Breaking: Smith and Wesson Eliminated From US Army’s Modular Handgun System

uZNE6Cr

In a Smith & Wesson SEC filing, it was revealed that the Department of the Army informed them their entry into the Modular Handgun Program would not pass to the next phase. The news is surprising given Smith & Wesson was favored as one of the three entries that would make it through the down selection process.

If I were to wager a guess as to who makes it through to the next phase my money is on Glock’s entry, Beretta APX, and the Sig P320.

  • Glock has proven a solid contender capable of producing unique models for contracts as we saw with the FBI contract 17M and 19M.
  • The Sig P320 has been identified as a solid contender because it is strangely the only true modular handgun in the competition.
  • Beretta’s relationship with DOD should make the APX another one of the finalists as long as it works as expected.

It has been reported that the down selection process occurred sometime in August. News of the MHS program has been pretty quiet with no indication as to when the DOD will be releasing the list of pistols that made it to the next phase. We will be paying close attention to any other clues as to the fate of the other 11 entries. You can read the SEC filing that details the exclusion of the S&W entry HERE.



Patrick R

Patrick is a Senior Writer for The Firearm Blog and works in the shooting sports industry. He is an avid recreational shooter and a verified gun nerd. With a lifelong passion for shooting, he has a love for all types of firearms, especially handguns and the AR-15 platform. Patrick may be contacted at tfbpatrick@gmail.com.

The above post is my opinion and does not reflect the views of any company or organization.


Advertisement

  • Sasquatch

    Aw man are you kidding me. I would like to at least know why.

    • Patrick R. – Senior Writer

      No indication as to why in the SEC filing.

      • Sasquatch

        Well I hope y’all will give us a breaking segment when the reason is revealed.

        • Patrick R. – Senior Writer

          I doubt we will ever know. I am sure we will cover it if it ever surfaces though.

          • Sasquatch

            Sorry the right thing to say was if and not when.

      • Qba

        Its simple, SW don’t meet the requirements, like modularity.

        Glock and Beretta too.

        • Rob

          HK didn’t submit a firearm for MHS. The FNS as it exists on the market today is not modular while the Beretta APX is.

          • Qba

            What about VP9-M and VP40-M?

          • Rob

            What about them? HK did not submit a firearm for the solicitation for reasons only known to HK.

          • desertcelt

            H and K signed a big contract to supply rifles to the French and U.S. Marine Corps, so they shouldn’t be hurting.

        • Derek Johnson

          The gun submitted allegedly isn’t a standard M&P, but a 2nd gen model

          • Qba

            Still don’t requirements

    • ProLiberty82

      Having just seen MAC’s torture test of the M&P9, maybe it fail tests with water getting into the striker channel? S&W could probably remedy that failure with “marine cups” and drainage holes at the other end of the striker channel, it’s too late for them getting this contract but perhaps something for the rumored “M2” iteration?

      • Sunshine_Shooter

        The current M&P doesn’t meet a whole slew of requirements, and is highly unlikely to be in the trials. The gun they entered into trials is something we have not seen before, so the current M&P’s flaws have little to no bearing on their recently-rejected trial gun.

    • Qba

      SW don’t meet the requirements, like modularity.

      • Sasquatch

        How much moderlarity do you need in a combat hand gun?

        • Qba

          Like in P320

      • Sunshine_Shooter

        How do you know what the gun S&W entered doesn’t meet requirements?

        • Qba

          I read specification, and see that M&P40 don’t have modularity and 17-round magazine.

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            Smith and Wesson doesn’t have to submit the same M&P we have on shelves. They probably made a new gun that they haven’t released to the public yet, since the M&P as we know it doesn’t meet a lot of requirements.

          • Qba

            We see that this new M&P Gen 2 don’t meet requirements too

          • majorrod

            It is different. I took a picture at the Maneuver Conference. Check out SpotterUp.

    • James Young

      Did they submit it in .40? That could be the reason. Or could have just had a light primer strike or got dirt in the wrong place in testing.

      • majorrod

        Yes, 9mm & .40.

  • Openmindednotangry

    Spending tons of money just to end up with the gun they should have had all along, the Glock. What a waste. They could have had it during the original Beretta competition.

    • Joshua

      Except Glock didn’t enter so it couldn’t be tested during the XM9 trials.

      • Openmindednotangry

        Yah I know, but it existed at the time and was in regular production.

    • Frank Martin

      Oh come on.. the US Military is FAMOUS for this..

      The XM-8 program touted as a replacement for the M-16.. then cancelled..

      The H&K 416 program touted as a replacement for the M-16/A-4, cancelled..

      This pistol competition is not going to be any different.. Lot’s of money spent. Hopefully they go to complete it.

      • Openmindednotangry

        I wonder if this one will be canceled too; that would be hilarious.

        • James Young

          It’s not going to be cancelled unless there’s some sort of scandal. Congress has been hot on the generals to get it done.

    • nicholsda

      Getting the gun they should of had would have been the Sig 9mm and not a Glock or Beretta. Or better yet, just kept the 1911.

      • Sig *would* have won the M9 contest with the P226 (making the M11 even more of an obvious choice), only they made the “mistake” of being honest with their TCO figures. Beretta lied and lowballed their numbers, and won on the cost difference.

        • nicholsda

          Yep! But even with that, the Navy still got the Sigs they wanted but not as the standard issue firearm. A Sig P226 MK25 sits in the lockup. Unfired from the day I bought if for my dad’s birthday. He though it was too nice a gun to fire so ask me to get a P228 used for him to take to the range. And he loved it. Even though for 25 years he had to stay qualified with a Navy 1911.

      • Ron

        The Sig failed the original trail(it received a failing score on the dry mud test but was allowed to bid to keep bidding competitive). Smith and Wesson protested the initial trial and they were held again and Sig chose not to submit to the second test. Keep in mind that the folded slide Sig pistols of the era had their own durability problems when not maintained much like early Beretta locking blocks. Regardless of what your preference of pistol may be, at the time the Beretta was the rightful winner.

    • Richard

      A polymer framed pistol was not going to be accepted back then.

      • More importantly, a pistol that has a basically single action style trigger with NO EXTERNAL SAFETY TO SPEAK OF, was never going to win the M9 contract. *Especially* when the Army insisted on a “second strike” capability.

        The very design features of the Glock eliminated it from the M9 contest, just as the very features of the “M9A3” proposal eliminated it from consideration in the current contest,

    • Hoth

      Yeah, because we want our soldiers shooting themselves in the leg…

  • Joseph Goins

    I don’t know if I would say Glock is “capable of producing unique models for contracts as we saw with the FBI contract 17M and 19M.” Glock has one model available in multiple calibers and sizes. It isn’t unique like the P320 that you can literally swap out parts to get a separate gun to meet a different mission requirement.

    • JT303

      Unique in that the slide falls off, unlike their other models.

      • Joseph Smith

        Saves time field stripping. Don’t you like saving time?

      • Molon Labe

        And yet glock fanboys will tell you: ” See?! So when you are out of bullets you can fire your slide at the enemy!! Genious!”

        • Joseph Goins

          Instructor Zero does that anyway.

        • iksnilol

          So we should mount bayonets on the slide of Glocks? When empty you still got a knife to shoot at the enemy.

          • Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

            Plus 5

      • Stephen Paraski

        That was a Guide Rod problem. I had a Gen 1 G 21 do it.

    • Giolli Joker

      The Beretta APX has the same features of the SIG with a less cumbersome slide and a lower bore axis.
      Not to say the Beretta is better (I have no evidence to believe either is better than the other), just to say that the P320 is not unique in that competition.

