BREAKING: Glock Protests XM17 MHS SIG Sauer Win

SIG Sauer is not quite out of the woods yet regarding their recent Modular Handgun System contract win. Finalist Glock – who for many was the favorite to winhas protested the XM17 contract award. SIG won the MHS contract earlier this year with a variant of their P320 handgun based on the Compact frame. The news of SIG’s win was announced on January 19th, the day before the inauguration of the new US President and his administration.

In all honesty, a protest of the $580 million dollar MHS contract was likely inevitable. Contracts of this type are too large and too important for companies to let them go without a fight, and the nature of the GAO protest system is such that contracts can be protested relatively easily. However, the MHS contract was structured slightly differently than previous ones. Three contracts were awarded during the finalist phase, all three being indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ), to SIG, Glock, and Beretta. There was some speculation that because these contracts were accepted by the three finalists, that a protest of the final contract award would not be possible, but with Glock’s protest that is evidently not the case.

More information on the history of the MHS program can be found in a podcast I did with Daniel Watters for Handgun Radio, available here.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at [email protected]


Advertisement

  • Red McCloud

    Glock: *presumably submits an almost bone-stock Glock 19 or 17*
    Sig: *submits a modified version of the P320 with their own ammo and meet essentially all criteria*
    Sig: *wins*
    Glock: UMMMMM EXCUSE ME????? WE SHOULD’VE WON, WE SHOULD’VE GOTTEN THE CONTRACT, HEY ARE YOU EVEN LISTENING TO ME, WE SHOULD’VE WON!!!

    Glock seems to be realizing that people are starting to stop caring about their ‘Perfect’ products because you have better guns available like COUGH the Sig P320 COUGH and they as a result are gonna make as big a stink as possible about any possible money-making opportunities.

    • I don’t feel like the Army picked the wrong handgun, but let’s get real here. Nobody knows what Glock’s submission was except them, and it obviously met the requirements since they were in the top 3 who got IDIQ contracts. I don’t think anybody can seriously entertain the idea that Glock didn’t really want to win the contract and wouldn’t ever possibly modify their guns to please the Army, especially not when they commissioned whole new molds to win the FBI’s contract.

      • John

        Make a Glock 17 with a manual safety, and the military will take a look at it.

        Otherwise, no.

        • I guarantee you Glock submitted a thumb safety model. They’ve done so before:

          http://www.forgottenweapons.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/glock.jpg

          • John

            Hmm.

            Everything I’m reading says that it’s a right-hand thumb safety only. Any ambi models in existence?

          • I bet one exists made especially for MHS…

          • Not that I’m aware of but who knows what they submitted. Glock tends to be rather secretive so it’s anyone’s guess.

          • iksnilol

            It’s a Glock, expect ergos to lie behind at least a decade.

          • Kivaari

            That model illustrated is a Gen 1.

          • Proving that they’ve been willing to do that for a long time.

        • kalashnikev

          They did.

      • Joseph Goins

        My personal belief is that they submitted a 19 and 19L. That would give them both the full size and compact versions.

        • Would love to see a 19L on the market.

          • Anonymoose

            Lone Wolf has you covered, bro.

      • Cal S.

        Yeah. When you’re trying to win a contract, you don’t just throw a hand-me-down in there and figure you’ll win on your laurels alone. They made sure it fit the criteria and good.

      • I honestly thought they had just submitted a standard G17 with an added manual safety– as they’ve previously submitted for military contracts elsewhere– from the tone of earlier reporting on the matter; stock photos seem to have led a lot of opinions astray here.

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          They couldn’t have just subbed a standard G17, it doesn’t have the removable, serialized metal chassis (a la P250/P320) required.

          Or if they did, it wouldn’t have landed them in the top 3 finalists.

      • nate

        bet we will see what they submitted shortly. Seems all the gun makers (except berretta with their APX) have been releasing their submissions to the market. Glock will take their submission to the MHS and release it as gen 5 (maybe they might mix what they did with the fbi model as well). and then we will see that it is not that different from a bone stock glock 19 or 17

        • TNoebel

          Just read earlier today on another site that the APX is actually being released. First in full size, with compact to follow.

          • nate

            any date with the APX release?

          • TNoebel

            April 15th is what I saw.

        • kalashnikev

          If Glock doesn’t win, they will likely throw the design in the trash- which is where a striker fired pistol with a safety belongs. FBI M models will be Gen5.

          • Core

            I agree. It should have a grip safety instead. Maybe the submission did?

      • Core

        I think he has a point. Glock has been convincing us that they peovide everything we need. They neglect to provide what we want. Glock in all its glory still fails to provide many fundamentals that other manufacturers like SIG have been providing for a decade now, like modular grip panels and universal rails.

    • mrpotatocat

      Is the new term Glock Snowflake? Glockflake?

      • Brick

        Gloflake.

    • n0truscotsman

      Except none of that happened, and you’re just pulling that out of your ass and drawing to wrong conclusions.

    • Sick-of-it-inGREENBAY

      I have a Ruger American 9mm that is better than the Glock 17 .. I owned a G17 , 34 & 35 SO…yea the Ruger American is a step up and a $ 100.00 less….

      • Core

        I heard it was better from several former Glock owners. I guess Ruger did a great job of it.

    • Jason

      I put a few rounds through my buddies P320(if you need kydex for yours Advanced Holster can make it) and it was okay but I’ll stick with Glock.
      EDIT: I looked at the picture above and they have gloves on. Maybe I needed gloves. The P320 shot low for a few of us who tried it.

