about 40% cheaper for SIG.

[Mjolnir]

This isn't Sig but I remember reading or heading from someone "in the know" that it costs Glock about $110 to build a pistol due to economy of scale. I imagine Sig's cost for the P320 is under $150 to manufacture.

In 2007 Gaston Glock was at SHOT and HE stated that it cost $54 to manufacture a Glock 19: $27 for the slide assembly and $27 for the frame assembly.

He also stated that the largest cost save they have realized was... the magazine follower. It initially was milled.

True story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MSparks909]

In 2007 Gaston Glock was at SHOT and HE stated that it cost $54 to manufacture a Glock 19: $27 for the slide assembly and $27 for the frame assembly.

He also stated that the largest cost save they have realized was... the magazine follower. It initially was milled.

True story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's crazy. Much lower than I thought. So when they sell a gun to a civilian they are making an 8-900% profit. Per gun. Sell it at a discount to LE or Mil and they're still making 4-500% profit per gun. Puts things into perspective.

[HCM]

That's crazy. Much lower than I thought. So when they sell a gun to a civilian they are making an 8-900% profit. Per gun. Sell it at a discount to LE or Mil and they're still making 4-500% profit per gun. Puts things into perspective.

I've heard various production costs for Glocks.from $54 to $169. Even at the high end the profit margin is significant.

[GJM]

That's crazy. Much lower than I thought. So when they sell a gun to a civilian they are making an 8-900% profit. Per gun. Sell it at a discount to LE or Mil and they're still making 4-500% profit per gun. Puts things into perspective.

$54, if it is the number, is likely direct unit cost per pistol, and would not include all the non direct costs they have within Glock USA and Austria, and before discounts to distributors.

[HCM]

$54, if it is the number, is likely direct unit cost per pistol, and would not include all the non direct costs they have within Glock USA and Austria, and before discounts to distributors.

Glock's tab at the Atlanta Gold Club for example .....

[GJM]

Glock's tab at the Atlanta Gold Club for example .....

Perfect example of essential corporate overhead. :) On the other end of the spectrum, we have GSSF, warrantee service, R&D, staff salaries, etc.

[ranger]

How SIG is going to build m17's at a little over 200 bucks a pop is beyond me.

Building at shou!d not be an issue question is how much profit will they make?

[Bigghoss]

Where is the G19 frame, G17 slide pistol?!!!!!! Dammit! The G19 grip is perfect and they do this shit!;):p

This. I'm not sure why people are excited over this thing. I get that they were making it to someone's specs but for the commercial market it seems like the wrong direction. If they're introduce a new model based on existing parts it ought to be a 17 slide on a 19 grip or a 19 slide on a 26 grip.

[call_me_ski]

This. I'm not sure why people are excited over this thing. I get that they were making it to someone's specs but for the commercial market it seems like the wrong direction. If they're introduce a new model based on existing parts it ought to be a 17 slide on a 19 grip or a 19 slide on a 26 grip.

The market disagrees. Sig sells a lot of carry sized pistols(full size grip and compact slide). Their 320 offering with the compact frame and fullsize slide has trouble selling even when discounted and being the only SKU in stock in 9mm. In fact, the Full Length Slide Compact 320 was discontinued altogether.

[Bigghoss]

The market disagrees. Sig sells a lot of carry sized pistols(full size grip and compact slide). Their 320 offering with the compact frame and fullsize slide has trouble selling even when discounted and being the only SKU in stock in 9mm. In fact, the Full Length Slide Compact 320 was discontinued altogether.

??? What the fuck is wrong with people? :confused:

[spinmove_]

??? What the fuck is wrong with people? :confused:

You could always buy the full size model, buy a compact grip of your size choosing, and then sell off the full sized grip do you really wanted to. Part of the beauty of the P320 FCU.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[call_me_ski]

??? What the fuck is wrong with people? :confused:

Variety. I would personally rather have one of those aforementioned carry sized guns.

[Bigghoss]

You could always buy the full size model, buy a compact grip of your size choosing, and then sell off the full sized grip do you really wanted to. Part of the beauty of the P320 FCU.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

It's not that. I'm just wondering why so many people want short slide/long grip instead of long slide short grip. The only reason I have a G19 is because I have to watch out for the grip of my G17 printing. If I weren't moving over to the PX4 compact I would save up for some Gen 4 G17's and send them out to be chopped. Maybe even G34's.

[Balisong]

It's not that. I'm just wondering why so many people want short slide/long grip instead of long slide short grip. The only reason I have a G19 is because I have to watch out for the grip of my G17 printing. If I weren't moving over to the PX4 compact I would save up for some Gen 4 G17's and send them out to be chopped. Maybe even G34's.

I think a lot of them are folks carrying appendix. Tends to be very concealable even with a full size grip, but more comfortable with a shorter slide.

[spinmove_]

It's not that. I'm just wondering why so many people want short slide/long grip instead of long slide short grip. The only reason I have a G19 is because I have to watch out for the grip of my G17 printing. If I weren't moving over to the PX4 compact I would save up for some Gen 4 G17's and send them out to be chopped. Maybe even G34's.

Part of it may be that some people find the shorter slide to track faster and/or flatter for them. Other people use red dots, so the extra sight radius means nothing to them, so why have it? Some people like the balance of that setup better.


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[call_me_ski]

I think a lot of them are folks carrying appendix. Tends to be very concealable even with a full size grip, but more comfortable with a shorter slide.

This a big factor for myself. The shorter slide greatly contributes to more comfort and there is not a big penalty for concealability as far as printing goes. I still prefer a Glock 19 sized gun for carry but I don't feel that a longer slide makes the gun any more shootable and I prefer the way a compact slide clears the holster faster. If I carry on my hip I prefer the Carry sized guns to the traditional full size.

[HCM]

17783

[Bigghoss]

Well I'm too fat for AIWB (but I'm dropping weight) but I have a glock cobbled together from parts that's essentially a G17 with a chopped grip. For me it shoots like a G17 but I could conceal it easier, if I trusted it enough for that. I also tried a 19 slide assembly on a 26 frame and really liked that too. Really this is the first I'm hearing about folks liking a short slide with a long grip.

[HCM]

Well I'm too fat for AIWB (but I'm dropping weight) but I have a glock cobbled together from parts that's essentially a G17 with a chopped grip. For me it shoots like a G17 but I could conceal it easier, if I trusted it enough for that. I also tried a 19 slide assembly on a 26 frame and really liked that too. Really this is the first I'm hearing about folks liking a short slide with a long grip.

Back in the day, the P30 was the darling of P-F. Full size grip, compact size slide. One advantage being the full grip with the shorter slide gave you less muzzle flip and made it easier to track the front sight when shooting at speed. Which reminds me I haven't shot a FAST in a while.

Say what you will but SIG sells plenty of Carry models to the unwashed masses.

