IMightBeWrong
New member
Just some speculation, but I have a hunch that the SIG won the contract for purely political reasons. This is NOT to say it isn't a good choice. I think it's a great handgun. But I don't think the guns ever got tested against each other for reliability.
Here's why... I kept up with any news on the MHS competition as it was developing because it held my interest. The RFA went out and apparently stated that at the end of 2016, 3 final entries would be down selected for competition. Throughout most of 2017 these 3 entries would be further tested against each other and their ability to produce their products efficiently and within the US would be verified. The final winner was to be selected later in 2017. At least, this was my understanding.
What happened instead? Well, at the very beginning of this year John McCain and some other politicians went back to attacking the MHS competition as a waste of time and money (which they had done before the election as well). About 2 or 3 days later, SIG was announced the winner numerous months earlier than a winner of the contract was expected. Some know that Glock has filed a protest, but not why. Maybe this is the reason?
Maybe I'm just overthinking this, but it doesn't seem like the Army did their due diligence in testing the entries and selecting the best possible option for our troops. I think the SIG is a great pistol, and I think the P226 should have won the last contract. The P320 is still an early product, though, and is still undergoing changes to address concerns on the civilian market. The Beretta APX also met the modular standards set by the RFA and likely wasn't given a fair shake if the guns didn't get tested. Sounds like Glock may have entered a modular variant if their design as well, but that wasn't really publicly confirmed. Something tells me, though, that the Army just picked out the SIG based on company reputation and the fact that US manufacturing was already well established for both the guns and the ammo. What do you all think?
Here's why... I kept up with any news on the MHS competition as it was developing because it held my interest. The RFA went out and apparently stated that at the end of 2016, 3 final entries would be down selected for competition. Throughout most of 2017 these 3 entries would be further tested against each other and their ability to produce their products efficiently and within the US would be verified. The final winner was to be selected later in 2017. At least, this was my understanding.
What happened instead? Well, at the very beginning of this year John McCain and some other politicians went back to attacking the MHS competition as a waste of time and money (which they had done before the election as well). About 2 or 3 days later, SIG was announced the winner numerous months earlier than a winner of the contract was expected. Some know that Glock has filed a protest, but not why. Maybe this is the reason?
Maybe I'm just overthinking this, but it doesn't seem like the Army did their due diligence in testing the entries and selecting the best possible option for our troops. I think the SIG is a great pistol, and I think the P226 should have won the last contract. The P320 is still an early product, though, and is still undergoing changes to address concerns on the civilian market. The Beretta APX also met the modular standards set by the RFA and likely wasn't given a fair shake if the guns didn't get tested. Sounds like Glock may have entered a modular variant if their design as well, but that wasn't really publicly confirmed. Something tells me, though, that the Army just picked out the SIG based on company reputation and the fact that US manufacturing was already well established for both the guns and the ammo. What do you all think?