      • Joseph Goins

        The Army won’t adopt it because it looks like Beretta used criminals with spoons to manufacture the it. It is the ugliest gun I have ever seen!

        The only semi-positive thing about the gun is that it looks (according to the pictures on Beretta’s website) like it would be really convenient to use with gloved hands.

        • Giolli Joker

          Upvote for the description of the manufacturing process!

          Regarding its looks, I copy what I posted recently in another topic on the APX:
          “It racks easily.
          No particularly odd feedback from gripping the slide.
          When I first saw the photos I hated it… handling it (IDEX2015) I started liking it.
          As far as a show gun can tell, the trigger seemed pretty good as well.”

      • JumpIf NotZero

        Yea I’m wondering how it was written that the “P320 is the only modular gun”… the APX is every bit as modular.

        • Qba

          APX don’t have compact version.

          • Giolli Joker

            Is it in the requirements?
            APX is designed for this competition and it basically has no commercial footprint… don’t base your considerations on what is available on the market.

          • Qba

            But it is a contest for the weapon system, the standard pistol to replace the Beretta M9 and compact to replace the Sig Sauer M11 .

          • Giolli Joker

            And your internal source in Beretta told you that they made a new fully modular pistol without thinking about the compact version? 🙂

          • JumpIf NotZero

            Yes, they do. You quite simply have no idea what you are taking about and are going off the couple of photos you have seen of the APX.

          • Qba

            Ok, they have compact, but don’t have standard and tsctical size.

  • Bullphrog855

    That’s a shame. S&W was the underdog in my eyes and was hoping they would pull through. P.320 should win this.

    • Sasquatch

      I had the same hopes. It would scream America if S&W would have made it.

      • John

        Many Sigs are made in the U.S., some Glocks as well.

        • Bullphrog855

          I believe the 320 was developed and produced by Sig USA. That said Sig will always fell like a Swiss company to me, even though it’s German now IIRC.

          • John

            Let’s not kid ourselves. Any foreign company that wins a U.S. military small arms contract will be required to build and distribute the weapons in the United States. It’s a federal requirement and we’re gun nuts anyway, so quality will be on par or even exceed original specifications.

          • Mark Wynn

            Hope you’re correct.

          • James Young

            That doesn’t mean Switzerland, Italy, Austria, or Germany (no one ever has issues with Germany right?) won’t restrict these companies from arming the US in some future war. I truly don’t understand why we can’t use American companies to create the Army handgun.

          • Jaehaerys Targaryen

            Foreign-designed guns that are adopted by the US for large-scale service are built in US factories. If Italy slapped sanctions on the US for whatever reason, we’d still have the tooling to make M9s anyways.

          • James Young

            So you’re saying the US would confiscate the factory, tools, and materials? That would cause a bigger international uproar than one the aforementioned countries banning their companies from selling weapons to the US military.

          • stfram1

            The Springfield 1903 was based on the Mauser rifle. Mauser actually sued the US Govt and won royalties prior to WW1, and while it was embarrassing to us, it didn’t prevent us from continuing to manufacture the rifle for both WW1 and WW2.

          • James Young

            Why would the US manufacture clones of Glocks or whatever when they can aquire nearly the same quality guns from Smith & Wesson? Countries dont want that gap, or production issues and the problems that come out of rushing orders in war situations

          • Ben Pottinger

            Why should they accept “nearly as good” just so they can buy from an “American” company? (which is publicly traded so likely at least partially foreign owned anyway!). All the guns in the trials are manufactured here so employ US workers in most all phases of their development and manufacture.

            That same corporate protectionist mentality is why we have a import ban via executive order (ordered by a republican president I might add) and why we can’t hardly buy any diesel cars. EPA exceptions were carved out for diesel pickup trucks because American auto makers had a hold on that market but they had no experience or models that could compete with European or Asian diesels cars so they strangled them with the worlds strongest environmental restrictions for the cars, but not the pickups.

            Sig is butting heads with the ATF on our behalf all the time now to introduce new innovative products, and FN released a freaking semiauto belt-fed! While some classic American companies like colt go out of their way to please the ATF by blocking their AR lowers (which makes using aftermarket triggers or registered sears a pain) and they won’t ship their rifles with “normal” carriers and instead use semi-auto carriers in the ARs (which suck).

            I just don’t think we should make decisions based on the location of a companies shareholders or stakeholders (since all the guns being tested are made in the USA the only defining bit left is where the stockholders reside and I the case of S&W that could be anywhere since its publically traded).

          • me me

            Actually I am pretty sure that US had plenty of diseal experience from big rigs, military vehicles etc. But US automakers simply did want to make diesals for autos. Remember they held onto muscle car idea for a long time after things had clearly changed. Diesals were no percieved as racing engines. Also US automakers wanted to keep volume up on just a few engine blocks. Engine blocks that were even shared across different manufacturers as well as internal product divisions. This tends to be true even today.

          • Ben Pottinger

            Yes they have plenty of experience with Diesel engines but it is (like you implied) all truck and big rig experience, not small auto experience (the area that the euro countries were so far ahead on). But none of what you said actually rebuts my original statement, that US auto makers used epa regulations to avoid competition in one of the areas that they were severely deficient in, efficent small cars and efficent diesel cars.

            Anyway, I was just using that as an example of large American companies using legal pressure and import controls to deal with competition.

          • Hammer Click

            Because Smith pistols are not that good

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            Please define “that good” and explain in what capacity Smith & Wesson pistols fail to meet that criteria.

          • Hammer Click

            Smith and Wesson exists in a state that is hostile to the second amendment.

          • me me

            So? That does not effect quality.

            Quality sabotage by “gun control slanted” workers is equally likely anywhere.

            I suspect that quality is more affected by mass market issues like average US citizen wants the cheapest gun possible with the appearance of simple operation.

            (Average US owner: Barely able to use any gun. No thought of maintenance and reliability. Will never intentionally fire gun after first firing range instruction. Just in case weapon.)

            So some models of US guns are going to be higher quality based on demand by elite customers (some “lifting by your own bootstrap” feedback there).

            Some EU makers are better across all models they make because they have less concern about profit. Some of that is due to pride of artisanry. But last I heard many EU makers also got subsidies to the breakeven+ for unprofit export items. Also at one time (now?) firearms got subsidies as part of meeting NATO contribution or just maintain might needed to support national sovereignty.

            As far as I know, no US gun maker gets any sort of subsidies. Not surprisingly given Democrat gun control push. On the other hand US companies often mismanage quality versus profit margin questions – trying to squeeze out too much profit or dropping quality too soon on profitable items because margins are below desired.

          • Albaby2

            Didn’t Smith cozy up to the Clinton smart gun idea because they had one in the oven they thought they could team up with the anti gun crowd and force on us?

          • John B

            This is my question too. if there are two companies that can make products that meet the needs of a particular military provisioning contract, one based in the US and the other in Germany, the American company should get the contract.

            I would be fascinated to know where S&W’s proposal fell short.

          • John Micheal Stacey

            the older wheel guns were.

          • me me

            First its a special model made to US specs even if its EU maker. US demands designs and license to manufacture if maker cannot deliver as needed (like Islam invades most of Italy like 1500 years ago).

            US sets up second source manufacturing lines. But we do not normally make weapons except if needed to eliminate questions about whether the line can meet possible planned contingency needs. (Could be a S&W operator under contigency contract is negotiated.)