[Polecat]

Full grip shorter slide makes more sense, IWB at least for the above reason cited. The longer barrel is clumsy stuffed in the waistband compared to a shorter slide. Make me real happy and gimme a 26 slide with 19 grip. The FN 509 is basically the same dimension of G17 grip and 19 slide, also the Steyr C9, and the P320 carry model. I am sure there are those that will think a 26 grip with 34 upper is a solid idea too.

[HCM]

Full grip shorter slide makes more sense, IWB at least for the above reason cited. The longer barrel is clumsy stuffed in the waistband compared to a shorter slide. Make me real happy and gimme a 26 slide with 19 grip. The FN 509 is basically the same dimension of G17 grip and 19 slide, also the Steyr C9, and the P320 carry model. I am sure there are those that will think a 26 grip with 34 upper is a solid idea too.

You can run a 320 Compact slide on a subcompact frame giving you something akin to a G19 slide / G26 frame.

[octagon]

If it works for someone and/or they like great I am glad there is an option but for me it doesn't make much sense to go too far down the rabbit hole of shrinking the slide as compared to the grip. I want as small as a grip as possible as long as I can get all my fingers on it and not a grip extension on the magazine like XDs,Shield or pinky extensions Pierce grip offers and the like. I do run these on my really small guns because it helps shoot them but it isn't optimum. The Glock 19 is the smallest grip size I can get all fingers on and the shortest length I would want. Slimmer like a single stack would be even better.

I could easily carry and conceal a 17L with a 19 length grip but wouldn't want the extra long length for a draw but at least it offers the advantages of longer sight radius, easier tracking of sights,flatter shooting, and higher velocity. Every gun I carry IWB already has every inch of it concealed behind the belt and pants or shorts so slide length makes almost no difference. Hiding the grip length and thickness is what is more challenging.

I would guess and have seen that most people, myself included shoot longer slide guns better than shorter slides at least when it comes to distance accuracy and splits for multiples. I assume this is due to the factors mentioned above.

It would be an interesting experiment to see what made a bigger difference if any for speed and accuracy grip length or slide length and at what point the longer or shorter slide/grip length made things really go bad. Glock 17 grip with 26 slide or 26 grip with 17L or 34 slide if all else was equal.

[LOKNLOD]

You can run a 320 Compact slide on a subcompact frame giving you something akin to a G19 slide / G26 frame.

It's close to the M&P9C size between the 19 and 26. I don't have to dangle a pinky, and get 12+1.

I've been shooting a 320fS, and just bought a compact as well as a subcompact grip modules. So now it's fullsize slide/compact frame plus compact slide on subcompact frame.

I'm really digging it so far.

[ca survivor]

that is one Glock that will make me trade my no thumb safety Glocks, as I grow older the more I like TSs (grew up on 1911s and BHP though) but don't see the why the G-19 slide with the G-17 grip.

[Wondering Beard]

Full size grip on compact slide goes back to at least the Commander flavors of 1911s.

[RAM Engineer]

that is one Glock that will make me trade my no thumb safety Glocks, as I grow older the more I like TSs (grew up on 1911s and BHP though) but don't see the why the G-19 slide with the G-17 grip.

Add a threaded barrel and you have a 17 length barrel again.

[LangdonTactical]

How SIG is going to build m17's at a little over 200 bucks a pop is beyond me.

They are not building them or selling them for $200. They are charging $207 for the serialized part and the magazines. So the government is getting the trigger pack and the mags for that price. Barrel, slide, frame kits, recoil spring assembly, are all separate line items in the contract. That is how Sig submitted, and I bet you the KO that read their submission did not really realize what the government was getting for that $207, or he/she does not know anything about guns.

To Sigs credit, they do say that the serialized part, trigger group, is "the gun" and so there you have it.

[Drang]

Full size grip on compact slide goes back to at least the Commander flavors of 1911s.

Artillery issue Single Action Army had a 5" barrel, vs. the 7.5" for everybody else, due to the Redlegs riding on the caissons had less clearance than the horse soldiers in the saddle. (Anyone else issue a revolver was assumed to be mounted as well, as late as WWI the CO, XO and 1SG of an Infantry company were authorized horses.)

[DamonL]

They are not building them or selling them for $200. They are charging $207 for the serialized part and the magazines. So the government is getting the trigger pack and the mags for that price. Barrel, slide, frame kits, recoil spring assembly, are all separate line items in the contract. That is how Sig submitted, and I bet you the KO that read their submission did not really realize what the government was getting for that $207, or he/she does not know anything about guns.

To Sigs credit, they do say that the serialized part, trigger group, is "the gun" and so there you have it.

And that is how you beat the Glock bid.

[GardoneVT]

And that is how you beat the Glock bid.

I've got a Beretta 92 ,available for sale at the low price of $1.00. Shipping to your FFL will cost $799.99 ,insurance extra.:D

[Tango]

And that is how you beat the Glock bid.

Here we are talking about "lowest bidder".

"Of course the 1911 is an outdated design. It came from an era when weapons were designed to win fights, not to avoid product liability lawsuits. It came from an era where it was the norm to learn how your weapon operated and to practice that operation until it became second nature, not to design the piece to the lowest common denominator. It came from an era in which our country tried to supply its fighting men with the best tools possible, unlike today, when our fighting men and women are issued hardware that was adopted because of international deal-making or the fact that the factory is in some well-connected congressman's district. Yes, beyond any shadow of a doubt, the 1911 IS an outdated design....and that's exactly what I love about it."

[YVK]

They are not building them or selling them for $200. They are charging $207 for the serialized part and the magazines. So the government is getting the trigger pack and the mags for that price. Barrel, slide, frame kits, recoil spring assembly, are all separate line items in the contract.

SIG's price for the contract was something like 170 mil, Glock's 100 mil more. Do you know if cost of barrel, frame etc was included in 170 mil price bid, or those items are an additional cost?

[Hambo]

I have not held a Glock with a safety, but being a retro guy I'm not interested in anything with tiny safety levers that I can't ride with my thumb.

[Mjolnir]

They are not building them or selling them for $200. They are charging $207 for the serialized part and the magazines. So the government is getting the trigger pack and the mags for that price. Barrel, slide, frame kits, recoil spring assembly, are all separate line items in the contract. That is how Sig submitted, and I bet you the KO that read their submission did not really realize what the government was getting for that $207, or he/she does not know anything about guns.

To Sigs credit, they do say that the serialized part, trigger group, is "the gun" and so there you have it.

So it was fixed.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

So it was fixed.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Occam's Razor of Bureaucracy:

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by ignorance or incompetence.
Never attribute to malice that

[Trooper224]

So it was fixed.

Got it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not fixed as everything sounds like it was laid out line by line, but rather relying on the ignorance of government bureaucrats. You know, like when you buy that car and find out you're paying far more than you thought because you didn't bother to read the fine print.

