Mrs. Peel 7,148 Posted March 2, 2017 Summary: apparently Glock is none too happy that the new U.S. military contract went to Sig Sauer. They are contesting. The article also hints that in order to bid on the contract in the first place, Glock must have developed some new "modular" Glock - as that was required by the contract. So, I suppose that might be tantalizing to you Glock Fans... what did they develop? And will they be bringing it (or some of its features) to market commercially? Link here: http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/shootout-over-the-armys-new-dollar580-million-handgun/ar-AAnGGTD?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp (it links to a couple other articles as well). Happy reading. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 2, 2017 This whole thing is stupid. Handguns are hardly used in the military except for MPs and SPs, and for medics and officers to have a token weapon for use as a last resort. The people that might really need one can bring anything they want. "Modular." Give me a break. This is not a weapon that is going to take a hill. You're more likely to use a bayonet or a knife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted March 2, 2017 My understanding is SF drives most of the handgun solicitation reqs. Also, there is a thread with ongoing discussing here: http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/84961-sig-p320-wins-army-mhs/#entry1098064 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shocker 150 Posted March 2, 2017 It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the losers would protest. It doesn't cost them much besides their lawyers' fees at that point. And if they catch the gov not crossing a T somewhere they get a do-over. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted March 2, 2017 With half a billion on the table, your share holders will be mad at you if you don't sue someone. Half a billion is not money, it is motive with a universal adapter (to paraphrase a movie) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matty 810 Posted March 2, 2017 Just about every large (>$1M) gov't procurement these days is protested. Sometimes it takes years and years to get resolved. The new USAF tanker is an example. If and when the A-10 is replaced, that will take wayy too long because of protests. Glock will probably lose, but a lot of time and energy will be wasted. The only ones that benfit usually are lawyers, lots lawyers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matty 810 Posted March 2, 2017 Those are small buys, this is for Big Army, and probably USAF, Navy will join on after the smoke clears. SOF also wears out their stuff much faster, so they will probably jump on as well at some point. The DoD will make them all use the same HG, and I would bet the same fatigues again, soon. No reason to have 4 different camo patterns,its ridiculous My understanding is SF drives most of the handgun solicitation reqs.Also, there is a thread ongoing discussing this:http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/84961-sig-p320-wins-army-mhs/#entry1098064 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 2, 2017 My understanding is SF drives most of the handgun solicitation reqs. Also, there is a thread ongoing discussing this: http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/84961-sig-p320-wins-army-mhs/#entry1098064 I know some SF. None of the ones I know have ever used a handgun in their lives, although they have carried them on occasion. The subject has come up. Shit, I was Airborne, and one of my buddies carried a .357. I can't believe he bothered. We all carried knives because the bayonets suck but when you have 100 pounds you really don't need to add more shit. SF can acquire and bring whatever they want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kaiser7 33 Posted March 2, 2017 Part of me wonders if this came about as a failure to replace the M16 family of weapons. I can see SF wanting a different pistol, and I'd assume they're more likely to use a pistol than the average soldier. It seems like one of those "Well we have to do SOMETHNG" , and since they couldn't find a better rifle platform, they decided to focus on the handguns instead. Totally speculation, and probably unfounded, I just wonder if this whole thing is just a way for various bureaucratic groups in the military to show that they're doing something. Semi-related issue, is there anything going on with rifle development? I think we've pretty much pushed the boundaries of weapons technology without some sort of revolutionary advance. Basically we're at the cap and ball period of this technology. Until someone comes along with the next "Bullet casing" we're at a stand still. That said, Caseless ammunition doesnt seem to really have a future. I'm really wondering what can be done in the field of small arms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 2, 2017 I believe the transistor largely ended that concern. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackDaWack 2,894 Posted March 2, 2017 Even Beretta just kicked out a new modular/polymer handgun. I wonder if they will join suit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted March 2, 2017 The large majority of SF guys I have known over the years carried a G17, with a few sticking with the standard issue Beretta. A couple of old timers and some guys that were "more special" than the rest had 1911s of some flavor - but even they were switching to G17s. They have a handgun solicitation every few years. They never change anything. When I say SF drives the solicitation reqs I mean as a total procurement not just for SF. And if a handgun is officially selected, it will likely bleed over into AF and Navy. The USMC will probably do their own thing as usual. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bhunted 887 Posted March 2, 2017 The large majority of SF guys I have known over the years carried a G17, with a few sticking with the standard issue Beretta. A couple of old timers and some guys that were "more special" than the rest had 1911s of some flavor - but even they were switching to G17s. They have a handgun solicitation every few years. They never change anything. When I say SF drives the solicitation reqs I mean as a total procurement not just for SF. And if a handgun is officially selected, it will likely bleed over into AF and Navy. The USMC will probably do their own thing as usual. Spoke to my boy about this. He is aware of the Army deal and said the Marines will probably adopt it as well. He is a Sig fan so he'll be happy. Regarding the comment about the military needing/carrying handguns. He qualifies every year and fought to keep carrying his Sig in the field. They don't allow carrying a sidearm in most cases. When he was deployed in Afghanistan, him and his men ran over a pressure plate IED in their vehicle. It blew the shit out of the vehicle, twisted the 50 up top and rendered all their rifles in-operable. The only gun functioning was his side arm. Fending off gun fire while he and his guys crawled out the back of the vehicle to cover. If not having his side arm, he and some of his men may not have made it out. When I say crawled, both his feet were blown into his shins. No way to walk. All this while waiting for a dust off from a Blackhawk to safety. So yea, it may make a difference and this time I'm glad it did. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted March 3, 2017 Spoke to my boy about this. He is aware of the Army deal and said the Marines will probably adopt it as well. He is a Sig fan so he'll be happy. Regarding the comment about the military needing/carrying handguns. He qualifies every year and fought to keep carrying his Sig in the field. They don't allow carrying a sidearm in most cases. When he was deployed in Afghanistan, him and his men ran over a pressure plate IED in their vehicle. It blew the shit out of the vehicle, twisted the 50 up top and rendered all their rifles in-operable. The only gun functioning was his side arm. Fending off gun fire while he and his guys crawled out the back of the vehicle to cover. If not having his side arm, he and some of his men may not have made it out. When I say crawled, both his feet were blown into his shins. No way to walk. All this while waiting for a dust off from a Blackhawk to safety. So yea, it may make a difference and this time I'm glad it did. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro I'm quite pleased. Where did I say they should not carry handguns? What I said was they are generally not used, and the people that use them can bring whatever they want. So this is an exercise in nonsense and waste of money. They have handguns, and the people that need them can bring what they want. Perhaps those dozen SEALs that died on that Shithook in Afghanistan should have had zero velocity ejection seats. And those Marines that died when their M1 fell into a river during the invasion of Iraq should have each had a cutting torch and water wings. Perhaps everybody should wear a parachute at all times. Do you think he would have saved more lives with a Sig than a Berreta? Because it's "modular?" I know we train to be all Rambo and shit with weapons transitions but that is not how it works in battle. You want to bring a handgun? Great. I'd rather have two extra grenades when I'm carrying 100 pounds of shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted March 3, 2017 I'd rather have ROE and a Brigade commander that would let me use grenades when I needed to and trust me to make the decision in the field. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted March 3, 2017 They replaced a helluva nice looking multi-purpose gun with a yellow Glockensteinburger. I wonder if the Sig's denser plastic was a factor. I was going to get a Rhino with my last and final permit. Now the M9 is back on my radar screen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted March 3, 2017 Perhaps everybody should wear a parachute at all times. I do. Got a problem with it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sota 1,191 Posted March 3, 2017 The only ones that benefit usually are lawyers, lots lawyers QFT. Preach it, Brother. Can I get an "AMEN!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Ray 3,566 Posted March 5, 2017 I wonder if President Trump will nix the deal in order for a better deal? I'm actually serious. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
9X19 125 Posted March 6, 2017 So Glock is basically crying no fair. They sound like a bunch of Liberals! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted June 6, 2017 The GAO decision was due today. No big surprise: Government rejects Glock protest; Army's new handgun will be a Sig Sauer https://www.armytimes.com/articles/government-rejects-glock-protest-the-armys-new-handgun-will-be-a-sig-sauer The Government Accountability Office has denied a protest from firearms manufacturer Glock that sought to have the government reconsider its award of a 10-year, $580 million contract for the Army's new handgun to a competitor. Glock filed the protest in February after the Army announced in January that it would award the Modular Handgun Contract to Sig Sauer for the company’s P320 to replace the M9 Beretta, the soldier’s sidearm for more than 30 years. Monday was the deadline for the GAO’s decision. Glock challenged the Army’s “interpretation of the solicitation regarding the minimum number of contract awards required by the” Request For Proposal, said Ralph White, managing associate general counsel for procurement law at GAO, in an emailed statement. GAO denied the challenge, finding that the RFP allowed the Army to make only one award, although three were permitted under the proposal’s terms, he said. Glock also alleged in its protest that the Army improperly evaluated its proposal. The GAO also denied that challenge, finding that "any errors did not prejudice Glock in the competition," according to White's statement. Either Glock, Sig Sauer or the Army can request reconsideration from GAO. Each entity has 10 days after the basis for reconsideration, in this case the denial, is known to file the request, according to GAO regulations. The original protest did not stop Sig Sauer and the Army from moving forward with the project, in part because Glock filed the protest after the official deadline, GAO officials said previously. In April the Army announced that soldiers with the 101st Airborne Division would be the first in the Army to field the new handgun later this year. The company released the P320 in 2014. It is adaptable to fire 9 mm, .357 SIG and .40 S&W ammunition. The Army will use the 9 mm variant. The P320 is a polymer striker-fired pistol that can be adjusted in frame size by the user and has interchangeable grip modules. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Ray 3,566 Posted June 6, 2017 Glock, stuck in 2004. Let's be serious though, the big guys (Sig, Glock, S&W, H&K, Walther) all go after each other in this way over local, state, and federal contracts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted June 6, 2017 Since when has walther been a big guy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vicious 138 Posted June 6, 2017 6 minutes ago, raz-0 said: Since when has walther been a big guy? They had to supply all the Bond films. Lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tattooo 220 Posted June 6, 2017 They had to supply all the Bond films. Lollmao.......Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ray Ray 3,566 Posted June 6, 2017 4 hours ago, raz-0 said: Since when has walther been a big guy? True, should have said Beretta or CZ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites