View Full Version : French Army goes Glock...
Looks like another big contract for Gaston and crew:
"It is finally official. The French Ministry of Armed Forces have ordered 74,596 Glock pistols in a contract worth over 44 Million Euros (about $49 Million USD).
The first Glock 17s have already been delivered and deliveries will continue until 2022. The new Glocks will replace the current Mac 50 and Pamas G1 (Beretta 92) pistols."
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/01/06/french-army-orders-74596-glocks-17-pistols/
robbins290
01-07-20, 07:24
That is $589.84 Euro's per pistol (656.87 U.S. dollars). I sure hope that comes with something other then the night sights and 3 mags per pistol.
I mean....why not go Glock?
Big day for the French, as they annouced they'll be buying SCARs as well.
http://soldiersystems.net/2020/01/07/french-army-announces-adoption-of-fn-scar-h-pr/
Good on them. Between these and the HK416 selection a few years back, it seems like they're overhauling their small arms arsenal.
Good for them. Go Glock!!!
I wonder why 74,596. Why not 75,000 even? Or 74,600?
MountainRaven
01-07-20, 11:15
That is $589.84 Euro's per pistol (656.87 U.S. dollars). I sure hope that comes with something other then the night sights and 3 mags per pistol.
It likely includes parts, training, and other ancillary equipment (like holsters, magazine pouches, armorer's tools).
I wonder why 74,596. Why not 75,000 even? Or 74,600?
Bureaucracy works in mysterious ways.
74,596 is probably what they could justify on paper without an accountant jumping down their throats about waste. And they already have some in the system.
I would guess that the number includes cutaways for armorer's training, blue-framed T guns, plus examples for French arms museums and government-operated military small arms reference collections.
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-07-20, 17:34
It's a sound choice. Good for France!
Straight Shooter
01-07-20, 19:51
QUICK- somebody tell Fly the G17's are STILL relevant!! ;)
I thought the French were going with HK 416 also?
French Army seems to be armed with Teutonic weapons.
robbins290
01-07-20, 20:41
Maybe now they will actually fight and not surrender.
Maybe now they will actually fight and not surrender.
They fought hard at Verdun.
They are drop safe.
Never fired, only dropped once! :D :D :D
All the French jokes.. I stopped making them after listening to Dan Carlin's Hardcore History.. the beating they took in WWI was monumental. They didn't have much left to fight with in WWII.
Wonder if the pistols will be made in Austria or in Georgia?
MountainRaven
01-07-20, 22:19
https://i.imgur.com/pDvsXhU.png
Maybe now they will actually fight and not surrender.
French arms fought valiantly for centuries. They pounded the poor germans almost at will. They didn't win them all, e.g. losing to the Spanish in the Italian Wars. But the revolutionary armies and Napoleon were the first example of the modern nation in arms.
Modern French "surrender " reputation rests on the Franco-German War of 1870 and WW2. In both the French fought but were quickly defeated.
They also lost in Vietnam (but then, so did the US) and Algeria, two post colonial guerrilla actions.
I wonder why 74,596. Why not 75,000 even? Or 74,600?
Because by buying 74,596 and not 75,000 it leaves the other 404 guys/gals/non-binary available to carry the white flags.
They also lost in Vietnam (but then, so did the US) and Algeria, two post colonial guerrilla actions.
And in Algeria, they won militarily, through some absolutely brutal counter-insurgency work. It was their political structure that failed them, not the military. Since then, they've also smacked down Islamists in Mali, and by all accounts, done a better job of it than we have in our sandbox forays.
"Surrendering France" jokes need to die already. They aren't funny, and they aren't historically accurate. They're as bad as the bubba comments you'll hear at a gun show or gun store.
French arms fought valiantly for centuries. They pounded the poor germans almost at will. They didn't win them all, e.g. losing to the Spanish in the Italian Wars. But the revolutionary armies and Napoleon were the first example of the modern nation in arms.