            Meanwhile State Dept and DOD rake in benefits of closer ties to NATO/EU allies. Plus EU contract means US has heavy hammer to say what NATO weapon standards are. Often NATO buys or lets US manufacture some other NATO standard system.

          • Marc

            The Office of Alien Property Custodian confiscated a huge amount of foreign property, companies, trademarks, patents etc.
            Look up the history of Merck & Co.

          • James Young

            Not saying it wouldnt happen, just that it doesnt have to happen

          • Tom J

            Two things. First, choosing a company simply because it’s American doesn’t always net you the best product. A quick look back at the American auto industry in the late 70’s is a great example.

            Second, if something happened where one of our current allies decided not to sell us arms, we would have much bigger issues than confiscating tooling. And most, if not all, of the foreign gun companies have American subsidiaries that function somewhat independently of their home country.

            I’d love to see an American company supply an American gun, but I know that competition is healthy, and competing globally is good for everyone in the end. If Glock didn’t exist, would S&W ever had the drive to create the M&P?

          • If these *US* companies *violated their contracts* and cut off supplies, they would have no legal leg to stand on if their facilities were seized and production continued until an alternate supplier (using that tooling) was established. Even though, in some cases, their stock is owned by foreign nationals.

            That would be a clear case of eminent domain, with the fair compensation being offset by the penalties for failure to perform under contract.
            Don’t kid yourself — that’s *why* US arms production contracts generally require they be built in US facilities. So we *can* continue production.

          • Also note – during the 1990s, Smith and Wesson was, by *your* definition of “foreign”, a “foreign company, based on controlling ownership. As have many of our “American” production companies (including *major* automakers).

          • M40

            During wartime, the government can make ANY guns they want, ANYWHERE they want. They can show up at your company and say, “whatever products you used to make, forget about them. You’re now a gun manufacturer, so get busy!”.

            Springfield Armory was originally supplying M1’s, but Winchester was pulled in as the secondary supplier. When that wasn’t enough, the government also went to smaller gun companies like Harrington and Richardson, and when that wasn’t enough, they went to farm equipment companies like International Harvester.

            For the M1 carbine they used Winchester, but also went to General Motors (as well as their suppliers, eg: Standard Products Company and Saginaw Steering Gear). They also used tool and die makers like Quality HMC. When these weren’t enough, they went to companies that made typewriters and cash registers (like Underwood and IBM). They sourced from scale and metering companies like National Postal Meter and Commercial Controls Corp. They even used ‘Rock-ola’, a manufacturer of pinball machines and parking meters.

          • Mick

            The reason it is law that they are manufactured in the U.S. is to ensure that during war we would be capable of producing the system without relying on other nations. During those dire times I’m not too sure we’d give a crap if other nations got pissed at us… especially as they are already aware of the law and signed the contract anyway.

          • JoelM

            In the face of sanctions it’s more likely Beretta would divest itself of the subsidiary in order to prevent the sanctions from tarnishing their business relationship with the US, and to prevent from losing money, even if their parent country does not want to deal with the US.

          • me me

            Nope usually not built in US. We just have licensed designs and second source manufacturing ready to go.

            Its the whole point of foreign arms award — give their eceonomy a share of military boosts. Especially since such EU contracts means US gets heavy hammer to set NATO weapon standards.

          • tiger

            Their are no American companies any more. Dated concept.

          • me me

            We have licensing and second source manufacturing setup. But its a big thing to let allied military and governments have a bone while its possible.

            When EU collapses under weight of refugees, self-imported terrorism (disguised as refugee = 1-3%) and domestic dissatisfaction with drop in lifestyle…then US turns on its homeland gun factories. CIA is probably tasked to evacuate our favored gun designers from collapsing countries. And sillier terrorist are lulled into thinking that they cut off our guns supply. Unfortunately raw materials will soon be the big problem since mining and raw steel industry infrastructure is practical gone and rare earths etc come from Siberia.

          • RA

            Same as FN Herstal right?

          • me me

            Wrong. I did military contracting. Having a second source available in US is almost always a requirement. However, for political reasons foreign and domestic – that US manufacturing is often held idle after a limited production run to prove ability. Hillary said 20 years ago that small arms would be such a targeted item as have many Democrats since then.

            Sometimes the limited production run itself never occurs if process is low enough tech…as handgun most likely will be. If no uncommon models of computerized industrial machines are employed. Even then unless US plans to use different machines than foreign production they would likely skip proof runs and just mirror upgrades to machines and written procedures.

        • Sasquatch

          They weren’t born here.

          • Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

            And the money doesn’t stay here

          • Tim K

            The money doesn’t stay here? I bet the employees live in the US. They spend their money here they pay taxes here.

          • Tom J

            The salaries of the employees certainly do.

        • AJ

          Actually, all Glocks sold in North America are now manufactured in Smyrna, GA. I literally live half a mile from the plant, in which they recently expanded the plant so they wouldn’t need to import into North America any longer.

          • M&M’s

            False

          • Tom J

            I disagree with that. They may make pistols, but they simply augment the global supply based on demand. I promise you, you can go into any gun store and see plenty of Austrian Glocks available. Personally, I have two Gen4 17’s, one US made, and the other from Austria, and they are almost indistinguishable from each other. I can tell only because the color of the slide is a little different.

          • The raw materials are still imported from a plant in Europe that Glock sources from. This would include material for slides primarily.

        • Derek Johnson

          As an engineer, I’m concerned about where it was designed. The experience and expertise in the design process is what we need to cultivate instead of just being happy to crank out someone elses product. A US based company also should be bringing more profit back to the US as opposed to other companies where the profit for building and selling those pistols goes elsewhere.

        • me me

          Lots of that is just proof of second (domestic) source ability to manufacture for DOD needs should foreign manufacturers be embargoed or be the enemy (Islam takes Italy like 1500 years ago).

          Quite often assembly lines get mothballed for small systems with no expected significant design changes. Either because there is no legal civilian outlet or because DOD requests it (no wear and tear & silly idea that it will be low profile enough to escape new Pearl Harbor).

          • me me

            My point being that miltary could say winning military model of Sig cannot be produced in US except under DOD orders. Even if civilians can import that model with proper licensing and other models of SIG are build in US for civilian use.

        • CavScout

          And sends profits overseas.

      • Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

        And they could not have that happen

      • me me

        Actually American is part of why it did not make it. Desires to keep NATO/EU ties strong by making award over there are complimented by Democrat party desires to ramp down US made handguns. Democrats ideally want to economically pressure US gun makers to close some plants.

        Its easier to get tighter gun control if its not a big hit to business or jobs in USA. Plus hard controls on imported guns doesn’t require much Congressional action. Executive orders modifying implementation of exist laws will do. So just shift as much production of theoretically legal civilian guns to foreign plants.

        And honestly there will be no potential for accusation of unregistered guns being smuggled out of US plants or made without records. Though not likely for military automatics, its not completely impossible for civilian standard license types if you ever been around blue collar worklines. Stealing whole cars piece by piece becomes public occasionally (grand theft auto). So yeah I can believe guns illegally leave some plants at higher rates even though its felony gun charge potential.

        • Sasquatch

          Are you a lawyer? Yea you got to be a lawyer writing an article to explain somthing.

    • John

      Sig Sauer and Beretta are ancient enemies when it comes to the military small arms contract; I imagine a lot of people in various positions were sitting back and preparing popcorn for the upcoming title match.

