THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO WIN!
DEADLINE to ENTER is TONIGHT 04/28/2023 @ 11:59pm (PST).
The SIG 320 was adopted by the US Army as its new M17 full-size service pistol, but that was only have of the Modular Handgun System. The other half was the M18, a compact version of the same pistol, with a 3.9″ barrel (compared to the 4.7″ barrel of the M17). The Army did also adopt the M18 for MP and CID personnel, but the other service branches chose to go with the M18 as their standard sidearms. Notably, this includes the Marines, who will be using the M18 to replace the M9, M9A1, M007 (Glock 19M) and M45A1 (1911).
Being a highly modular design, the M18 uses the same basic fire control module as the M17, as well as the same magazines. The slide and grip module are shorter to match the shorter barrel, and multiple different sizes of grip module are available to reasonably fit anyone between the 5th and 95th percentile of hand size.
While the initial batch of M17s were made with tan controls and subsequently returned and sold on the civilian market, no M18s appear to have been returned from service. However, SIG continues to run the military M18 production line making “contract overrun” pistols exactly to military specification, and that is what we are looking at in today’s video. These have TC serial number prefixes, along with other military features:
- Single-screw optics plates
- Braided recoil springs
- Tool-based takedown
- Military slide markings
If a version of the 1911 is still in use by the armed forces that’s 112 years, which tells me 2 things.
1) Pistols are deservedly a low priority for any conventional Military.
2) the 1911 is one hell of a good design.
Alternatively, there has been an incredible amount of fetishization when it comes to the pistol, totally at odds with the actual truths of the matter.
I had the M1911A1 as the standard pistol in our arms room for about the first five-six years of my military career. Yes, most of them were worn out past rational refurbishment by that point, but the issues we had training with it were irrelevant to that.
What you need from a military pistol in today’s environment is basically the Forest Service “fire shelter” sort of affair; something you can give someone minimal training on, hand it to them to keep on their belt, and then expect them to at least make a credible attempt at defending themselves from everything from hand-to-hand to a firearm within close-combat range of about 25m. Much more commonly, within spitting distance…
At that task, the M1911A1 fails miserably, especially for the smaller-framed personnel. The cartridge is just too big and powerful for the role, and the pistol itself does not lend itself to that “fire shelter” role very well. You go to train anyone like a medic or a staff officer whose primary role/purpose is not small arms-centric, and you’ve got a bloody nightmare on your hands. The M9 ain’t much better, and I think is arguably even worse than the M1911A1 in this regard.
You have to wrap your head around the actual purpose of a pistol in its military role. It isn’t a primary weapon; it’s a last-ditch backup sort of affair, and it is something you have to be able to hand out to utter tyros who you can afford only the most minimal of training with. As such, both the M1911A1 and the M9 fail miserably; they’re really too damn complex and too damn big for the role and mission they’re actually filling.
I honestly don’t care for either the M17 or the M18, either. Glock got it right: The holster is the only real “safety” between “safe to carry around” and “OMGIGOTTASHOOTSOMEONE”. That’s precisely how it ought to be, for this role. Sublimely simple.
Maybe the takedown on the Glock ain’t ideal, but that can be trained around fairly simply. The use-case for the gun, and its answer to that? Nearly perfect.
That said, not the pistol I’d hand out to cops or anyone who uses their pistol primarily as a threat display; if the weapon is supposed to be killing people as soon as it is introduced to the situation? That’s the Glock design philosophy, right there. If you’ve got the thing in your hand, having drawn it, you’re meant to be shooting people.
The military use-cases for what I’d term “pistols-for-specialists” aren’t actually all that numerous. SF, Military Police, offensive use from horseback…? Not major roles. The M1911A1 was what it was mainly because of horse cavalry. As such, that role went away effectively not long after it was adopted, and ain’t likely coming back. I’m not sure what the hell the M9 was meant for, other than an abiding testimony to the essential inability of the US military to think clearly about what the hell their small arms are supposed to be doing.
Glock got nearly everything right with the G17, aside from size. That frame is simply too damn big for the cartridge it fires; if you’re going to haul that mass around, then it should really be firing something with more authority, but then that’d make for more problems with training the intended audience of pistol-tyros than 9mm. As such, the G19 frame size is probably about where it should be, and I have to give praise to the other non-Army services for recognizing this fact and going for the M18 frame size. The provision of a safety switch? Idiocy. But, then, it’s the US; clear thought is not to be expected from anyone involved in small arms procurement.
According to https://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/153703078189/1950s-us-army-pistol-testing-throughout-the-early
In 1947 U.S. forces acknowledged need for smaller and lighter automatic pistol, one which must not be longer than 7 inches and not heavier than 25 ounces (unloaded) and capacity not lesser than 9 and be double-action and use blow-back operation and consume 9×19 mm ammunition. T3 and T4 prototypes were tested, which caused revision of requirements and then testing of more designs. For 1955 it was planned to ask various manufacturers and then select winning offer, however official pistol trials program were cancelled when the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics refused the $150,000 of funding on the grounds that sidearms were seldom used and that existing stores of M1911A1s was more than adequate
Which just goes to demonstrate the essential unreality of the people in charge.
“Seldom used” is meaningless when put up against the sort of people who are forced to use the things, and the situations they find themselves in. It’s one of those Ford aphorism things, where the accountants know the price of everything and the value of nothing… What does it cost you to lose a staff officer like MG Dean in the Korean War, who fails to defend himself against capture because he wasn’t able to defend himself effectively with the weapon?
Not that I’m saying that Dean would have done better with a Glock 17 over a 1911, but that’s the result of the sort of calculus those idiots were making: The incidence rate of use has absolutely nothing to do with the utility or value of the weapon in question.
As well, I have to question the whole “M1911A1 rules!!” idea due to things like Dean. Yeah, if I’m gonna be in perfect shape and perfectly trained, all other things being equal, I’d likely plump down for the specialist weapon, the ultimate one for its purpose. That might be a customized M1911A1. However, if I don’t know when or what conditions will be…? It sure as hell won’t be. Once upon a time I was forced to qualify with a handgun not too long after a fairly significant hand injury; the fact that I had to do it with an M9 left me a little unhappy, because my thumb that was perfectly adequate for gripping was not really all that happy with the reach for the safety, and I had to use two hands to perform the range drill, something I wasn’t used to.
I somehow suspect that the fact that MG Dean was carrying and trying to use an M1911A1 might have had something to do with his capture; he might have been able to defend himself, had he been carrying something more along the lines of the Glock 19. Maybe.
Under exigency, I’m always going to vote for the lowest common denominator. That would emphatically not be the M1911A1 or the M9.
Even with all the above, I’m not sure anyone has survived taking a full magazine of Walther PPK (in .32 ACP) to the heart and both lungs at bad breath range. I could be wrong.
True, that, Cherndog. The problem comes in when there’s more than one target, and you don’t have a lot of space for ammo. Most of the .32 Automatics were boutique pistols more suited for badge-of-rank use than actual, y’know… Combat. When it gets down to the wire, you need to have something that’s a useful compromise between stopping power and ease-of-carry. 9mm hits a sweet spot, there…
“(…)“Seldom used” is meaningless when put up against the sort of people who are forced to use the things, and the situations they find themselves in. (…)”
I would point that as shown of essential unreality. This observation is important step to go, do not require heavy training to be useful. I would point posing strict requirements regarding overall mass AND 9×19 mm cartridge AND (pure) blow-back to indicate such problem, however this might be conscious turn to figure which requirements of mutually exclusive one will be ignored.
“(…)version of the 1911 is still in use by the armed forces that’s 112 years(…)”
If you are using weapon well past beyond best-use-before, then it suggest that you are unable to afford anything better.
Or, that your weapons procurement has been captured by the sentimental and delusional…
There’s way, way too much fantasy and wishful thinking in US small arms procurement, and hardly any real contact with reality. See “SPIW”, “OICW”, “XM-25”, and then this latest goat-raping cluster-fark, “NGSW”.
I suspect that the reason the M1911A1 held on for so long was a combination of “good enough” (which it manifestly was), sentiment about John Browning, and an essential inability to comprehend what the hell the damn thing was supposed to be doing for the Army and everyone else.
I think that for the period it was designed and issued in, it was a magnificent pistol. For the post-WWII era? Yikes; by that time, we should have been doing some serious reconsideration about what the thing was supposed to be doing, and whether or not it met the needs of the Army. By the 1980s, with the wear on the weapons, the change in the demographics, and the paucity of training time/ammo to devote to it, I think it was way, way past it’s “Best By:” date.
Not that the M9 was much better. If I’d have had free rein to pick the offerings at the time, I’d have selected the Glock 19 or the Sig-Sauer P228 with a DAO trigger and no safety. Draw and shoot; that’s what you need. Period.
Have to enter a minority report here. I carried a 1911 type (Colt Commander) in .45 acp in combat for four years. The pistol worked just fine, and the three enemy troops I had to shoot fell over and died right there. Would they have been more dead, or me more alive, if I’d sprayed the area with 9mm projectiles from a plastic fantastic pistole? I doubt it.
Talk to thousands of LEOs and other militaries. It is shot placement that stops Bad Guys. Double tap, add a third shot to the head if necessary.
If you had your own Colt Commander that you sought out and made yourself the master of, you’re not the typical pistol user. Period.
The problem with the M1911A1 isn’t that it doesn’t work as a pistol, it’s that it isn’t suitable for mass issue to the average user of a military pistol. There’s too much tuition due in terms of training and all the other ancillary supporting issues. Again, what you need for the role it is used in isn’t this fantasy “Every man is Colonel Jeff Cooper…” ideal, but that “Forest Service fire shelter” sort of user; the everyman and everywoman. For them, the M1911A1 is just not the ideal pistol. It’s too big; too heavy; too intimidating; too complicated to put into action. You need stupid-simple and easy to master in an afternoon on a range, with enough in the way of lethality to actually put down the bad guys and as little recoil as possible. The end user also has to be able to retain enough of “How does pistol work…?” over a period of 11 to 23 months with exposure to actually qualifying on the damn things only on that schedule and with the minimum amount of ammo to run the qual course.
Your thought processes regarding your use of the pistol are unrealistic and fantastic in the face of the actual use-cases. It’s not the guy who knows how to shoot and who buys their own weapon and ammo to practice with regularly that you’re procuring for; it’s the other five dozen or so who don’t, and who never will.
Your attitude exemplifies what is wrong with the entire procurement process, historically: Your fantasy life is given more credence than actually going out and looking at the realities on the ground, which have to include the budget in terms of funds, time, and training mindspace. The M1911A1 simply demands too much in that regard; yes, it is likely a superior weapon in terms of pure weapon, particularly with FMJ.
What it actually isn’t is “fit for actual purpose” arming the vast majority of users in the military. I can enable someone defending themselves with something like a Glock 19 a hell of a lot faster and with more “stickiness” in terms of training than I can ever manage with that M1911A1 you’re so fond of. It’s not you; it is that 19 year-old female medic who has never in her life fired a handgun and who has zero exposure to “things that go bang” in her entire life.
Hell, the M9 was a POS for that purpose, in all too many cases. I had one, count it, ONE medic in all my years of training that took to pistols with ease and finesse. She was actually a damn unicorn, to be honest and brutal about it; grew up in Alaska, carried her own .357 as a bear gun while a kid, and put nearly everyone to shame whenever she appeared at the range, including most of the male staff officers.
The rest of my medics? Oh, dear sweet babblin’ baby Jesus… Those folks were wonderful people, great at medical care but utter shiite at most military tasks involving anything like killing. Same for most of my staff officer types that I trained. The Army had no business putting something like the M1911A1 or the M9 into their hands; it should have been something more along the lines of the Glock 19.
Or, alternatively, given them an armed guard in the MTOE. Either one would have been better. Frankly, an awful lot of those folks really didn’t belong in uniform in the first damn place; they should have been Department of the Army civilians and not expected to take part in military actions. Realistically, we should have been planning on protecting them like that all the way up the chain of command, with dedicated security personnel at every level they were expected to be working.
Honestly can’t think of too many of my medics, especially the female ones, that I’d have wanted to burden with defending themselves and their patients. That one young lady from Alaska? About the only one, and I frankly would have been way, way more worried about her committing war crimes against any idiot foolish enough to go after any wounded put into her care. She didn’t just have a “warrior mind”, she had a “rabid honey badger” mindset when it came to protecting her patients. I have no doubt she’d have stacked bodies around her aid station, and likely have put heads on spikes if nobody had been around to stop her. Put into the universe of Apocalypse Now with Colonel Kurtz? He’d have been telling her “Yeah, hey… That’s a little too far, you can’t be doing that, it’s inhumane…”
The other 99.9% of the medics and staff types I trained to shoot the pistol? Oi… Not anything like that. At. All. I’m pretty sure a lot of them you could have walked up to and taken the pistol away from them before they were able to bring themselves to actually firing at another human being, at least before they internalized being in a life-or-death situation. They were just too damn nice, too civilized to survive.
