For the military? Im curious only because most military guys seem to love Glock. Lets face it, they're pretty damn reliable. So Im just curious where Glock failed or Sig did better?
Note: Im NOT trying to turn this into a Sig vs Glock debate
For the military? Im curious only because most military guys seem to love Glock. Lets face it, they're pretty damn reliable. So Im just curious where Glock failed or Sig did better?
Note: Im NOT trying to turn this into a Sig vs Glock debate
Money. The sig bid was over $100 million cheaper.
I guess a dead horse can’t defend itself from being beaten too much.
Outside of my lane
Yet and still- teams/programs/units/organizational structures within said military has been and still buy Glock over other platforms when they have the discretionary money to do so.
Why?
They work/can be configured to a spec easily and can be maintained easily in the field by someone with 24 hours of training-max.
I am not your attorney. I am not giving legal advice. Any and all opinions expressed are personal and my own and are not those of any employer-past, present or future.
I have worked at two places that underbid on large orders ("bought" was the term) in a similar fashion; in one instance, the benefits were so inverse that for some years it was verboten to mention the sorry affair. Unfortunately for both of the companies involved, they were not in a position to capitalize on being the purveyors to the exalted buyers. The cachet of producing "X" for the military of a major nation - or one that purports to be such - appears to work wonders, so such practices are probably money well invested... and SIG has been shown to have absolutely no scruples about profits (or ethics in general).
Not that Glock gas been saintly, mind you.
gn
"On the internet, nobody knows if you are a dog... or even a cat."
It's @LittleLebowski's secret plan to keep making big bucks off the forum.
“There is no growth in the comfort zone.”--Jocko Willink
"You can never have too many knives." --Joe Ambercrombie