      But, it’ll probably be handed to Glock. There is something to be said about throwing a loaded pistol out an airplane, finding it a week later, then dumping it in a barrel of water and rock salt for another week, then fishing it out and dumping it into a mud puddle, then fishing it out again a week after that, shaking everything off, pulling the trigger, and having it still fire groups within a 12-inch black circle on a target from 50 yards off.

      • They may to competitors but the industry is pretty friendly overall. As people move back and forth between various companies all the time.

      • nicholsda

        But on the other hand, Glock also has there share of problems too. Recent recall of their 17M as an example.

      • Qba

        Glock don’t meet the requirements, like modularity.

        • Stephen Andersen

          There is no requirement in the RFP for the gun to actually be modular, regardless of what the solicitation is called…

      • flyfishr

        You might as well say it cures cancer, since all the rest of that is also fiction.

        • Ben Pottinger

          Nope. Google is your friend. I believe the thread where the guy tortured a new Glock for months was on AR15 dot com but I’m not sure. To lazy to look it up.

    • Al Shartpants

      I sold my two S&W M&P’s because they I couldn’t stand them. The .460 has a grip that feels like it was made for a little girl and they don’t have any upgrade grips for it. S&W needs to work on their ergonomics if they want to sell firearms to people like me. As someone who had to deal with a bunch of poorly selected Army tools I applaud the fact that they are moving on.

      • Bullphrog855

        Did you try changing the backstrap?

  • John Edward Nicholson III

    Small error Pat, you listed the Beretta pistol as the “MPX” rather than the “APX” in the third sentence of this article. Glad for the update, I’m rooting for Beretta!

    • Patrick R. – Senior Writer

      Whoops. Good spot.

    • SP mclaughlin

      If only they’d replace the M9 with Sig MPX “pistols”

      • Patrick R. – Senior Writer

        They would be about the same size.

        • That’s always been the thing that confused me the most about the adoption of the M9: it’s the size of a two car garage. There is absolutely no need for a double-stack 9mm pistol to be such a boat anchor, even if it was introduced before the plastic pistol party kicked off; the CZ 75 and FN Hi-Power both had decades of military experience at that point in much smaller and handier packages.

  • Joe Moore

    The best entrant to the competition eliminated early. So ridiculous.

    • john huscio

      Glock is still in the running.

      • Sasquatch

        Meh

      • nicholsda

        He said best entrant. Sig also could field the P-250 if they wanted as it is about as modular as you can get. One day it could be a FS .40S&W and the next day a compact 9mm and on the third day a .45ACP mid size.

  • Joshua

    I have a feeling it’s gonna come down to Glock and Beretta at this point.

    I have been far from impressed with the Sig 320.

    • Other than Beretta DIDN’T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, even with the “M9A3”.

      • Joshua

        The requirements are dumb, and the M9A3 would have fixed 90% of the issues people have with the Beretta.

        Plus it would have been an easier and cheaper change.

  • Joel

    I thought S&W was the favorite. Hmm.
    Sig and Beretta designs are way too new and have too little time on them.

    • Twilight sparkle

      The 320 has been around a few years now

  • Harry’s Holsters

    I hope Smith and Wesson will at least bring it to market. We’ll see how it goes.

  • Mattb

    The 320 should win. It is truly a modular platform and can be tailored to fit any shooters need. I am saving funds so I can sell my FNS compact and purchase a 320 and the small frame. I have never been more accurate with a double stack striker gun then with that set up do to my small hands.

    • Curious_G

      then what … what happens next with your small hands? Don’t keep us waiting.

  • Bill

    So I guess now the M&P is just the P.

    • Gregory

      No, the M&P is just a “P”iece of cra”P”.

      • Sasquatch

        Glock or Sig fanboy I’m sure.

      • Nashvone

        I’m sure that’s why there’s so many of them on the used market…NOT!

    • Dan

      I think it is now the Almost Military and Police. Or There’s always Next Time and Police.

  • Jon Martin

    Sig P320

  • Ben

    Lame. I was really hoping the American company would win.

    • cjleete

      Sig Sauer is made in the USA now for our market.

      • Ben

        But it isn’t an American company like s&w, they just have a factory here.

        • iksnilol

          Still results in American jobs.

      • iksnilol

        We… we prefer to not talk about that.

        I mean, SIG USA bringing dishonour to the Sig name since 1990 or so.

      • Ben

        I’m aware. But it’s still not an American company. Sig originally stood for Swiss Industrial Company. Nothing against SIG, i like their firearms a lot. I just think it would be nice for the American military to use guns from an American company. But as long as they get a quality product in the end i guess it doesn’t matter.

        • john huscio

          Wouldn’t be a problem if American manufacturers like S&W and Ruger ever decided to produce actual good durable accurate pistols.

          • Ben

            Lol. Okay.

          • nicholsda

            S&W did make good and durable pistols. The 645, 59, 659, 5906. They just are heavy. Disclaimer: I own those plus a CS40 from S&W along with a S&W .32Long revolver.

  • LazyReader

    Bunch of crap. What exactly is a modular handgun, You don’t have time to worry about swapping out parts let alone carrying every possible handgun configuration with you in your pack.

    • I seriously doubt that the requirement was ever meant to imply that grunts were going to be reconfiguring their sidearms on the fly while taking fire; it’s far more likely a matter of configuring an issued pistol to work best with an individual shooter and then leaving it that way, while maintaining the ability to easily reconfigure it once it’s put back into inventory. It’s much easier to simply swap out a few parts on a modular design at the unit armorer level than to re-arsenal a weapon.

      There’s also the fact that different MOSs use their pistols in different ways, and a modular design with near-perfect parts commonality across the platform means saving a significant amount of money by not having to buy different designs for every different application.

      • Veteran Gunsmith at large

        Add to that the fact unit armorers can be trained for all the configurations as they share a lot of common parts and it is a win for the military logistics wise. The USMC will still use their new 1911 (okay, 2011) in spite of what is chosen by the military ordnance board. The true secret is it is up to the MOB members what gets picked and they will manipulate the competition results according to their preferences. This has happened throughout the history of the nation. Famous mistakes made this way – the Trapdoor Springfield carbine in 45.70 issued to the 7th Cavalry instead of Winchester’s superior lever action. Ask Custer how that decision played out.

    • iksnilol

      I think the idea is that you get the handgun issued, modify it to suit you (IE grip and slide/barrel length). Then you carry it as is whilst leaving the other parts in inventory.

      • DaveP.

        It’s more that different military jobs would have different requirements. An individual soldier wouldn’t customize his own pistol but he would be issues one that met his needs more than a ‘one size fits all’.

        A transport pilot and a boarding party NCO both need pistols, but the pilot doesn’t need the same pistol as the NCO. The pilot has some pretty severe limits on what’s going to be comfortable strapped onto his harness on a eight-hour flight and he doesn’t really expect to need to fight with a handgun anyway, so he would want something compact and light that won’t get in his way. The NCO actually can see himself needing to defend his life with his handgun, so he would want something a little more suited for a serious shootout and doesn’t mind if it’s bigger and heavier. Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have to procure two totally different handguns, or force one type on both no matter if it’s suitable or not?

        For a while in the ’70s we were still issuing Chief’s Specials to pilots and aircrewmen, 1911’s as ‘general issue’, two or three different makes of 4″ .38 revolvers to MP’s, S&W 9mm automatics as suppressed guns, and who knows what else. Wouldn’t it be loads more convenient (not to mention cheaper) if you could replace all of them in the supply chain with (going back to the above example) Glock 26’s for the pilots, 34’s for the boarders, and 17’s for everyone else?
        That’s what they’re thinking when they say “modular”.

        • nicholsda

          Think Sig P-250 as modular. Want it in .380, 9mm, .40S&W, .357, or .45ACP? all in in the same setup with just parts swaps and differing size guns from sub-compact to full size.

      • Nope — your pistol will be set up for you by the armorer, to suit your needs. Probably everyone in your unit, with your duties, will get the same set up, with the possible exception of “big hand/little hand” grips.

        But this does allow the military to just order (and track as “sensitive”) one model of pistols, and order “spare parts” to suit the variety of configurations needed.

        • iksnilol

          Yeah, that’s what I was thinking.

  • Ben

    That’s surprising after getting backing from GD.

    • john huscio

      GD is known for its aircraft, armored vehicles and missiles. Small arms? Not so much…..

      • I thought GD was backing S&W in the ammunition part of the bid (the bid is for guns AND ammo).

      • Rob

        The GD IAR submission didn’t get far either.

  • John

    In the end I’m sure Glock will offer to sell the guns to the military for 99 cents each plus give away an ice cream sandwich with every purchase and they will win the contract.

    Remember, when it comes to government contracts it’s not about the best choice but the cheapest.

    • “Never forget that your equipment was made by the lowest bidder”.

      • Wetcoaster

        Often false.

        “Never forget that your equipment was made by the bidder who rented your generals/bureaucrats the best looking hookers”

        • John

          I’d buy THAT for a dollar!

        • Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

          That too

        • Hoth

          That’s the main reason so many PDs use glocks.

      • Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

        Which is why Harry Reid had the Space Shuttle booster made in 2 pieces so his NV company could win the bid for a flawed weaker product. Then things go boom

        • I am reasonably certain that there were more than two parts involved in the STS booster system.

          • Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

            Let me S1 it for you.
            The original design called for a single stick solid propellant rocket booster as opposed to the 2 piece booster that needed an O-ring. A single stick solid propellant was too big to be shipped so REID had it redesign so Morton Thiokol could bid with a 2 piece design propellant. This made for a weaker flawed design but hey, what are people’s lives compared to someone collecting a little graft.
            These contracts and bids should be for the best design within reason and not decided by who offers the best payoffs. Bids should be transparent but then so should government.

    • LetsTryLibertyAgain

      I wish there was some sane government procurement procedure that incorporated one iota of fiducial responsibility to the hard working tax payer. In reality, a lot of military procurement is determined entirely by politics. There have been numerous weapons systems the military adamantly didn’t want that they got anyway, because the way-over-budget behemoth is manufactured in enough congressional districts to ensure that it will be funded.

  • Treiz

    Sad day, hopefully smith will release it to the public to recoup some losses. I’d like to see what they came up with.

  • EzGoingKev

    To all the Glock haters, Glock produced and released a great pistol right from day one. This pistol provided decades of great service.

    In regards to the M&P, S&W produced and released a lemon with a laundry list of issues. They let their customers buy the pistols and do the R&D for them. Thanks to their customer base and internet forums they were finally able to get them to where they are today.

    • Sasquatch

      Lemons? Like glock doesn’t have those.

    • Steven Alexander

      Laundry list?? Please enlighten us about this long list..

      • EzGoingKev

        Off the top of my head there were barrel problems, there were lack of trigger reset issues, magazine spring problems, slides failing to go back into battery issues. If it wasn’t for the M&P Apex would probably not exist.

        And that list is stuff that I could recall. Do you go to any pistol related forums on a regular basis?

      • bjeremy

        Have to agree….I’ve owned three M&P pistols in the past (M&P9C, M&P40C, M&P45), and all three had to go back to the factory at one point for various issues. The .45 had to go back twice. Once for pins walking out while firing, the second time for a cracked slide. I was not impressed and haven’t purchased a S&W firearm since.

        • Bullphrog855

          tbf, the Smith gun put into the competition isn’t the M&P on the market.

          • bjeremy

            Interesting…I didn’t know that. What’s different about it?

          • Bullphrog855

            we don’t really know much about it except that it was based on the M&P. No one knows what was changed and how much it was change

          • majorrod

            The trigger is different and has a tactile loaded chamber indicator. I took a picture and it’s on SpotterUp.

          • john huscio

            And S&W still failed……even with general dynamics backing them up

      • Joel

        There was the accuracy issue in M&P 9MMs.

        • Uniform223

          “Was”, I presume is the key word in that phrase. 9 times out of 10 (from personal experience) its the user.

      • John

        Apex Tactical has fixed most of them already. And that’s the problem; you shouldn’t have to buy a $500 pistol just to go and spend another $100 on a replacement trigger, sear and spring set.

    • Veteran Gunsmith at large

      Glock has a long standing design flaw. Much of the cartiridge case head is unsupported and that is evidenced by the often seen rectangular firing pin impression on the primer. This is a unique problem only found in Glocks, and it indicates the lockup in battery during firing has weak support. The way it elongates the firing pin hit shows the pistol is not holding the barrel in battery until breech pressure has dropped to a safe level. There is no fix for this, and it has potential to catastrophically fail. Glock will not even officially recognize this, but as a gunsmith with decades of experience I can tell you this is a problem, and I have yet to see it occur with any other semiauto pistol.

      • Eric Scheirer

        You do realize the head of the striker/firing pin is rectangular and thus the hole in the breach face is rectangular.

        • iksnilol

          He still has the point about the case not being supported well.

          • NamePickedInTheNameOfTheName

            Yeah, finally someone who has basic understanding of the issues that come with buying a Glock.

            Millions of Glocks explode due to unsupported cases every DAY, injure and maim hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers that were handed these unsafe firearms by agencies that sent them through the harshest trials of firearms testing ever conducted. Yet the issue is still being ignored.

            Glock engineers are also complicit in this crime. Knowingly ignoring the issue with every new generation of Glocks that is being pushed out.

            It needs more internet gun smiths with decades of experience pointing out and addressing these problems.

          • iksnilol

            I doubt literally millions explode daily.

            But yeah, complaining about Glocks and safety is a moot point. Safety was never a priority with those things.

      • Patrick R. – Senior Writer

        I don’t think you know how things work. The Glock FP is rectangular in shape, the unsupported case issue was only a problem with the .40 Glocks and has since been fixed on the Gen4 guns.

        • disqus_f62emCdwDh

          Fired cases from my Gen 3 21 .45 and a Gen 4 20 10mm don’t look that hot to me. Standard Glock bulges.

    • Molon Labe

      “Glock produced and released a great pistol right from day one”
      Nevermind the issues with the recoil spring on the gen.4 and the slide falling off the 17M…

      • n0truscotsman

        The Gen 4 is an example of why something already great shouldn’t be messed with. Although Gen 4s are still *good*, the recoil spring isn’t an improvement IMO and keeping the ‘improved’ extractor was a mistake because it is also another example of something that shouldn’t have been changed.

    • n0truscotsman

      I like the M&P, but agree. I mean, if they were going to just outright copy glock, then they couldve gotten the trigger right at least.

      • majorrod

        The M&P isn’t a copy. The SD9VE is.

        • n0truscotsman

          That’s borderline pedantry, given the evolutionary history between the Sigma and the M&P. I own M&Ps and Glocks and can see the obvious.

          • majorrod

            Pedantry? LOL, you started the comparison.

            Agree, the M&P is substantially different from the Glock.

            The first Sigma/SD9VE’s weren’t and why S&W had to change it more and pay Glock a settlement. That’s not pedantic.