There’s also “use enough gun” (kinetic energy).
The .45, 9mm, and 7.62 x 25 Russian all deliver about 350 FPE (475J) to the target. They all drop said target with one hit about 2/3rds of the time. Nothing, even the lowly .25 ACP, does it that well less than half of the time.
The .357 Magnum generally does it with one center hit nine times out of ten, no matter what bullet weight you use. Why? Because its bullets are going faster than the .45’s, the 9mm’s and etc., and delivering greater kinetic energy. (Remember; KE goes up with the square of velocity.)
What’s really needed is a weapon like the Glock or, yes, the old Browning HP (simplified 1911) that has greater muzzle velocity and therefore hits like a .357.
The FN FiveSeven came so close. FN Herstal at least kinda/sorta/maybe understood the equation E=M(V\2)/2g. But its 5.7 x 28 round only delivers .45/9mm muzzle energy out of the P90’s barrel length. In the pistol, velocity and energy are down to .22 WMR levels. A KelTec PMR-30 .22 WMR pistol does the same job, is cheaper, and holds half again as many rounds in the magazine.
Get the 5.7 x 28 round up to .357 energy levels or higher by increasing muzzle velocity and you have something. It should perform like a .221 Remington Fireball, not a .22 WMR. So it can be done; the .221 has been around for six decades.
Always remember that the first rule of “stopping power” (WTH that really is) is the same as the first rule of highway safety;
I dunno about the velocity thing. It’s my observation that while velocity is important, projectile design has to be conducive to that. FMJ and high velocity often means “I’m poking holes in you…” not necessarily “I’m stopping you…” It can, but it’s not an automatic given.
I think you have to look at the whole package; velocity, projectile design, caliber, pistol design. Not all high-velocity projectiles are reliable killers; not all low-velocity great big ones are, either.
TBH, I’m all for something like a high-velocity hollow point in a military round. I honestly think that the whole “No expanding bullets” idea was a fallacy when they adopted those conventions, and it remains one today. Is it more “humane” to put five rounds into someone’s chest cavity in order to ensure you stop them, or use one expanding round that does enough damage to stop them with the first shot?
Don’t even get me started with the then-current state of the medical arts when they did that, either. I refuse to accept the proposition that it’s more humane to poke little holes in someone, almost certain to generate gangrene and a lingering death in some noisome hospital ward somewhere, rather than just killing them right there at the front with blood loss and massive cavity wounds…
I mean, if you think FMJ is inhumane for deer, WTF are you mandating it for shooting at people?
“(…)old Browning HP (simplified 1911) that has greater muzzle velocity(…)”
If you want Browning HP-like design but with higher muzzle energy then use NAACO Brigadier https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/NAACO_Brigadier
The problem with the Brigadier and its .45 NAACO cartridge (basically the .45 Remington-Thompson and thus a forerunner of the .45 Winchester Magnum) was that hardly anybody could actually hit anything with it. It was the Gabbett-Fairfax Mars all over again in that respect.
The Borealis SMG was an effort to make it more “hittable” by turning it into essentially a S&W Light Rifle c. 1940 chambered for .45 R-T.
In the end, it finished up far behind the C1 machine carbine (Canadian Sterling SMG clone) in overall usability.
Today of course if you want the experience of shooting a .45 Brigadier, the Grizzly Win Mag .45 WM is easier to obtain.
Anyone thinking that the Brigadier .45 was a good answer to the question posed as “What’s the best personal defense weapon for the majority of soldiers…?” is clearly insane. Maybe for the Samoan National Guard, but anyone else? Yeesh.
I fired a .45 Win-Mag on a range, as a bit of a “Hey, what fun are we having today…?” sort of affair. Frankly, I think you’re better off just issuing the poor schlubs a hand grenade and telling them to pull the pin and clutch it to their chests when the bad men come for them, because you sure as hell are not going to get Joe and Jill Average up to speed on anything like that in any sort of realistic time frame. And, it’s not going to be easily carried around, either… If I remember the weight on that Brigadier right, it was upwards of 66 ounces, or damn near two kilos. The slides were aluminum (!?!) to save weight… Firing a magnum-class cartridge with a Browning locking mechanism.
There must have been something in the water, up there.
As I understand it, the North American Arms Co. (that’s what NAACO means) was trying to sell it to the Canadian Army and RCMP to replace a hodgepodge of .38 S&W, .38 Spl., .45 Colt, ,455 Webley and .44 Spl. revolvers they’d “acquired” from about 1870 on.