  • Dukeblue91

    What exactly are the complaining about?

    • We’ll find out in the future. It could be a legitimate protest, or it could be “Might as well give it a college try” protest.

  • Bud Harton

    Nah, It was more like Glock submits their modified G17 and when the slides falls off they claim that proves it is modular. “See? Now you put a different slide on!”

    Anybody who reads the proposal for bid can realize that Glock came no where near the concept.

    • They met all the requirements, evidenced by the fact that they were downselected into the top 3.

      I see a lot of folks who have no idea what was in Glock’s proposal loudly claiming that Glock’s proposal didn’t meet the requirements. I mean, maybe I’m wrong and everybody’s seen a leaked copy of Glock’s submission document, but if that’s the case I’d love to see it.

      • It appears to me that Glock’s accessory backstraps would have been enough to satisfy the grip modularity requirement of the RFP. Glock has previously offered frame-mounted manual safeties for LE agencies who demanded them. The 17M and 19M appear to use the same locking block, so the longer barrels would fit fit in the shorter slides. It wouldn’t be a stretch for Glock to offer a G34-style slide shrunk down to G17 overall length with the slide’s dust cover matching the G19 frame dimensions. That way you’d be able to swap out the full-size and compact slides on the same frame.

  • MOUE

    Butt devastated.

  • Treyh007

    I was wondering when this would happen, this should get interesting!

  • Major Tom

    This should be a quick case of “DENIED!”. Near as we can tell, Glock failed to meet all the requirements set out in the MHS program. Even if all they missed was one or two things.

    Of course this is going to set precedent for them being no different than Colt when it comes to M4 production contracts. Aka whiny babies with an entitlement complex.

  • FWIW: While the Army’s RFP mentioned awarding three IDIQ contracts prior to selecting the final winner, I have yet to find evidence of the other two contracts. IDIQ awards cannot be protested by an awardee except for failures by the agency to honor the terms of the terms of the contract. Examples would include a failure to order the minimum amount and attempts to order more than the contracted amount.

  • Tormund Giantsbane

    This is dumb. Sig won that contract fair and square. This is why our military can’t select parts to fix AR problems anymore or change ammunition types very well. Way too much red tape and contractors can just protest the results of competitions and bids whenever they want with no punishments.

  • I’m wondering if this isn’t an “untimely protest” as it appears to have been filed more than 10 working days after the Army’s XM17 award announcement.

    That was the fate of the 1985 protest filed by Saco Defense (SIG-Sauer’s US representative for the XM9 procurement.) Their protest was rejected because it was filed a mere one day late. They did not understand that Inauguration Day counted as a Federal working day.

    • Major Tom

      It probably is. Just because the Army works at the speed of government doesn’t mean Glock has that privilege.

    • nova3930

      Entirely possible. Da rules are da rules….

  • Psylant

    Anyone interested in some Austrian salt?

    • m-dasher

      protesting awarded contracts is standard in the defense industry……..in fact, its expected……regardless of who or why they won.

      when i worked for Raytheon, Lockheed would protest all of our awarded contracts……aaaand we would protest all of theirs, its standard practice

      • nova3930

        Exactly. For the size of the contracts, protests are a low risk high reward game. If you lose you might be out a few million in lawyers fees but if you win, you get another bite at a multi-hundred million dollar apple….

        • B-Sabre

          A protest only costs a postage stamp.

          • nova3930

            Technically you don’t even need that anymore, GAO accepts them electronically. If you want any hope of winning you better be represented by legal and technical counsel though….

          • B-Sabre

            Right, but the protest stops the clock on the contract and lets you come up with something more plausible.
            It’s become standard practice to protest every contract. The Army just awarded a contract to two companies to start developing new turbine engines for the Black Hawk and Apache, and one of the winners protested on the grounds that they didn’t get as much money as the other winner (but they got exactly as much money as they submitted a bid for)….

          • nova3930

            I read you. I’ve seen that before too in my decade working DoD procurement support. Like I say, it’s a low risk, high reward action in the contracting business. Till DoD puts in some penalties for frivolous protest nothing will change either…

      • nate

        and you all waste time, effort and money by protesting

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          As Nova said, low risk and high reward. Yes you waste time and money (years and millions), but you have a *small* chance at a $520,000,000, decades long contract. Totally worth it.

  • USMC03Vet

    Breaking: jet fuel doesn’t melt plastic sights.

  • Kivaari

    It should have been a Glock.

    • manana

      Girlies disagree.

    • mcjagermech

      based on what?

      • Kivaari

        Based on the proven track record of Glocks. The unaltered G17 or G19 are excellent pistols. Reliable, simple to maintain, cost effective. There is no need for a manual safety.

        • mcjagermech

          it appears the Army felt differently. and how is the SIG pistol not simple, reliable and cheap?

          • Kivaari

            It may be, but it doesn’t have a 30 year track record.

          • mcjagermech

            that would matter, if the Glock pistol never changed since it’s introduction. as it is, the Glock and SIG are built on the short recoil system which is old and proven. either way the P320 passed the trials so it’s reliable enough

        • Brad

          Big Army loves manual safeties, it gives 1SGs and CSMs something to do.

          • Uniform223

            You know how many senior enlisted and officers I’ve seen running round with those leather holsters that have the side arm pointing to the rear flagging everyone behind them? A LOT! Yeah they had the M9 which had that (imo) stupid safety/decocker on the slide but that didn’t make me feel any better. Now imagine those same senior NCOs and officers running around with those same or similar holsters with a firearm that doesn’t have a manual safety…

          • RSG

            To be fair, if it’s holstered and the trigger guard is covered, it’s relatively safe. Think about shoulder holsters.

