SIG M17 fixes

It appears that SIG Sauer USA is learning that the same level of QC that their commercial products receive is not going to be acceptable for large military contracts (and a larger sample base that makes issues more readily apparent).
 
No offense meant, but why do we care at this point? I feel like the M17 competition is a horse that is beyond dead. It's been beaten into the ground so much that someone should press charges for animal cruelty. The contract is awarded, I don't see anything changing that. SIG will have to find a way to make things work, and my experience with the P320 suggests they should be able to do that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kZKHNHGzCg
 
"Always remember your weapon was produced by the lowest bidder"

Military weapons, perhaps. But, not MY gun! As a civilian, I have access to better firearms than are supplied to the military.
 
sigarms228 said:
You forgot to include "that meets specifications".

As a taxpayer I feel strongly that is the way it should be
Click to expand...
Military weapons, perhaps. But, not MY gun! As a civilian, I have access to better firearms than are supplied to the military.
Click to expand...


Just making a funny guys.

As someone who will eventually probably be issued one, as always, we will use it. Nobody cares if you are happy with it or not.
 
TunnelRat said:
No offense meant, but why do we care at this point? I feel like the M17 competition is a horse that is beyond dead. It's been beaten into the ground so much that someone should press charges for animal cruelty. The contract is awarded, I don't see anything changing that. SIG will have to find a way to make things work, and my experience with the P320 suggests they should be able to do that.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kZKHNHGzCg
Click to expand...



I care because I’m paying for this crap.

It may end up being a pistol for the ages but neither you or I know if it’s the best pistol in that competition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chui said:
I care because I’m paying for this crap.

It may end up being a pistol for the ages but neither you or I know if it’s the best pistol in that competition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You're paying for a lot of crap. You always are. In the grand scheme of the DoD budget this contract is a rounding error. If you're worried about how the military is spending your tax dollars there's a long list of programs ahead of this one worth examining, and some that are likely far more impactful.

From what we did learn from the GAO report in the testing that was done (and yes I watched the video above from Small Arm Solutions) there wasn't a significant difference in performance but there was in cost. Having owned both yes I'd rather the Glock personally, but do I think the SIG is a catastrophe? No. I think it will be iterated on and improved, just like the M16 and any number of other technologies that are praised today.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
TunnelRat said:
You're paying for a lot of crap. You always are. In the grand scheme of the DoD budget this contract is a rounding error. If you're worried about how the military is spending your tax dollars there's a long list of programs ahead of this one worth examining, and some that are likely far more impactful.

From what we did learn from the GAO report in the testing that was done (and yes I watched the video above from Small Arm Solutions) there wasn't a significant difference in performance but there was in cost. Having owned both yes I'd rather the Glock personally, but do I think the SIG is a catastrophe? No. I think it will be iterated on and improved, just like the M16 and any number of other technologies that are praised today.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



This is merely the “death by a thousand cuts”.

It ALL matters. Or should.

It’s MY money and I want them held accountable.

They NEVER finished testing so no one can say for sure how good the pistol is.

I also prefer the Glock if it were my coin. But that’s based upon the FBI’s testing of the Gen 5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Chui said:
This is merely the “death by a thousand cuts”.

It ALL matters. Or should.

It’s MY money and I want them held accountable.

They NEVER finished testing so no one can say for sure how good the pistol is.

I also prefer the Glock if it were my coin. But that’s based upon the FBI’s testing of the Gen 5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying your outrage should start elsewhere. I find it eye roll worthy that people lose their mind over this when you could pick any number of other programs to get upset about that make this contract look like chump change. By all means hold the government accountable. But maybe worry about the giant crack in the dam before you stick your finger in the nearby hole.

As for what is or isn't the "best", how marginal of a difference matters? Would things really have changed dramatically in the second phase? There's more proof they wouldn't than there is that they would. As far as your money, the government saved you $100 million. You're welcome. And if you don't think there would have been issues had they adopted Glocks, then you weren't paying attention at the beginning of the Gen 4 or some of Glock's other recent offerings. But hey. If you want to keep being outraged about this (I'm assuming by the use of all caps) it's your call.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Chui said:
I care because I’m paying for this crap.