[OPSPEC]

Remember no matter the cost of the pistol itself, they also secured a larger parts and support contract which has a higher mark up. (Not to mention the marketing campaign that they get for free!)

[JSGlock34]

TFB posted a MHS article this morning with this quote...has anyone seen this claim elsewhere that a manual safety will not appear on the issue weapons?


"Before I continue let me address something that has caused more controversy than anything else and that’s the manual thumb safety. Many people like the idea of a manual safety while many others deplore the idea. Let me clarify this straight from Glock. The solicitation called for a manual thumb safety but the winner would do away with the manual safety. The actual issue pistols would not have a manual safety of any kind. So why did the government ask for a manual safety on the test guns when they knew full well the issued pistols would not have one!"

[call_me_ski]

TFB posted a MHS article this morning with this quote...has anyone seen this claim elsewhere that a manual safety will not appear on the issue weapons?


"Before I continue let me address something that has caused more controversy than anything else and that’s the manual thumb safety. Many people like the idea of a manual safety while many others deplore the idea. Let me clarify this straight from Glock. The solicitation called for a manual thumb safety but the winner would do away with the manual safety. The actual issue pistols would not have a manual safety of any kind. So why did the government ask for a manual safety on the test guns when they knew full well the issued pistols would not have one!"

The author did not provide a source for that quote and got some very rudimentary information about the solicitation completely wrong elsewhere in the article. Sig has shown the packaging that they Army will be getting including the extra grip shells, mags, and cardboard box. Surprise, the pistols had safeties. Honestly the above quote is not worth discussion or reposting.

Here is the pistol as will be delivered to the Army later this year:
http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/16/sofic-sigs-m17-m18-modular-handgun-update/

[JSGlock34]

I agree that the article quote appears dubious - the lack of sourcing was why I asked if anyone else had seen this reported elsewhere. Apparently not.

[Bigghoss]

We're talking about the US government here. People who don't know anything about guns procuring guns for folks they're not going to train because it costs too much. Of course the pistols will have a manual safety.

[JSGlock34]

TFB: MHS GLOCK to COME TO MARKET: Glock MHS and BARRIER BLIND 9mm Ammunition Reviewed by European Security & Defence Magazine (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/23/mhs-glock-come-market-glock-mhs-barrier-blind-9mm-ammunition-reviewed-european-security-defence-magazine/)

http://www.euro-sd.com/uploads/pics/Glock_MHS_02.jpg

[LittleLebowski]

Nice, but hopefully there is not a thumb safety option. Possibly a good move for Glock in case their appeals to the Army win out.

[GJM]

TFB: MHS GLOCK to COME TO MARKET: Glock MHS and BARRIER BLIND 9mm Ammunition Reviewed by European Security & Defence Magazine (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/23/mhs-glock-come-market-glock-mhs-barrier-blind-9mm-ammunition-reviewed-european-security-defence-magazine/)

http://www.euro-sd.com/uploads/pics/Glock_MHS_02.jpg

Per the article, 1.181 inch groups at 25 yards.

[Texaspoff]

TFB: MHS GLOCK to COME TO MARKET: Glock MHS and BARRIER BLIND 9mm Ammunition Reviewed by European Security & Defence Magazine (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/23/mhs-glock-come-market-glock-mhs-barrier-blind-9mm-ammunition-reviewed-european-security-defence-magazine/)

http://www.euro-sd.com/uploads/pics/Glock_MHS_02.jpg

Why yes they are. From a financial standpoint, it will sell, and they are doing it to recover some of the R&D cost involved with it. Anyone surprised that the 5th gen Glock is a rebranded "M" model, They developed it per SPEC for the Feds, and they will double down with out having to retool for the commercial market. oh I have said enough already...:cool:

TXPO

[spinmove_]

Per the article, 1.181 inch groups at 25 yards.

How are they making functionally more accurate pistols while keeping the reliability the same?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[GJM]

How are they making functionally more accurate pistols while keeping the reliability the same?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

Different barrels.

[spinmove_]

Different barrels.

What exactly is different about them? Different rifling? Different twist rate? Lockup tolerances are the same? Different material?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Kirk]

How are they making functionally more accurate pistols while keeping the reliability the same?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

Different barrel as mentioned in another comment.

My G19 with ZEV barrel was giving 1.5" groups with RMR attached. I'm not surprised at all by this. Glocks are a lot more mechanically accurate than people give them credit for; however, shootability may not be as high as say a custom 1911 with a 2lb trigger (captain obvious).

[Jeep]

Nice, but hopefully there is not a thumb safety option. Possibly a good move for Glock in case their appeals to the Army win out.

Why not let those of us who like thumb safeties get a thumb safety?

[Gio]

What exactly is different about them? Different rifling? Different twist rate? Lockup tolerances are the same? Different material?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

More important than the barrel itself is the interaction between barrel and ammo. For the MHS, the manufacturers were required to provide both gun and ammo, which allows a manufacturer to really optimize that relationship. For some LE contracts, like the FBI's, the MFG's were required to perform with the specific service ammo the FBI uses. That's a bit of a harder task. I've done a lot of ransom testing over the past few years, and I have seen KKM Glock barrels shoot 5" groups with some ammo and 1" groups with others, and seen factory barrels shoot anywhere from 5-6" groups with some ammo and 1.25" groups with others. I have seen the same variation with CZ accu-shadows, custom 1911's (Springfield Pro or Wilson Combat), Tanfo's, etc. I think it would shock most people to ransom rest their very expensive custom guns with their ammo of choice and find out the two just don't work well together.

[TheNewbie]

Why not let those of us who like thumb safeties get a thumb safety?

I just wish they would make one that was M&P like or 1911 like.

[Jeep]

I just wish they would make one that was M&P like or 1911 like.

Yep.

[spinmove_]

More important than the barrel itself is the interaction between barrel and ammo. For the MHS, the manufacturers were required to provide both gun and ammo, which allows a manufacturer to really optimize that relationship. For some LE contracts, like the FBI's, the MFG's were required to perform with the specific service ammo the FBI uses. That's a bit of a harder task. I've done a lot of ransom testing over the past few years, and I have seen KKM Glock barrels shoot 5" groups with some ammo and 1" groups with others, and seen factory barrels shoot anywhere from 5-6" groups with some ammo and 1.25" groups with others. I have seen the same variation with CZ accu-shadows, custom 1911's (Springfield Pro or Wilson Combat), Tanfo's, etc. I think it would shock most people to ransom rest their very expensive custom guns with their ammo of choice and find out the two just don't work well together.

Is there a load or loads that generally work with brand X barrels or is it really individual barrel dependent? What determines how these loads work in different barrels? Powder, bullet weight, bullet shape, bullet composition, OAL?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[Gio]

Is there a load or loads that generally work with brand X barrels or is it really individual barrel dependent? What determines how these loads work in different barrels? Powder, bullet weight, bullet shape, bullet composition, OAL?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

All of the above. I've taken two loads with the same bullet, same velocity, and different powders, and gotten 4" out of one and 2" out of the other. For the barrel, twist rate is important, but you also have to consider the velocity of the bullet too. You can over or under stabilize a bullet with the wrong twist rate that doesnt match the weight and velocity of the projectile. I talked to one barrel manufacturer who recommends a different twist rate for 147gr minor pf uspsa loads compared to 147gr jhp defense loads.

[txdpd]

Different barrel as mentioned in another comment.

My G19 with ZEV barrel was giving 1.5" groups with RMR attached. I'm not surprised at all by this. Glocks are a lot more mechanically accurate than people give them credit for; however, shootability may not be as high as say a custom 1911 with a 2lb trigger (captain obvious).

I've gotten many 1.5" +/-.5" groups at 25 yards from various Glocks using a Ransom rest, 147gr Winchesters and realigning the sights between shot. Without the rest I am lucky if I'm hitting 4" using a barricade. Other times it's 4-5" off the rest and interestingly it's still 4-5" off the barricade. I'll agree that Glocks are capable of excellent mechanical accuracy, but not always easy to shoot accurately.

[spinmove_]

All of the above. I've taken two loads with the same bullet, same velocity, and different powders, and gotten 4" out of one and 2" out of the other. For the barrel, twist rate is important, but you also have to consider the velocity of the bullet too. You can over or under stabilize a bullet with the wrong twist rate that doesnt match the weight and velocity of the projectile. I talked to one barrel manufacturer who recommends a different twist rate for 147gr minor pf uspsa loads compared to 147gr jhp defense loads.

That's...bordering on voodoo. So one could have a set of 3 G19Gen4 pistols with everything stock and theoretically there's a chance that each one of those samples would need a totally different load to hit the same group metrics?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

[LittleLebowski]

Why not let those of us who like thumb safeties get a thumb safety?

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. Let's try "hopefully, there is an option to purchase one without a thumb safety."

[Jeep]

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. Let's try "hopefully, there is an option to purchase one without a thumb safety."

Agreed. Options are good. One-size-fits-all not so good.

[BigT]

Sorry, I phrased that poorly. Let's try "hopefully, there is an option to purchase one without a thumb safety."
I would be shocked if the safety is an option at all on commercial guns.

[TiroFijo]

All of the above. I've taken two loads with the same bullet, same velocity, and different powders, and gotten 4" out of one and 2" out of the other. For the barrel, twist rate is important, but you also have to consider the velocity of the bullet too. You can over or under stabilize a bullet with the wrong twist rate that doesnt match the weight and velocity of the projectile. I talked to one barrel manufacturer who recommends a different twist rate for 147gr minor pf uspsa loads compared to 147gr jhp defense loads.

A 9 mm bullet is quite shorter than a 38 spl / 357 mag bullet, and these calibers work quite well with a 1/18.75" twist.

Most handgun calibers work perfectly with 1/16" or so twist, this actually is FAR more than required for stabilization. "Stabilization" (defined as the stability factor, normally > 1.5 in all conditions, required for the bullet to fly point forward and not tumble) is not the word here, perhaps secundary gyroscopic effects would be more appropriate.

The 9 mm P has a twist of 1-10" out of tradition, not need. The main variable is the bullet construction, not the weight. Some pistols shoot everything great, other not so.

I would take X manufaturer's (or custom smith) broad claims with a grain of salt...

[Gio]

That's...bordering on voodoo. So one could have a set of 3 G19Gen4 pistols with everything stock and theoretically there's a chance that each one of those samples would need a totally different load to hit the same group metrics?


Sent from mah smertfone using tapathingy

That's very possible, but I've seen more consistency when you shoot the same load through multiple different versions of the same gun. I see that a lot with our agency issued Glocks...almost all of them will shoot the exact same size groups with the same ammo. Some of them shoot 3" high or 3" low, but they all group about the same. Usually, if we see an accuracy problem that is an outlier, there is something else causing it such as damage to the gun.

I think the bigger issue is that certain guns/barrels like certain loads, and what your gun likes may not be what you're shooting through it. One positive about a Glock is you can really tune your gun to the load you want to shoot because of the plethora of aftermarket barrel options. For some other guns, you may have to experiment with several different makes of bullets and powders to find the best combination. I am OCD when it comes to tuning my competition loads to my competition guns though. I would imagine the vast majority don't care. And, does it really matter for USPSA? Doubtful, but I like to know without a doubt that when I miss a low percentage shot, it's me and not the equipment. :p

[Gio]

I would take X manufaturer's (or custom smith) broad claims with a grain of salt...

I agree 100%.

Also, I am far from a ballistic SME. I have access to just enough data to be dangerous and have done a decent amount of experimentation with various barrels and guns off a ransom rest. I'm fortunate that my agency worries about all this stuff for me for my issued and personal weapons, so I only really focus on it with regards to reloading for competition. For USPSA, in addition to being soft and accurate, I also need it to be cheap. A buddy of mine has a 1:12 and 1:14 coming from KKM that we are going to test (their standard is 1:16, the Glock factory is 1:10). I'm looking forward to seeing how that makes my coated 147gr 135pf USPSA minor loads group.

[Gray222]

While I am sure it will sell, I will not purchase a pistol with training wheels. (manual safety)

[Erick Gelhaus]

I will not purchase a pistol with training wheels. (manual safety)

That's cute.

[dwcopple]

While I am sure it will sell, I will not purchase a pistol with training wheels. (manual safety)
No one is forcing you to make it a carry gun. The manual safety is not a big deal on a range/field gun

[Gray222]

No one is forcing you to make it a carry gun. The manual safety is not a big deal on a range/field gun

It's pointless on this particular pistol.

Unless of course people want training wheels when they are adults...

[dwcopple]

It's pointless on this particular pistol.
It was designed by parameters the Army set. The Army has lots of dumb$%^&'s in it. Some need a manual safety.

[breakingtime91]

I don't mind thumb safeties. Train with it if it's on your gun.. if it's not on your gun same applies..

[LockedBreech]

I'm betting there are shooters better than any of us who prefer a manual safety. It's a preference, not an indicator of skill level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MSparks909]

I'm betting there are shooters better than any of us who prefer a manual safety. It's a preference, not an indicator of skill level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was about to get all snarky but decided against it...quoted the above for truth.

[JSGlock34]

In comparing the features of the MHS to the new GEN5/M guns, I'm just not finding the MHS entry nearly as compelling. I'm not sure what is driving the mag well design on the MHS gun (but I much prefer the flared magwell on the GEN5/M), and while I'm certainly not against a well designed manual safety option, the implementation on the MHS looks wanting (and was criticized during the military testing). Still, it's nice to see Glock making these guns available to the public.

I'll be curious to see if the ability to mount a G19 slide on a G17 frame appears elsewhere in the lineup.