          • Uniform223

            I was always taught (drilled into me) never to point your muzzle/barrel at anything or anyone you don’t intend to shoot. Always carry your rifle or carbine at the low ready. When not in use your side arm should always be in the holster (I was lucky my unit had a mix of thigh holsters and even those old flap holsters). Now you have senior NCOs and officers throwing that right out the window. I’ve seen on a few occasions in my civilian life wear people have prematurely fire off their weapon when they unholster because their finger goes straight into the trigger well during the draw.

        • I think whether of not a manual safety is needed is up to the army to decide

          • Kivaari

            The safety isn’t needed, it is desired by the army. As for serious need, that doesn’t exist.

          • have you served in the army? if so, please tell me the likelihood that somewhere some stupid boot somewhere will or will not shoot them self in the thigh because they don’t have the trigger control you expect them to. pistols in armed forces are truly secondary weapons, not primary weapons so there isnt the need to pull a gun out and have it on target in a split second.

          • n0truscotsman

            Thats a training issue. And instead of crutching it, how about pushing for it to be reformed?

        • int19h

          You know what has a longer proven track record than a Glock? Colt SAA.

          • Uniform223

            “You know what has a longer proven track record than a Glock?”

            > I’ll say it… 1911A1

    • Don Ward
    • n0truscotsman

      Yeah I agree. Be done with it.

      The Army has more pressing concerns besides handguns. G17s and 19s are proven and already in service.

      • LCON

        M4A1 is the Army’s official standard issue. So unless you are in the cockpit of an Apache you pretty much have a M4A1. They have tried again and again to phase out the Sidearm with Carbines and PDW’s but again and again it’s still there.

        • Nagurski

          When I was deployed, Apache pilots were actually some of the few people in my battalion who had M4s. Maintenance types and support staff usually had M16s and the Blackhawk and Chinook crews had just pistols. I guess the idea is that if the bird gets shot down, they want the crew to have long guns. The UH60s and CH47s already had machine guns that could easily be put to use one the ground so they never bothered with the rifles.

  • Kurt Ingalls

    Ahhhhhhh…….politics…….the first act bred the second act………….same difference……in the end the whole idea will be over turned by a judge in Washington state and demand that the order be filled by Kel-Tecs…….LOL….b-e-c-a-u-s-e, something was racist, bigoted or homophobic about Sig and Glock……and “we” are better than that 😛

    • RSG

      Washington State, Washington DC, same difference. If they had their chance, it would be decided by who has the most diverse workforce. Functionality has no place in this discussion.

      • Kurt Ingalls

        I hear ya, Mr. RSG…..you are right about that!!!!! 🙂

  • Bill

    I expected this about 27 seconds after the award was announced. It’s just the way it works. Any contract of this size will be contested. It doesn’t apply in this case, but if a company is publicly held like a lot of the big defense contractors and DIDNT contest a lost contract, shareholders would be screaming misfeasance.

    • RSG

      I’d venture to guess it’s more about the prestige than the money. You’d have to think that going forward, militaries and law enforcement world wide will probably give Sig a longer look than they might have otherwise. When the US military chooses you over all others, people take notice. This is a crushing blow to Glock.

      • LCON

        that Prestige though is advertizing and those who take notice tend to want to buy.

        • RSG

          Sure that’s a small part of it. Advertising in general is directed at civilian consumers, which is only a fraction of their business compared to LEO and MIL contracts. But yes, bragging rights does have a dollar figure attached to it, somehow. And when I referenced “money” above, I wasn’t clear in specifying that the prestige (long term) was more valuable than this current contract of $580 million. Money does indeed drive everything.

          • LCON

            But there is also a little more than that here. the XM17 contract is not just the pistol, It’s the night sights, Laser/light module, Suppressor option, Holster even potentially the rounds it will fire. this allows Sig to under bid the gun as they have been working on “the total Package”

  • Dickie

    But glock didnt offer their own ammo and silencers and optics. I thought they wanted a one company procurment or watevs

    • Brad

      Bingo!

      • Tom

        Which is where SIG is going to make their money off this thing. Pistols for $207 apiece is fine when you’re supplying EVERYTHING else to go with them.

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          Bingo.

    • If you have Glock’s submission doc, please share it with the rest of us.

      • Glockaid

        Glock apologist much?

        • Calling out BS. I don’t have any reason to believe the Army made the wrong choice.

          • Glockaid

            Just joshing you about fanboyism. I disagree with everyone. I think the army should have chose the Cz P09, how is that for different?

          • Twilight sparkle

            We all know the army needs to go back to one of the earlier plans to upgrade their handguns back in 07 and adopt the p08… it would have served much better than that ugly colt design

          • Frank

            I mean it’s not super hard to believe that Sig sold a better “package” to the Army and had more foresight in developing that package. Not sure about their optics, but they hired a real pro to develop their suppressor line, and as far as I know, the only “suppressor” glock has ever put to market was that weird disposable plastic one. They’re just way more savvy to how these kind of contracts go and were more prepared. It’s like Anderson Silva when he fought Chris Weidman. Weidman wasn’t as good of a fighter but fought smarter and came in with a better gameplan and Silva looked like he was winging it.

          • I imagine SIG did have the more attractive package in some way or another. I doubt the choice was arbitrary. Everyone is acting as though Glock didn’t even try, and it’s like, come on, get real.

          • The XM17’s RFP stated that the suppressors would be a separate acquisition. The candidates merely had to show that they were easily convertible to a suppressor-friendly configuration.