Modern French "surrender " reputation rests on the Franco-German War of 1870 and WW2. In both the French fought but were quickly defeated.
They also lost in Vietnam (but then, so did the US) and Algeria, two post colonial guerrilla actions.
I agree with this, mostly. The French military do not deserve all this disrespect. And I have been impressed with French SOF that I have encountered in modern times, who’ve been putting in work.
But, people who know nothing about them insist on perpetuating bullshit. Its like getting an unsolicited history lesson at a gun store counter.
I agree with this, mostly. The French military do not deserve all this disrespect. And I have been impressed with French SOF that I have encountered in modern times, who’ve been putting in work.
But, people who know nothing about them insist on perpetuating bullshit. Its like getting an unsolicited history lesson at a gun store counter.
I suspect the disrespect comes in part from the reputation of the French as considering themselves superior to everyone else and the reputation for being generally pompous. I think that's why their often the target of such comments vs historical military fact per se.
I suspect the disrespect comes in part from the reputation of the French as considering themselves superior to everyone else and the reputation for being generally pompous. I think that's why their often the target of such comments vs historical military fact per se.
I hold different views toward France as a whole (particularly civilian Parisians) compared to their Army. But not necessarily the blind disdain that is common. Same for Britain. I’m not a fan of British laws, and my impressions from interactions with civilians there (especially London, see a pattern; anybody here fond of DC?) have ranged from meh to disgusting. Not impressed, culturally. But, the opposite applies to my interactions with their troops. Good dudes, at least in my experience.
Among European armies, I would not dismiss the French. I would have no qualms working with them again.
Edit: The point I am trying to make is that just because there is a stereotype for the French public, or whatever, does not mean their military is made up of Saudis.
Grand58742
01-08-20, 13:13
Getting the thread back on track, I wonder why the 17 specifically? Why not the 19X like they submitted for the US pistol trials?
Not dogging the 17 at all.
Any word on what gen 17?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
robbins290
01-08-20, 13:55
I can not confirm, but the pic i saw looked like a GEN5 with a threaded mag and lanyard.
I wonder if this will translate to surplus SP2009/2022s.
They are actually not bad little guns and I’m not a sig person. If I were to buy a normal sig it’d be a 229
And in Algeria, they won militarily, through some absolutely brutal counter-insurgency work. It was their political structure that failed them, not the military. Since then, they've also smacked down Islamists in Mali, and by all accounts, done a better job of it than we have in our sandbox forays.
"Surrendering France" jokes need to die already. They aren't funny, and they aren't historically accurate. They're as bad as the bubba comments you'll hear at a gun show or gun store.
Very true. In general, generalisms are a bad idea.
Confusing the acts of politicians or even generals from 100 years ago with their modern army.
I suspect the disrespect comes in part from the reputation of the French as considering themselves superior to everyone else and the reputation for being generally pompous. I think that's why their often the target of such comments vs historical military fact per se.
And this is our mistake... American impressions of the French are largely due to Parisians. For sure the stereotypes are.
It's as ignorant as basing the definition of an American on someone from NYC or Newark.
Per french that I know and work with, have worked with... Parisians don't think they are better than the US, they think they are better than everyone. Same imperious arrogance that New Yorkers have. Or LA, or SF. Probably more of a big city thing.
France is fairly large, with very distinct regional cultures. Different dialects, food, mannerisms.
So in many aspects with our biases, we are confirming the Parisian perception that we are ignorant, poorly traveled, and arrogant, blind to our faults.
The French in general don't hate the US even if they disagree with our various politics. It's more we are the sibling with unrealized potential. Or the unpolished redneck uncle at the family dinner.
I also understand some of their concerns about cultural imperialism and it's impacts. I used to think this was just liberal thinking, but having spent more time in France and Italy I see it's really a concern about local businesses, shops, quality of food, etc. Is it really a good thing if McDonald's or Walmart displaces local businesses? if one restaurant open 7 days a week, then the other restaurants have to. So now the family restaurant has to take on more employees to cover it where before it was just Mom and Pop and their unmarried daughter. I see some of the logic and its impacts. I also see the lines of French at McDonald's and Burger Kings and have eaten there in-country myself at times because it was convenient basic consistent food.
