View Full Version : New Zealand Defence Force Replaces SIG P226 With Glock 17
FlyingHunter
12-20-15, 07:05
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/11/30/new-zealand-defence-force-adopts-glock-17-as-service-wide-handgun/
The latest step in the ongoing re-armament of the New Zealand Defence Force has been announced: The SIG Sauer P226 pistols that have served New Zealand servicemen and women since 1992 are to be replaced with new Glock 17 Gen 4 handguns, distributed via an Australian company.
El Pistolero
12-20-15, 09:24
So if they're paying $617.50 USD for Gen 4 G17s, I'm curious what they had previously paid for the SIG P226s.
They seem to be following the UK's lead.
KalashniKEV
12-20-15, 11:04
More folks starting to get it 20 years too late...
vereceleritas
12-21-15, 16:57
LMT rifles and carbines, MK48 machine guns, and G17 pistols. New Zealand Defense Forces will be very well armed.
The Gen 4 Glock 17 is hands down the best sidearm choice for the 21st Century soldier.
Hopefully this trend leads to favorable GLOCK to Sig trades.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sidewaysil80
12-22-15, 13:27
That's a helluva markup compared to their US counterparts.
BatteryOperated
12-22-15, 14:08
That's a helluva markup compared to their US counterparts.
If you can remember way back the US Navy was paying $800.00 for toilet seats ('80's I think). It is not surprising that the prices are high for a Government contract.
sidewaysil80
12-22-15, 14:16
If you can remember way back the US Navy was paying $800.00 for toilet seats ('80's I think). It is not surprising that the prices are high for a Government contract.
Maybe, but I know my agency paid a lot less than $600 when we switched to the Glock 17.
Between this and the USSOCOM contract vis-a-vis NSW I wonder how many SIG execs are crapping their pants about this quarter's profits....
I have a feeling that the NZ P226's came from Germany and not the US. I'm not sure but is SIG all one company or is it like HK and has separate holdings between the different countries?
Between this and the USSOCOM contract vis-a-vis NSW I wonder how many SIG execs are crapping their pants about this quarter's profits....
As it stands now, Sig is lined up to win the FBI pistol selection process.
First the NSW goes G19, now these guys go G17.
I feel I'm becoming more operator every day by association.
Is second strike capability falling out of favor for some reason?
I honestly see this as a cost issue over anything else. Glock is stupid easy to work on and use. Other platforms that require some level of brains seem to fall out of favor as they require an armor to keep them up and running.
First the NSW goes G19, now these guys go G17.
I feel I'm becoming more operator every day by association...
Don't forget the Brits, they went with the G17 FIRST. Everyone else is just following their lead. ;)
SIG is having a bad couple of weeks in regards to military contracts to be sure. I'm not a Glock owner (their ergos just don't feel good to me) but this does make sense on many levels.
Don't forget the Brits, they went with the G17 FIRST. Everyone else is just following their lead. ;)
Wrong. Many countries adopted the Glock soon after its release, including Sweden for example, where it was adopted in 1988-1990.
call_me_ski
01-06-16, 10:47
Wrong. Many countries adopted the Glock soon after its release, including Sweden for example, where it was adopted in 1988-1990.
Or you know, Austria. ;)
As it stands now, Sig is lined up to win the FBI pistol selection process.
Amazing. How many pistols have they gone through in the past 20 years??
Wrong. Many countries adopted the Glock soon after its release, including Sweden for example, where it was adopted in 1988-1990.
Or you know, Austria. ;)
.....
buckshot1220
01-06-16, 19:58
Is second strike capability falling out of favor for some reason?
I'm not sure what the Mil is still teaching, but just about any trainer out there is pushing tap/rack/bang as SOP for a misfire/no-fire, so I think second strike is pretty irrelevant at this point.
Wrong. Many countries adopted the Glock soon after its release, including Sweden for example, where it was adopted in 1988-1990.
If I would have known Glock was such old school technology I would have never even bothered to shoot so many thousands of rounds through them and just stuck with the century old 1911. :cray:
DanjojoUSMC
01-06-16, 21:19
I'm not sure what the Mil is still teaching, but just about any trainer out there is pushing tap/rack/bang as SOP for a misfire/no-fire, so I think second strike is pretty irrelevant at this point.
Except under stress, even if only a timer, people tend to pull a trigger multiple times before fixing...pretty much just written off as a worthy bonus at this point simply because most are pushing non-DA pistols.