            C.3.2.1.4. Suppressor Kit

            If the XM17 MHS is not capable of accepting a suppressor (i.e.: the handgun does not have a threaded barrel, or the sights may be obscured by a suppressor) the Contractor shall supply a kit that could include a threaded barrel, taller sights, or a slide that incorporates higher sights so that the suppressor kit can be installed by the Operator, without the use of tools. The suppressor kit shall include all necessary hardware to fire the MHS suppressed, not including the suppressor. The Government is not purchasing a suppressor with this kit.

            C.3.2.1.5. Suppressor Kit, Compact

            If the Compact MHS is not capable of accepting a suppressor (i.e.: the handgun does not have a threaded barrel, or the sights may be obscured by a suppressor) the Contractor shall supply a kit that could include a threaded barrel, taller sights, or a slide that incorporates higher sights so that the suppressor kit can be installed by the Operator, without the use of tools. The suppressor kit shall include all necessary hardware to fire the Compact MHS suppressed, not including the suppressor. The Government is not purchasing a suppressor with this kit.

      • Brad

        And therein lies the problem, no one knows what Glock submitted. Sig submitted an off the shelf pistol, with the required accessories, and won.

        • Why is that a problem?

          • Joseph Goins

            Access of information.

          • Um… OK. Nobody’s keeping it a secret.

          • Joseph Goins

            Do you have Glock’s submission documents? That’s the problem.

            These procurements cycles are cloaked in secrecy. Some of the items rightly need to be secret, but not a sidearm.

          • FarmerB

            They are kept “secret” for commercial reasons, not national security.

          • Joseph Goins

            Keeping the entry secret has nothing to do with intellectual propriety. The products themselves are protected by patents.

          • FarmerB

            Huh? You obviously don’t understand the term “commercial”. The reason that most RFP type documents are controlled because much of the information requested – not the least of which is your pricing proposal – is “commercially sensitive”. For example, you may be required to show your cost structures, you may have to include financial statements (which a private company is not required to do) and show product roadmaps for what you’re planning with your product suite. Stuff which would be a bonanza for competitors. Nothing to do with product designs or intellectual property. That’s why most are “Commercial in Confidence” as a minimum.

          • Joseph Goins

            That is why I was referencing the product itself.

          • nova3930

            There’s a lot more that goes into these proposals. IIRC the procurement integrity act prohibits releasing any details of non-winning proposals. I know it prohibits release of any proposal information prior to contract award….

        • Also, the SIG MHS was not an off the shelf gun.

          • Brad

            True. SIG added a thumb safety to the existing P320 to meet the RFP requirements.
            I think, by reading all your comments here, everyone can tell who YOU wanted to win. Fanboy bias much?

          • n0truscotsman

            No you just want your echo chamber to be undisturbed, absent any facts whatsoever, just unsupported assumptions.

          • Oh please, do tell me who I wanted to win. I’m dying to be told what I think!

      • A.WChuck

        I read elsewhere that the Glock submission is under an NDA, so unlikely we will know what was submitted unless the courts make it public…or Glock decides to.

  • Zundfolge

    This seems par for the course (although honestly I expected it to be Beretta that sued). I think this is a standard part of the process. I don’t expect Glock will have a leg to stand on.

  • valorius

    Put a manual safety on your guns Glock, you thick headed stubborn morons, and you might’ve won.

    • they forgot the “modular” part of modular handgun contract too

      • valorius

        But Glock “perfection!”

      • n0truscotsman

        Then show what submission glock made to the competition

        Otherwise, youre talking out your 4th point of contact like the others.

    • CommonSense23

      What makes you say they didn’t.

      • valorius

        The fact that they didn’t.

        • CommonSense23

          Have you seen the actual gun? Cause they have done it before when required.

          • valorius

            I’m basing it partly from this, From “Guns America”, Jan 26, 2017:

            “Leaked photos of the Glock 17M and 19M indicate that the new series sports an ambidextrous slide stop, reversible magazine release and critically, no finger grooves.”

            Leaked photos did not show a manual safety, let alone a manual ambidextrous safety.

          • CommonSense23

            But those photos were in reference to the FBI contract.

          • valorius

            Note the lack of finger grooves, which were mandated for the Army contract.

          • CommonSense23

            Also for the FBI contract.

          • valorius

            I was not aware the FBI mandated no finger grooves- you sure about that?

          • CommonSense23

            Yeah. The FBI requirements were practically wrote for Sig. And the no finger grooves was part of it.

          • valorius

            I will admit it’s a very, very odd requirement.

    • john huscio

      They did that (manual safties) for a Tasmanian police contract.

      • valorius

        They did for the Spanish also, the Glock 17S. But the one they submitted to the US trials had no safety, even though one was specified by the US Army.

  • valorius

    Trump should drone strike Glock HQ in Austria for making us waste $ defending against this lawsuit.

    • RSG

      Why waste those munitions there when they could be better put to use in California and Chicago?

      • valorius

        You are correct, of course. 🙂

  • idahoguy101

    So SIG now feels like Beretta did after the M9 decision?

  • glock please direct your attention to two key words in the contract: “modular” and “manual safety”

    • I am just waiting for a photo of Glock’s MHS submission to leak, showing a manual safety in all its glory.

      • Guy Slack

        Exactly. It’d be like Glock submitting an AR15 for this contract if they didn’t follow the outlined specifications. Instant DQ.

  • Anonymoose

    I’m sure Glock’s whining will get them some kind of special niche contract like how SIG got the M11 contract after they lost the M9 and XM10 contracts. Either way, SOMEONE is going to get G19 Gen 4 or 5s with thumb safeties (or maybe they were G23s with 9mm conversion barrels? You can of course also convert a Glock 20 or 21 through all the calibers except .45 GAP, but the 9mm won’t be as reliable since you’d have to use 10mm-sized magazines). Glock cannot into true modularity the way the P250/320 and the Tactical Toblerone have done.

    • Kivaari

      Why would anyone, let alone the army need a gun that can convert to a handful of cartridges? Buy G17s or G19s and you have all the pistol the army needs.

      • Anonymoose

        The Army requested caliber change kits in case they ever decide to go to .40 or .45 (they almost certainly never will, but they wanted the option anyway).

        • LCON

          The P320 is not suited for a .45 conversion but a .40 is an option but in reality almost on one expected such a change. as that would demand a investment in the .40SW caliber logistics, and the Army has shown more an interest in hot rodding calibers like what it did with the M855A1 then changing calibers. They will change rounds.

          • nicholsda

            Sorry but Sig says you are wrong. And they will sell you one if you want it.P320 Compacts in .45ACP are for sale. Not all that much different than changing a P250 from 9mm up to .45ACP.

      • Joshua

        Because the Military as a whole wants to reduce redundancy in the sidearm category.

        The idea with this was to have one modular handgun that different units could modify as needed to replacing having to have 7 different handgun models, which is not uncommon in SOCOM.

      • Sid Collins

        I have never read that modularity was for caliber. In all of the press coverage, the issue of modularity has been frame size. The fire control group inside the SIG is the only serialized component and it can be fitted into a compact frame for concealment.
        There may be something to caliber conversions, but I cannot see this as a reasonable or practical need for the military.

      • n0truscotsman

        That may be true, but big army was sold on the ‘modular’ thing, which *wont* work out in reality.

        Seeing the points brought up in weaponsman regarding the M17, the more Im starting to believe that the concepts behind the program will more idealistic than realistic.

        • LCON

          the end product is very much toned down from the original writeups which were for a pistol that one would change the barrel and magazine to change calibers.
          the P320 is “Modular” in a way that the average stock Glock lacks in that the Functional elements of the Frame are in a metal assembly that is serialized with the pistol grip,trigger guard,dust cover Frame as a shell that they sit in and easily replaced. the Glock killer though was likely the price point and accessories contracts. Sig under bid at $200+ a unit. It’s likely they aim to make up for that with the other parts of the Contract including Holster, Laser/light module, Suppressor kit, and Ammunition. Sig is these days a virtual one stop shop for firearms.
          Glock offers only Holsters and Laser/light modules unless they have partnered with someone or are about to expand into those lines.

    • I don’t know why Glock has never bothered to offer a current model with a manual safety. Most others have so if you want to compete it might be a good idea.

      • Anonymoose

        NEIN! PISTOLE IS FINE!

    • Mandalorian _Hippie

      Someone already has a Gen 19, even without a manual safety. Specifically, Army Special Forces (presumably also Delta), and Marine Raiders. I’ve not heard anything about SEALs or PJ’s carrying them. Still, half of your branches already have implemented a COTS solution that proved vastly superior to the Beretta.

      You’ve got sections of the military that already carry the Beretta with the safety OFF routinely, instead just treating it like a decocker, and do just fine. Most MP’s and base cops I know mirror civilian law enforcement in this aspect, so I’ve yet to understand why a safety lever, as opposed to the passive safeties built into modern designs, is a requirement.

      • RSG

        Because MOST service members haven’t the first clue about safe pistol handling, let alone are proficient with it. That includes the bulk of infantry.

      • Uniform223

        Other than MPs do you know how often your regular soldiers and marines (infantry included) practice, shoot, and qualify with pistols? Almost never unless it’s done on their own personal time and budget. Even than how often do they carry or are issued a sidearm for duty use? Almost never.

      • n0truscotsman

        That goes back to the training issue I mentioned earlier. And the Army is refusing to address it (besides baby steps in a few areas, unit wise).

        Thats why adopting a new handgun is putting the cart before the horse.

    • RSG

      For standard issue and not case by special operations, the US military is stuck with NATO considerations. They won’t be fielding 40’s or 45’s any time soon.

      • LCON

        Not as much as you might think. there have been a number of times when systems have lost or never really fit the “Standard” The rounds used by the British and French assault rifles for example have both lost Nato standard from time to time due to materials and pressures of their individual rounds. the “Standard” is a loose consideration more like a suggestion.

    • LCON

      They already do the MK 27 mod 0 is a Glock 19 in official buy by US Socom.
      But What Glock sees is they just lost a holy Grail contract. The US army buys the most small arms of all the US Services, If the Army buys Sig P320 it won’t be long before the less picky Budget crunched USN and USAF raid the Army buys. and what the US buys a number of other nations drool over.

      • Ron

        As the program executive agency for small arms, the Army contracts are the contract vehicle for almost all General Purpose Forces weapons buys.

      • Anonymoose

        Woah, woah, then what was the Mk 26 mod 0?

        • LCON

          Found it, MK26 is a PISTOL, 9MM: MK26 GEN4 WITH NIGHT SIGHTS (GNS) INSTALLED. STANDARD 5.5 POUND TRIGGER PULL, MARITIME SPRING CUPS, FACTORY INSTALLED EXTENDED SLIDE STOP, HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE CAPABLE. WEAPON SYSTEM COMMON ITEM LISTING INCLUDES: QTY OF 6, 10 ROUND MAGAZINES, MAGAZINE LOADER, CLEANING ROD, NYLON BORE BRUSH AND PISTOL CASE.;
          Cage code is 0N2S7 or Glock So based on those specs Glock 26 G4

          • Anonymoose

            Oh, man, that kinda sucks. I hate shooting with the 10 rounders.