I'm not a France apologist. Like visiting but have no desire to live there as a citizen. But I've also been in France, Italy and Germany enough and long enough that I recognize if there are some things that they figured out that we might have missed. And vice versa. And that we are guilty of many of the same stereotypes we apply to them.
Parisians are the New Yorkers of France!
MountainRaven
01-08-20, 19:37
I wonder if this will translate to surplus SP2009/2022s.
The French have a tendency of sending their surplus small arms as military aid to the governments of their former colonial possessions, so I wouldn't count on it.
HardToHandle
01-08-20, 19:44
Heaven forbid we talk about about technical things in a technical forum.
The Glock doesn’t seem to have too much recent competition in the European Union besides the also-ran HK pistols. The SIG P320 is not fooling many folks as being anything but a US gun. I also expect there was a desire to spread the wealth of firearm contracts around - HK for the 416, FN Herstal for the SCAR-H and then Glock/Austria for moderately sized pistol order. The downside is the obvious fact France no longer has a small arms industry.
As for the ill informed surrender statements.... The French have a set of political rules that put the US of A to shame, asthey often play for keeps. The classic was the Rainbow Warrior. The French grew tired of Greenpeace dogging their South Seas nuclear testing, so they sank the boat... And killed a crew member. That type of very serious message is similar to what has kicked off the present Iranian situation and not something that usually happens in the US.
60286
Im not a big Glock guy but by all means that is a huge upgrade. Think, wait a couple years and we can buy some "dropped once and never fired" Glocks for cheap. No BS though, good for them.
PB
Getting the thread back on track, I wonder why the 17 specifically? Why not the 19X like they submitted for the US pistol trials?
Not dogging the 17 at all.
Why 19X? If you can handle the extra .47" of the 17, the 19X offers nothing but disadvantages.
I wonder if this will translate to surplus SP2009/2022s.
They are actually not bad little guns and I’m not a sig person. If I were to buy a normal sig it’d be a 229
That would be cool. I agree, nice pistol.
I wonder if the price points between the different 9mm Glock Platforms are anything significant on that purchasing scale. Maybe thats why the choice of the 17.
Grand58742
01-09-20, 11:42
Why 19X? If you can handle the extra .47" of the 17, the 19X offers nothing but disadvantages.
I guess the question would be why not the 19X? They spent a lot of time and money developing it and it's supposed to be pretty popular on the civvy market (don't know, I'm not a Glock guy).
It just stands to reason they would market it as a viable option unless the French RFP called for a specific barrel length.
What disadvantages are we discussing?
I guess the question would be why not the 19X? They spent a lot of time and money developing it and it's supposed to be pretty popular on the civvy market (don't know, I'm not a Glock guy).
It just stands to reason they would market it as a viable option unless the French RFP called for a specific barrel length.
What disadvantages are we discussing?
It's a Glock 19 with a 17 grip. I don't think that took a whole lot of engineering to get done, but I could be wrong.
All the disadvantages that come with a shorter barrel, shorter and stiffer recoil spring, and shorter slide. The 17 is functionally more robust than a 19, and 26, and is easier to shoot.
UPDATE: Looks like it's a two-tone Gen 5:
"The tender for the new pistols was launched in March 2019, with a number of competing pistols evaluated in ‘stringent testing’. The testing involved reliability trials and user field testing with Glock noting in their announcement statement that there was a ‘minimum expected lifetime of 26,350 rounds’ from French evaluators at the Section Technique de l’Armée de Terre."
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/01/09/update-frances-new-glock/
It's a Glock 19 with a 17 grip. I don't think that took a whole lot of engineering to get done, but I could be wrong.
All the disadvantages that come with a shorter barrel, shorter and stiffer recoil spring, and shorter slide. The 17 is functionally more robust than a 19, and 26, and is easier to shoot.
