Unless you're in Canada, then it's about ordering something expensive that will do the job and then cancelling it. This way you get to pay the chosen provider a few (tens of) millions of dollars because there's a "no back out" clause in the contract. Net result? You pay for the stuff, but choose not to get it, and a few service people die/get injured as a result.
Marine Leaders Explain Corps' Decision to Buy Army's New Pistol
- Thread starter Thomas D'Arcy McGee
- Start date
Unless you're in Canada, then it's about ordering something expensive that will do the job and then cancelling it. This way you get to pay the chosen provider a few (tens of) millions of dollars because there's a "no back out" clause in the contract. Net result? You pay for the stuff, but choose not to get it, and a few service people die/get injured as a result.
Lungorthin
Regular
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Playing devil's advocate, but Glocks don't discharge a round when dropped last I checkedGlock people...
This is correct. Sig won not because it was the better option, but was simply cheaper.
We'll never know which one is better, or would last more rounds before parts breakage etc, because the tests were never concluded. Sig undercut Glock by a significant margin that the tests were halted and the Sig being adopted based on price. If Glock met said price, then I'm sure the testing would determine the better candidate, but that's not the case.
hannibal.black98
CGN frequent flyer
Glock people...
Quote of the year my friend!!!
- Location
- The Orion Arm
What really sets these two pistols apart is the ability to reconfigure the M17. The core of the gun is housed in a serialized unit that detaches from the frame in seconds. This interchangeable trigger group allows changes in caliber, pistol size and grip. With more women entering the military and the push for women in combat roles, the option to choose a smaller grip is an important distinction. This modular design also makes it easier to replace broken parts and adapt to different assignments. Glocks can't do that.
Despite the 9mm being the current military standard, there has been concern it does not provide enough stopping power. With the ability to be chambered in different calibers, the M17 would eliminate this concern if the Army would allow a cartridge choice for different units. Again, Glock can't do that as easily as the Sigs.
Here is the Official GAO decision, if anyone wants to read through it (all 17 pages of it): https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf
Didn't the RFP ask for a "modular pistol" the only truly modular design was the P320. New technology with a solid steel frame, no more cracking of steel inserts that are molded into a plastic frame = throw gun / frame away.
Break a grip, pop it out and put on a new one. Want a compact gun, pop it out and change the slide / grip. Truly modular....as requested.
Glock is an awesome gun....and a about a 35 year old design. Both Glock and Sig P320 are great guns, one is not head and shoulders above the other....but...one is truly modular....as requested....one is not (and points funny, but that new fancy ZEV version corrected that flaw).
Rich
Break a grip, pop it out and put on a new one. Want a compact gun, pop it out and change the slide / grip. Truly modular....as requested.
Glock is an awesome gun....and a about a 35 year old design. Both Glock and Sig P320 are great guns, one is not head and shoulders above the other....but...one is truly modular....as requested....one is not (and points funny, but that new fancy ZEV version corrected that flaw).
Rich
Lungorthin
Regular
- Location
- Calgary, AB
As far as I'm aware the modularity meant the grip size can be changed. Glock met the requirement since gen 4 and 5 use interchangable backstraps.
If Glock didn't meet that requirement, then they wouldn't have been considered for the trials in the first place.
"Modular" has become synonymous with interchangable frames since most manufacturers only tend to use the term when you can change the frame with removal of the fire control group. But modularity just means in general that it can be changed from user to user, in Glock's case removable backstraps.
Why is anybody even cares about a handgun?
Artillery and heavy support weapons account for like 90% of the casualties.
If even rifles are mainly for morale boost what are handguns for? Shooting yourself to prevent starring in the ISIS video wearing orange jumpsuit?
Artillery and heavy support weapons account for like 90% of the casualties.
If even rifles are mainly for morale boost what are handguns for? Shooting yourself to prevent starring in the ISIS video wearing orange jumpsuit?
It wont hold up any better
But it will be cheaper and easier to bring them back up to standard at a lower echelon of care
Shawn
Beretta APX has serialized chassis/trigger group.
The CAF interim pistol is between the APX and P320 because of those requirements.
I don't believe Beretta submitted the APX for the US trials. I am not even sure it was out when the process started. M 17/18 are two very good pistols and do the job they are intended for. As somebody pointed out the Glock is an old design, albeit with a new slide, frame and trigger group with the Gen 5 iteration.
One would hope we would go with the 320 SIG for no other reason than the US chose it.
Take Care
Bob
- Location
- The Orion Arm
Would be smarter if Canada followed the US and adopted the 320 as well.
The 12 guns that were submitted for testing were:
Beretta: APX. Interestingly, they didn't enter the improved M9A3.
CZ: P-07 MHS and P-09 MHS in 9 mm and .40 S&W.
FN: Another polymer-framed, striker-fired pistol, apparently based on the FN FNS, and from which the FN 509 Tactical was developed.
Glock: G17 MHS and 19 MHS chambered in 9 mm, Glock 22 MHS and 23 MHS chambered in .40 S&W
KRISS: A variant of their Sphinx SDP chambered in 9mm
SIG : P320 MHS, a modified version of the P320.
S&W: M&P M2.0
STI : STX
Thanks I thought the APX came later but I was wrong. Some say it is a great pistol others not so much. Personally I think they all work about the same for most. It really just comes down to personal choice. I am not in the Army so their criteria has little to no affect on my choice of handguns. I can pretty much buy what I want that is a major difference and "need" is not part of the equation either.
Take Care
Bob
Take Care
Bob
It was already disqualified at that point. The army already rejected it earlier when Beretta offered to rework all M9's to keep the army contract.
Actually Glock did have a mass recall over accidental discharges which they addressed and fixed just like the Sig. From my understanding both Glock and Sig have fixed the issue
Cost was definitely the number one reason they went with Sig. But on top the fact that the P320 was deemed to be a slightly better pistol, was also Sig’s ability to supply the ammo requirements of the MHS contract due to its partnership with Winchester. Glock wasn’t able to come close to beating Sig in that regard.
The P320/250 was essentially designed for when the M9 was retiring and a whole new weapon would be needed. Glock just through something together and figured their name alone would get them the deal. Unfortunately, they failed to realize that much of the gun world has caught up or passed them in someways over the past decade. I’d really like to know too why Glock thought the army would even consider paying $100 million more for an equivalent sidearm.
The P320/250 was essentially designed for when the M9 was retiring and a whole new weapon would be needed. Glock just through something together and figured their name alone would get them the deal. Unfortunately, they failed to realize that much of the gun world has caught up or passed them in someways over the past decade. I’d really like to know too why Glock thought the army would even consider paying $100 million more for an equivalent sidearm.