      • TJbrena

        What was the Mk 26?

        • LCON

          Glock got a 2 weapons sweep Glock 26 G4 as Mk26, Glock 19 mod 0 as Mk27

    • john huscio

      Glock already made inroads in SOCOM.

      • Anonymoose

        Maybe they’ll get a contract for aviators or CID, then?

        • LCON

          CID will get the Compacts The buy was for full sized P320’s and Compact P320’s. unlike with the M9 where the CID guys felt they needed a more compact pistol but couldn’t get a compact M9 the Army ordered 2 sizes.

        • AK™
          • Anonymoose

            65 years and not much has changed.

    • nate

      SOCOM already uses glocks, so they already have multiple military contracts

  • Big Daddy

    The army got the gun they wanted. The SIG 320 was the best choice for them. I’ll stick with my Glock it’s the best choice for me.

  • Joseph Goins

    Sore losers.

    • M-dasher

      not really…..this is standard practice…..everyone contract award gets protested.

      • Joseph Goins

        It is a standard practice of sore losers. They are suing because they think the government did something improper by not giving them the contract.

        • m-dasher

          dude…..if glock had won….rest assured Sig would be protesting the contract too…

          this is literally done by EVERY company on just about EVERY contract…..

          you obviously know nothing about the defense industry

          • Joseph Goins

            You obviously don’t know how to read. “Losers” is plural. Everyone does it. We are far removed from the days were a company thinks it was beat fair and square.

  • NukeItFromOrbit

    Glock should have to pay for the whatever legal costs the US government would normally endure.

    • M-dasher

      ….why?….this is literally standard practice in the defense industry…..this is nothing new to glock, EVERYONE does it

  • Joshua

    Look the simple fact is this.

    The MHS only had a 1,500 MRBS and a 10,000 MRBEFF requirement. On top of that guns were only tested with 12,500 rounds of ammunition, 3 samples.

    I had no doubt the Sig could make those requirements, while being infinitely more “modular”.

  • iksnilol

    Glock and its fanboys seemingly aren’t different.

  • Tom Currie

    Yawn. Every government contract worth more than 15 cents, at least one of the losers will protest the contract. They keep waiting for someone to show then one of those Oscar Ooops moments.

    • RSG

      This has nothing to do with the dollar amount of THIS contract. Nothing.

  • Tom Currie

    Our friends at Glock may have spent too long learning from the Kalashnikov crowd “Nyet, the gun is fine….”

  • Phaedrus

    Quit trying to make Glock happen! It’s never going to happen.

  • Uniform223

    Of course this would happen…

  • hikerguy

    I have never owned either, so I have no dog in this fight. But, if the guns were tested and trialed by U.S. soldiers, and the SIG is what they wanted, this is what they should have, period.

  • Geoff Timm

    The corrupt worthless scum called a Congress in Washington DC, set up a system to allow contractors to rip off the taxpayer. Decisions should be final and absolute. Geoff Who notes the inability of the USAF to buy tanker aircraft for decades!

  • Sid Collins

    Here’s an idea. Just let the soldiers figure this one out. Graduate from AIT and receive a $500 one time weapons allowance. Hey, Private Sparky, anything that shoots 9mm NATO ammo is yours to buy and maintain.

    • Blake

      Reference @nathaniel_f:disqus’s previous article that demonstrates that the primary driver for the West’s adoption of the assault rifle was standardization around one weapon (replacing the SMG & main battle rifle, & to a certain degree, LMG & sniper rifle too) & you’ll understand that this is a non-option.

    • Ron

      Because the vast majority are uniformed GS workers, and of those who are in the profession of arms only a few are issued pistols

      • Sid Collins

        That is no longer accurate. The trend is increasing that more soldiers are issued handguns for deployments. Here in Kosovo, everyone is issued and carries an M9.

        • Ron

          Well as someone on active duty who has had to in fight the Navy, the Army and the Air Force host bases to get my staff duties armed IAW Marine Corps regulations because the view of their services is no needs a weapon in CONUS I would say your anecdote of one location is not an accurate assessment of the DoD universe.

          • Sid Collins

            CONUS on secured bases is a different challenge but the views are changing. Recently, the policy change moved the decision down to the post commander. It will be a slow shift, but it is coming. Society is not tolerating Fort Hood incidents as readily as it once did.

    • CommonSense23

      You have never dealt with the military have you? So how are these guns maintained, what about holsters, mags?

      • Sid Collins

        I have been dealing with the US Army since 1986. Every soldier here in Kosovo carries a handgun. The US is M9, but we are a multinational force and every nation supplies a different weapon. The only commonality is the ammunition.

        Every soldier here has a different holster. Every version of shoulder, belt, and thigh holster available is used every day.

        What I am advocating is that each soldier simply purchases and maintains their own sidearm (with an initial weapon allowance). We do the same with uniforms. The soldier is responsible, not the unit.

      • Sid Collins

        I have been dealing with the US Army for 31 years. Every soldier on the current mission found a different holster to their liking. We have every version of belt, should, and thigh holster you can imagine. If it is for sale, it is here. And most handguns come with at least two magazines. Part of the program to get soldiers to have pride in the weapon is to allow them to use their weapon allowance in maintenance.