Wait.. what?
Why 19X? If you can handle the extra .47" of the 17, the 19X offers nothing but disadvantages.
It's a Glock 19 with a 17 grip. I don't think that took a whole lot of engineering to get done, but I could be wrong.
All the disadvantages that come with a shorter barrel, shorter and stiffer recoil spring, and shorter slide. The 17 is functionally more robust than a 19, and 26, and is easier to shoot.
Wholly inconsistent with experience on my 19X/45s, and the observed experience of agency and individual users transitioning to them. Both quantitative and qualitative. I can barely keep track of my loaners as they are borrowed by others considering the switch from 17/19.
Transitioning to them from what?
I shoot with a few solid shooters and none of us has seen the 19X that we play with do anything that a regular 19 can't do.
Wait.. what?
You think you can shoot the same ammo, make the slide lighter, the recoil spring heavier, and be in the same reliability window as the fullsize gun?
Physics disagrees.
You think you can shoot the same ammo, make the slide lighter, the recoil spring heavier, and be in the same reliability window as the fullsize gun?
Physics disagrees.
Have you weighed both slides and checked the spring rate on both RSA's?
Wholly inconsistent with experience on my 19X/45s, and the observed experience of agency and individual users transitioning to them. Both quantitative and qualitative. I can barely keep track of my loaners as they are borrowed by others considering the switch from 17/19.
I would expect LE agencies that have a wide variety of shooters with different levels of experience to be a good test group for a service pistol. What kind of ammunition are you firing through the G19X and G45? What advantages are you seeing when compared to the G17?
You think you can shoot the same ammo, make the slide lighter, the recoil spring heavier, and be in the same reliability window as the fullsize gun?
Physics disagrees.
That's like all 9 vs 45 arguments. We know that bigger is theoretically better, but we can't prove that real life outcomes are different.
The 19x was formally and systematically tested for reliability in the MHS trials before Army chose SIG. It actually did better than SIG in that testing. It is a very reliable gun.
While longer slides are generally thought to be more reliable, nobody has really formally tested that there's practical reliability advantages of 17 vs 19x.
There are now numerous guns on the market with same grip/different slide length that challenge the notion of longer=better. A notable example is HK P30 which is a superbly reliable and very shootable pistol without a hint of inferiority to its P30L siblings.
We should stop basing our arguments on physics and start prioritizing outcome and systematic testing data.
As far as full size vs compact, the Army appears to be the only service adopting the M17 in any quantity. The Marines. Air Force, and Navy seem to have all opted for the M18.
That's like all 9 vs 45 arguments. We know that bigger is theoretically better, but we can't prove that real life outcomes are different.
The 19x was formally and systematically tested for reliability in the MHS trials before Army chose SIG. It actually did better than SIG in that testing. It is a very reliable gun.
While longer slides are generally thought to be more reliable, nobody has really formally tested that there's practical reliability advantages of 17 vs 19x.
There are now numerous guns on the market with same grip/different slide length that challenge the notion of longer=better. A notable example is HK P30 which is a superbly reliable and very shootable pistol without a hint of inferiority to its P30L siblings.
We should stop basing our arguments on physics and start prioritizing outcome and systematic testing data.
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. ^^^ Physics is useful for design, but the acid test is extensive field use by personnel with a wide variety of physical characteristics and skill levels.
Transitioning to them from what?
Sorry, I thought that was clearer. Mostly G17, some G17/19. One particular group with very good shooters went from G19 to G19X with excellent results.
I shoot with a few solid shooters and none of us has seen the 19X that we play with do anything that a regular 19 can't do.
Depends on what you're trying to do and how you're measuring. Shooting drills involving AMRAPs, cadences, and measuring splits and round dispersions on target, with shooters that actually perform follow-through and have a concept of sight tracking, help illustrate.
My response was mostly to this point...
