Thanks for the video. That SIG is a good design. I think I might go for the M18 version! Cool.

 

Not sure why the military is so obsessed about modularity when those who actually use these guns in combat aren't allowed to make any changes to their pistols.

 

Not sure why the military is so abscessed about modularity when those who actually use these guns in combat aren't allowed to make any changes to their pistols.

Not sure why so many people not in the military are obsessed with which handgun was chosen and not chosen .

 

The whole process was stupid and costly. Somebody at the Pentagon was getting kickbacks.

 

-As is usually the case. The Bradley Fighting Vehicle disaster was not a one-off.

 

And ultimately, it came down to the low bid.

 

As usual.

 

One general commented that he could have armed the entire US military with Glock 19s for what they paid out just testing pistols.

 

Price, simple as that...

 

Modularity. A modular pistol design was requested. The Glock isn't really modular by any sense of the word compared to the Sig which could swap frames, slides, switch out safety, etc. at will from the serialized chassis.

The lower cost was also probably a significant factor.

 

Modularity. A modular pistol design was requested. The Glock isn't really modular by any sense of the word compared to the Sig which could swap frames, slides, switch out safety, etc. at will from the serialized chassis.

The lower cost was also probably a significant factor.

Stop with the logic...your gonna hurt some feelings around here. lol

 

The modular bit was just so that Sig would win. That's the only logic in this, that I can think of.

 

Instead of Modularity maybe They should have just issued 2 Glock 19 x pistol to each soldier. LOL

 

I've told this before; but when I was a young airman, I asked our commander why we had to carry S&W 38s and the Army got 45s...He told me, "If you're shooting the enemy with a pistol, you are already **."

I want a rifle...

 

I've told this before; but when I was a young airman, I asked our commander why we had to carry S&W 38s and the Army got 45s...He told me, "If you're shooting the enemy with a pistol, you are already F----d."

I want a rifle...

Yes, the RIFLE is the primary weapon that does the most work in any military. The pistol is what is often forgotten, when the rifle goes empty.

 

I don't care what or why the military picks as its firearms.

My tastes are far too specific and my standards too high.

 

I don't care what or why the military picks as its firearms.

My tastes are far too specific and my standards too high.

 

Makes me want to dig out my X and head to the range!

 

And yet, the Brit’s got nice G17’s…

 

I keep hearing about lowest bid, but the wasn't part of SIG's bid is they have to service the FCU? That isn't a free service, and it will end it costing the military even more than the Glock contract.

 

Glock>Sig

 

Can't we all agree it came down to Glock vs. Sig, 2 quality name brand gunmakers who are the two largest suppliers of handguns to militaries and LE around the globe.

If the military looked for the absolute cheapest bidder, our military would be made up of Ruger, Kel Tec, Taurus, and S&W at this point.

Who did our military go to when they were not impressed with the sidearm at the time, the M9? Glock and Sig. SEALS, SWCC, NCIS, Air Force OSI, CID, Coast Guard went Sig while Delta, Force Recon, Army Rangers, and a few others went Glock. No Kel Tecs, No Rugers, No Taurus, no Smith Wessons.....

Look at federal law enforcement, who did DHS pick as their sidearm? Glock & Sig. Some went P320 such as ICE and Veterans Affairs Police and others went Glock like Coast Guard and CBP.

Do we finally see a pattern here?

 

Can't we all agree it came down to Glock vs. Sig, 2 quality name brand gunmakers who are the two largest suppliers of handguns to militaries and LE around the globe.

If the military looked for the absolute cheapest bidder, our military would be made up of Ruger, Kel Tec, Taurus, and S&W at this point.

Ding...ding...ding.
Winnah....winnah....chicken dinner!

 

Both great guns and both would have served equally well. It comes down to this: SIG won so Glock and some Glock fans didn't Iike it. If Glock had won, SIG and some SIG fans wouldn't have liked it.

Glock won big anyways with their FBI contract that led to them winning the contracts for almost every other Federal agency afterwards.

 

Spot on.... Don't forget Glock also now fielded by USSS and they won partial DHS contract (USCG, CBP)

 

Why do some people like chocolate, when I like vanilla?

 

We heard the same grumblings when Beretta was chosen over Sig and others back in 1986. And I can remember how the M9 had issues and didn't work so well in the sand during Desert Storm. I was a hold out and kept my 1911 at that time, it worked quite well.

I cared about what weapons were chosen when I was in and still care since I want to see the troops get the best.

As far as Sig vs Glock getting the contract, there were just as much if not more politics involved than actual test results. It was the same way when the M9 was adopted too.

Being an end user along with being a machinist that had to repair weapons, I can tell you just because something meets military specs does not mean it is the best.

Another thing that a lot of people over look when talking about costs is the spare parts and maintenance that is included in the contracts. One pistol might be cheaper but parts and maintenance might cost more over the life of the contract. Another pistol might be more expensive but spare parts and maintenance is cheaper over the life of the contract.

 

How many times are people going to rehash this debate??
Only the most rabid Glock fanboys will keep making excuses for why Glock lost the US Army contract. Its seems VERY simple to most people's eyes. The US Military wants a 'Modular" pistol and Glock neither makes ones or made one for the the contract. They also wanted an external safety and maybe Glock could have done this or did.

Both Glock and SIG will give the best deal when they want this contract. Don't think Glock bids the lowest for so many LEO or other contracts? Or is just solely the best period and everyone else maks junk?