The caliber was decided because they could make it by cutting off and neck-reaming Savage brass (.300 and/or .250/3000) from another branch of the company, and use .45 (actually .455) bullets intended for .455 WSL.
As for the action, they’d had a WW1 contract for (you guessed it) 1911s for the Royal Navy (!) and figured they could re-use the tooling with modifications.
The thing was the Rube Goldberg trifecta of Browning type pistols. The amazing thing is that it almost worked and didn’t generally blow up.
The thing that blows my mind is the aluminum slide on a .45 Win Mag cartridge… How the hell did that work? Were there steel inserts where the barrel locked up?
If there was ever a Canadian pistol I’d want to see Ian do, it’d be the Brigadier… Even more points with a range day.
If you prefer steel, but want increased muzzle energy whilst compared with standard 9×19 mm, then use 6P35 https://modernfirearms.net/en/handguns/handguns-en/russia-semi-automatic-pistols/jarygin-pja-grach-eng/
It does consume 7N21 cartridge, although I must note that IIRC some consider it to be based at High Power and some to be based at CZ 75.
This getenteredtowin is an obvious ripoff. Why pay $50 for a chance to win and a $2 coffee cup? What are the odds? No one knows!
Kirk, you mentioned the “Fire Shelter”. When I fought fires in SOCAl 73-74 with the USFS we always said that the should have added a packet of sour cream and chives to them…
Our Forest Service advisers did not fill us with confidence when they called them “the Shake n’ Bake bags”…
Hope to hell I never have to use one, is all I have to say.
Daweo, I have to go by the proven track record with regards to “effective”. Smallest effective fight-stopper, with plenty of empirical evidence to back it up? 9mm Parabellum.
I have also got a lot of personal subjective experience that this is about the largest possible cartridge you can easily and effectively train the lowest common denominator soldier on, and expect “good enough” results from. It’s also a logistical “no-brainer”, soooooo… Yeah. 9mm in about a Glock 19-size package, thankyouverymuch.
Show me something else that works, demonstrate it working? I’ll buy that, too… But, I want to see real-world evidence and experience the thing before I’ll buy off on it. The various flavors of PDW cartridge they’ve put out there from that weird Swedish 6mm thing to the German and Belgian constructs? I’m not a particular fan of their concepts, and I find the weapons they are fired from to be too damn big for the handy, belt-carried role.
“and I find the weapons they are fired from to be too damn big for the handy, belt-carried role.”
Catch-22: they are not meant to be belt-carried (and anyone trying to put the MP7 in a holster quickly realizes how bad of an idea that is), but are very easy to shoot accurately and quickly.
On the other hand, they are not easy to handle and clean – at least compared to a Glock 19 – and you can never just forget about the device until you need it.
So the people you give PDWs to need to be more of a “gunman” than the people you just give pistols to (which they will most likely only be able to use successfully in a very narrow set of circumstances). Yes, the PDWs can do more things – but if you don’t have the training time and resources even for a simple pistol, the users will not be able to use the PDW to its capacity.
Pistols in a military context are trying to put a square peg into a round hole – they are rarely used, need a lot of training time to use well consistently, but when they are needed stakes are often high.
There is no easy solution to this and I want to add: there is no good solution to this at all, even counting the hard ones.
Realistically speaking, it might actually be best to have dedicated security personnel for the people mentioned by Kirk above.
I remember talking to a German ex-KSK soldier (but still active duty) after returning from AFG in ’03 and him being honestly surprised that we as an engineer unit had provided our own security confidently.
His experience from the late ’90s and early ’00s was that any unit not being infantry or manning fighting vehicles needed additional security.
And these units all had assault rifles and machine guns, not just pistols.
Thing is, with Engineer units of any flavor (except, perhaps the well drilling teams…), you really, really do not want to give them cause to come after you. At. All.
Our brigade in Iraq was composed mostly of “good ol’ boy” Reserve and National Guard Engineer units. These guys came straight out of backwoods America, and were some really great guys to have working for you. Not good people to start shooting at. Not good at all. They’d usually treat it about like “Hey, deer season…”, down tools and go to it with whoever was dumb enough to start things with them. Combat action was a luxury item, a distraction, a diversion. They liked it.