        • CommonSense23

          The average soldier doesn’t even know how to maintain his rifle. Clean it yes but not maintain it. So what happens when mags fail downrange, what about a single part.

          • Sid Collins

            Spare mags are not really an issue. However, there are so few armorers and pistols available now that if a M9 breaks it is out until it can be shipped back to the nearest depot. Handguns are personal defense weapons and are needed more than ever. One soldier having to ship his POW back to a service center is no more of an issue than shipping a unit weapon. And once the program is established, AAFES will provide vendors.

    • some other joe

      To a private fresh out of AIT? AIT? (You realize what that means, right?) Are you serious?

      • Sid Collins

        Yes. I do. We are already issuing M9s to every soldier in certain deployed areas regardless of MOS or rank.

  • mazkact

    I’m just happy that we are getting something without a slide mounted booby trap safety.

  • RSG

    Makes no difference to me, but of course, I want our warriors to have the best gear possible. IMO, that would be Glock.

    • LCON

      Sights could be better, Trigger to. Ergonomics need work. Glock is more like the basic no frills pistol not the best not the worst. more like bare bones needs filled. the Toyota of pistols. It will work as long as you keep the tank filled and change the tires and oil.

  • Juice

    “REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”

    -Official Glock Spokesperson.

  • nate

    all Glock is doing is delaying the MHS and wasting the governments time and money. that is what happens most of the time with these DoD contract protests, all that results is wasted time and money. I hate the protests, DoD has enough problems getting newer equipment as it is, thanks for nothing Glock!

  • John John Slade

    Let me guess. Glock will give excuse that there are hundred or thousand workforce who work hard making pistol for US Army requirement in MHS XM17 programme and then they gonna say why choose Sig Sauer. And goes on and on…..

  • A.WChuck

    Throwing this up here as well:
    I read elsewhere that the Glock submission is under an NDA, so unlikely
    we will know what was submitted unless the courts make it public…or
    Glock decides to.

  • MrBrassporkchop

    Glock sounds like the 30 yo hot chick that’s shocked dudes picked the 23 yo hot chick.

  • imtoomuch

    Glock, all of the people, save for Glock fanboys, have moved on. We realize other companies are doing it better these days. Until you make some necessary changes you will continue to be left behind.

    Lots of companies that invent things or innovate go out of business because they get stuck in their own ways and they aren’t willing or aren’t able to change with the times. Glock isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, but they are losing market share to competition and new competitors are popping up all of the time.

    I want to love Glock, but so many other brands do it just as good or better at lower prices.

    • john huscio

      As I’ve said in other threads lately, there isn’t a manufacturer who makes pistols that are as size and weight efficient as glocks while maintaining optimum firepower (15-17 rounds standard, with plenty of higher capacity factory and aftermarket options). That’s the main thing that keeps people buying Glocks……oh, and no huge levers/stops sticking out of the frame or slide too…….

      • iksnilol

        Plenty of G19 sized pistols that use 15 round magazines. I don’t see how unique they are.

        • Paul White

          the only real advantage is the aftermarket support but for the military I doubt that’s a huge issue. They’re a big enough market they can get whatever they want anyway.

        • john huscio

          Every pistol that’s said to be “glock 19 sized” is ALWAYS bigger, taller, fatter and heavier.

      • mcjagermech

        some people want those levers and stops, and a grip that doesn’t feel like a brick. to each their own

    • n0truscotsman

      Um, Glock is doing quite fine LOL

  • squareWave

    Ironically, didn’t SIG protest the award of the M9 contract to Beretta back in the 80s?

  • Paul Strickland

    Hmmm….this all sounds familiar….Is Glock run by Hillary Clinton and the Libitards? They sound kinda the same ….complaining losers. I have no use for Glock guns and now I have little respect for them as a company. “When you win say little…when you lose, say nothing”

    • m-dasher

      dude, this is done by every company……so quit with you melodramatic posts….

      • Paul Strickland

        No…dude….I’ll comment as I please….this is done by every poster ….so mind your own business. (guessing you miss Hillary…too bad so sad.)

  • Yep, this was inevitable but I think Glock is going to come out looking even dumber than their non-compliant entry. Here is my surprised face :-l

  • ckeltz3

    “Almost every P.D. in the U.S. & a ton of the other L.E. & military agencies around the globe buy our pistols! We’ve made gazillions of $$ from this & will continue to for decades, if not generations! What?!?! We didn’t get the U.S. MHS contract this cycle so we could make an additional $580,000,000??? WHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!”

    What a joke…..pure greed.

    • m-dasher

      yes…..how dare a company have the audacity to want to make money……..

  • idahoguy101

    Thirty years ago SIG was whining that Beretta got the M9 contract. Gee SIG, how’s it feel now?

    • DW

      Given how it turned out before, “never better” or “let the salt flow”

  • vwVwwVwv

    how do the military guys expect more terminal ballistic effects by exchanging of gun
    but not of cartridge.

    • some other joe

      New cartridges were part of the solicitation and contract award….

      • vwVwwVwv

        yes,
        but didn’t new 9mm luger’s fit in old M9 easy?
        Israel would have changed the Spring,
        they do it with glocks for to use same 9mm
        they use in UZI’s, which is loaded harder.

        Why didn’t they ordered 40 S&W, it proofed reliable, no?
        but who am i, they have the top people…

  • eastern orthodox moose

    glock is better, sig is overprcied garbage, glock=used by law enforcement and milltary forces the world over, sig= commercial junk that has nothing to do with it’s parent company in Switzerland+Germany

    • some other joe

      Pssst. SIG’s parent company is in NH. They immigrated to flee an oppressive government.

  • SOP. The loser(s) in any major acquisition always protest.

  • John

    Maybe Glock should have submitted a modular handgun.

    • LCON

      In the end it’s likely the price point that Nailed Glock’s coffin on this one. The two pistols met all the demands but Sig underbid Glock on the per unit price likely with the aim of making up for it with the servicing and life cycle contract.

  • Ed

    Be better for Glock to win this. All SOCOM units use G17 G19 and G21s why not make them universally for all US military units. This is still a major waste of time and money. We all ready use a 9mm pistol no point to get a new one. We need new tanks and planes far more than a handgun. Pistols don’t win wars.

  • Lord Humongous

    Only the Beretta and the SIG were truly modular. Remember Glock? Modular, as in, not.a.Glock..

    • If Glock’s XM17 submission had not met the requirements of the RFP, it would have been eliminated upon its receipt by the Army.

      “M.3.1.2
      Upon receipt of proposal and hardware submission, inspections will be conducted to ensure the Offeror’s submission is responsive. Non-responsive Offerors will be contacted by the PCO and excluded from further consideration for award.”

      “M.3.1.3 Upon receipt of hardware submission, inspections will be conducted to ensure that the Modular Handgun System candidate has an integrated rail, an external safety mechanism, adjustability for ergonomics (by means of grip inserts, grip panels, front or back straps, different triggers, or other means) and be other than single action only. Submissions without these features will not be considered for evaluation.”

      • Lord Humongous

        Point taken. I have not actually seen Glocks candidate.

  • The RFP for the XM17 can be a little confusing as its sections are out of order with the timeline of events. Section L covers the initial submission of pistol candidates, and Section M covers the factors behind the downselect to the last three candidates. However, you then have to hop to Section H to see the award factors for the final winner. Section C then covers the selected XM17 winner’s Production Verification Testing (PVT) and entry to production status.

  • John

    OMG! All this conjecture! Everyone in the inner loop knows the chief procurement officer had certain needs, and the one who submitted the prettiest donkey was the winner. Come on guys, this is economics 101..sheesh!

  • Rusty Shackleford

    Not surprising. There is a heck of a lot of money at stake here.

  • Lee M Attinger

    No matter who won it was a foregone conclusion that the losers would file suite. It’s a government contract!!!

  • Uncle Ronnie

    If it’s not a .45, the military should pass. The M1911 in .45 cal was adopted for a reason after engagements with Moro’s in the Philippines. Lighter calibers are not the answer IMHO.

  • Bayez

    glocks are trash…SIG is My choice,Have owned many for yrs…Thank God,I have never had to use them…too many times…

  • ciscokid3750

    The Sig is a much safer and more reliable pistol. The Sig requires the operator to lock back the slide during the take down procedure which would automatically eject a forgotten round left in the chamber. While the Glock requires you to pull the trigger with the slide forward. Forget just one time to check the chamber and you end up shooting yourself or someone else. Pure lunacy.

    The Sig is 90 per cent cocked while the Glock is only 67 per cent cocked making the ignition system of the Sig stronger.

    The Sig has the factory option of a manual safety. This should be incorporated into the Military Sig the Military adopts as it will save a lot of lives. Remember most recruits have never even owned a handgun and without a manual safety you are looking for numerous accidents. I have not seen how the manual safety works on the Sig but it could be made to be left in the “on” position which would allow the operator to safely both load and unload the pistol with the safety in the “on” position.

  • Eli Montague

    we all know your a glock fan boy but they suck. get over it. they lost and that should be the end of it. it will be the end of it now just let it go

  • BraveNewWhirled

    I’ve always liked Sig; they make a fine gun. I’m anxious to try out that new 320. I know folks love their Glocks and they’re good too, but I think the Sig may be a knockout.

  • VT Patriot

    If protesting always worked, hildabeast would be CIC.

  • Wow!

    From the standpoint of design, Glock definitely would be a better pick due to modularity and performance, but I believe the decision was made mainly on the fact that SIG came in with the cheapest option possible. And I agree with that decision despite being a Glock guy because a “good enough” handgun is better for the military that is rarely going to use it compared to an officer who uses a handgun as his primary line of defense.

    Its kind of like FN P90 and H&K MP7. P90 is obviously a better platform than the MP7 in every way, but the MP7 won the military side because H&K had politics on their side. The perfect gun doesn’t always win if it doesn’t fit the big picture.

  • Danilushka Ozera

    Yeah, Hillary is still protesting her loss too. I give them the same chance she has. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nyet. Feinstein will buy a suppressed AR-15 in .300 blackout and join the NRA as at the Benefactor level before Glock wins the appeal. Just sayin’.

  • Michael silva

    as to the comment below me. and the thought of actually just getting the best stuff for the military. instead we get some fighting and crying, and grunts on the ground still use worn out crap. while they wait 10 more years for something to drag out.

  • 2ThinkN_Do2

    What does protesting mean here? Who has deeper pockets and can line the corruptiticians pockets?

  • Eric Lawrence

    Glock protested…which is normal…but did it late as a way to protect their current MEUSOC and SEAL contracts. They likely didn’t want the .mil to re-evaluate those contracts because Glock decided to throw a wrench in the works. Smart move.

  • Sergio

    I love SIGs but having seen the new BERETTA APX I wonder why it didn’t manage to get awarded the US Army contract.

  • Rick Kirkpatrick

    Seriously, is there nothing else going on in the gun world? This has been the lead or second story in the email for almost a month. All the crying out of Austria got old long ago.