M17 / M18 acquisition by USAF, USMC, USN

The 19x is literally the configuration of the M18 or SIG's civilian P320 Carry (not Compact), which the Army requested. The other way around makes sense for concealed carry, but that wasn't the main goal here.

And yeah you can swap frames easier than on the 19x, but that assumes the 19x has the same level of modularity as what Glock submitted for the trials, which I don't know for sure (they already didn't give us the manual safety and the FN 509 is supposedly based on FN's submission and isn't modular either).

As I said before, I'm not saying modularity is bad, I just question how much it will actually be a factor, which was the whole point of my last post. Time will tell.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
The cost per pistol wasn't the only consideration, the MHS, with the "S" for system and the "M" for modular are the key words here.
The system was for multiple grips, holsters, and optics.
Glock could not comply with the grips portion of the proposal, and that is why their contract protest was denied.
Sig partnered with Safariland for different holster configurations, ie, belt, drop leg and shoulder holsters to comply with that portion of the proposal.
 
dzavoina said:
The cost per pistol wasn't the only consideration, the MHS, with the "S" for system and the "M" for modular are the key words here.
The system was for multiple grips, holsters, and optics.
Glock could not comply with the grips portion of the proposal, and that is why their contract protest was denied.
Sig partnered with Safariland for different holster configurations, ie, belt, drop leg and shoulder holsters to comply with that portion of the proposal.
Click to expand...
True but the testing protocol was 'mysteriously' curtailed in the middle of testing after Sig gave the Gov't their $ offer..
 
Eh, their contract protest was about not completing the additional phase of the competition, not so much to do with the grip modules. The GAO, IIRC, pointed out that the additional phase wasn't required and the contract was rewarded based on the results of the first phase. This article helps a bit. When you look at it you see in terms of ergonomics the differences in ratings aren't dramatic, though there is a difference. https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...ment-glock-mhs-protest-decision-released-gao/

SIG absolutely did seem to do a better job at providing an overall package in terms of licensing and production planning with other industry partners. This sort of confuses me because if a company makes a pistol accessory they almost always make a Glock version, so I'm not sure how Glock did worse here. Maybe SIG just beat some more pavement and did more legwork? They won regardless.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I may be mistaken, but I know gun shop lore states that Beretta beat out SIG for the previous handgun contract by offering a better overall package deal. If that is true maybe SIG learned a lesson and came better prepared this time.
 
dzavoina The cost per pistol wasn't the only consideration, the MHS, with the "S" for system and the "M" for modular are the key words here.
The system was for multiple grips, holsters, and optics.
Glock could not comply with the grips portion of the proposal, and that is why their contract protest was denied.
Sig partnered with Safariland for different holster configurations, ie, belt, drop leg and shoulder holsters to comply with that portion of the proposal.
Click to expand...
Absolutely untrue.
Both the Glock and Sig passed all requirements for the MHS.
Sig's cost was significantly lower than Glock.

That's why the Sig was chosen....cost per unit. (those are the key words here)
 
Modularity seems to me to be a nice feature on paper, but one that will be little used by most buyers. On the civilian market, I see most people buying the size of pistol they want and sticking with their purchase. Even here, where most people can be described as enthusiasts, modularity gets mixed reviews for usefulness. I have no knowledge about the practices of military armorers, but the argument that they are unlikely to be changing grips for each user seems reasonable. How about this scenario, though? Are they likely to stock a certain variety of grips and frames already installed, and check out an assembled pistol that fits the user? And if so, might that increase the number of units stocked by a given armorer, thus increasing the number sold overall, to the benefit of Sig?
 
dogtown tom said:
Absolutely untrue.
Both the Glock and Sig passed all requirements for the MHS.
Sig's cost was significantly lower than Glock.

That's why the Sig was chosen....cost per unit. (those are the key words here)
Click to expand...
The leadership at Glock Inc. says that the U.S. Army’s decision to select Sig Sauer to make its new Modular Handgun System was driven by cost savings, not performance. The gun maker is also challenging the Army to complete the testing, which the service cut short, to see which gun performs better.
Click to expand...

https://taskandpurpose.com/glock-challenges-army-handgun-tests/
 
"...Army sticks with the original..." Budgets. Military procurements are based almost entirely on money and politics. What the troopies want or need isn't a consideration.
"...Beretta beat out SIG for the previous handgun contract..." It had nothing to do with a better overall package deal. The Beretta was chosen because the rest of NATO was complaining about the balance of trade in military kit between them and the U.S. Kind of backfired on the Europeans when Beretta opened the U.S. plant.
 