            The subsequent Sigma which led to the M&P definitely puts some distance between M&P’s & Glocks.

            BTW, Glock triggers are one of their worst features. S&W did no worse.

            FTR, I’ve owned and shot all three.

    • Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

      Right from day one? I was around on day and I don’t recall it being perfect. Mags stuck, etc

      • Bill

        “Mags stuck” was a Euro military requirement that the magazines not drop free for retention purposes. AS GLOCK moved into the American market adding the drop-free mag was an easy change.

        I’m not a GLOCK fanboy, but every one I’ve owned has done exactly what it was supposed to, when it was supposed to.

    • Bill

      The M&Ps I was issued didn’t come with that laundry list attached, and so far haven’t needed any nursing. Must have missed the memo.

    • James Young

      What are you talking about? I’m sure I’m not the only one here with great experience with M&Ps. No problems. They are excellent guns. No reason to trash them, every gun company has lemons, maybe you should try another one.

      • Baggy270

        No problems with my M&Ps. Have a 9mm, .40, .357, .45 and .22. Only one Glock a 17. Triggers are better on M&Ps, they point better and feel better in the hand. The Glock grip feels uncomfortable in the middle of my palm and it points funny. All factory parts by the way.

  • Lee

    The only modular handguns that have a chance to win the modular handgun system contract is the beretta and the sig. Sorry glock guys. Perfection doesnt come with modularity.

    • Bullphrog855

      Glock winning would undermine the entire competition, it would have been a waste of money and time.

      • Sunshine_Shooter

        Unless the trials force Glock to create a whole new animal of a gun which allows them to continue their market domination for decades.

  • Lance

    That’s if MHS actually will result in a new pistol. Let’s not forget ICC made it further than this competition and died w/o a winner.

  • I drive an M&P on the job and a Glock off duty and I’m definitely fond of both platforms, but the P320 is objectively the best choice available here from a non-political standpoint; it’s clearly the one that best fits the program’s stated requirements.

    …Which of course means stink-all to the ultimate decision, because “non-political” is not a thing that exists in defense procurement. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

    • RA

      X2 and you’re so right about ‘politics” being a factor when it shouldn’t be at all.

  • Danny

    I feel that glock will win this one.

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    The p320 is by far the best pistol in the mhs, but glock has a shot simply due to how cheaply they can be produced.

    The FBI ordered the p320 and got screwed by the bean counters, but the primary weapon of the FBI is the pistol so it’s a bit more important to have the best. While the p320 is the only gun that actually meets every standard set by the mhs, for the purpose of a gun that will account for far less than 5% of the rounds a standard rifleman will fire in combat, the cheaper option will do well enough.

    • Giolli Joker

      How do you know the Beretta APX doesn’t meet the requirements?
      It offers the very same modularity (steel chassis independent from the polymer shell).

      • Qba

        APX dont have compact and tactical version.

        • Giolli Joker

          Again, are these in the requirements?
          I seriously doubt that the requirements mention a “tactical” version…
          I believe you are comparing Sig commercial offer with a gun that has no commercial counterpart yet.

          • Qba

            It is a contest for the weapon system, the standard pistol to replace the Beretta M9 and compact to replace the Sig Sauer M11 .

        • Stephen Andersen

          Not a requirement. It is an option to submit a single pistol that meets both size and capacity requirements.

  • tarnishedcopper

    The Beretta 92FS I carried on the streets for years is one of the most accurate and dependable pistols I have ever fired. Wish I had bought a Beretta Cougar in .45 while they were being made.

    • DW

      Cougar is still being made by Stoeger in Turkey, which is still a part of the Beretta empire.

    • Dougscamo

      Agree. Carried an Italian-made Beretta 92 and it was sweet!

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    Unlike most military replacement competitions, I’m pretty certain that at the conclusion of the mhs program the army will be selecting a new pistol. It may or may not be one of the mhs applicants, but the Berettas are worn out and need replaced with something.

  • Thomas S

    Guessed this would happen. I like the M&P line as being a comfortable, good shooter but it doesn’t survive sand and grit well.

  • Uniform223

    Maybe its because some high ranking official saw that torture test of the M&P that MAC did on youtube… LOL. In all seriousness I own one as a duty pistol. Haven’t had any problems with it. Than again I never intend to intentionally dunk it in water or expose it to dirt, sand, or mud. *joking* I guess I’ll have to trade it in for a Glock LOL

    • Bullphrog855

      I unsubscribed to him over that video haha, sticking it to the man.

      Not because he put the gun in a bad light, but because it is the video where I actually noticed his attitude to the ‘torture test’ videos went from fun and cool but irrelevant test videos to trying to influence the consumer with his laboratory grade science.

      The most telling thing about it is that he had to monologue about how it wasn’t about “publicity”.. I believe is the word he used. Which is exactly what those videos are, it’s how youtubers make money.

      • FarmerB

        Of course they need eyeballs – the “free” Internet runs on eyeballs.
        But I don’t know where you get the stuff about “trying to influence the consumer” – one of his very recent videos had a LOOOONG monologue saying EXACTLY the opposite, and he repeats it every torture test.

        • Bullphrog855

          I didn’t criticize him for needing eyes, I know how youtube works. I’m criticizing him for being dishonest. The reason I bring “publicity” up is because he was using it to poster him self on the moral high ground when that’s a load of crap.

  • John John Slade

    Ohh man…. now the US Army looking the foreign weapon. Not cool.

    • Patrick R. – Senior Writer

      They use several foreign designs now. I for one don’t care who makes it as long as it serves our troops well. Buying American is great as long as it doesn’t suck.

      • John John Slade

        Agreed

    • iksnilol

      Ummm, you know that the M4s used currently are primarily made by FN? Which is Belgian. Right?

      • Deplorable-Shocked&Amazed

        Made in Cola., SC

      • John John Slade

        For real? I wonder why Belgian are so awesome. I like Belgian waifu there.

      • James Young

        That’s different, the M4 could be made by hundreds of companies but Glocks and Sigs, etc. are patented designs, there is no easy switch because no one else makes them

        • iksnilol

          Not really different, nothing preventing the US military complex from making a Glock or Sig knockoff and branding it as their own. Or just licensing it.

    • DIR911911 .

      you might want to look up the word “Beretta” . . .

      • John John Slade

        Mean it is kind of a square cap with three flat projections on top, worn by Roman Catholic clergymen. Also some variant word called ‘Biretta’. Right?

    • GD Ajax

      Made in America was always BS when it came to guns. Especially when the weapon industry has fallen behind Europe in the last decade.

      • John John Slade

        Awww great…. now i know why.

    • M240… the FN MAG-58 (and was chosen originally in a test involving two US designs, the German MG3, and – for comparison purposes – the Soviet PK). M249… the FN Minimi. Our first official production musket was a direct clone of the French Charleville. 75mm and 105mm howitzers were foreign designs. our current 81mm and 120mm mortars are foreign designs. The FOX NBC vehicle was a foreign design. Luger competed against Colt, S&W, Remington, etc., in the program that ended up with the 1911. The FAL was tested as the T-48 rifle against the M14 and AR10.

      We’ve *ALWAYS* evaluated foreign weapons for use by the US military. From the moment the Continental Army turned into the US Army.

  • Tim

    This could go on forever as the trend nowadays in high stakes military contracting is for one of the losers to contest the final result, forcing a redo.

    Also, wonder what they’ll do with the boatload of old Beretta 92’s they suddenly don’t need?