SIG and Glock makes among the best pistols on the market. both are reliable, easy to work on, quality and parts are ready available.
Best comparison is Glock is a Toyota. Excellent, reliable, get the job done and quality. SIG is Lexus will all the same attributes, with a little more refinement and quirks (modular).

So the contract went to the Modular design. Did Glock just think they could ignore what was asked and just win?

I wonder if it also had to due with SIG having rifles and winning that contract too? Glock still does not make a Rifle at all.

I own a G19.5 MOS and its a great pistol. What is not to like expect aesthetics and that in the eye of the owner. Reliable and feeds anything and goes bang. I also have a SIG 320c and does the same, modular and slightly more accurate. Advantage to the G19.5 for being an ounce or so lighter.

 

How many times are people going to rehash this debate??
Only the most rabid Glock fanboys will keep making excuses for why Glock lost the US Army contract. Its seems VERY simple to most people's eyes. The US Military wants a 'Modular" pistol and Glock neither makes ones or made one for the the contract. They also wanted an external safety and maybe Glock could have done this or did.

Both Glock and SIG will give the best deal when they want this contract. Don't think Glock bids the lowest for so many LEO or other contracts? Or is just solely the best period and everyone else maks junk?

SIG and Glock makes among the best pistols on the market. both are reliable, easy to work on, quality and parts are ready available.
Best comparison is Glock is a Toyota. Excellent, reliable, get the job done and quality. SIG is Lexus will all the same attributes, with a little more refinement and quirks (modular).

So the contract went to the Modular design. Did Glock just think they could ignore what was asked and just win?

I wonder if it also had to due with SIG having rifles and winning that contract too? Glock still does not make a Rifle at all.

I own a G19.5 MOS and its a great pistol. What is not to like expect aesthetics and that in the eye of the owner. Reliable and feeds anything and goes bang. I also have a SIG 320c and does the same, modular and slightly more accurate. Advantage to the G19.5 for being an ounce or so lighter.

Dirtboy, Respectfully Glock met every aspect of the Modular contract. If they didn’t they wouldn’t have made it to be a finalist against the Sig.
Glock offered test samples with Manual Safety. And the Modulation requirement had Zero to due with Removable FCU.

what beat Glock is price and Small Arms Solutions does a great video on the tests were done in a different way than ever before.

there was also several released”checklists “ that showed Glock won or tied with SIG.

I have a few Glocks because I had to teach on them at FLETC but am no super fan. They work though. I have owned Sig 320 and several 220 series. Issued a 228 on the Fed side have a 226 I carry in my retirement years. They are all good just tools.

 

HRFunk has a pretty good video on YouTube where he goes through the thing point by point.
Cost was definitely a factor but not the only one.

I like the Glock better but the Sig is good.

 

Read the solicitation. It was HAND WRITTEN EXACTLY for the Sig P320 platform. Down to each and every design detail. Someone was given a kickback or some huge Sig fanboy was in charge of procurement. Then.... it gets worse. Then these weenies write up more contract solicitation for a Sig Fury rifle using Sig manufactured new caliber ammunition. And now Sig will be building hundreds of thousands of new rifles to go along with hundreds of thousands of new pistols. Sig will gain billions and billions of dollars off of these two weapons contracts for the next 25-30 years. Its not a coincidence.

 

Yeah nothing of merit. [emoji849]
You Glock Fan Boys are just something.

Maybe the solicitation was exactly what the Military wanted.

Glock lost, Glock does not make rifles or ammo.
Glock makes a great pistol as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

May I remind you that the FBI RFP was written as to be practically tailor-made for the P320 as well and yet Glock revised their design and won the contract.

 

Do you know the changes? Just got into Glocks so don't know much overall about them. Likw what was revised. Seems like most Glocks are about the same.

 

Polnische Kampfschwimmer Formoza beschaffen Glock 45 MOS und SIG Sauer MCX-Komponenten

Die polnischen maritimen Spezialkräfte Jednostka Wojskowa Formoza haben verschiedene Firmen mit der Lieferung von Glock-Pistolen und Komponenten für weitere Waffen beauftragt.

soldat-und-technik.de

Just released today, Poland's Navy SEAL-equivalent goes Glock 45 & Sig MCX.

Where's the Smith?

 

Polnische Kampfschwimmer Formoza beschaffen Glock 45 MOS und SIG Sauer MCX-Komponenten

Die polnischen maritimen Spezialkräfte Jednostka Wojskowa Formoza haben verschiedene Firmen mit der Lieferung von Glock-Pistolen und Komponenten für weitere Waffen beauftragt.

soldat-und-technik.de

Just released today, Poland's Navy SEAL-equivalent goes Glock 45 & Sig MCX.

Where's the Smith?

Well there's a contract for 100 pistols and rifles...LOL

 

The army only requires a handgun to last 20,000 rounds and views handguns like they view knifes. Their view - when you have to use a handgun you are toast - so why waste time on them with training and durability expectations. It only has to go bang. Note Chris Kyle, the American Sniper, carried a Springfield TRP and later a Sig 220, both in 45 caliber, in Iraq. Does that tell you something about hardball ammo?

 

That military doctrine in the US military has changed. Pistols are used in house clearing and other situations. They just made a new range for the 101st to practice rifle to handgun transitions .