Glock Officially Protests Army Selection of Sigs

[ROCK6]

Like many others have noted in this thread, the actual use of these modular options by the military will be limited.

Having been involved with a few Army fielding initiatives, the Army will get a few Sig techs to do the initial road-show to properly show fitting. After that, as Soldiers move on, the fitting will get lost and all the modular parts will get squirreled away in the armory only pulled out for 10%, change of command or monthly inventories. For those currently issued M11's, they will likely just get issued the compact/subcompact frames. Modularity does sound good, but it won't be a large part of fielding.

I'm not an acquisitions guy, but I wonder if the contract protest just keeps the door open for future, small-batch contracts. If some Army communities prefer Glock, they may be able to contract with Glock vice the larger Army contract. I'm really not certain that is possible, but in the IT world, contested contracts (or screw-ups with the selection process) can open the door to for the runner-ups.

ROCK6

 

[Torian]

While I'm excited that the Beretta will finally be replaced, I suspect it will be some time before we are actually fielded anything. I would have been excited to get either the Glock or the Sig, but my preference leans slightly towards the Sig for personal reasons.

I was never a fan of the way the Beretta felt, shot, or handled in the dirty/sandy climates I was deployed in.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Seems to me that Glock is taking a lesson from the special snowflakes.

Also, this entire process, from beginning to end, has been nothing less than total fraud, waste, and abuse, of taxpayer money. We spent millions switching from one high cap 9mm to another high cap 9mm. What a complete and total waste of money. I would have rather seen that money go to VA benefits, raise in service member pay, base housing, ANYTHING but another new, unnecessary toy paid for by corporate welfare via the military industrial complex. While we're at it, kill the F35 and bring back the F15. Meet the old boss, same as the new boss.

 

[TEAM101]

I can't find anything to not like about the Sig.

I don't like the high bore axis. Other than that, it seems like a fine weapon.

 

[hso]

American Colts.

Made by Remington Rand and the other 1911 manufacturers making 1911s for the military.

 

[herrwalther]

Also, this entire process, from beginning to end, has been nothing less than total fraud, waste, and abuse, of taxpayer money. We spent millions switching from one high cap 9mm to another high cap 9mm. What a complete and total waste of money.

Army has been going back and forth on the selection to replace the M9 for about 10 years. That could have been shortened significantly. The M9s in our inventory needed a severe upgrade to the M9A3 or replaced to something else.

 

[stoky]

Seems to me that Glock is taking a lesson from the special snowflakes.

They need pink hats with corners sticking up, if they ever expect to get another chance to pay the grease.

 

[Bobson]

Interesting that all the Glock haters believe that Glock only makes the exact same gun and didn't build anything new in an attempt to win this competition, yet Glock somehow beat out all the new and updated guns from Beretta, FN and S&W to be in the final selection with the Sig. If modularity was indeed a requirement, somehow Glock beat out the new modular Beretta APX. I would assume that means that Glock too had a modular concept that all the rabid know-it-all haters are unaware of.

I like Glocks. My only pistol is a Glock, and I don't see that changing later when I add to the collection. The fact is that Glock does only make the exact same type of gun. That's not Glock-hate, that's facing facts. If there's a Glock that's not a composite frame, black, squarish, striker-fired gun without a manual safety, please point it out to me. If there has EVER BEEN a Glock that doesn't fit that description, please provide a link to this historical artifact.

Is it absolutely incomprehensible to believe Glock actually designed something with a manual safety for this competition? No. Does anything in Glock's history lead reason to believe it finally happened? Not from where I stand.

 

[M1key]

1982 Army trials
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/thumb-safety-glock/

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Army has been going back and forth on the selection to replace the M9 for about 10 years. That could have been shortened significantly. The M9s in our inventory needed a severe upgrade to the M9A3 or replaced to something else.

I disagree completely. The original M9 was, and remains, a perfectly capable firearm. I see no advantage whatsoever to replacing it. Jumping from the M9 to the sig is not like jumping from the 1911 to the M9 or from the M1 to the M16 with a brief stop at the M14. This new Sig offers literally nothing over the M9 that makes the Sig worth any of the effort or expense. This is just a waste of taxpayer money to justify our exorbitant defense budget.