I'm not sure what the Mil is still teaching, but just about any trainer out there is pushing tap/rack/bang as SOP for a misfire/no-fire, so I think second strike is pretty irrelevant at this point.
Rana discusses this briefly from the NSW viewpoint toward the end of the NSW adopting the G19 thread.
Don't forget the Brits, they went with the G17 FIRST. Everyone else is just following their lead. ;)
NSW is way behind the rest of SOCOM in adopting the Glock 19. USASOC and AFSOC have been using it for along time. Much before the UK guys got their Gen 4 17s.
Rick
If I would have known Glock was such old school technology I would have never even bothered to shoot so many thousands of rounds through them and just stuck with the century old 1911. :cray:
So does this mean that my P226 I EDC and have put close to 10,000 rounds through is out dated too?? Guess I better go back to my 1911's too if this is the case.
Sure would be nice if some of those surplus SIGs made it to the US....
Robertson Trading Post, are you listening?
Okie John
So does this mean that my P226 I EDC and have put close to 10,000 rounds through is out dated too?? Guess I better go back to my 1911's too if this is the case.
Out dated? I don't know, but considering how long a run the 1911 has had I'd say Sig's P series may only be middle aged and Glock is just getting started. The only thing that surprises me about these recent official adoptions is how long it took plastic striker fired pistols to become this predominant in military circles. Yes, I know they've been around almost as long as I have and they've seen plenty of military service around the world. I just use to be surprised at how many military units hadn't adopted them yet. I would guess that proves how relatively unimportant handguns are to military operations compared to big ticket items.
call_me_ski
01-07-16, 23:30
Out dated? I don't know, but considering how long a run the 1911 has had I'd say Sig's P series may only be middle aged and Glock is just getting started. The only thing that surprises me about these recent official adoptions is how long it took plastic striker fired pistols to become this predominant in military circles. Yes, I know they've been around almost as long as I have and they've seen plenty of military service around the world. I just use to be surprised at how many military units hadn't adopted them yet. I would guess that proves how relatively unimportant handguns are to military operations compared to big ticket items.
I think that last part is really important. In the military a handgun is very low on the priority list. Some units might use them more than others but the focus will always be else where.
Out dated? I don't know, but considering how long a run the 1911 has had I'd say Sig's P series may only be middle aged and Glock is just getting started. The only thing that surprises me about these recent official adoptions is how long it took plastic striker fired pistols to become this predominant in military circles. Yes, I know they've been around almost as long as I have and they've seen plenty of military service around the world. I just use to be surprised at how many military units hadn't adopted them yet. I would guess that proves how relatively unimportant handguns are to military operations compared to big ticket items.
I'm sure that there were a number of contributing factors with this-for one remember how long they went thinking they had to have a manual safety on a handgun? Main reason that NSW is going to them now instead of before was that the Navy was still under contract with Sig until recently. I know this will sound stupid to some, but I still question what the longevity of polymer pistols is....there in meaning, how long is their service life? The new mentality of ANYTHING manufactured anymore is make it fast, make it cheap, make it easy to replace, keep consumer costs down so they will buy another one in 3-5 years. Police trade ins on Glock pistols for PD's I believe is 5 years (I could be wrong on that) Besides Glock basically gives them the guns to start, then buys the old ones back and practically gives them the new ones. Its a good business practice honestly.
The sad part of this is there isn't quality workmanship going into anything as a whole anymore. If a 1911 manufactured 100 years ago is still working and had to be pressed into service it could, but how long will polymer frame pistols last before they start breaking down? Plastic has a "use buy date" and won't last like steel. Just thinking out loud and I know this a totally new topic for discussion down the road.
For specialized military units, I don't think they're worried about the service life.. If they need new ones they'll just go buy them. They're not paying for them. It's a lot easier/cheaper to repair/rebuild/replace something like a Glock than it is a 1911. From what I've read, it seems that the Glocks do what these guys want, and do it well enough. Factor in all the other reasons, weight, mag capacity, easy to repair/rebuild, reliability, and from a cost standpoint alone, it makes sense. I doubt they're worried about the service life of the polymer frame, as the pistols will probably be replaced long before the polymer starts to deteriorate.. I guess you could say the Glock is disposable..
I've seen HK VP70 and P9s made in the mid 70's still going strong, that is 40 years...
I've also seen G17s made in the late 80's still working perfectly, some after firing A LOT of ammo.
For .mil or LE use, there is no point in having guns that last more than this.