All the disadvantages that come with a shorter barrel, shorter and stiffer recoil spring, and shorter slide. The 17 is functionally more robust than a 19, and 26, and is easier to shoot.
Based on what I see, a shooter is not disadvantaged in any way by the 19X/45. I would grant that at some point, advantages could be nuanced or finer points of performance that a shooter is incapable of producing, does not think they need, or are in the weeds.
I would expect LE agencies that have a wide variety of shooters with different levels of experience to be a good test group for a service pistol. What kind of ammunition are you firing through the G19X and G45? What advantages are you seeing when compared to the G17?
Broad spectrum ammo function testing, garbage to gold, including ammo with known defects. The majority is typical OTS training and duty ammo. Rather than repost here, you guys can jump over to the 19X thread I started in 2018 which has some discussion of functional reliability and shooting attributes, along with a sample list of ammo. Several M4C members contributed. Though I haven't kept that thread up, that gun is still my EDC and now has about 10k on it with more ammo types. In October 2018, I got a G45 and started using it as my dedicated trainer/shooter. That one has about 14k documented rounds on it, same broad-spectrum reliability across ammo.
The nutshell: full size grip of the 17, fast slide of the shorter 19, less rise, less oscillation, more control, no compromises to function.
Same differences materializing in G43X and G48 comparisons.
The thread: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?204711-Review-G19X-w-Shooting-Results
Increasing the slide speed of a Glock decreases reliability. That's a fact. Doesn't mean that they're not reliable, but they are in no way more reliable than a 17. The longer lighter spring and less barrel tilt of the fullsize is an advantage.
Competition shooters all over the world run the lightest recoil springs that will function because it makes the gun run flatter. But all the 19X guys think the harsher recoil equals less flip and better tracking. Ha.
Have you weighed both slides and checked the spring rate on both RSA's?
17 slide is .6 oz heavier, recoil spring is 2lbs lighter.
I want a G45 as a full time suppressed piece. I hated them initially but now it’s not so bad
17 slide is .6 oz heavier, recoil spring is 2lbs lighter.
Have you measured them? That's what I asked.
The longer lighter spring and less barrel tilt of the fullsize is an advantage.
Do you understand that the Gen 5 19 & 17 utilize the same barrel lug and locking block?
Do you understand that the Gen 5 19 & 17 utilize the same barrel lug and locking block?
Yeah. But the barrel is shorter, so it tilts more. The same slide travel but it starts further back. The closer the slide gets to the lug, the higher the angle gets.
https://photos.smugmug.com/My-First-Gallery/i-PGFFsLd/0/db929ded/X2/06FBF313-73C2-48AB-A54A-A597BB0319B5-X2.jpg
:sarcastic: oh boy
It's hard to measure because of how the barrel is loose with the slide locked back, but I just clamped a Gen3 19 and a Gen5 34 (only Glocks in the shop) in a vice with a flat block between the slides and there is a difference in the barrel angle.
Grand58742
01-10-20, 14:05
I wasn't trying to instigate an argument here.
It's hard to measure because of how the barrel is loose with the slide locked back, but I just clamped a Gen3 19 and a Gen5 34 (only Glocks in the shop) in a vice with a flat block between the slides and there is a difference in the barrel angle.
Are you saying that two barrels with identical locking blocks and barrel lugs tilt at different angles?
Are you saying that two barrels with identical locking blocks and barrel lugs tilt at different angles?
The locking block and the lug don't affect the angle that gets created when the slide retracts, it's just the pivot point. The closer the slide gets to the pivot point, the steeper the angle gets. The end of the barrel travels in an arc.
https://photos.smugmug.com/My-First-Gallery/i-M6Pdnrk/0/b0c75841/S/27A8E0AD-E6C9-4C7A-8C56-8BEE98747713-S.jpg
This greatly exaggerates:
https://photos.smugmug.com/My-First-Gallery/i-dLqjZfq/0/536d86db/X2/E225BF37-2DBD-433F-BCB3-CC7C43C54FD2-X2.jpg
Not strictly on topic, but following the announcement of the SCAR PR being purchased, we have this:
French Government Unit orders the FN SCAR-SC (https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2020/01/10/french-government-unit-orders-the-fn-scar-sc/?fbclid=IwAR3YA28MGYCXDmc3DxDpCevybDz-61__2fxVTiF14pl6xs-eLWE5d7LljU8)
There’s a lot of things going on in France at the moment.