[Foxtrotx1]

I may be remebering this wrong, but I remember an SME saying that manual safety on duty guns have saved officer lives in the past when a suspect took their gun and was unable to fire do to a lack of familiarity.

[Kirk]

I'm betting there are shooters better than any of us who prefer a manual safety. It's a preference, not an indicator of skill level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, Ernest Langdon for 1.

[Willard]

Well, Ernest Langdon for 1.

But Voodoo will retort that EL's preference is a "G" model Beretta, so "training wheels" still applies (at least for him) as this is decocker only and not a safety.


I may be remebering this wrong, but I remember an SME saying that manual safety on duty guns have saved officer lives in the past when a suspect took their gun and was unable to fire do to a lack of familiarity.

Mas Ayoob? Yes, well, maybe he doesn't know the safety is unnecessary and merely training wheels as per our new mod. Perhaps Voodoo will enlighten him.

[Foxtrotx1]

But Voodoo will retort that EL's preference is a "G" model Beretta, so "training wheels" still applies (at least for him) as this is decocker only and not a safety.



Mas Ayoob? Yes, well, maybe he doesn't know the safety is unnecessary and merely training wheels as per our new mod. Perhaps Voodoo will enlighten him.

I found it, it was DocGKR on another forum

"Because you are at greater risk for someone trying to take away your exposed pistol; a manual safety gives you a touch more time to react and mitigate such an attack...

As I have stated before, I strongly prefer having a manual safety on a pistol that is used for uniformed LE use and other open carry; I have twice seen officers' lives potentially saved when another person gained control of an officer's pistol, but the engaged manual safety prevented the weapon from firing--I don't like to think about the outcome if the pistols involved had been a Glock, Sig, XD, revolver, etc..."

[tcba_joe]

I'm kinda intrigued by the Glock MHS. There was a discussion on Lightfighter where the concept of G17 grip/G19 slide was discussed, either in relationship to comps and/or optics, and it brought up some valid points.

From reading into the complaint/objection it seems like Glock got gigged on the safety design for being very difficult to manipulate (once again, pure conjection) and I'd hope it would be modular or removable, like an M&P safety, and someone comes out with a more useable aftermarket lever.

That said, there has been demand for a Glock with a factory manual safety and if you don't like it then don't buy it.

[Gray222]

I'm betting there are shooters better than any of us who prefer a manual safety. It's a preference, not an indicator of skill level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

...and that means exactly what?

Jerry Miculek could probably out shoot anyone here with a revolver and they don't have safeties.

No one ever said it's a skill level indicator - but I understand where all the angst is coming from now, too bad people wouldn't just post what they thought instead of posting snarky comments (not you LockedBreech), but that's what the internet is about, isn't it?

Putting a safety on a Glock is most definitely like riding a bike with training wheels. Having a safety on a pistol which requires a safety (like a DA/SA gun for example) is part the design and almost required in some instances.

If someone were to put a safety on a revolver, every person here who thought my training wheels comment was stupid would all of a sudden think exactly the same as I do. Context matters, please don't make your own up.

[Gray222]

It has been brought to my attention that people took issue with my use of the term "training wheels," as such I'd like to apologize to anyone who took my "training wheels" post as a direct, personal, insult.

This thread is about the MHS Glock. Several posts before I posted the training wheels comment, a post was made about Glock selling MHS guns with a safety. My post was directly in response to that post (not the poster).

Locally, "training wheels" is commonly used nomenclature for guns with safeties, it was used when I went through the academy when discussing why we don't have safeties on our pistols, it is used by local instructors in regard to safeties, but it is definitely local and is not used outside my locale, or so I believe.

I erred in using a term which could not have been accepted online in any the way I meant it.

I did not, in anyway, shape or form, mean to speak negatively of anyone who uses a safety on another pistol. We are not talking about another pistol, we are talking about the MHS Glock and that was the context of my response. I was not speaking about Berettas, or HK's or SIGs or anything other than the MHS Glock and I was most certainly not attempting to directly insult anyone on their particular choice of pistol, if you took it as directly disrespectful of you particular pistol choice that is was not my reason for the post or the term "training wheels."

[Camovan]

So if a safety = training wheels it means a gadget = nut pad?

19314

:p

For me a MHS GLOCK with thumb safety, gadget, NY-1 and "-" connector with a grip chop to a 26 length would be 100% my ideal carry gun. All it would take is for GLOCK to put the safety in there and then 6 months later there would be the APEX safety drop in kit, which upgraded it to feel like a 1911.....

[Alembic]

19316

Sorry Tom...

[gtae07]

but if they do I'll buy one the moment they are available -- especially if it's like the MHS entry and is essentially a 17 frame mated with a 19 slide.


I'm kinda intrigued by the Glock MHS. There was a discussion on Lightfighter where the concept of G17 grip/G19 slide was discussed,

I wish they'd go the other way and put a 17 slide on a 19 grip. No desire for the manual safety, though.

What is the reason for the larger grip? Fitting everyone's hands with gloves on, or added capacity, or both? Or something else? And why the shorter slide? Weight?

[JSGlock34]

What is the reason for the larger grip? Fitting everyone's hands with gloves on, or added capacity, or both? Or something else? And why the shorter slide? Weight?

Glock's strategy for their MHS submission was to meet the requirements of both the compact and full size models with a single submission. The short slide/large frame combination allowed them to do so.

[tcba_joe]

I wish they'd go the other way and put a 17 slide on a 19 grip. No desire for the manual safety, though.

What is the reason for the larger grip? Fitting everyone's hands with gloves on, or added capacity, or both? Or something else? And why the shorter slide? Weight?

So, this discussion came up on the Primary and Secondary Modcast recently. The rep from FN said this combination was the basis of design for the 509. I'm trying to remember exactly what the considerations were.

Basically, the larger grip results in a better hand fit (with or without gloves) for more people along with increased capacity. It also objectively results in a better shooting gun, and higher qualification scores, over the slightly shorter grip. The longer slide results in a longer holster, which means higher snag hazard (I guess it's muzzle length, not grip length that an issue for cop cars). The shorter slides also tend to cycle and track faster. The difference in sight radius between a 17 and 19 were negligible while the size considerations for a duty gun were greater.

Now, I can't state this information for a fact as I'm not a cop. And I would say listen to the modcast (I think it's episode 108; Gun Nerds 9) for a better understanding. The FN guy was saying the 509 configuration (and by infgerence the Glock MHS) isn't what customers think they want, it's what they need.

There's also the issue with RDS. Sight radius and bbl length don't matter, but having a shorter slide is better and easier while cycling.

I'd agree that Glock would do well to offer the reverse configuration as well for CCW (not duty) use. The MHS wasn't really CCW oriented. However, they'd do even better to just freaking offer a locking lug/block setup that fits the G26 or G34. (You know, like what the P320 did) and let customers mix and match. Gen 5 should have featured a consolidated locking setup.