There was an incident up in Northern Iraq wherein one of these units was working on a construction site near some cluster of buildings, which would periodically be taken over and used by the insurgency as a place to fire at the National Guard guys. This happened twice, and then the buildings weren’t there any more. All the active duty guys ever knew about it was that they’d been asked to haul the D9 armored dozers out there for a day or so, for “site prep”. I don’t know that anyone ever really knew the details outside of that unit, but there were a lot of streaks and scratches on those dozers that looked like they’d been shot at by someone, and that little cluster of buildings wasn’t there any more…
You could ask the National Guard guys what had happened there, and about all you’d get would be these tight little grins, about like a cat that’s gotten into the cream.
I would highly, highly recommend not choosing any sort of Engineer unit as your victim-of-choice. They’re usually frustrated, bitter people who will welcome the opportunity to shoot someone, namely you. There’s nothing quite like being able to work out the pent-up aggression resulting from your supported command treating you like crap and working you to death like creatively slaughtering the enemy with heavy construction equipment…
Why not the Glock ? Hard primers. In 1985 there were three pistols in running Smith and Wesson,Beretta and Sig Sauer. The Smith and Wesson firing system did not generated sufficient energy to reliable ignite the cartridge and was eliminated (A conversion error from pound to kilogram. It did meet requirement). I do not see how the Glock striker fired system could have developed sufficient energy to meet the minimum requirement. Glock pistol would have had high amount of failure to fire in the 1985 test or the 1977 test.
In all my years of shooting questionable ammo through my Glocks, I’ve yet to experience a single issue with the striker failing to hit the primer hard enough. That includes a bunch of ammo passed off to me by a friend who couldn’t get his Sig-Sauer pistols to fire it reliably, and carbine ammo meant for use in an Uzi.
I don’t think your concern is either valid or real; whatever calculations you’ve done, they don’t add up in the real world. Glock strikers actually hit a bit too hard; I’ve had some brands of ammo wherein they actually punctured a bunch of primers, because the primers were too soft.
When I started shooting as a civilian (around 2005-2006), I saw quite regular failures to fire in a friend’s Glock 17 with Norinco ammo from light primer strikes. Circa one round in every two full magazines failed to fire on the first try, but would always fire with no problem in other guns and most of the time on a second try out of the Glock 17.
Based on that, we went to the medium firing pin spring (28 N) in his Glock 17 and my Glock 19 and all the failures to fire went away forever.
I’ve always had the heaviest spring available installed in all of my Glocks. That may play into my experiences with the pistol; even the Uzi carbine ammo fired reliably, and that stuff was notorious for high pressure and hard primers. Funny thing, there… Neither I nor the guy who sold it to me had the slightest idea that it was carbine ammo; everything he had was in Hebrew for the ammo, so he had no idea it was for the Uzi. Wasn’t until someone who read Hebrew and understood the significance of the way the cases were marked told him that he knew; the importer was equally clueless. Next time I ran into him, he was horrified to find out I’d fired everything I’d bought from him already, and that I hadn’t noticed anything unusual, other than one hell of a muzzle flash. Several other customers complained about damage to their pistols; the Glocks were just fine with it.
If I remember the specs on that stuff, it was only a hair away from the most you could put into 9mm Parabellum, and still be able to call it that. It tore up at least one Browning Hi Power…
The energy required is 55 grams drop from 305 mm. This gives a energy of 0.1646 Joule. For a 28 N spring, a spring travel of at least 5,877 mm or 0,231 inch is needed. (0.1646 J / 28 N X 1000). It must be remembered that the striker and recoil spring can not be changed at will be for checking if pistol will work safely with the combination of striker and recoil spring. Scource: GAO/NSLAD86-122
That’s quoting from the GAO test report, right?
Couple of things to note: 1.) Glock was never tested under those protocols, as the action did not meet the contract criteria. I don’t think it was ever even considered in a serious way–It was then considered that “plastic fantastic Austrian toy”, and the majority of the US military simply did not think it had any merit at all. 2.) Nobody else ever had issues with Glocks not firing ammo, and I know the Norwegians supposedly tested it against everything under the sun under very hard conditions. 3.) While Glock did change its first-generation mechanism considerably, and as I recall, it was not for issues with striker hitting power; it was safety-related geometry back in the sear assembly parts (as I recall).
I feel pretty certain in asserting that if there was ever even a slight question about Glock’s design failing to initiate primers, we’d have known about it from all of the testing conducted on that design, worldwide. This isn’t actually an issue.
Hell, if anything, I suspect that that huge-ass striker probably does a little too much in the way of delivering energy to the primer…
It is called a Vernier Caliper.