Apart from the French Army ordering 75,000 Glock 17 Gen 5s (some suppressed) and 2,600 FN SCAR-H PR DMR rifles (again suppressed, by B&T) with high-end accessories like Schmidt & Bender scoper thermals and other Night Vision.
In 2017, at Milipol in Paris, FN Herstal introduced their baby-SCAR family called FN SCAR-SC where SC stands for Subcompact Carbine.
Since then FN Herstal have added the 300 Blackout caliber. FN’s “Honey Badger” was shown about a year ago at EnforceTac 2019. This version has been adopted by the Belgian Police.
The article doesn't say who actually will be gettin these baby SCARs, but if it was the Army, it's an odd call. You'd think a single rifle family would have been chosen, not a mix match of HK and FN.
I wasn't trying to instigate an argument here.
Not an argument, but a very civil technical discussion. The coolest part...it's about guns and shooting, not a social/political/current events. :D
Increasing the slide speed of a Glock decreases reliability. That's a fact. Doesn't mean that they're not reliable, but they are in no way more reliable than a 17. [/quote[The longer lighter spring and less barrel tilt of the fullsize is an advantage.
I understand that there may be some geometric and mechanical differences, and never argued that the they are more reliable than a 17. However, these differences don't appear to materialize in a way adverse to function. Do you have a way I can replicate them and any potential functional compromise? What are your suggestions?
Business_Casual
01-10-20, 20:06
The 19X disadvantage, if it had one, would be more centered around the gold finish, lanyard loop and weapon-specific magazine in my mind. Not the slide length.
Grand58742
01-10-20, 20:09
Not an argument, but a very civil technical discussion. The coolest part...it's about guns and shooting, not a social/political/current events. :D
I mean, my thing was why the 17 in particular instead of something more recently developed specifically for a .mil contract.
Nothing wrong with the 17 as a lot of nations use it.
The only real evidence I have with the double stacks is ejection issues with 19s. They all suffered to some extent, but I saw more problem 19s than 17s and 34s, and I'm around a lot more 34s and 17s. I watched a lot of high speed camera work that showed how the faster slide speed didn't control the case as well due to the extractors pivoting outward when the slide was suddenly slowed down at two points during the rearward cycle. The heavier slide with lower velocity didn't upset the extractors like the lighter slides did and the spent case had a much better chance of making it to the ejector.
The 19s I watched would many times lose control of the case at the second 'bump' in the slide's rearward travel, and the case would be flipped out of the ejection port, it's direction depending on the position of the top round in the magazine, and how the case hit it. Which was a set of infinite variables that changed with every shot. My opinion was that the slightly steeper angle of the 19s barrel was a contributing cause of the cases that dropped below the extractor and ended up going wherever after that.
The 17s slower slide allowed the magazine more time to present the top round to aid in ejection, kept the extractor in control (or better) of the case, and the flatter barrel angle (my opinion) kept the extractor pulling the case from closer to the middle of it's diameter. Which wasn't an absolute as there were still plenty of fullsize guns with ejection issues.
My initial shooting when the 43 came out showed best ejection with standard pressure, getting erratic with heavier +p, and very repeatable FTEject with Win Ranger 127+p+.
ETA: With the performance of the current Gen5s I think they've sorted some things out and reliability difference between a 17 and 19 would be just about anecdotal at this point.
I've not seen a single piece of data that showed that rearward slide velocity of G19/19x is different to any significant extent from that of G17/34, if left in OEM configuration.