[GJM]

In my testing of the 17 and 19 MOS in USPSA CO, the 19 slide cycled better than the 17, and the 17 frame was better on the draw, reloading and overall control than the 19. A 19 slide on a 17 lower would be my optimal Glock carry optics configuration.

[Polecat]

It would be cool if Glock brought out different variants: I would not desire the G19grip 17 slide, but would like a G19 grip w/ G26 slide. Or, just come out with models between the two, like something between G17 and 19 and one between G19 and G26

[Hambo]

If that's Glock's idea of a thumb safety, I'd rather have a gadget. I don't mind a manual safety on a pistol, but I'd like it to be big enough I have a chance of disengaging it before getting lit up.

[steve]

In my testing of the 17 and 19 MOS in USPSA CO, the 19 slide cycled better than the 17, and the 17 frame was better on the draw, reloading and overall control than the 19. A 19 slide on a 17 lower would be my optimal Glock carry optics configuration. Spot on! I had a CZ Semi-Compact and it was a dream to shoot.

[HCM]

I wish they'd go the other way and put a 17 slide on a 19 grip. No desire for the manual safety, though.

What is the reason for the larger grip? Fitting everyone's hands with gloves on, or added capacity, or both? Or something else? And why the shorter slide? Weight?

TCBA explained it well. This's full size grip / compact slide is nothing new, the Colt Commander, HK P30 and various SIG Carry models have been around for years.

[pastaslinger]

I hope gen 5 just goes to a common locking lug for all sizes, either a large frame lug or a small frame lug

[Lost River]

I know guys here like to argue about every little detail, what is optimal, what is garbage, etc, but the one thing that immediately came to mind with this whole Glock MHS thread is this:

The majority of the guys who are true Pros, who get issued these guns are likely not going too spend much time complaining about the size of the magwell, or the safety, or the lanyard loop. They are going to shoot them, and shoot them, and shoot them some more, until they are at a level of unconscious competence. Then they are going to continue to shoot them on a regular basis. They will stick them in their holster and carry on.

If it is a Gen 3, Gen 5 or whatever, it really is not likely to make much of a difference to them.

[Morbidbattlecry]

In my testing of the 17 and 19 MOS in USPSA CO, the 19 slide cycled better than the 17, and the 17 frame was better on the draw, reloading and overall control than the 19. A 19 slide on a 17 lower would be my optimal Glock carry optics configuration.

I've always wondered what a 19 slide on a 17 frame would shoot and feel like.

[Gio]

I know guys here like to argue about every little detail, what is optimal, what is garbage, etc, but the one thing that immediately came to mind with this whole Glock MHS thread is this:

The majority of the guys who are true Pros, who get issued these guns are likely not going too spend much time complaining about the size of the magwell, or the safety, or the lanyard loop. They are going to shoot them, and shoot them, and shoot them some more, until they are at a level of unconscious competence. Then they are going to continue to shoot them on a regular basis. They will stick them in their holster and carry on.

If it is a Gen 3, Gen 5 or whatever, it really is not likely to make much of a difference to them.

What's your definition of a "true Pro?"

I can tell you that some of the little details like the size and shape of the magwell and how easy it is to manipulate the safety lever make a tremendous difference to me. The magwell on the MHS gun looks terribly non-user friendly compared to the gen3/4 and especially gen5 magwell.

If you're talking about the avg professional gun carrier who qualifies a handful of times a year and has never put themselves on a shot timer, than I agree that they are going to stick them in their holster and carry on, but they will never shoot them at an unconscious level of competence. All of the high level shooters I know who are also professional gun toters make little tweaks here and there to their pistols to make it "perfect" for them.

[JSGlock34]

I know guys here like to argue about every little detail, what is optimal, what is garbage, etc, but the one thing that immediately came to mind with this whole Glock MHS thread is this:

The majority of the guys who are true Pros, who get issued these guns are likely not going too spend much time complaining about the size of the magwell, or the safety, or the lanyard loop. They are going to shoot them, and shoot them, and shoot them some more, until they are at a level of unconscious competence. Then they are going to continue to shoot them on a regular basis. They will stick them in their holster and carry on.

If it is a Gen 3, Gen 5 or whatever, it really is not likely to make much of a difference to them.

Yeah, you're right, 'true pros' wouldn't care about the size of the safety or ease of manipulation by the user...

"Glock also alleges that the Army deviated from the solicitation by assigning extra weight to the manual safety in the joint warfighter ergonomics subfactor and the early warfighter acceptance subfactor. The Army contends that evaluation of the safety was reasonably part of the RFP’s stated evaluation criteria. With regard to the joint warfighter ergonomics subfactor, the Army assigned Glock’s proposal a weakness after “[DELETED]” which could result in an “[DELETED].” In addition, during testing under the early warfighter acceptance subfactor, the Glock handgun [DELETED] was “[DELETED].” Offerors were informed that the Army would evaluate the ability of the user to operate the safety as part of the joint warfighter ergonomics subfactor. The solicitation also highlighted that overall safety was a priority, noting that proposals could be disqualified for “safety issues,” as determined by the agency testers. The [DELETED] on the handgun was reasonably encompassed by the factors disclosed to Glock. Furthermore, [DELETED], we do not think that the Army placed undue emphasis on the safety in the evaluation. This protest ground is denied."

[GJM]

I think it is fair to say that skill trumps hardware. However, when it comes to hunting rifles, competition or carry handguns, virtually every highly skilled shooter I have met obsesses over the minutia of hardware.

[Lost River]

As a reply, what I was referring to was the guys who typically are not allowed to modify GFE (issued) weapons. They get a piece of gear issued, (Like a G19) and they practice with it until they are highly proficient. They are not carving off the finger grooves or undercutting the trigger guard. They simply shoot, shoot, and shoot some more. The better PSD teams come to mind as a good example. Guys who (depending on mission tempo) may typically burn through 500 or so rounds a week in practice in between doing PSD runs. Yes, they might like the latest "John Wick" version of the Glock 75, but they are quite proficient with the one in their holster and if it says Gen 3, Gen 4 or Gen 5 is really of minor importance.

[Gio]

As a reply, what I was referring to was the guys who typically are not allowed to modify GFE (issued) weapons. They get a piece of gear issued, (Like a G19) and they practice with it until they are highly proficient. They are not carving off the finger grooves or undercutting the trigger guard. They simply shoot, shoot, and shoot some more. The better PSD teams come to mind as a good example. Guys who (depending on mission tempo) may typically burn through 500 or so rounds a week in practice in between doing PSD runs. Yes, they might like the latest "John Wick" version of the Glock 75, but they are quite proficient with the one in their holster and if it says Gen 3, Gen 4 or Gen 5 is really of minor importance.

I have worked on two different PSD teams for senior government officials in the past couple years and they have the same problem any other gun toting unit has: they have a few enthusiasts who will put in the time to get better, but the vast majority of them are armed because it's their job and don't do much beyond the minimum. Also, both teams I've worked with have special snowflake rifles and pistols just so they can be "different" than the broader organization they fall under.

There is a point where you just need to master the equipment you have, and a lot of after market frame and slide modifications have no use on a service pistol, but with regards to the gen5 magwell vs the mhs magwell, there is a significant performance difference between the two.

[Lost River]

I have worked on two different PSD teams for senior government officials in the past couple years and they have the same problem any other gun toting unit has: they have a few enthusiasts who will put in the time to get better, but the vast majority of them are armed because it's their job and don't do much beyond the minimum. Also, both teams I've worked with have special snowflake rifles and pistols just so they can be "different" than the broader organization they fall under.

There is a point where you just need to master the equipment you have, and a lot of after market frame and slide modifications have no use on a service pistol, but with regards to the gen5 magwell vs the mhs magwell, there is a significant performance difference between the two.

I certainly cannot argue about the team breakdown of guys who will train harder and those who will just train to a certain level. I have seen that myself numerous times. Having snowflake gear to be different sounds like the "Good Idea Fairy" visited "Mr. Cool Guy" with his mirrored Oakleys and they had a love child who is "Special Needs" instead of Special Mission..

I can imagine your frustration.

[dwcopple]

I've always wondered what a 19 slide on a 17 frame would shoot and feel like.

Grab an FNS or 509 and you'll know

[JSGlock34]

As a reply, what I was referring to was the guys who typically are not allowed to modify GFE (issued) weapons. They get a piece of gear issued, (Like a G19) and they practice with it until they are highly proficient. They are not carving off the finger grooves or undercutting the trigger guard. They simply shoot, shoot, and shoot some more. The better PSD teams come to mind as a good example. Guys who (depending on mission tempo) may typically burn through 500 or so rounds a week in practice in between doing PSD runs. Yes, they might like the latest "John Wick" version of the Glock 75, but they are quite proficient with the one in their holster and if it says Gen 3, Gen 4 or Gen 5 is really of minor importance.

I don't entirely disagree with your point; I've been issued less than desirable service weapons (a battered M9 and a rebuilt M4 leap to mind) and made them work. I've seen a great number of marginal shooters who focus on minutiae and - to GJM's point - pursue questionable aftermarket hardware solutions to software problems. As a forum of enthusiasts, we tend to debate the details.

However, I think at a certain point in this thread the discussion shifted from the merits of Glock's MHS entry as a service pistol to its merits for private purchase. No one is getting issued a Glock MHS as it lost the Army competition, but Glock's statement that their MHS will be available commercially coinciding with their debut of the GEN5 invites a direct comparison of the two models. In that direct comparison, I personally find the Gen5 features more appealing and applicable to a broader range of users than the MHS, given a choice between the two.

[BigT]

What's your definition of a "true Pro?"

I can tell you that some of the little details like the size and shape of the magwell and how easy it is to manipulate the safety lever make a tremendous difference to me. The magwell on the MHS gun looks terribly non-user friendly compared to the gen3/4 and especially gen5 magwell.

If you're talking about the avg professional gun carrier who qualifies a handful of times a year and has never put themselves on a shot timer, than I agree that they are going to stick them in their holster and carry on, but they will never shoot them at an unconscious level of competence. All of the high level shooters I know who are also professional gun toters make little tweaks here and there to their pistols to make it "perfect" for them.

I may have missed a picture somewhere but the magwell looks like a Gen4 one?

The clip in lanyard loop has been available for a while and we have a couple guy using them happily as IPSC Production legal butt plugs.

[Bucky]

Interesting pistol, but I can see why it was rejected...After all this was a "Modular" pistol contract we're talking about here. I'm not seeing anything modular about it. Still if they offered it for sale to the public, I'm sure they'd sell like hotcakes. Myself? I'll pass, I don't see how it does anything better than my g17..


Assuming you could swap the 19 and 17 tops, along with the different back straps, I believe that would meet their definition of modular. It doesn't seem modular specifically means changeable grip frames in this instance. This would be a wise move by Glock (instant doubling of SKUs), and I hope they've incorporated this in the gen 5 design.

[dwcopple]

They haven't

[PensFan]

Assuming you could swap the 19 and 17 tops, along with the different back straps, I believe that would meet their definition of modular. It doesn't seem modular specifically means changeable grip frames in this instance. This would be a wise move by Glock (instant doubling of SKUs), and I hope they've incorporated this in the gen 5 design.

17 slides and 19 frames and vice versus are not interchangeable. It's unlikely you will see a commercially released glock with a manual safety.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Bucky]

17 slides and 19 frames and vice versus are not interchangeable.

Huge missed opportunity by Glock, IMO. :(

[Xhado]

17 slides and 19 frames and vice versus are not interchangeable. It's unlikely you will see a commercially released glock with a manual safety.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They are with the Gen5s.

That being said, "Modular" in the RFP meant adjustable back-straps, weapon lights, suppressor kits.

Internet arm chair acquisition officers who never bothered to read the RFP keep spreading BS about what modular means.

[GJM]

They are with the Gen5s.

That being said, "Modular" in the RFP meant adjustable back-straps, weapon lights, suppressor kits.

Internet arm chair acquisition officers who never bothered to read the RFP keep spreading BS about what modular means.

That PensFan guy knows a lot about Glock pistols.

[Xhado]

That PensFan guy knows a lot about Glock pistols.

I'm sure Glock doesn't recommend it, but it cycles.

http://i.imgur.com/3FCkuCah.jpg (http://imgur.com/3FCkuCa)

[BigT]

I'm sure Glock doesn't recommend it, but it cycles.

http://i.imgur.com/3FCkuCah.jpg (http://imgur.com/3FCkuCa)


You can have unprotected sex with hookers too. While nothing may happen immediately its still not necessarily a good idea.

[t1tan]

The locking block/barrel lugs are the same now, aside from an exposed RSA there's nothing bad to happen.

[4gallonbucket]

The locking block/barrel lugs are the same now, aside from an exposed RSA there's nothing bad to happen.

Yes. So how long until a solution is found to cover the end of the rsa? I really like this configuration. Extra credit if the solution retains the gen5 G17 recoil spring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Cid]

Yes. So how long until a solution is found to cover the end of the rsa? I really like this configuration. Extra credit if the solution retains the gen5 G17 recoil spring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wasn't there a company making its own slides who have something to cover that? Lone Wolf maybe??

[JR1572]

Wasn't there a company making its own slides who have something to cover that? Lone Wolf maybe??

Lone Wolf was the company.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170828/1228c187900759a36973be48174b52ba.jpg

For some reason I cannot get to their site right now.

JR1572

ETA:

http://glockparts.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=6994

[t1tan]

Lone Wolf was the company.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170828/1228c187900759a36973be48174b52ba.jpg

For some reason I cannot get to their site right now.