It may end up being a pistol for the ages but neither you or I know if it’s the best pistol in that competition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I agree..seems that the 'big boys' who make these decisions forgot all about the M16...that got more than a few young men, killed. Too much $ changed hands=M17..
From what we did learn from the GAO report in the testing that was done (and yes I watched the video above from Small Arm Solutions) there wasn't a significant difference in performance but there was in cost.
Click to expand...

Seems, with use, there was a significant difference in performance(reliability being a BIG part of performance).
I find it eye roll worthy that people lose their mind over this when you could pick any number of other programs to get upset about that make this contract look like chump change
Click to expand...

Well, considering the bloated Defense budget, yes, but $580 million..That's a squadron + of F-15C....
 
Last edited:
USNRet93 said:
I agree..seems that the 'big boys' who make these decisions forgot all about the M16...that got more than a few young men, killed. Too much $ changed hands=M17..
Click to expand...
If you have the proof on money changing hands, by all means share it with the class (why they would need to exchange money under the table to convince the government to spend less money for what had been shown to be equal performance is a bit of a head scratcher). And to your point, that M16 is fine now. Sometimes it takes field service to iron out issues (though not using the wrong powder and issuing cleaning kits helps too, in the case of the M16).

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
TunnelRat said:
If you have the proof on money changing hands, by all means share it with the class (why they would need to exchange money under the table to convince the government to spend less money for what had been shown to be equal performance is a bit if a head scratcher). And to your point, that M16 is fine now. Sometimes it takes field service to iron out issues (though not using the wrong powder and issuing cleaning kits helps too, in the case of the M16).

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I guess flawed contracts with military laptops or stoves is OK, but I think with a 'weapon', that is going to be used in COMBAT, NOW, with reliability issues...it is a problem. Quite the 'field' to test a weapon..actual combat.

"Equal performance"? Donno, since the complete testing protocol was never carrried out.
Glock lodged its protest Feb. 24, citing three main reasons: U.S. Army Material Command did not properly evaluate its proposal; the second downselect phase of the testing program was not carried out; and finally, Sig Sauer’s XM17 entry was not properly evaluated. Glock also claimed Army evaluators were biased during evaluations.
Click to expand...

Were they? Why?

I was XO of a test and evaluation squadron in the USN(VX-4)...WE gave the brand new F-18 a big, fat thumb's down..yet...????
Developmental test(USN TPS)...also gave it a thumb's down but...
 
Last edited:
I guess flawed contracts with military laptops or stoves is OK, but I think with a 'weapon', that is going to be used in COMBAT, NOW, with reliability issues...it is a problem. Quite the 'field' to test a weapon..actual combat.
Click to expand...

Ironing out flaws with weapons in service has happened with literally dozens of weapon systems. Fighter craft, firearms, land vehicles, the list goes on. It's pretty far from abnormal and has been this way since literally the beginning of weapon development.

"Equal performance"? Donno, since the complete testing protocol was never carrried out.
Click to expand...

The first phase was, and there was no significant difference found in that phase. Again, could the story have done a complete 180 at the end of that second phase? Maybe, and maybe they would have gone with Glocks as a result. And maybe we'd be reading then about issues with Glock instead and people would be saying that Glock paid the Army off and the contest was rigged. It happens with every procurement.

Glock lodged its protest Feb. 24, citing three main reasons: U.S. Army Material Command did not properly evaluate its proposal; the second downselect phase of the testing program was not carried out; and finally, Sig Sauer’s XM17 entry was not properly evaluated. Glock also claimed Army evaluators were biased during evaluations.
Click to expand...

Lol, right, and Glock a competitor in the program is surely an unbiased source in this instance. It's not like they have any financial motivation to complain, right? The GAO also responded to those complaints, btw.
 
Last edited:
I guess flawed contracts with military laptops or stoves is OK, but I think with a 'weapon', that is going to be used in COMBAT, NOW, with reliability issues...it is a problem. Quite the 'field' to test a weapon..actual combat.
Click to expand...

Flawed laptops and stoves can kill people too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top