An enemy soldier shot with an M9 is in just as bad of a spot as one shot with a Sig. He doesn't know or care if the gun that shot him is striker fired, hammer fired, or modular. We could have saved a tremendous amount of money in R&D and testing by just ordering more M9 pistols.

Mind you, I'm not taking anything away from the Sig (or any of its competitors in the trials) nor am I a Beretta "fanboy." (Although, I mostly liked the one I had in the Air Force.) I'm a fiscal conservative who sees no value in this move. The opportunity costs alone on this boondoggle are endless.

 

[JohnKSa]

Does anything in Glock's history lead reason to believe it finally happened?

Spoke to a Glock employee awhile back who indicated that Glock had made some pistols with thumb safeties for LE contracts in Europe.

Seems to me that Glock is taking a lesson from the special snowflakes.

They have nothing to lose and potentially a lot to gain. Even if the chances are small that the outcome will change, the big payoff and lack of a downside combine to make it an easy decision. Probably the same reason S&W, H&K and SACO (Now SIG Sauer) protested the outcome of the M9 competition.

 

[toivo]

The original M9 was, and remains, a perfectly capable firearm.

Yes, for men with average-to-large hands. For women (and men with small hands) it can be too large to handle. I see the Army ordering the various sizes of P320s in a ratio of about 20-60-20 of the small, medium, and large grip modules. Then people's pistols can fit them as well as their boots do.

The big advantage of the modularity is going to be in a maintenance. A SIG P320 consists of grip frame, slide, barrel, recoil spring assembly, and fire control unit. These parts could be disassembled and reassembled by a trained monkey. The army will buy the FCUs in bulk and save money on armorer training and assorted smaller parts.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Yes, for men with average-to-large hands. For women (and men with small hands) it can be too large to handle. I see the Army ordering the various sizes of P320s in a ratio of about 20-60-20 of the small, medium, and large grip modules. Then people's pistols can fit them as well as their boots do.

The big advantage of the modularity is going to be in a maintenance. A SIG P320 consists of grip frame, slide, barrel, recoil spring assembly, and fire control unit. These parts could be disassembled and reassembled by a trained monkey. The army will buy the FCUs in bulk and save money on armorer training and assorted smaller parts.

So were spending money to save money? That doesn't work with my wife, either.

I wish we could follow the money to see who else (besides Sig) profits from this mess.

On the bright side, maybe we'll finally replace those old, boring, antiquated, aging, decrepit, M16/M4 rifles next. Man, those things have been around since dirt. We should get rid of them, because they're old, for something newer and "better."

 

[fpgt72]

No, the purpose of modularity was to equip personnel with the best fit. I.e. different grip sizes. The barrel length will probably differ according to branch and service type. But with growing diversity within the ranks (women, small and large statured people), this will tackle the problem of ill fitting equipment. I know people with small hands had issues with the Beretta 92 grip being too wide.

This is a clueless comment. Have you even been in the military....know how that system works....sure does not look like it. Other posters pointed out how it works....out of the box and on to the racks.

 

[fpgt72]

It's quite wrong...

The specs should be based on actual need and not on one manufacturer's model "they wanted." I think the "modular" design matter is more sales razzmatazz than anything else. As others has expounded on here, I don't think it's going to amount to a hill of beans in practical use.

Wrong again....having put our RFP's for tons of stuff I can tell you how it works....you know what you want in an item....I want X,Y,Z....and you know that from knowing just what is in the market. You know brand A has all those features already....but you might want something it does not offer....so you will stick that in as well. You know that a specific company has an item that is 99% of what you want....there is a little research that goes into this...you know what is in the market place. If a brand has what you want....then it is what it is.

 

[SSN Vet]

I heard today that Berretta is also protesting the contract award... and claiming patent infringement.

 

[Old Dog]

This is a clueless comment. Have you even been in the military....know how that system works....sure does not look like it. Other posters pointed out how it works....out of the box and on to the racks.

So comes now the rudeness and disrespect for other forum members' opinions.

Apparently, we are so blessed to have so many extremely knowledgeable forum members with such vast experience in the whole military procurement thing, you know, the planning, programming, budgeting and execution process, not to mention those who've chimed in with their (albeit undocumented, unsubstantiated) claims of what the Army is going to do with their new pistols ... Gosh, I had no clue myself we had so much expertise on this forum.

For those who already know exactly how the Army is going to use its new modular pistol system (and kudos, you've all been very forthcoming with your predictions), kindly PM me this week's winning Powerball numbers.

 

[JeffG]

For me, I had no dog in the fight, I have my opinions. I have been told(not here) where I can place my opinions. The new pistol is going to chosen without my guidance. It will be interesting what happens, nothing more.

 

[toivo]

So were spending money to save money?

Money is going to have to be spent either way. The Army had the choice of ordering more M9s or going with something that might save them some money down the road. Whether it actually will is another story.

 

[toivo]

This is a clueless comment. Have you even been in the military....know how that system works....sure does not look like it. Other posters pointed out how it works....out of the box and on to the racks.

So does everybody in the military wear the same size pants and boots?

 

[lysanderxiii]

Some people are confusing "specifications" with "requirements".

If you read the "specification" for an M4 carbine (MIL-C-70559), it describes the Colt Model 920, and nothing else. But that specification was written after the the M4 was tested, found acceptable and adopted. "Specifications" are used to ensure all items produced and procured under that specification number are exactly like the item tested, found acceptable and adopted.

Requirements are nothing more than a "wish list". say the Army wants to replace the HMMWV with a cheaper commercial truck, so they draw up 'requirements':

1) it has to go 800 on a tank of fuel
2) it has to be multifuel
3) it has to carry 1-3/4 tons of cargo
4) it has to be carried by a UH-60
5) it has to have a maximum cost of $45,000
6) maintenance costs have to be under $500 per year

And, they send this list to all the truck manufacturers, and they get back offer to sell them:

A Ford F250 with a multi-fuel engine
A Ram 2500 with a multi-fuel engine
A Chevy Silverado 2500 with a multi-fuel engine
A Toyota Dyna with a multi-fuel engine

Well, none of them will actually meet the requirements, they either are to heavy, cost too much, too short ranged, or whatever. So, they test them all and find the one that comes to closest to meeting the requirements and adopt that one. We, as civilians do this all the time without thinking twice about it (or writing lots of papers).

Then they write a "specification" that that describes the truck they picked, describes it exactly. So when the next model year comes around and the manufacturer decides to change that line of trucks to something different, the Army can point to the specifications and say, "No, this is what we tested, this is what came the closest to meeting our wish list, and this is what we want."

For purely COTS items, you don't even have to go through all that, you just state you want a Panasonic Toughbook Model CG-31, then write a quick paper on why that one and nothing else, and there you go. Sometimes the GSA comes back and grills you on your justification paper (usually at the instigation of the Senator from the other company's home state), depending o the value of the contract.

 

[entropy]

That one's funny, since they bought two of the four, both of which I had the dubious honor of driving while active duty.
Actually not a Ram 2500, but a 1500 gasser: The M880 series.
Not a Silverado 2500, but a heavy half diesel, the M1008 CUCV.
Wasn't a huge fan of either. I actually liked the old M151A2 best.

 

[herrwalther]

I disagree completely. The original M9 was, and remains, a perfectly capable firearm.

I phrased myself a little awkwardly and I apologize. I meant to say our M9s should have been replaced with new M9s, M9A3s, or something new. The vast majority of M9s I have seen in service have sloppy fit and almost no finish left. One "busy body" tasks of lower enlisted is to have parts of M9s touched up with marker that are normally replaced anyway. Replacing the M9 with the Sig is costing not much more money than getting new M9s in inventory by comparison. The R&D was way too long and high ranking Army personnel (like Gen Milley) have mentioned this. But we did need to do something with out aging pistols.

 

[danez71]

So comes now the rudeness and disrespect for other forum members' opinions.

Apparently, we are so blessed to have so many extremely knowledgeable forum members with such vast experience in the whole military procurement thing, you know, the planning, programming, budgeting and execution process, not to mention those who've chimed in with their (albeit undocumented, unsubstantiated) claims of what the Army is going to do with their new pistols ... Gosh, I had no clue myself we had so much expertise on this forum.

For those who already know exactly how the Army is going to use its new modular pistol system (and kudos, you've all been very forthcoming with your predictions), kindly PM me this week's winning Powerball numbers.

Yeaaaa..... I hear ya.

So far, I'm the only one that has posted current Federal Acquisition Regs .... and they debunk half or more of what people are saying as to how things work. And I only posted 1 section.

 

[JeffG]

Is it just me? When somebody uses the word ^^^protest^^^ I'm done; turn the page.