GLOCK UNDERBID BY SIG ON MHS: Statement on Glock MHS Protest Decision Released by GAO

Since the Government Accountability Office’s decision to reject Glock’s protest of the Modular Handgun System contract award to SIG Sauer, the GAO has released a statement. The 17 page document outlines not only the reason for the GAO’s decision, but provides insight as to the deciding factors in the MHS contract award as well. Chiefly, the document reveals that SIG substantially underbid Glock, and that this – and not any technical difference between the competitors’ pistols – was the deciding factor in the contract award:

One of Glock’s key arguments in the protest was that they believed the US Army was obligated to award multiple contracts according to the wording of the initial solicitation, an assertion which the GAO rejected.

See photos of Glock’s MHS 19 and Glock MHS 23 Pistols here.

The document also included a chart outlining the evaluated characteristics of the two bids:

Note that the two biggest differences between the proposals were in licensing (where SIG rated “outstanding” across the board, vs. Glock’s “good” rating) and overall cost. Regarding the latter, SIG bid over 100 million dollars lower than Glock on total system package cost, recalling the $217 cost per pistol that the company reportedly is charging the US Army for M17 handguns.

The GAO further determined that Glock’s complaints that there was favoritism towards SIG, that the contract was awarded too early, and that the Army’s evaluation of the pistols was biased were unfounded. Importantly, the GAO rejected Glock’s complaint that the trials were ended too early, before the completion of the second phase, as the GAO determined that the Army only awarded contracts for the portions covered under the first phase of the evaluation.

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


  • Gun Fu Guru

    Looks like Sig copied a page from Beretta’s playbook for the win.

    • Giolli Joker

      Looks like Glock has yet to discover how these things work…
      By the way, I would be upset if the evaluation matrix was the opposite.
      From what I read (according to the table) Sig is better and cheaper, it looks like a no brainer.

      • Flight Er Doc

        Without knowing the specifics of each category, I’d say it’s a wash…The Glock had better durability, the Sig better ergonomics and accuracy, the ammo – WTF knows?

        • nova3930

          The licensing rights are probably important as well. SIG was probably more lenient in the licensing of their TDP so potentially down the road DoD could find other suppliers…

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      They werent going to get beat like that twice in a row.

  • Jeff Smith


    Yea, sorry, Glock.

  • G B

    So SIG made a (in many people’s opinion) better and an objectively more versatile handgun and charged around 60% of the other guys’ price and Glock is wondering why they lost the contract? Sounds like the equivalent of throwing a tantrum because you didn’t get your way and then crying all the way home.

    • Marc

      Exactly. Welcome to the world of contract bidding Glock.

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      True, but you cant blame them for appealing. If I had that much money on the line I sure would, but yes, with the gun they submitted and especially at the price they submitted it at, Glock didnt have a snowball’s chance in a certain warm place.

      • G B

        In most cases I think you’d be right, appealing is a relatively low cost and low risk process for high potential reward. But, now that we know some more of the details it makes me think it was a waste of resources no matter what.

    • nova3930

      Basically. The way govt contracting is structures, there’s basically no downside to challenging a contract award. You basically risk some more minimal attorney fees to potentially get another bite at a multi hundred million dollar apple.

      • Curious_G

        There is a huge downside. I am not sure what your background is, but at least in the services arena, acquisition officers have long memories. While their is nothing official that can be done, people remember the headache caused by what is often the business equivalent of a temper tantrum. Next thing you know, something shifts to a contract vehicle that company does not have…

        On a manufacturing/hard goods side where there are fewer players, perhaps the penalty paid in relationship capital is not as high.

    • USMC03Vet

      I want to see Glock’s submission because I don’t believe it was even modular like the SIG entry was. Also this was more than simply for a handgun it also included ammunition which Glock doesn’t manufacture, so they also went with a company that already manufactures ammunition as well.

    • n0truscotsman

      I would like to know why the SIG entry is “better” and “more versatile” especially in a military service handgun context.

    • Bobby McKellar

      AND Glock didn’t offer a truly “modular” handgun… They offered a slightly modified out of the box Glock and figured they’d win. Sig offered a TRULY MODULAR handgun AND hung a helluva cheap price tag on it. PRICE is ALWAYS going to win BUT they also presented a helluva product that met the requirements almost to the letter. Not badmouthing Glock here…they make an honest, reliable and great handgun, but they haven’t really offered anything “new” since Gaston founded the business. They’ve slightly modified the original pistol but haven’t “changed the game” any more (not that I’m saying they’ve needed to).
      Losing this MHS contract HAD to be a big blow for them (as evidenced by the appeal)…and the “evaluated characteristics” where Sig rated as “OUTSTANDING” and Glock rated “GOOD” had to be a bit of a slap in the face.
      One wonders how many police departments, government agencies, etc may now start trading in Glock’s for Sig MHS Pistols simply because Sig may now be able to undercut Glock contracts?

  • Rnasser Rnasser

    Man, that’s a really cheap price. Let’s hope the lowest bidder does not f***k up…

    • Flight Er Doc

      Is the Navy department involved? If so they WILL F it up.

  • Petto

    I knew Price was the key element in this and i can see why Glock are whining about it because they lost a lot of money to get

    • Marc

      Haven’t you ever gotten estimates from contractors for work on your house: siding, roof, driveway? Price and quality of materials and labor are the biggest determining factors.

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    Sig lost to Glock in the FBI trials and took those lessons learned and put together a winning package. And by winning I mean cheap. $100m less is nice to see knowing its my tax dollars being spent.

  • Independent George

    I wonder how much of that $100M Sig will make up in civilian sales once it is adopted? I can see a LOT of people buying one just because “it’s the gun the army uses!”. Even if they’re just barely breaking even on the initial contract, I imagine they’ll be making money hand over fist once the civilian model comes out (to say nothing of accessories, SIG Academy, etc.).

    • Matt

      They will most likely take a loss on this contract in favor of civilian sales. $217 per gun is too cheap.

      • Gun Fu Guru

        That’s what Glock did to dominate the LEO market in the 90s and 00s.
        I think most departments now realize that Glock is resting on its laurels.

        • john huscio

          Except for the fact that they keep winning sizeable contracts.

          • Kyle

            Except you know…. this one.

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            Just because you won a contract doesn’t mean there aren’t better products out there.
            Source: every contract Glock has won since… Idk, mid-2000s? 2010?

          • Avid Fan

            Glock is a poor loser.

        • n0truscotsman

          Not remotely.

          Glock dominated the market because they were a inexpensive, reliable, low/easy maintenance, semi-automatic with a consistent trigger pull.

          If you knew what the semi-auto handgun market was like in the 80s, it shouldn’t be a surprise why Glock did their thing.

          And they are still a force to be reckoned with, despite the myriad of other johnny come latelies

          • Gun Fu Guru

            Glock barely made a profit on sales to LE agencies. Their business model was to capture the LEO market at all costs because they knew civilians would widely adopt the platform even at a higher price point.

          • n0truscotsman

            65% of the market is not ‘barely a profit’. No matter how many deals law enforcement get.

          • Gun Fu Guru

            [1] Market share ≠ Profit. If the break-even point (cost of raw materials, machinery, workforce, etc.) of each unit is $250 and the product is sold to distributors for $200, then the company loses $50 for each unit sold even if it makes every gun sold in the world. If the population sells 1,000,000 pistols a year, then the company would lose $50,000,000 that year. (This is not specific to Glock but rather business in general.)

            [2] I fully acknowledge that Glock made a handsome profit from their guns. Regardless, their profit margin on department-level and individual officer sales (what my statement was about) was considerably less than that of civilian sales and even sales by other companies.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            Except for the 10mm versions which suffered from cracked frames. Apparently, Glock did not learn from Colt’s Delta Elite 10mm with a forged steel frame – you have to fortify the recoil bearing areas of the frame for that caliber not to wreck it.

          • n0truscotsman

            Who cares about 10mm. Not interested, hardly any one else is too.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            There are an awful lot of companies making them for no interest level. I hardly think that they could afford to offer a gun no one is buying. All I was saying is Glock made a bad one, and so did Colt, but Colt fixed their design, and many are now designed to handle the round.
            I am a Glock armorer, and I have worked on a large number of them, many work just fine, but even the mighty Glock can produce a lemon now and then. I just happen to concur with the ordnance board in that the SIG is a superb design, and they make a quality weapon. Personally I’d take the SIG too if given the choice.

        • Superior Firepower

          Our department did. We just adopted the Sig 320 Carry for around 800 pistols. Not a sizable contract but still one less than Glock. Yes I am a Glock fan.

      • Phillip Cooper

        Well, they will sell a few to me. I’m looking to get the 320RX and the MHS variant…

        • JumpIf NotZero

          I want the BT USW / PCC variant.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Vas ist das??

          • Phillip Cooper

            What is that?

          • KFin

            Yes you do. You really do. They are awesome

        • nova3930

          I’ve got an RX and it’s pretty solid. I’m not completely sold on red dots for a carry pistol but I might swap out my 320C for an RX at some point as well….

      • Curious_G

        I highly doubt they will take a loss. Thin margins, maybe, but they can do that due to volume.

        • jp2336

          Precisely, it’s about VOLUME. If I make 100k units of ITEM A for $1 and sell them for $1.50, I’ve still made myself very happy.

      • Bobby McKellar

        I don’t know…honestly they really only have big money in the barrels and slides. Winning the contract will allow them to manufacture much cheaper and in bulk. I bet the frames only cost about $10-$15 to manufacture at MOST. Heck they sell them for <$40 retail? The barrels and slides are CNC'd so labor isn't a big issue there. They have very few small parts at all and the serialized "gun" (by BATF standards) is simply the trigger module. Those things are laughably simple. I bet as established as Sig is that they are making just enough money on the whole deal to profit at 5-6%. As others have stated, any "civilian" versions of the "SIG MHS" will be almost pure profit for them…and the folks out there that want to have an "Army Pistol" will be buying them up left and right. I feel for sure that Sig will offer "NSN" MHS Pistol Kits with the compact/large frames & slides, threaded barrels, probably a suppressor with NSN and the "Govt Issue" manuals, etc. Like Remington with the M40, Knight's with the M110, etc. They will have PLENTY of room to offset any lack of large profit (or loss).

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      Im going to have to go full hipster and say:

      I had one before it was cool.

      • Independent George

        Please. That’s half-hipster at best.

        Full hipster is doing a 3-gun competition with a CZ-52, SKS, and an Ithaca shotgun.

        • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad
          • Independent George

            Oh sweet merciful crap. What the heck is THAT?

          • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

            That is a hipster in the wild; well not actually in the wild. That would mess up his hair.

          • Independent George

            Ok, now I want to see Ian & Karl at InRange do a hipster run in the next 2-Gun ACM…

          • Bill

            THAT is something that never had any toys when it was a kid.

        • DW

          That’s not hipster. That’s called good taste.

        • Anonymoose
        • derpmaster

          This hipster 3-gun idea has potential. My picks:

          CZ-50 – totally Bohemian and you probably have never heard of it. Reminds you of your semester abroad in Prague where you lived off of ecstasy pills and organic free range kale.

          Automatgevar m/41 Ljungman – Swedish, rare, mysterious, and you can correct people who pronounce it wrong in between sips of cold brew. Only refer to it by it’s full, unabbreviated name.

          Purdey side by side in 28 ga – Be sure to point out that it’s part of a matching pair purchased by your great great grandfather who was a founder of Texaco, but leave out how it came into your possession via a complex web of offshore trust funds. Be sure to hand load your own paper shells.

      • Craig Gaspard

        So did I, even before I knew they were even being considered

    • A.WChuck

      MY LGS claims that demand is very high for the P320 now that the Army has adopted it.

      • Independent George

        And all those people that bought them for that reason are likely to buy another one, once the ‘MHS Edition’ comes out (even if they’re 95% identical).

        And if, say, the Marines want a slightly different version because they couldn’t possibly use the same gun as those pansies in the Army, well, here’s a new Sig with a Marine logo on it for just $50 more!

        • USMC03Vet

          Don’t hate on the Corps for taking the initiative and using better stuff. If it was up to the US Army everyone would have been wearing UCP and more than likely still wearing it!

          • int19h

            We have the Corps to thank for the abomination that was M16A2, so…

          • valorius


          • JSmath

            What was bad about the A2…?

          • USMC03Vet

            Abomination? More like one of the greatest military service rifles of all time. OF ALL TIME.

          • valorius

            If it was up to me the troops would all still be using BDU’s.

          • USMC03Vet

            BDU woodland is tops!

          • valorius

            Loved my BDU’s.

          • n0truscotsman

            should have never ventured away from type 3 OG107s. Those were right from the start.

          • valorius

            When I was in cadre, SF and Rangers wore them on post. Sharp looking uniforms.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            We called them fatigues. By far the best was the Tiger Stripes – ever in a woodland/tropic environment. I gave my younger brother my boonie – biggest mistake I ever made. He had no appreciation for what it went through and ruined it painting apartments.
            That was then, this is now.
            On the topic, I would much rather have the SIG than any Glock. SIG products are simply better and they did Uncle Sam a solid by not asking twice the value per unit of production like Glock did. I’ve never been a huge Glock fan, but looking at what the MSRP is for their polymer frame pistols compared to S&W and others makes me realize that they are selling the name because their competitors now make as good if not better products. SIG falls into the better category in my opinion, and in the opinion of SEALs and USMC, and of course now the Army.

          • n0truscotsman

            How are sig products simply better?

            as indicated by myself and others’ experiences with glock, the arguments for SIG aren’t very convincing.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            Come back to me on that when Glock makes an all metal firearm. There is a big difference between precision machining and stampings molded into polymer. SIGs also come with steel sights.

          • n0truscotsman

            Im interested in whatever is less expensive, more durable, and requires the most minimal amount of maintenance. These things considered, stampings have the advantage.

          • VieteranGunsmith

            Stampings work, as proven in many designs, however they are not more durable in adverse conditions than precision machined solid steel or aluminum alloys, which is why we have original 1911’s still functioning after more than 100 years with minimal maintenance. I don’t believe we will see many first generation Glocks around in 2080, they were designed and built by Gaston to be inexpensive to manufacture and to have a service life that allows for them to wear out in heavy use situations. Police guns that only get fired at the qualification range annually, and see very little use otherwise are not a good yardstick to measure durability of a firearm by. For the MSRP of the Glock it should at least have a decent set of adjustable iron sights, but they still keep sending them to market with cheap plastic sights that are notorious for disappearing off the front of the slide after repeated recoil impulses shear off the stem that holds them in place. I know because I have repaired or replaced hundreds of them in my career, and I would not stake my life on a disappearing front sight.
            Glock also had many teething pains in the beginning, such as magazines that would bulge under full loading and in the magazine well, making a problem if you want to extract the magazine from the weapon. The Glock is no more immune to failure than any other pistol – I have replaced firing pins, (strikers), extractors and springs, and frames because of failure of the polymer/stamping contact areas, sights, triggers, you name it; there is no such thing as a weapon that is failure proof.
            Areas where the Glock shines are in not being susceptible to rust, being fairly lubricant free, able to withstand some degree of abuse, and being a blocky looking generic pistol. They are the AK of the pistol world in those respects, but that does not make them superior to all other handguns. That was the reason for my statements in all of these posts, and Glock did one other thing – it made having highly skilled specialized gunsmiths involved in the manufacture of their weapon an expendable factor. There is no need to hand fit any of the weapon’s components, as most of the processes of injection molding and stamped metal parts insertion the domain of machines. Glock is a technological achievement milestone, but then so are most modern manufactured conventional firearms today. Gaston Glock was a plastics engineer, not a firearms designer, and his blocky design is an abandonment of the fluid structure and aesthetic/ergonomic designs you see in non Glock pistols. The Glock design is like hardware, where other designs are not only functional tools but they offer a pleasing appearance while being business oriented.
            Glock advertises Gaston Glock Style, but in my opinion Gaston’s style is like the cubist form of art – blocky and angular, with minimal flowing curves. When I compare Glocks to other firearms I see more pleasing appearance in the others than in the Glock.
            I also prefer a double/single action pistol to the striker fired design. Until recently striker guns had to be slide cycled to clear them in cases of a misfire, where the double action designs always had the ability to make multiple strikes of the primer before you have to resort to dumping that round. Second strike capability was designed into striker guns to allow the shooter to put another hit on a hard primer, which usually works. Glock did not have this feature when they originally were put on the market, and they still don’t. You have to force the trigger to reset by moving the slide slightly, and then it will release the striker again, but if you have a double action all you do is pull the trigger again. I really think this trigger reset maneuver increases your chance of losing a gunfight more than pulling the trigger a second time. If this was a mid magazine failure to fire, I’d dump the round for a fresh one, but if it happens on the last round, you could be left at a distinct disadvantage, especially if your opponent has more rounds left than you do.
            I would not hesitate to use a Glock in time of need, but since I own a CZ and a few other “old school” steel and alloy pistols in double, single, DAO, and both double/single action, in multiple calibers, I don’t have to rely on my Glock as a primary weapon. I use the Glock as a backup gun, or for a vehicle weapon (read – truck gun). I have had the good fortune to acquire several handguns over the years, revolver and semiauto alike, but I have my preferences based on my experience fixing other people’s firearms.
            I’m not arguing with you, I am just telling you what my 35 years as a gunsmith has taught me. You are free to take my knowledge or leave it, but try to be open to other options and ideas – no one has yet made the perfect firearm, although John M. Browning did a lot to advance firearms design and engineering than many who have come and gone before him and afterward.