I've not seen a single piece of data that showed that rearward slide velocity of G19/19x is different to any significant extent from that of G17/34, if left in OEM configuration.
Well. In the case of the Gen 3&4 guns that had erratic ejection, they were barely functioning due to marginal design. When it's on the ragged edge of working, it doesn't take a significant difference to affect it.
How about we change "no significant" to "none at all"? Gen4 19 slide mass is about 4% lighter than G17, which is offset by about 6% heavier recoil spring. Both are cycling to assure reliable function of respective mags and mags are interchangeable. People have no problems with 17 mags in G19, or 19 mags in cut down G17s. The ejection issues of the past have been fixed on Gen 5 guns not by changing the cycling parameters or ejector geometry but by changing a breech face cut, implemented on slides of all lengths.
Again, I would suggest to leave physics to engineers who design those things and concentrate on end user analysis. Year is 2020, nobody is reporting reliability differences between 4 vs 4.5 inch Glocks, HKs, or SIGs. I think we can safely move past that relic of a concern.
That mentality is why we see the same mistakes made over and over again.
MountainRaven
01-11-20, 10:19
The 19X disadvantage, if it had one, would be more centered around the gold finish, lanyard loop and weapon-specific magazine in my mind. Not the slide length.
I doubt any of those things are concerns for a military contract - and the lanyard loop in particular is a very common option on military contract Glock pistols.
I think the pre-upgraded P320s would serve the French military better; since they fire when dropped.
Sent from my cp3705AS using Tapatalk
I wonder if this will translate to surplus SP2009/2022s.
They are actually not bad little guns and I’m not a sig person. If I were to buy a normal sig it’d be a 229
The French police carry the SIG 2022, not their military.
The French Military used the French designed MAC 1950 and the G1, a French produced version of the Beretta 92G.
Most French police including the National Police, the Gendarmerie and most municipal police carry the SIG 2022 and some special unit’s have Glocks. My understanding is their transit police are finally trading in their revolvers for SIG P320s.
Some French police trade in revolvers, including S&W M10s, Ruger SP101 and French Manuhurins have made it to the U.S. but with a new SP 2022 at less than $400 I’m not sure importing the surplus guns would be economically viable if they switched.
I’ve had some professional interaction with the French police. Like most of the Europeans, they are a few years behind us in TTPs but they don’t back down from a fight, They are on the frontlines of the GWOT and are taking the fight to the Islamists in their own country.
I’d be curious to know how many of the dropped gun folks have both served and actually heard a shot fired in anger or been outside the U.S. ? I mean actually traveled, not some bullshit Caribbean cruise.
sundance435
01-14-20, 11:31
I wonder if this will translate to surplus SP2009/2022s.
They are actually not bad little guns and I’m not a sig person. If I were to buy a normal sig it’d be a 229
Screw the SP2022, I'd kill for a MAC 1950, which they still issue in small numbers.
Very true. In general, generalisms are a bad idea.
And this is our mistake... American impressions of the French are largely due to Parisians. For sure the stereotypes are.
It's as ignorant as basing the definition of an American on someone from NYC or Newark.
Per french that I know and work with, have worked with... Parisians don't think they are better than the US, they think they are better than everyone. Same imperious arrogance that New Yorkers have. Or LA, or SF. Probably more of a big city thing.
France is fairly large, with very distinct regional cultures. Different dialects, food, mannerisms.
So in many aspects with our biases, we are confirming the Parisian perception that we are ignorant, poorly traveled, and arrogant, blind to our faults.
The French in general don't hate the US even if they disagree with our various politics. It's more we are the sibling with unrealized potential. Or the unpolished redneck uncle at the family dinner.
I also understand some of their concerns about cultural imperialism and it's impacts. I used to think this was just liberal thinking, but having spent more time in France and Italy I see it's really a concern about local businesses, shops, quality of food, etc. Is it really a good thing if McDonald's or Walmart displaces local businesses? if one restaurant open 7 days a week, then the other restaurants have to. So now the family restaurant has to take on more employees to cover it where before it was just Mom and Pop and their unmarried daughter. I see some of the logic and its impacts. I also see the lines of French at McDonald's and Burger Kings and have eaten there in-country myself at times because it was convenient basic consistent food.
