Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@cse.ogi.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: The replacement for the 1911A1 in the US Army
Message-ID: <12881@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 8 Jan 90 05:11:09 GMT
References: <12753@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12814@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com

From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)


In article <12814@cbnews.ATT.COM> rls@onondaga.crd.ge.com (Roderick Sprattling) writes:
>
>Now I have a question: what were the selection criteria for the
>service sidearm that favored the Beretta? I know caliber, cost and
>capacity entered into it. But if the factors of weight, reliability
>and simplicity of use were also important, why was the Glock 17
>not chosen? I believe Glock has, or is planning to, open a factory

There were several reasons if I remember correctly.  First, this
competition was several years ago (1980-2 or thereabouts), at that
time the Glock was a novelty with little performance record.  Second,
there were some strict requirements about double action and a certain
type of safety.  As I recall there were problems with one or both of
these requirements caused by the unique design of the Glock.
Supporters of the Glock clain it was better than any other pistol
offered, so it might have been a problem with a technicality.  This
all was a long time ago and I'm working from memory.  The Glock may
not have even been entered in the first competition it was so new.

-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu