After the success of the Glock 17 in Austrian military trials, the company chose two specific markets to target for expansion. One was competition shooters, for whom the Glock 17L was released. The other was the international law enforcement and military market, for whom they decided to make a machine pistol – the Glock 18. The 18 was released in 1986, a model identical to the 17 except for the addition of a rotary selector switch on the slide.
In response to complaints about the controllability of the Glock 18, the 18C (Compensated) was released in 1996. This was a new model which added four barrel ports and a lightened slide to the 18. Neither has ever been really successful simply because machine pistols are by their very nature now very practical.
The question we are going to look at today is how the Glock 18 system works. As one would expect from Glock, it is a quite simply mechanical change to the semiauto lockwork.
“(…)machine pistols are by their very nature now very practical.(…)”
Should I understand this as machine pistols are by their very nature very practical in March 2025? If yes why it is so? If not what year month day now denotes in sentence above?
I think “now” was a typo for “not”.
A fully-automatic weapon in the pistol format is an answer to a question that nobody in their right mind is going to be asking.
There may be some 95th percentile types out there who can make such a mechanical affectation work for them, but the vast majority of the “average user” will present rather more of a threat to their fellow military/police personnel and innocent bystanders than they will to any potential threats.
Given the physics of it all, and our current technologies, I cannot see any value in one of these confections. Maybe if someone were to try the idea out in something controllable in that format, like .22LR? I don’t know… Personally, I think the whole idea is just stupidity on skates. It’s very vaguely useful when there’s a stock involved, but the raw fact is that if you’re going to do that, why not do a real, honest-to-God SMG? It’s the same envelope…
If you’re going to do “pistol”, it has to be controllable. 9mm out of a pistol format, in fully automatic? Not ever going to be controllable for the average “likely user” they’re going to be handing one of these to.
Every time I see a Glock 18 or Beretta 93R, I just default back to my experience training my medics and senior field grades on the M9, and try to imagine what that would have entailed if there’d been a fully-auto option on those pistols.
Other than turning our pistol qualification ranges into impromptu sorting mechanisms for the really unlucky, and weeding out nine-tenths of the people involved through attrition and “range accidents”, I can’t see it working out. At. All.
I honestly can’t see the use-case for any of these weapons. Maybe if you were at Kursk, and trying to clear the deck on one of your tanks, firing out a pistol-port…? Dunno; I’m not sure how the hell you’d control something like this in that situation, and then you’d have the minor issue of the port interfering with the slide operation, soooo… Yeah. No. Just… No.
“(…)someone were to try the idea out in something controllable in that format, like .22LR?(…)”
If you need pistol shaped pistol-shaped full automatic weapon using .22 rim-fire cartridge then use TREJO https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Trejo_pistol
If you desire higher capacity of magazine and are okay with using 6,35 mm Browning cartridge then use LERCKER https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Lercker_machine_pistol
I think what Ian was trying to say was `not` very practical, the full auto Beretta 93r was probably the best attempt with the compensated barrel foregrip and shoulder stock I think he has a video about it.
I wonder, how do the Wish Glock Switches do it on a standard Glock? That would be interesting.
Much like laying out how to create improvised explosives, I think that anyone like Ian laying out a “how to”, which is effectively what that would amount to… It’d be a really, really bad idea.
Frankly, were it not for the almost certain collateral damage, I’d be all for handing the damn things out to gang bangers, but… Given the actual likely effect on my continued right to keep and bear arms for my own self-defense, I’d just as soon not have everyone and their cousin discussing this crap on the internet. There’s already one lawsuit against Glock over the issue, and the more attention we draw to it, the worse the likely effects, once the morons get aroused.
This is one of those sad cases where common sense should outweigh what is the idealized “perfect state”.
That barrel venting in that location must make 9x19mm more .380 or 9x17mm; it must lose gas pressure behind the bullet from the barrel. Wonder if you could mount 2 glock 17’s on top of each other, mags stuck out to the side; on an AR lower… And Gast gun the mofo’s with one pull of a trigger. Might be a lark “Legal” and otherwise to work out; probably sell mind if you could – Folks have said pistols and lowers, a drop in thing. Modern Glocks I think have those mounting rail things underneath… That 9mm cal used the .223 spring and was snappy, might be a way. Sounds a laugh 2 barrels, and potentially high rate of fire. Two litre shooters, target market. I went Gast gun on two lever action Winchesters once, used a big wheel thing… (I changed that to Huges chain gun type arrangement) out of interest. Might be possible. BANG!!! Gun 1 back… Hits gun 2’s trigger BANG!!! Along those lines clearly; needs a bit more work like, as that is as far as I have got since watching this video.
That 9mm bearing arms conversion thing, .223 spring; snappy… Hmmm…
The Winchester idea was essentially a Gast gun conversion, this might be more “proto bump fire” quite; if at all, not sure. Still 2 barrels of glock, big mags, Ar; if legal, in the U.S that must sell.