When I spoke previously of the age of the handgun I was referring to the age of the design rather than any individual example. However, even if Glock's frames instantly disintegrate at 50 years of age the service life with respect to rounds fired would be more important to most I think. Per rounds fired it is still very economical to shoot and maintain a Glock handgun compared to some other higher maintenance designs. Not to mention, as UZI stated, Glock's business model makes it very easy to continually update your inventory so older specimens aren't an issue.
Beyond the initial cost, how much of any of this is considered when an organization adopts a particular handgun?
turnburglar
01-08-16, 15:53
I know this will sound stupid to some, but I still question what the longevity of polymer pistols is....there in meaning, how long is their service life?
The sad part of this is there isn't quality workmanship going into anything as a whole anymore. If a 1911 manufactured 100 years ago is still working and had to be pressed into service it could, but how long will polymer frame pistols last before they start breaking down? Plastic has a "use buy date" and won't last like steel. Just thinking out loud and I know this a totally new topic for discussion down the road.
To me the biggest fallacy in firearms, is that metal is indestructible and plastic is no good. I have seen plenty of all metal berettas break in various ways under relatively light use. even further proof of plastic being alright: the metal guide rod in the M9 got replaced by..... polymer.
At the end of the day sidearm weight is a big deal, for a pistol that is rarely shot but required to be on you at all times. If I had the choice I would have happily handed over my beretta for a glock.
In regards to pistol usage by SOCOM or other special operations units; it is important to note that most if not all units actually shoot and spend more time training with a pistol than with any other weapon. This is not because the pistol is a primary weapon, as a rule of thumb an operator will need to spend 2x as long training with a pistol than with his primary (long gun) to be "as proficient" with a pistol.
Pistols are more difficult to master & skills degrade very rapidly. "Perishable Skill Set," is the key phrase with combat pistol craft.
To get wrapped around the axle with plastic vs steel, or brand X vs brand Y misses the mark here. Every quality firearm be it a rifle or pistol has its strength and weakness. When you trade out 1 system for another you are simply trading out a different set of potential issues that come with that new system.
The key to success is weighing the needs of the force, finding a practical tool to support that need, and training. The pistol as a tool will only be as effective as its operator.
To say a "pistol rarely gets shot" is the wrong assumption in regards to SOF. Pistols get the snot shot out of them! Pistols get shot and used a lot so if and when they are utilized in combat they are done so as effectively, appropriately, and efficiently as possible. You can't reach that APEX by not training and not putting a lot of rounds down range.
I personally take pride in shooting a pistol until it breaks. That means I am pushing the limits of that tool and understanding its strengths and weakness' so that I may use it appropriately. We call this "Being a Professional." This is the mantra in which American SOF indoctrinate its operators. Work guns are just that.
Food for thought.
I'm sure that there were a number of contributing factors with this-for one remember how long they went thinking they had to have a manual safety on a handgun? Main reason that NSW is going to them now instead of before was that the Navy was still under contract with Sig until recently. I know this will sound stupid to some, but I still question what the longevity of polymer pistols is....there in meaning, how long is their service life? The new mentality of ANYTHING manufactured anymore is make it fast, make it cheap, make it easy to replace, keep consumer costs down so they will buy another one in 3-5 years. Police trade ins on Glock pistols for PD's I believe is 5 years (I could be wrong on that) Besides Glock basically gives them the guns to start, then buys the old ones back and practically gives them the new ones. Its a good business practice honestly.
The sad part of this is there isn't quality workmanship going into anything as a whole anymore. If a 1911 manufactured 100 years ago is still working and had to be pressed into service it could, but how long will polymer frame pistols last before they start breaking down? Plastic has a "use buy date" and won't last like steel. Just thinking out loud and I know this a totally new topic for discussion down the road.
Golden Age Fallacy: The idea that things were better in the past. It's simply not true. modern CNC machining is leap and bounds ahead in the precision spectrum. Non-sue.
In regards to pistol usage by SOCOM or other special operations units; it is important to note that most if not all units actually shoot and spend more time training with a pistol than with any other weapon. This is not because the pistol is a primary weapon, as a rule of thumb an operator will need to spend 2x as long training with a pistol than with his primary (long gun) to be "as proficient" with a pistol.
