SIG Talk banner

Glock Really Doesn’t Want The Army To Buy Sig Sauer Handguns

8861 95
Handgun maker Glock, Inc., is protesting the Army’s decision to purchase modified Sig Sauer P320s as service handguns.

Glock lodged an official complaint with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) protesting the Sig Sauer contract worth a maximum of $580 million, which will delay testing of the new service weapon.

The Army announced Sig Sauer won the XM17 Modular Handgun System contract Jan. 19, after a three-year search for a sidearm to replace the Beretta M9, which has been the service standard for 30 years. (RELATED: Army Picks Sig Sauer To Replace Handgun After 3-Year Search)

Glock’s protest of the contract award doesn’t include details about the nature of the complaint, first reported by Army Times. Sig Sauer beat out other gun makers, thought to include Glock as well as Smith & Wesson and perhaps FN Herstal, to design the modified P320 to Army specifications, and deliver hardware and ammunition. So far, Glock is the only company to file a complaint.


Sponsored Links by
Glock holds several government contracts to supply handguns to the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, as well as the Army Rangers, but the main Army handgun contract is a far bigger deal.

The GAO has until June 5 to decide if Glock’s complaint is valid, and the process will likely slow down testing of the P320, adding further delays to a program exemplifies everything wrong with government contracting to some. (RELATED: Army Spent $350M Trying To Figure Out Which Pistol To Use. Now Congress Wants Mattis To Intervene)

TacticalGear’s side-by-side comparison of the Sig P320 and the Beretta M9 it replaces indicates what the lightweight, longer-barreled Sig offers over the weapon it will likely replace.




Read more: Glock Really Doesn't Want The Army To Buy Sig Sauer Handguns | The Daily Caller
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 96 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Glock is just butt hurt about this.. Like they do not have enough contacts with other law enforcements around the world.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
Awww, so sad... maybe they should come out with a more ergonomic pistol that is modular instead of taking a Gen4 and making minor tweaks?

I have 3 Glocks so I'm not a hater, but seriously???

.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
437 Posts
Austrians are unhappy that Americans give a contract to quasi-Germans.

Maybe if Sig had kept its operations in Germany Glock wouldn't kvetch?

The real upside to that scenario would be that i wouldn't have to wonder about the whys behind the clear preference so many of this forums authoritative members hold for German, as opposed to NH Sigs.

We share a strange world, friends.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,696 Posts
The Army put out spec's for a new pistol, Sig brought a gun that meet all the requirements and everyone else brought whatever they had laying around and apparently ignored the requirements, end of story....right? It's not like everyone who wanted to participate showed up not knowing what the Army wanted so why not build something they did, at least then they would have a legitimate argument for not being chosen.
 

· 🎖USA Veteran
Joined
·
12,130 Posts
The Army put out spec's for a new pistol, Sig brought a gun that meet all the requirements and everyone else brought whatever they had laying around and apparently ignored the requirements, end of story....right? It's not like everyone who wanted to participate showed up not knowing what the Army wanted so why not build something they did, at least then they would have a legitimate argument for not being chosen.
Would anyone be surprised if SIG designed/developed the P320 with a potential to compete for an Army buy? I think it was at least in the back of their minds.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,696 Posts
Would anyone be surprised if SIG designed/developed the P320 with a potential to compete for an Army buy? I think it was at least in the back of their minds.
Brings to mind the old question,

What came first the chicken or the egg?

Did Sig build the gun for the Army or did the Army build their specs for the Sig? Either way they are getting a great gun that IMO is very clever in design.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
18,006 Posts
What caught my eye in the OP was that the government spent $350MM to determine a $580MM contract - is that right? [emoji15]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's the way it reads, and I'm not at all surprised.

I got involved in a thing a few years ago where the software (written by someone else) in a Homeland Security Washington D.C. office quit working after a firmware upgrade on a Video Conferencer, while the same code (written by me) in Nellis AFB didn't quit working.

They sent me the code others wrote, and I told them all they had to do was change 2 lines of code and it would start working again. I offered to do so and email it to them FREE OF CHARGE.

That wasn't good enough, so they spent a year and had weekly meetings with all the heavy hitters to determine what to do. They even got me involved in a Video/Audio conference with said heavy hitters so they could discuss it further.

Ultimately, they hired me to go to Nellis and participate in a Video Conference and watch the guy in D.C. drop and test the 2 lines of changed code I did for them. It was 30 minutes of absolute boredom.

I charged them $2,000.00 for the annoyance factor and they could've had it for free. Add in the lost opportunity labor of all the heavy hitters in those meetings that went on for a year and the total cost probably was around $200,000.00 when it could have been free.

Your tax dollars at work.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
6,262 Posts
Brings to mind the old question,

What came first the chicken or the egg?

Did Sig build the gun for the Army or did the Army build their specs for the Sig? Either way they are getting a great gun that IMO is very clever in design.
That is the question I think Glock is trying to get answered. It has been rumored that the Army told Sig what to build, and Sig built it to that specification. Then, after the fact, the Army promulgated it's request for a new handgun. It's sort of like posting a job listing knowing you're going to hire from within the agency beforehand.

Is that what actually happened? IDK, but isn't it just a little curious how no one, and I mean NO ONE, produced a pistol remotely close to what the Army said they wanted, except Sig, who produced a gun that EVERYONE says is the ONLY gun that fits the spec request to a "T"? It is a little suspect, at best.

Now, that said, sure the P320 is a fine gun, no doubt. That isn't the issue, but now that I think of it...I think the horse is dead, Ed.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
The P320 is a modular design based off of the P250 which has been in production since 2007 or 2008.... they basically made it into a striker fired version. Most people/manufacturers scoffed at the P250's modular design. I think all the other manufacturers had plenty of time to create a design that meets the military's requirements. Glock has always been resistant to change... thinking they created the greatest handgun ever, now their lack of innovation is biting them in the rear. Not slamming Glock, I use one for duty and trust my life with it... but I don't personally own one. I prefer Sig, Beretta, Kahr, etc... I'm not a Brand Fanboy but I do own more Sig's than any other pistol and absolutely love my P320 RX. It's modular design is well thought out and makes deep cleaning a breeze.

I think it's simply a case of sour grapes... much like the whining we're seeing after our presidential election. All this will do is slow down the process... but not stop it. Just my opinion on the topic, YMMV.
 

· 🎖USA Veteran
Joined
·
12,130 Posts
That is the question I think Glock is trying to get answered. It has been rumored that the Army told Sig what to build, and Sig built it to that specification. Then, after the fact, the Army promulgated it's request for a new handgun. It's sort of like posting a job listing knowing you're going to hire from within the agency beforehand.

Is that what actually happened? IDK, but isn't it just a little curious how no one, and I mean NO ONE, produced a pistol remotely close to what the Army said they wanted, except Sig, who produced a gun that EVERYONE says is the ONLY gun that fits the spec request to a "T"? It is a little suspect, at best.

Now, that said, sure the P320 is a fine gun, no doubt. That isn't the issue, but now that I think of it...I think the horse is dead, Ed.
Why would the Army go to only ONE gun manufacturer with their specs?
 

· Banned
Joined
·
6,262 Posts
Why would the Army go to only ONE gun manufacturer with their specs?
B/c they wanted THAT manufacturer to get the bid? It's clear WHY they would. The question is did they actually do that. IDK
 
1 - 20 of 96 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top