Glock is protesting the Army's choice of Sig Sauer for its new handgun

SFC (Anonymous) - I saw Special Forces carrying what I believed to be Glocks overseas, and I have to assume that is what you're referring to. I would not consider that as adopting, as special forces carry and use a number of weapons that will most likely never be issued to the rest of the Army.

SFC (Anonymous) - I agree about the safety of the weapon. I owned one hand gun with an external safety and sold it because I didn't like it. I'm simply highly skeptical that the Army will ever see it that way.

SSgt (Join to see) - Actually, the M-11 does not have a external safety. It was my issued sidearm for 4 years and I carried it in Iraq.

SSgt (Join to see) - While in college (I have a degree in Police Administration) I did a study on police officers using safeties as opposed to not using safeties on their duty weapons and the time it took to fire from the holster. What my research showed was as long as an officer had practiced with the safety on in drawing a couple times a week (because of the small muscle memory conditioning) there was no real difference in time from draw to firing as the safety is coming off as the gun is coming up to shoot. The only exceptions were Beretta Mod 92 (M9) because of the slide mounted safety is in the most stupid and ridiculous location. With the 92 there was a significant difference of at least a .5 seconds.

There have been documented cases where a police officer has been disarmed and the criminal was unable to fire because of the safety was on and they were not familiar with how to disengage the safety.

I tend to think the same thing you do, the US military really likes safeties.