Dr.Mall Ninja
Member
I’m not sure if this was brought up before but Sig charged he Army nearly 3 grand for a P320. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...oot-the-armys-new-handgun-for-the-first-time/ Is there something I’m missing?
Was the Army ripped off by Sig?
- Thread starter Dr.Mall Ninja
- Start date
- Status
Klint Beastwood
member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
- Messages
- 622
He’s correct ^
I don’t know if you took the contract dollar amount and try to get a difference between reported guns being shipped but that’s not how it works. Almost all contracted weapons will need to be worked on in a few years and parts be replaced and or be sent back to the factory. So the contract is usually all inclusive and then renewed when it’s time to be renewed.
I don’t know if you took the contract dollar amount and try to get a difference between reported guns being shipped but that’s not how it works. Almost all contracted weapons will need to be worked on in a few years and parts be replaced and or be sent back to the factory. So the contract is usually all inclusive and then renewed when it’s time to be renewed.
Blkhrt13
Member
This guy...
WestKentucky
Member
Ripped off? No. Features added to the existing model plus long term maintenance of the guns...not bad. What is not covered is what other items are part of the package...caliber conversions? Full auto variant? Another secretive weapon system that is "off the books"...not that the gooberment would ever do something shady like that.
Besides the gooberment was apparently keeping Colt afloat when they still had big contracts so maybe a contract with Uncle Sam is...lucrative...
Besides the gooberment was apparently keeping Colt afloat when they still had big contracts so maybe a contract with Uncle Sam is...lucrative...
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Was the army ripped of by Sig?
No but it's very likely that the tax payers got ripped of by politicians.
No but it's very likely that the tax payers got ripped of by politicians.
.455_Hunter
Member
If they would have adopted an enhanced P226 or P229, I would say NO. With the "Johnny Go Bang Bang" Dollar Store special they actually adopted, I would say YES.
Panzerschwein
member
The SIG is a tremendous bound ahead in military handgun technology compared to the ancient and archaic Beretta. This is literally like going from flintlocks to automatic weapons, that's how much more effective the SIG will be on the modern tactical warspace.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
A "less bad" deal isn't a good deal.
Tell us what your reasoning is for implying that it's a bad deal.
We're drifting a bit into politics, lets try to not drift too far.
Discussion about the cost of the gun and service or value for cost are safe ground for debate
Discussion about the cost of the gun and service or value for cost are safe ground for debate
Klint Beastwood
member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2017
- Messages
- 622
I think there’s a plethora of misconceptions of how the budgeting and contracting works in this particular case.
For the government this and politics that, the fact reguardless of stand point is the DOD gets a budget. Period. Each service gets a part of the pie, some more then others. The Army gets a decent portion of that pie. That large some of money is split into different directions it needs to be spent and ultimately down to the individual unit.
However, reeling it back a little, the service itself despite disseminating said funds still uses a portion of funds to do contracts for various things, including buying new guns for an entire service. If it wasn’t going to be an entirely new contract, with a new vendor and new pistols, then Berreta would have received a new contract and the money would have been spent for parts and maintenance on an out dated POS gun from the 80s that most despise. The money they would have got might have been the same or less, the point is it would have went somewhere.
I’m not saying waste, fraud and abuse of funds don’t happen, but I wouldn’t call this one of those times.
As far as if the weapon itself is worth it? Time will tell. Not my problem.
For the government this and politics that, the fact reguardless of stand point is the DOD gets a budget. Period. Each service gets a part of the pie, some more then others. The Army gets a decent portion of that pie. That large some of money is split into different directions it needs to be spent and ultimately down to the individual unit.
However, reeling it back a little, the service itself despite disseminating said funds still uses a portion of funds to do contracts for various things, including buying new guns for an entire service. If it wasn’t going to be an entirely new contract, with a new vendor and new pistols, then Berreta would have received a new contract and the money would have been spent for parts and maintenance on an out dated POS gun from the 80s that most despise. The money they would have got might have been the same or less, the point is it would have went somewhere.
I’m not saying waste, fraud and abuse of funds don’t happen, but I wouldn’t call this one of those times.
As far as if the weapon itself is worth it? Time will tell. Not my problem.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
I don't know that it was.
Just pointing out that offers that were worse do not mean this deal is good.
My suspicion about the taxpayers being ripped off by politicians is base on history.
Zerodefect
member
Does it weigh less than an M9. That's all I care about. Pistols are dead weight and nearly useless to a soldier.
I would have picked a Gen4 Glock 19 or 23, but that's just me.
I would have picked a Gen4 Glock 19 or 23, but that's just me.
John G C 1
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 314
I think some people have been very successful at making many Americans jump to the idea that Someone Else is wasting money or getting too much money. Turn the plumbers against the teachers and the teachers against the farmers and on and on. The goal is to make the average person attack the guy next to him in town and forget about the run away winners and crooks raking in millions. I would need to see some hard facts before I jumped to the conclusion the Sig deal was "bad" just because the government always gets a good deal.
JTQ
Member
I believe SIG is also providing ammo and multiple frames (and possibly slides) per gun to serve different mission requirements and user hand sizes. Remember, the "gun" is the internal chassis, and the whole thing is modular.
SIG is charging the military only $207 per gun. That's really low by any measure.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/28/why-the-sig-sauer-p320-won-the-army-contract/
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/28/why-the-sig-sauer-p320-won-the-army-contract/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
