For the record, I'm a Glock guy. I think the military could have saved a lot of time and trouble by just selecting a G19 off the shelf and had a very good handgun. I'm not convinced the modular approach is that important for the military. In my opinion it makes for a more complex, less rugged gun. Regardless of the manufacturer.
I also recognize that while Glock WAS a trend setter there are other manufacturers that are probably building a handgun now that is just as good. Not that there is anything wrong with Glock, the others have just caught up. But like em or not, Glock is a design that has been proven and I think it could have been a good choice.
That said, I have no complaints with the chosen SIG. It had the features the military wanted, passed the trials and I firmly believe the issue will be corrected. I think it will prove to be a winner. Glocks time in the limelight may be fading. I'm OK with that. Time marches on and things change. I'll probably end up with a SIG down the road.
I would have liked to have seen a USA based winner. I don't know why S&W didn't make the cut. I know they had some serious QC issues when the M&P 1st came out but thought that had been resolved.
I've never owned one, and it wasn't submitted for the military to test, but the Ruger American looks promising. It is quite a bit heaver than it needs to be, but that is my only complaint as of yet. Once more come into use flaws may become apparent.
Same with the FN. That is a gun that I really wanted to like. But the one I had briefly just didn't shoot well. Maybe I just got unlucky.
I tried the XD. Didn't care for it at all. I can tolerate a well designed grip safety like on a 1911, even though I don't think it is necessary. The grip safety on the XD is awful. They may be reliable and accurate, but I'm not interested in one at any price.