    • Dougscamo

      CMP, I would doubt. Knowing our government’s current practices…..torch them or use a huge cut-saw since they have the “evil” high capacity magazines….

      • nicholsda

        Turn them into bollards like the Senate wants to do with the 1911s. The gov’t should not be cutting up our guns as we paid for them.

  • Icarus

    FNX 45 is the best gun based on the specs.

    • Patrick R. – Senior Writer

      We don’t even know what gun FN has entered. Besides, the military will probably stick with 9mm for cost reasons. Same story when the Garand was adopted.

      • Icarus

        I must be confused by the original iteration of the competition before the army started and stopped it, then started it. I read somewhere theyou were looking for something harder hitting than the 9mm and hammer not striker inn the original request.

      • Qba

        But, we know that it is striker fired pistol and must have minimum 17-round magazine.

        It can’t be FNX or Five-seveN.

    • Qba

      FNX 45 don’t meet requirements, like 17-round magazine.

      • Icarus

        So it has to be 9mm tof meet 17 rounds.

        • Qba

          Or 357 SIG

    • James Young

      It’s not the FNX because it’s not a striker fire gun which the Army requested. They would have submitted the FNS which I personally would like to hear more about.

      • Icarus

        I did not know they requested striker only.

  • lowell houser

    Did they watch the latest Gauntlet vid over on MAC and see the M&P9 choke on CLEAN WATER? Cause, gotta be honest, I was going to buy one until I saw that. Now I’m just hoping that my Spectre 80% Glock 34 turns out okay.

    • Uniform223

      Let me ask you this…

      Are you ever going to be in a situation where you have a firearm and be fully submerged in water?

      • BTDT… not all future wars will involve arid deserts and mountains.

        • Uniform223

          Unless you’re a SF/SOF unit that does maritime/amphibious operations… are you ever going to be submerged in water for an extended period of time?

        • To clarify, as a “Leg Grunt, Standard, One Each”, I have found myself fully submerged more than once while covered in battle rattle and carrying a gun. I’ve seen dudes just “disappear” on a night movement, because they found a hole full of water. As in, “Splash, bubbles…”. In fact, I’ve *been* that dude a few times…

          And I’ve been submerged to my waist or chest (I.e., anywhere a pistol would be carried) *far* more often than that..

  • Silverado

    This is more about politics and payoffs (both real and imagined) than the best pistol winning the competition. As we see here, there was no competition…

    • john huscio

      Survival of the fittest, if your submission sucks, it gets chucked.

  • Rey Mariano

    m&p is garbage without the apex trigger:-)

  • A Fascist Corgi

    My best guess is that the U.S. military experienced the same problems that MAC did with reliability during extreme environment tests. Judging by his videos, it looks like they should have included the REX zero 1 and that the Glock will probably win since the SIG P320 also choked in his extreme environment tests.

    • Uniform223

      “I was personally rooting for the M&P since I use an M&P9c as my primary carry gun and a full-sized M&P is one of my home defense guns. Like most people, I’ve had zero stoppages at the range with my M&P pistols, but it looks like they’re not so great in extreme environments”

      > and this is why I don’t like the term “extreme conditions” when used in context of a firearm and its user. Even on deployments and in combat, firearms rarely if ever go through “extreme conditions” that we see all over the interwebs. For a firearm to go through “extreme conditions”, the user will have to intentionally put them there. Just because it doesn’t pass “extreme conditions” doesn’t mean they are not functional for the user or in combat.

  • DW

    News on Five-seveN? I had thought it’d be the first to be eliminated…

    • Patrick R. – Senior Writer

      No one knows what gun FN entered.

      • Qba

        It must be FNS.

    • Qba

      FN enter with FNS.

  • Reminds me of the recent HK-416’s acquisition by the French Armed Forces: a decision that has been politically taken months ago, with the trial being just a “pro forma”.

    My money is on the MHS trial being ended before selecting an official replacement and the M9 remaining in service. Just like the IC program.

  • Kebab_Remover

    The Beretta APX looks like something you’d expect from Taurus.

    SIG USA is not German or Swiss- not even close.

    S&W puts locks on their revolvers and should be eliminated on that principle alone.

    Glock is the pistol everyone wants to copy but there is only one Glock.

  • Wonder if they just submitted an M&P or they actually changed something.

  • ProLiberty82

    Well I hope at least we are getting new pistols for the public out of the MHS program, like we did with the Joint Combat Pistol program (love my FNX Tac .45). Perhaps we get a “M2” M&P generation, and dear I hope for a M&P9 finally in the size of a G19?

  • Mark Wynn

    I simply don’t understand a country purchasing a common, low-tech, national defense item from another country if the home-grown item will perform the mission. Think of the jobs, the balance of payments, etc. So, there’s no made in USA modular pistol that can perform the mission?

    • john huscio

      Short answer: no, long answer: Glock, SIG, and Beretta all make guns stateside.

      • James Young

        Doesnt matter where they’re made, they are foreign companies and if whatever countries they’re headquartered in decides they disagree with the US, they could force Sig or Glock or Beretta to shutdown production and procurement agreements with with the US. Basic National Security concern, makes no sense.

        • joe

          Basic national security concern is statisfied; they’re made in the US using USG owned plans (the TDP is part of the competition, right). For example, if Germany decides to muzzle SIG before they complete their move to the US, S&W or Colt or Springfield Armory or someone will make the type standardized 320s instead.

      • Mark Wynn

        Ok, thanks for that … but where does the money go?

  • Twilight sparkle

    I’m probably the only one that was rooting for the five-seven

  • desertcelt

    Where is H and K in all of this? I thought their P30 or VP9 might be in the running. I stand guilty of being and H and K fanboy.

    • Rob

      People associated with HK have stated they did not submit anything to MHS.

  • James Young

    I was hoping for Smith & Wesson to win, I wonder why it lost. Regardless, I hope Beretta loses because the APX is ugly. That’s a logical reason to not want a gun right?

    • cisco kid

      And the Glock is not ugly??????

  • Audie Bakerson

    If Glock wins, I’d hope it would lead to more companies supporting building a “Glock” from non-Glock parts.

  • HammaHamma

    “The Sig P320 has been identified as a solid contender because it is strangely the only true modular handgun in the competition.”
    That actually made me chuckle.
    It’s like when a teacher gives a class an essay prompt and only one person bothers to answer said prompt in their essay.

  • Ed Ward

    Appreciate the updates as unless I am missing something it’s hard to find information regarding this process (start-finish) even though ‘I’m’ paying for it…? As far as the Gov’s logic (pardon the oxymoron) it’s rarely devoid of politics and seemingly biased towards foreign product indicative of this ‘Globalist’ new world order economy…That said, any of these pistols would suffice as well as a myriad of others that are not even being considered but we will never really know unless the Gov releases bits and pieces of its findings/opinions at their leisure…

  • TheRemnant Voice

    This is like any other government trial process – they pretty much already knew who they were going to award before the dog and pony show even started.

    I personally find it repulsive that it’s been “narrowed down” to foreign gun makers.
    I know that everyone will comment that “they all have US factories…” blah blah blah. They are foreign makers. I carried the M9 for the majority of my career – I know the weapon. I have spent a lot of range time with the M&P9 and the Glock 17 and 19 – I would prefer the M&P in my hands over either of the Glock’s. But….nobody ask me.

  • Disarmed in CA

    OK now get back to making quality revolvers for the land that time forgot: California

  • Tonya Masters

    I’ve been shooting XD & XDMs for years, besides very dependable and very accurate, I’ve put every kind of ammo I could find and never had a FTF or FTE. I can’t believe they didn’t even make the line up.

