Working with DoD contracts all day (but not associated with this one so this is strictly a personal opinion)
The original RFP called for a single source to provide pistols, parts, ammunition, suppressors, sight/optics, and holsters. SIG has all of these in house. GLOCK doesn't. I suspect that's your difference right there.
Much like the original Beretta vs SIG in the 1980's, something other than raw test data was the deciding factor.
Aloha
There have been many PDs in my area switching over to the P320 prior to the MHS contract being declared.
The P320 represents the military returning to a single action pistol with a thumb safety. Other, non-military contracts, had requirements for a same function pistol dedicated to force on force training and another model that has a constant, functional trigger for use with video simulator systems. Glock can meet those requirements. Sig will do well with winning this contract. It certainly helped Beretta.
Originally Posted by breakingtime91
I'll wager you a PF dollar™ 😎
The lunatics are running the asylum
"...Sig"
"Glock"
"Sig"
"Glock..."
There's nothing civil about this war.
Low bidder.
"Gunfighting is a thinking man's game. So we might want to bring thinking back into it."-MDFA
Beware of my temper, and the dog that I've found...
Sig has had a very aggressive program of "free" pistols (including holsters and magazine pouches) for department trades. Specific size agencies and locations were targeted. Additionally, Sig made pistols available to select agencies/officers for $250.00 per. This got them in the door with many agencies. Sig also has a very generous T&E program which agencies should be taking advantage of.
As did Glock at its first major expansion in the period of transition to 40S&W (with associated AWB era arbitrage assisting the business case there); and as I believe S&W also copied during its major push on the M&P at introduction.
The latter of course is why the M&p are quite ubiquitous in organizations not as well funded... From various types of facilities security to PDs in places with shall we say troubled tax bases (cough Detroit cough). And who can forget the FMS transfer of the Sigma in bulk to the ANA/ANP. (But at least the trainers could reassure their students that this pistol had previously won the US Customs selection... year and other circumstances omitted of course.)
The return to 9 makes this go to market approach a viable play all over again of course.
The $250 P320s were offered to firearms instructors for Police Departments. This is how I obtained my P320, though with NS I think mine was $265.
US military small arms procurements are undeniably influential. Here's some XM9 trial trivia...what two pistols that were entered into the XM9 trials are still in production today? The answer is the two finalists - the Beretta M9 and the SIG P226.
I've never seen a Colt SSP outside of a museum (it was displayed at the Smithsonian for a period and the NRA Museum has one on display). I've never handled a Walther P88, Browning BDA, or Steyr GB in the flesh. The HK P9S and P7M13 are sought by collectors. I do miss the S&W 2nd and 3rd Generation guns - they had 80s style. And really, who cares about the Star M28?
In the years that followed the M9 selection, we definitely saw the pistol enjoy success in the US law enforcement market. The M9 has kept the lights on at Beretta for years. They're still producing M9s for the Army right now.
I'm curious to hear more about the trials, particularly which three designs actually made it to the downselect phase. The Army trials represent a level of government testing that no local organization can bring to bear. But there are other considerations besides the pistol itself when it comes to equipping an entire Army. The winner was asked to supply not only the handguns, but accessories and ammunition. Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics...was the handgun itself the deciding factor? It wasn't in the XM9 trials...we'll see if it was here.
The M17 will keep the lights on at SIG for quite a while, and represents a coup for a company that has not fared well in recent selections. There's history here - the M17 joins an impressive lineage of military sidearms. We'll see the M17 in the hands of soldiers for a generation. We'll see M17s on the line at Camp Perry and in the hands of AMU competitors. Having worn the uniform and still closely tied to the military, I want to see the M17 succeed.
I've noticed an argument on some websites that this selection doesn't really matter, the military doesn't really use pistols, and the only ones that will carry the M17 are in the rear with the gear. General Milley certainly had a point when he said the sidearm was arguably the least important weapon system in the Department of Defense. But sidearms have always had a certain allure, and you never need a pistol until you need one badly.
As for Glock, the idea that this represents a repudiation of the design is absurd. The G19 and G26 are standard SOCOM sidearms and will be in the holsters of the most elite US special operations units for the foreseeable future. Glock remains dominant in federal law enforcement, having won the BATFE and FBI contracts. The Glock is one of the most common military and police sidearms in the entire world. And there are years of backorders for Glock's current designs. No doubt Glock wanted to win this contract, but I suspect they'll be just fine.
Last edited by JSGlock34; 01-22-2017 at 03:25 PM.
"When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage, killing a man."
Reply With Quote