I'm not a France apologist. Like visiting but have no desire to live there as a citizen. But I've also been in France, Italy and Germany enough and long enough that I recognize if there are some things that they figured out that we might have missed. And vice versa. And that we are guilty of many of the same stereotypes we apply to them.
Parisians are the New Yorkers of France!
Couldn't agree more. The French outside of Paris are outstanding people and are very appreciative of Americans.
As for their weapons choice, France was one of the last holdouts with a state-owned small arms manufacturer. Even the proud French had to cede that private enterprise can usually do it better.
I believe France was the last major military to adopt a new bolt-action rifle (MAS 36?).
I believe France was the last major military to adopt a new bolt-action rifle (MAS 36?).
I wouldn't say it was the last, as the No 5 Enfield came later. And it should be remembered that the MAS 36 was supposed to be a backup carbine for non-combat troops and got pushed into being the primary rifle due to delays in developing a semi-auto.
Grand58742
01-15-20, 21:16
I believe France was the last major military to adopt a new bolt-action rifle (MAS 36?).
Spain with the FR8 actually.
MountainRaven
01-16-20, 21:37
I believe France was the last major military to adopt a new bolt-action rifle (MAS 36?).
France was the third major country to adopt a general issue semi-automatic rifle, after the US and Soviet Union. But war were declared before it actually became general issue and France surrendered before significant numbers could make it into combat.
Supposedly the small numbers captured by the Germans and the apparent similarity of the machines used to manufacture the MAS-36 bolt action and the MAS-40 semi-automatic (and French workers sneaking out machinery to make MAS-40s) led the German army to overlook the MAS-40 - which is probably a good thing, because the last thing the allies needed were Wehrmacht soldiers with reliable, accurate semi-automatic rifles.
call_me_ski
01-18-20, 13:34
France was the third major country to adopt a general issue semi-automatic rifle, after the US and Soviet Union. But war were declared before it actually became general issue and France surrendered before significant numbers could make it into combat.
Supposedly the small numbers captured by the Germans and the apparent similarity of the machines used to manufacture the MAS-36 bolt action and the MAS-40 semi-automatic (and French workers sneaking out machinery to make MAS-40s) led the German army to overlook the MAS-40 - which is probably a good thing, because the last thing the allies needed were Wehrmacht soldiers with reliable, accurate semi-automatic rifles.
France actually adopted a semi automatic rifle and fielded over 80,000 of them in World war one. They were also the first country to adopt a rifle using smokeless powder. France has always been at the forefront of weapons design even if their guns were distinctly... French. It is a shame that they now have to turn to the Germans.
MountainRaven
01-18-20, 16:15
France actually adopted a semi automatic rifle and fielded over 80,000 of them in World war one. They were also the first country to adopt a rifle using smokeless powder. France has always been at the forefront of weapons design even if their guns were distinctly... French. It is a shame that they now have to turn to the Germans.
It seems that France was actually the first to adopt a semiautomatic rifle intended for general issue in 1910, although it wasn’t available in quantities before the outbreak of hostilities, as it wasn’t supposed to go into production until 1914. Rather ironically not unlike the MAS40. And also rather not unlike the MAS40, it was largely superseded in service by an interim solution - the Mle 1917 RSC in the case of the A6 Meunier and the MAS36 in the case of the MAS40.
It seems, however, that the Mle 1917 RSC was never intended to be the standard issue rifle for France, and basically became to the French army of WWI what the intended-to-be-standard-issue SVT-40 would become to the Red Army of WWII.
The Mle 1918 RSC was supposed to become the general issue rifle of the French army in 1919, but like the Pederson Device and the M1918 BAR, kind of became another secret weapon of the Entente’s never-happened Spring 1919 Offensive.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.