Military T&E?

[MichaelOrick]

There is grumbling the SIG did not get the full T&E it should have.

What did it miss?

Considering all the bitching after the XM9 trials I expected we would do much better this time.

Way back when in the XM9 trials the pistols only had to make it to 5K rounds to pass. Of those tested to 7K rounds the Beretta was the only pistol that did not break. Kinda funny considering what happened later...

I know M9s were pulled and tested to failure periodically. Frames were good for about 35K rounds, slides 70K, blocks 22K IIRC?

The M9 slides range went from 5-35Kin the late 80s to 55-95K in the late 90s.

What changed? The guns, the ammo, the testing, or all of the above?

I was issued the M15, M1911A1 (USAF match guns), M9 and M11. Liked all of them.

My 1911 had a Colt frame, Remington slide, and lots of TLC by talented AF armorers; made me look good even though it was older than I was when it was issued to me.

[JRB]

We've had this conversation here many, many times.

Initial discussion ~2014 surrounding the specs and bureaucracy
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....my-and-the-MHS

Solicitation published ~2015 and surrounding trials etc
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....n-Solicitation

Sig Press release thread after fielding ~2017 after contract award
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....nd-M18-pistols

All branches order M17/M18 ~2018
https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....rder-XM17-XM18


In a nutshell, Sig played some games with all of this, but the M17/M18 has not been the doom and gloom predicted, yet.

Some issues with the combo rear sight/red dot plate coming loose, and I have heard of one ND that may have been a Sig P320 issue but was blamed on the Soldier instead and he caught an Article 15 from it.

I saw them in theater in 2019, talking to those guys they overwhelmingly liked them.
Other fellow Soldiers across the Army tend to report simpler instruction for handling/function check etc, and newbies/non-gun people do better with the pistol qual.
One of those friends was the company armorer for a Paladin 155mm Field Artillery unit, and while he liked the M9 as a design, he hated their M9's because of the pants-on-head lack of sensible maintenance or upgrade opportunities at zero cost - e.g., newer magazines to replace faulty gulf-war era mags, Gen III locking blocks from Beretta instead of contracted duplicates of Gen I blocks to match the 1984 TDP, etc.
He says he'd have preferred the G19X but will happily take the M17's over those old M9's.

Some silly SOP's prevail such as the USAF's standardized non-use of the safety except when at a clearing barrel.

No red dots yet.

[JSGlock34]

There is grumbling the SIG did not get the full T&E it should have.

What did it miss?

The original XM17 solicitation called for candidate handguns to be initially tested, and then for the downselected finalists to undergo further testing (Product Verification Testing) to include destructive and environmental testing. The Army instead ended testing after the initial phase, and did not conduct the more rigorous second phase of testing, instead awarding the contract to SIG (largely based on price).

The XM18 underwent comparatively little testing prior to the award.

Post-award testing by the Army revealed problems with the SIG that would likely have manifested during the second phase of testing. Such issues are detailed in this Director of Operational Testing & Evaluation report. Several of these issues have been addressed with Engineering Change Proposals.

The GAO report on Glock's protest has some insights into the conduct of the testing and the award.

Regardless of the handgun selected, the Army should have completed the testing they said they were going to perform prior to awarding the contract.

[ccmdfd]

The GAO report on Glock's protest has some insights into the conduct of the testing and the award.

I will have to check that out.

I remember reading the GAO's assessment of the XM9 trials, and it wasn't flattering for DOD.

[JSGlock34]

Apologies - fixed the link to the GAO report.

[trailrunner]

I spent 19 years of my career in DoD OT&E. The Sig was not one of my programs, although for a couple of years I sat next to one of the authors of the report that JSGlock cites.

I will say that as an almost universal rule, not enough testing is ever done on DoD systems prior to awarding the full-rate production contract. The services exert tremendous pressure to minimize testing. Tremendous, and relentless, pressure. Again, I wasn't involved in the MHS program, so I don't know the details.

The Pentagon Wars was written about the office I used to work at. It is 100 percent accurate.

[JSGlock34]

I find it hard to accept that the Army selected a pistol for military service that was not subjected to environmental testing.

[Cory]

I find it hard to accept that the Army selected a pistol for military service that was not subjected to environmental testing.

[EVP]

Regardless of the handgun selected, the Army should have completed the testing they said they were going to perform prior to awarding the contract.

I find it hard to accept that the Army selected a pistol for military service that was not subjected to environmental testing.

Excellent summary JS, and I totally agree!




I am of the opinion that our soldiers deserve the best in a sidearm. The competition should of been completed and be fair to every participant. Let the chips fall were they may regardless who won.

[MichaelOrick]

We've had this conversation here many, many times.

Sorry. How do I delete this thread/post?