Why would SIG winning have been different in terms of that? SIG's US branch at that date was mostly assembling German made pistols and was nowhere near the production of today. If the Europeans weren't assuming a US branch would be opened the end result would have been foreign made pistols either way.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
USNRet93 Quote:
Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
Absolutely untrue.
Both the Glock and Sig passed all requirements for the MHS.
Sig's cost was significantly lower than Glock.

That's why the Sig was chosen....cost per unit. (those are the key words here)
Click to expand...

Quote:
The leadership at Glock Inc. says that the U.S. Army’s decision to select Sig Sauer to make its new Modular Handgun System was driven by cost savings, not performance. The gun maker is also challenging the Army to complete the testing, which the service cut short, to see which gun performs better


https://taskandpurpose.com/glock-cha...handgun-tests/ .
Click to expand...


That article conforms what I wrote. Both passed all the tests the .mil wanted, then Sig was chosen because it was cheaper.

From the article:
Sig Sauer’s $169.5 million bid outperformed Glock’s $272.2 million bid, according to GAO, which made the Sig Sauer proposal the “best value to the government.”
Click to expand...
 
Both passed all the tests the .mil wanted, then Sig was chosen because it was cheaper.
Click to expand...


The SIG was chosen because it performed better for the mission it was being selected for....

Based upon the technical evaluation and my comparative analysis of the proposals, the Sig Sauer proposal has a slight technical advantage over the Glock proposal given that their proposal was rated higher in Factor 1, Bid Sample Test – Technical which is the most important factor.
Click to expand...

Simply put, when taking the price premium into account, there is no correlating superior performance factor for Glock, as compared to Sig Sauer, to support paying that premium.
Click to expand...

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf

In other words, the taxpayer is not going to pay for a pistol that is slightly inferior technically and cost a 40% higher premium for that slight technical inferiority.

Feel free to disagree with that decision but in the end, it is not yours to make.
 
^ exactly. While I might prefer Glocks personally, at the end of the day they scored the SIG higher, notably so for the licensing and production, and it was cheaper. It would make no sense to give Glock the contract based on the results.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
[emoji16]. As fun as it would be to rehash that argument once again, I'll pass.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You the last time this happened with sig vs beretta the Internet was yet to be invented. That led to many debates and wild speculations as to what exactly happened that led to M9 adoption.

This time we have internet. But whoever will be reading this 30 years from now would be equally perplexed why the Sig was picked over the Glock lol
 
This time we have internet.
Click to expand...

And so much more intelligent for it....

We can prove things like 9/11 conspiracy, chem trails, and Area 51.

But whoever will be reading this 30 years from now would be equally perplexed why the Sig was picked over the Glock lol
Click to expand...

Of course, those kind of folks are always around...see above. ;)
 
davidsog
Quote:
Both passed all the tests the .mil wanted, then Sig was chosen because it was cheaper.
Click to expand...
The SIG was chosen because it performed better for the mission it was being selected for....
Click to expand...
Uh, no.
Both Sig and Glock performed equally well for the "mission"....GAO says as much
From the GAO link you posted: ".....the agency reasonably determined that a single award was in the best interest of the government, where proposals were technically proximate and the protester’s proposed price was substantially higher than the awardee’s price..."

In other words, the taxpayer is not going to pay for a pistol that is slightly inferior technically and cost a 40% higher premium for that slight technical inferiority.
Click to expand...
I think a pretty good argument could be made that a gun that doesn't fire when dropped is technically superior.;)

Again, both passed all the tests the .mil wanted, then Sig was chosen because it was cheaper.

Feel free to disagree with that decision but in the end, it is not yours to make.
Click to expand...
Nor yours.
 
Yep, I prefer all my guns to be technically inferior and more expensive
Click to expand...

It’s just frustrating that technical superiority and quality control during manufacturing aren’t always mutually inclusive, as SIG Sauer USA has repeatedly proven.

You may now spend your time scouring the internet and inserting cut and paste clips of various Glock issues of the past below:


.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top