Jump to content
Mrs. Peel

Shootout over the Army's new $580 million handgun

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...