MilitaryArms
Master
- Apr 19, 2008
- 2,751
- 48
...and ironically when I was in the Marines and stationed at a Naval nuclear weapons facility (where I was tasked with weapons security) we were trained to immediately rack the slide to chamber a new round should the first round not fire in our M9's. I don't imagine the training has changed over the years... which begs the question: If you're training your troops the proper course of action on how to deal with a misfire, why would you have a requirement that contradicts your training policy?Actually, from what I've read, the glock was not to be considered for army duty for other reasons. One, no external safety or hammer. The military wanted a gun that had "2nd shot" capability just in case the hard military primer didn't go on the first shot. Striker-fired guns require a rerack of the slide to recock it to fire.
I don't know of any instructor worth their salt who teaches to pull the trigger a second time on a double action pistol vs. racking the slide and chambering a new round if you encounter a misfire. Chance are if the round didn't fire the first time, it's not going to fire the second time and you've wasted too much time screwing around, just kick the bad round out and get back into the fight.
The Glock, IMHO, is not a safe pistol for the average GI. So I agree, from a safety standpoint it's less "GI proof" than the M9.The beretta is a much more "GI proof" gun than a glock with the DA first pull and external safety and it.
The M9 is an ok pistol, it's nothing special. There are better designs and there are worse designs. I like the pistol and have several in my private collection.I won't get into this here, but plenty of people like the Beretta just fine. It's been discussed a billion times on various forums. I'd go with either. I carry a Gen4 G17 b/c it's fairly cheap and still reliable.