  • Tonya Masters

    XDM 9mm holds 19 + 1

  • otto burgess

    i would bet that it has more to due with a bias against any american gun maker. it is part of the gun control agenda. part of the un effort to control small arms via the small arms trade agreement between nations.

    not saying glock and sig are not worthy. they are for sure! perhaps s&w are concentrating too much on the consumer market and law enforcement market.

  • dltaylor51

    Obama admin sending more jobs overseas along with corporate profits and American jobs.Thanks Barry.And you guys that think just because Glock builds some models in the US the profits go back to Austria along with the taxes this country wont take in.

  • 92nRed Rappini

    I’m will to bet that Sambo in the White House had something to do with S&W deletion.

  • Ken Kaminski

    Glock all the way . Very solid gun

  • uisconfruzed

    Could it be their Glock copy has a horrid trigger?

  • Hammer Click

    Good, any company that continues to house itself and manufacture firearms in a state hostile to its citizens second amendment rights does not deserve a military contract or my tax dollars.

    And interestingly, the other home countries of the finalists are just as fascists to its people when it comes to firearms.

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      Pretty sure that whoever wins the contract will be forced to manufacture the guns in their entirety here in the US, especially since they made Beretta do that when they won the M9 contract.

      • Hammer Click

        You missed the joke, Italy, Germany, Massachusetts…..all locations with gun confiscation

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          I missed it by a mile, my bad. I was reading it too fast. Thought you meant ‘state’ in the country sense. Carry on.

      • cisco kid

        Wrong. If Hitlery Clinton gets in she has vowed to repeal the “Lawful Commerce Act” which will drive the U.S. Gun and Ammo Companies out of business. We then will be buying all small arms and ammo from foreign countries for the Police and Military which is maybe why the U.S. is testing only two foreign designed guns. Think about it.

  • majorrod

    The S&W’s submission definitely has a different trigger than the commercial M&P’s. I handled it extensively at the Maneuver Conference 10 days ago.

  • Shayne

    I am not surprised, I own and carry a M&P everyday and the longer I carry it the less I like it.

  • John Micheal Stacey

    Sweet Baby Jebbus. Just buy Glocks!!! SIG is OK kinda pricey thou…Glock, Glock, Glolckty Glock!!!!

  • cisco kid

    This is the Neanderthals of the U.S. Military trying to create some monstrosity of a handgun that is supposed to perform so many tasks that it ends up being a failure in regards to its primary role.

  • cisco kid

    History repeats itself. In 1911 the Military made John Browning put a manual safety on the 1911 to help eliminate accidental discharges. From Brownings viewpoint the grip safety was enough safety but he was proven wrong by History. Fast forward to today and the Neanderthals in today’s Military are not smart enough to demand a manual and grip safety on the two remaining pistols the Beretta and Glock. Considering the fact we have lost every major war since WWII this does not surprise me.

  • cisco kid

    Is the Military making a good move on adopting a plastky pistol with a pre-loaded striker system. Yes if they want to save money, no if they want a reliable and safe pistol.
    The clerks that buy military handguns often know little about the history and reliability of them. A classic example was the adoption of the Remington M700 for a sniper rifle during the Vietnam War. It had an unreliable trigger system, and unsafe trigger system and a fragile tinny stamped sheet metal extractor all of which made it totally inferior to the pos-64 Winchester M70 but that is another story. Lets take a look at this latest U.S. Military boondoggle.
    The Glock and other pre-loaded striker fired guns have low ignition momentum and to make the Glock’s system even more unreliable the striker channel is open letting in contaminates. This is very serious in cold weather especially if the gun does not have low temperature oil or is dirty. In my own testing of 3 different Glocks and one Walther P99 (all pre-loaded striker systems) all failed a high primer test 3 times in a row while the various hammer fired guns tested passed every single time. Proving how inferior the Glock’s ignition system is.
    Now lets look at the safety issue. One of the major sources of law suits against Glock including the latest by the Massachusetts Attorney General is the lack of a manual and grip safety which has resulted in untold numbers of unnecessary deaths and injuries.
    Carrying a pre-loaded striker pistol that has a short stroke let off much like a single action Revolver with the hammer cocked back is a recipe for disaster. People do not fear what they cannot see and since the Glock has no exposed hammer rather it has a concealed striker people are not aware of the danger of carrying the gun with a round in the chamber.
    The trigger safety is a joke that does not work period as anything entering the trigger guard will set off the short stroke trigger much like it would a revolver with the hammer cocked back. Glock originally was going to make the gun with a hammer but was warned no one in their right mind would carry such a weapon with a round in the chamber. So many police departments had so many accidental shootings, many of them which resulted in dead innocent civilians only pulled over for a minor traffic violations that many departments have dropped the Glock altogether. New York demanded a much heavier trigger and many foreign countries refused importation until Glock put on a factory equipped manual safety which has never been made available to the American market.
    All in all just as in the adoption of the Remington 700 rifle was a disaster, the adoption of a pistol that has no manual or grip safety and has a short stroke trigger is the height of pure ignorance not to mention its unreliability under extreme military conditions of cold, dirt and dust and sand.
    Although I have never been a fan of the 1911 because of details too numerous to go into here I would take it any day over a plasticky, pre-loaded striker fired system for the reliability and safety factors of the older 1911 design.

  • BeoBear

    That stinks, I was rooting for the M&P. I guess the government didn’t want to have to contract with Smith and Wesson for the guns and then also with Apex Tactical for the parts to make them work.

    I love my M&P40 but from the factory it wouldn’t shoot a group if you pointed a gun at it. It took an Apex DCAEK kit to make it shootable.

    • J.E.Walker

      Sad but true. 🙁

  • Rollin Shultz

    My experience so far with the Sig P320 is awesome. I shelved my old tank of a Ruger P94 for the Sig P320 Compact with threaded barrel and night sights in 9mm. This gun is easy to shoot well and because of its modularity has so much potential that yet remains to be seen.

    The only thing I think might knock them out of the running is mfg capacity. Already it is hard to find parts and many of the listed sizes of frames are unavailable. Most come with a medium sized frame, but in my case I would rather see if a small frame would give me easier access for dropping the magazine. Currently I must open my hand shift the pistol back in my palm to thumb the magazine release. I will find out tomorrow how much effect this will have on my IDPA scores.

    If they do win, I assume they will make some major production equipment invesments which would be good for all customers.

  • Core

    It doesn’t give any information to why it failed to pass, that would be nice. But this isn’t the letter from to DOA to S&W.

  • Mikial

    It’s called competitive bidding for a reason.The military comes up with their set of requirements and the bidders try to meet them. If they don’t, they’re out. If a bidder feels like there has been something irregular in the exclusion, they can always challenge it. most likely, S&W just didn’t meet the criteria as well as the other bidders. Period. S&W are great guns, but so are all the others.

  • CavScout

    So you won’t tell us WHY it was dropped, just that it was dropped and you like Glock. Great.

  • Doom

    between the remaining 3 listed, glock should have it in the bag. They can produce units dirt cheap, superbly reliable and durable, and a retarded monkey could learn to use it in an afternoon (just look at me!) P320 will be much more expensive, and the Beretta is brand new to the scene and is an unknown that may not have many/most of the kinks worked out. I would probably stick with the M9A3 though and just have them switch over to a frame mounted safety.

    Though since the Military seems to want .40 or .45 that goes back to glock with the Model 21 and 22 being well tested in police and civilian hands.