This is a GREAT point and gets to the fact that these folks are also safer with any particular system (small arms). So, carrying a Glock 19 ready to go is fine, and they are rugged, reliable, accurate enough, lightweight, etc. For other soldiers, operators, maybe not so much. If I am a tank company commander, I'd rather have my crews carrying a SIG DA/SA than a Glock or even an M9 (don't like the safety thing, and its a tad big). Sure, the loaders can reload a 120mm round in 3.8 sec, the gunners can hit targets to 3700m, and they can operate like greased lightning - but I'd rather not have the Glock in their hands. Why? They won't get to really train enough on it. The DA first shot makes a bit more sense - yes it takes more training for the DA piece, but not as much to get to the point where each man is safe enough. The average soldier carrying cocked and locked with a striker gun is not necessarily a good idea. Special operators are a different matter.
It just blows my mind, this thing has been around for 33 years. Functionally unchanged.
It wasn't the right choice before, and all of the sudden it is? Sam with NSW going Glock 19. Delta switching to Glock and so on.
Glad everybody is finally getting on board, great choice. But wow, think of all the lost time. This could have been a news headline in 1990, not 2016.
Golden Age Fallacy: The idea that things were better in the past. It's simply not true. modern CNC machining is leap and bounds ahead in the precision spectrum. Non-sue.
Trust me, I am well aware of modern cnc manufacturing processes and how products can be machined to the up most repeatable precision and allow for the maximum through-put. But if you break down the costs of manufacture (tooling, programming, operator, inspection, training, raw material, software upgrades) metal does cost more than injection molded plastic. Production cost and overhead are the main things all manufacturing companies must deal with and that is showing itself in the firearms industry. Leaving the weight issue out of it (yes it does have some argument but not for the point I wish to make) it is cheaper to make a plastic frame pistol than it is to machine one from either a raw billet or forging. That being said-if a Glock had a metal frame that had to be machined, the cost would be much higher than the $550 (Gen4 9mm's) and they would be pushing into the $700-$800 range.
crusader377
01-11-16, 09:23
It just blows my mind, this thing has been around for 33 years. Functionally unchanged.
It wasn't the right choice before, and all of the sudden it is? Sam with NSW going Glock 19. Delta switching to Glock and so on.
Glad everybody is finally getting on board, great choice. But wow, think of all the lost time. This could have been a news headline in 1990, not 2016.
I'm really not surprised at all that it has taken so long for Glock to become a mainstream choice in the military pistol market. I think there are three main reasons why.
1) Pistols simply aren't that important in military operations: Although handguns are very important as a primary defensive weapon for LEO's and defensive minded civilians, on the other hand for military operations they are not significant. The type of pistol carried by soldiers isn't going to decide a squad or platoon sized fight and is completely irrelevant in larger operations. I doubt there is any conflict in the last 100 years where pistols inflicted even 1% of military causalities and probably the actual number for most conflicts is around the .1% range.
2) Timing: Although Glock came at the right time for the Law Enforcement market; they were a few years too late for the big military contracts of that era. By the time that Glock hit the scene in the late 1980s many armies had already recently replaced their WWII era pistols with a modern DA/SA pistols such as the Beretta 92, SIG P220 series, CZ-75 etc... or they still were satisfied with their stockpiles of pistols procured in post war period (Commonwealth nations with BHP). Glock is now gaining traction now simply because many armies’ current pistols are worn out and the Glock is a very affordable and logistically supportable solution.
3) Most militaries are very conservative by nature especially in peacetime.
Eurodriver
01-11-16, 15:01
I'm really not surprised at all that it has taken so long for Glock to become a mainstream choice in the military pistol market. I think there are three main reasons why.
1) Pistols simply aren't that important in military operations: Although handguns are very important as a primary defensive weapon for LEO's and defensive minded civilians, on the other hand for military operations they are not significant. The type of pistol carried by soldiers isn't going to decide a squad or platoon sized fight and is completely irrelevant in larger operations. I doubt there is any conflict in the last 100 years where pistols inflicted even 1% of military causalities and probably the actual number for most conflicts is around the .1% range.
2) Timing: Although Glock came at the right time for the Law Enforcement market; they were a few years too late for the big military contracts of that era. By the time that Glock hit the scene in the late 1980s many armies had already recently replaced their WWII era pistols with a modern DA/SA pistols such as the Beretta 92, SIG P220 series, CZ-75 etc... or they still were satisfied with their stockpiles of pistols procured in post war period (Commonwealth nations with BHP). Glock is now gaining traction now simply because many armies’ current pistols are worn out and the Glock is a very affordable and logistically supportable solution.
3) Most militaries are very conservative by nature especially in peacetime.
Posts like these are why I like M4C. Well thought out, logical, etc. Good post, and makes perfect sense.
There is simply no need to spend $600 on a Sig when $300 for G19 will do just fine.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.