Sounds lethal that doesn’t it, still; 2 litre shooters, need 2 litre shooters…
Dynamiters, need dynamite.
“(…)dynamite”
Does not you find 9 mm bullet to be to small to implement useful load of explosive filler?
“(…)2 litre shooters(…)”
What is this?
Pop, Coke bottles 2 litres metric they shoot them in America as targets seemingly.
https://youtu.be/J-QeTbmchvQ?si=JEPJp8nSKgd24Poj
“(…)mount 2 glock 17(…)”
Unless intentional show of disdain: Glock.
If you need 2-barrel full-auto pistol-cartridge originating from Austria then use Doppelpistole, see 3rd image from top http://firearms.96.lt/pages/m12p16
Oh I love that, but nobody has them anymore; couldn’t make them no skilled workers/machines etc. Drop in Glock, AR platform Gast gun… Have to think more about the mechanism, rather than why. If that wouldn’t sell in the U.S I will eat a small portion of a tweed hat. Mechanism/integrate into platform. Good against body armour also probably; as @ 1,800 rnds a min from 66 you’d probably hit some in the ball’s/head. Meh.
It all comes down to “what is the mission”?
The earliest semi-practical machine pistol, the Astra 903, was intended to appeal to Chinese warlords who wanted a fancy, exotic gun to arm their bodyguards. In short, it was a “boutique” item.
The Mauser 1932/712, which came later, was intended for the same market. It ended up in military service with the German Army as the pistol issued to motorcycle despatch riders. The later Czech Vz.61 and Polish PM Wz. 63 were designed for similar duties. As W.H.B. smith said of the ’63, since it was likely to be the sole defense of a lone man, it had to have the best possible performance.
What is overlooked in all these cases is that pinpoint accuracy, even up close, was neither required or particularly desired. The gun’s job was to create a “wall of lead” at near point-blank range to give the operator time to make his escape. In the case of the Chinese warlord, his bodyguards were to use their machine pistols to create a storm of lead to give him time to escape with his booty- and his booty calls.
The machine pistol is the tactical equivalent of a shotgun. And as we discussed here the other day, a shotgun is largely useless on a battlefield.
The purpose of the machine pistol today is mainly intimidation. Again, much like the shotgun.
The late L. Neil Smith advocated three-shot burst control on a machine pistol, to make it at least somewhat more useful. This might have made something useful out of the Spectre…whatever it was. Ditto the Jovina International/AMAC Delta 786…whatisit.
Probably the most sensibly-designed “machine pistol” ever was the French MAT 1949 in 9mm. It had most of the virtues of a “Folding SMG” without many of its drawbacks. And thanks to that handy folding magazine well with its nicely-ergonomic foregrip, even without a stock and firing from the hip by the Jerry Usher method, the ’49 was in fact actually possible to hit something with.
clear ether
eon
I do think the Ppsh may have a use against body armour, though… I honestly do; the fire rate, don’t aim at the body armour. I mean the effect, vastly different; is it? NO BALLS. They are down. Yes I know it is rude. But it is a war.
Shooting someone in the belly etc isn’t nice, 32 in the nuts; blood… Might be kinder. Anyway, meh. Best idea is peace.
And robots don’t have balls, per se.
Our robots will shoot us in the nuts; why? Below the body armour. Magnetic pricks.
I find myself nodding along in agreement. Essentially.
It would be my take that if you’re a bodyguard whose principal keeps putting you into positions where you need something like that Astra 903, well… You need to find another principal before this one gets you killed.
It’s the same issue as the whole idiotic PDW concept: If such a thing is to be useful, you’ve put yourself in the shoes of that woman’s husband in Los Angeles, per the fire department leadership: You’re somewhere you shouldn’t be.
The use-case for a pistol predicates that spray-and-pray full auto fire is inappropriate; you’d be way better off with a frag grenade and a semi-auto pistol or revolver. Same-same with most of the PDW-class weapons out there; you’d be way better off with an actual carbine-class weapon that’s not going to be taking up that much extra room, and will be lethal out to the outer edge or further of the individual-weapon appropriate range fan.
The trick to winning fights is to know what is and what isn’t appropriate for that fight. I can’t think of any engagements where the full-auto pistol or the PDW are at all appropriate. I mean, if you’re in a situation where the quarters are close, and you want to effectively let off a Claymore in a confined space? Why bother with the pistol… Use a frag, take everyone with you.
Hardcore… Eon as a Policeman might be trying to save hostages or something; anyway thats between you two. Robots though, the mofos shooting us in the nuts.
Shoot them in nuts, pricks.
18th c wars were better, sort it out accidental shots, in the nuts “Sorry” not nice, but folk move on. Bar the dead chaps. None of this moon base shit, to laser you. Well we’ll laser you etc. Farce.