JR1572

Yeah first thing that popped into my mind as well. I feel like ATEi or somebody doing a similar item for M&Ps as well.

https://ateiguns.com/product/atei-hybrid/

[PensFan]

nevermind

[scw2]

I wish you hadn't deleted your post, because I didn't know that. I suspect most people don't. :)

Man, now I regret having missed PenFans' post. :( He's been one of the people that has been worth listening to on the new glocks.

[BigT]

I wish you hadn't deleted your post, because I didn't know that. I suspect most people don't. :)
I'm sorry I missed it. I always enjoy PensFans insight. Almost as much as so take a twisted pleasure in watching people who don't pay attention lecture him(or her I haven't paid that much attention) on GLOCKS

[Xhado]

Man, now I regret having missed PenFans' post. :( He's been one of the people that has been worth listening to on the new glocks.
Unless he went back and edited what he originally said, everything posted was common knowlege about the Glock MHS.

[JHC]

Unless he went back and edited what he originally said, everything posted was common knowlege about the Glock MHS.

Which wasssss? ;)

I missed this tidbit back in July.

"the GAO describes Sig Sauer 320 as having lower reliability than Glock 19 on page 11, footnote 13 of its findings.

"Under the factor 1 reliability evaluation, Sig Sauer's full-sized handgun had a higher stoppage rate than Glock's handgun, and there may have been other problems with the weapon's accuracy," GAO states."

http://www.businessinsider.com/glock-challenging-army-to-finish-testing-which-handgun-is-best-2017-7

[Beat Trash]

17 slides and 19 frames and vice versus are not interchangeable. It's unlikely you will see a commercially released glock with a manual safety.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Cal me crazy, but I think that's good. If Glock were to market the MHS pistol as is, I'd most likely pass. If Glock were to market the MHS pistol without the manual safety, and in black, I'd most likely buy one. Or two.

[dwcopple]

If Glock were to market the MHS pistol as is, I'd most likely pass. If Glock were to market the MHS pistol without the manual safety, and in black, I'd most likely buy one. Or two.
And I'd want one EXACTLY the way we've seen them. Full FDE with everything as tested. In 9mm of course ;)

[tcba_joe]

I think an MHS, with the shorter slide and longer grip, would be a awesome Roland candidate.

[Bucky]

I think an MHS, with the shorter slide and longer grip, would be a awesome Roland candidate.

Feels like a setup, but I'll take the bait. What's a Roland?

[JHC]

Feels like a setup, but I'll take the bait. What's a Roland?

Dude. No way. ;) Just kidding.

Enjoy: http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/the-guns-network/the-roland-special-glock-19/

[tcba_joe]

Feels like a setup, but I'll take the bait. What's a Roland?
Roland Special (also called a "Carry Comp"). G19 with a KKM bbl/comp, RMR, x300 no real modification to the internals.

I built a G17-esque type recently and it's awesome to shoot. (https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27334-Built-a-Space-Gun-(or-metal-framed-Glocks-are-really-cool))

The G19 slide cycles a little better for this application from what I understand (it also comes out to the common G34 length), and the G17 grip gives more control. This would make the MHS the best host for the carry comp configuration over a purely G17 or G19 build.

[GJM]

Glock could sell train loads of a 17 lower/19 upper configuration because:

1) it is a very common size format.

2) it would make a great optic platform.

3) it would spur many Glock owners to buy a whole new model, just as the 42 and 43 did.

[JBP55]

Glock could sell train loads of a 17 lower/19 upper configuration because:

1) it is a very common size format.

2) it would make a great optic platform.

3) it would spur many Glock owners to buy a whole new model, just as the 42 and 43 did.

I do not like big bottom G17, little top G19 pistols such as this.

[GJM]

I do not like big bottom G17, little top G19 pistols such as this.

You must have small hands. :)

[Bucky]

Glock could sell train loads of a 17 lower/19 upper configuration because:

1) it is a very common size format.

2) it would make a great optic platform.

3) it would spur many Glock owners to buy a whole new model, just as the 42 and 43 did.

I would think the opposite combination would sell even better. No more chopping G17s to fit G19 magazines.

[t1tan]

I think an MHS, with the shorter slide and longer grip, would be a awesome Roland candidate.

that was my first thought, if this comes to market I'm throwing a Mayhem Syndicate comp and an SSVI trigger on it after having the slide milled for an ATOM mount and ATEi serrrations

[dwcopple]

I would think the opposite combination would sell even better. No more chopping G17s to fit G19 magazines.

Probably would. The FNS is exactly a 17 bottom and 19 top and we know how that went. I have a 19 height chopped 17 in my safe right now.

[BigT]

I would think the opposite combination would sell even better. No more chopping G17s to fit G19 magazines.

I think that would be a much smaller seller than the 'Commander" style full size frame compact top end market. The average dude in gunshop wants a gun that'feels' nice in his hand. And the compact top end gives that with a feeling and look of compactness, hence the success of Commander , carry etc.

The 19L/17K for factor appeals to guys on forums like this, but would not grab the general public attention nearly as much IMO

[Bucky]

I think that would be a much smaller seller than the 'Commander" style full size frame compact top end market. The average dude in gunshop wants a gun that'feels' nice in his hand. And the compact top end gives that with a feeling and look of compactness, hence the success of Commander , carry etc.

The 19L/17K for factor appeals to guys on forums like this, but would not grab the general public attention nearly as much IMO

Perhaps. Also, even if they offered it, I believe you'd still get chopped 17s, as the grip angle is different and some like the 17 feel even better. Plus, a good grip guy can do the back strap / magazine overhang, like what comes on the 26. I think people like chopped 17s for the better finger groove spacing, but that wouldn't be a factor with the Gen 5 guns.

Supposedly, the elusive Gen 1 Glock 19 was a chopped down G17 grip. If so, I wish they had kept that profile.

[RAM Engineer]

I would LOVE to stumble across one of those Gen 1 G19s in a pawn shop one day.

[Amp]

Looks like they may release it commercially:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/08/23/mhs-glock-come-market-glock-mhs-barrier-blind-9mm-ammunition-reviewed-european-security-defence-magazine/

[tcba_joe]

That was posted last week (about 10 pages ago) in this thread :)

The more I see it, the more interested I am in that configuration over the G5s.

[Rack]

i just noticed that MHS gun does not have a cutout in the front of the grip. Does the Gen5 G17? (I know the G19 does.)

[willie]

Don't really want (I like the finger grooves), don't care for the safety, but that lanyard loop/plug has me interested.

[willie]

Mods, please delete my post in this thread. I had difficulties that I was unable to correct. Thank you.

[tcba_joe]

Probably would. The FNS is exactly a 17 bottom and 19 top and we know how that went. I have a 19 height chopped 17 in my safe right now.
Every criticism I've heard about the FNS has had nothing to do with it's size configuration, but everything to do with it being a poorly supported, short lived attempt, with mediocre features and poor parts construction, positioned as a "me too" in a world full of better "me toos".