Why The US Army REALLY Said NO To Glock!

Published on December 12, 2022
Duration: 8:04

The US Army rejected the Glock 19X for the XM17 trials primarily due to a lack of true modularity and the added cost of a thumb safety. The Army required a system capable of transitioning between full-size, mid-size, and compact using a single serialized part, a feature the Sig Sauer P320 (M17/M18) achieved through its removable trigger group. Glock's solution would have necessitated purchasing multiple separate firearms, making it less cost-effective than Sig Sauer's modular approach.

Quick Summary

The US Army rejected the Glock 19X for the XM17 trials mainly because it lacked true modularity. The Army required a system where one serialized part could create full-size, mid-size, and compact pistols, a capability the Sig Sauer P320 achieved via its removable trigger group.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction to XM17 Trials
  2. 00:42Key Trial Requirements
  3. 01:44The Thumb Safety Issue
  4. 02:37The Core Failure: Modularity
  5. 04:01Cost Analysis of Modularity

Frequently Asked Questions

Why did the US Army reject the Glock 19X for the XM17 trials?

The US Army rejected the Glock 19X primarily due to its lack of true modularity, as required by the XM17 trials. The Army wanted a system where one serialized part could create multiple pistol sizes, which the Glock 19X could not achieve. Additionally, the cost increase for adding a required thumb safety was a factor.

What were the main requirements of the US Army's XM17 Modular Handgun System trials?

The XM17 trials required a 90% hit rate at 50 meters on a 4-inch circle, improved ergonomics, better recoil management, accessory rails, ambidextrous controls, and high reliability (10,000 rounds between failures). A crucial requirement was the ability to achieve different firearm sizes from a single serialized component.

How did the Sig Sauer P320 meet the Army's modularity requirement?

The Sig Sauer P320 met the modularity requirement through its innovative design featuring a removable trigger group (chassis). This allowed the Army to swap frames to create full-size (M17) and compact (M18) versions using the same serialized fire control unit, fulfilling the 'one serialized part' mandate.

What was the estimated cost difference between the Glock and Sig Sauer options for the Army?

The Sig Sauer modular system was estimated to cost approximately $1,100 per soldier for three configurations by swapping frames. In contrast, Glock's approach would have required purchasing three separate pistols, costing an estimated $1,800 per soldier, making Sig Sauer significantly more cost-effective.

Related News

All News →

More Reviews Videos You Might Like

More from God Family and Guns

View all →