          • n0truscotsman

            Absolutely incorrect on many points

            1.) Durability in adverse conditions varies by the metallurgy and design concept, not by whether it is stamped or machined.

            2.) Its not uncommon for some glocks to have in excess of 250k rounds through them, which immediately blows the ‘they have a service life that allows for them to out in heavy use situations’ point right out of the water.

            3.) Police handguns vary in usage, depenting on invidual departments and organizations (patrol, admin vs/ SWAT/SRT), however military usage is a better refutation of the naysayers comments regarding durability.

            I think its fair to say SOCOM gets heavy use from handguns.

            4.) The most innovative and famous firearms designs have had ‘teething issues’. the 1911 wasn’t perfect during its introduction, for example.

            5.) ” you name it; there is
            no such thing as a weapon that is failure proof. ”

            An argument I never made. and I agree.

            Where else I agree is that yeah, aesthetically, they are as exciting as a 2×4 or cream of wheat.

          • throwedoff

            Oh no, no, no! Pickle suits were so uncool! Wearing them and the issue BCG’s was guaranteed to keep your virginity intact.

      • Disarmed in CA

        My LGS says ‘it ain’t on the roster so gtfo’ but if you want a used one it’s MSRP x 2.5

    • gunsandrockets


      Sig has learned the lesson from its M9 error.

    • Hoplopfheil

      I prefer to collect guns the army didn’t want.

      Star Model 28/30… Ruger P series… Maybe even a Steyr GB…

      • Independent George

        I’d love a Steyr GB.

      • EC

        If I recall, in 2004 TACOM got 5,000 P95s.

        Which makes sense, because the Ruger P series were built like tanks.

      • n0truscotsman

        P95s are awesome. perhaps way underrated.

      • Bobby McKellar

        The old Ruger P Series are/were TYPICALLY Bill Ruger…built to fire a cartridge loaded 75% past max SAAMI specs. Properly modified they’d have fired a .50 AE safely. (Not really, but I think you get the picture…they’re built like a WWII King Tiger tank)…ungainly, heavy and overengineered but hard to beat.

      • Jason Adams

        I with you on the Ruger P series. I have them all now and love them. But they are a heavy gun but fun to shoot.

    • USMC03Vet

      That is the plan. That appeal to authority fallacy has been Glock’s marketing for decades.

    • Just Say’n

      Yup, I fell for it .. Kinda’ hard to find at the moment.

    • dave

      I can guarantee a LOT of servicemen will buy one for personal use. Train how you fight. Theres a reason i didnt save up for a scar and went ar15 instead

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      A ton of people will buy their first P320 solely because it’s what the army uses. Look at the Beretta 92F’s sales since the mid-80’s. It’s how Glock came to dominate the market and basically destroyed the DA/SA section of pistols (also since the mid-80’s) since “it’s what the cops use” is basically still their main marketing strategy.

    • MIke H

      This is what I’m doing. I planned on buying whatever won the competition, regardless of who it was, just for the sake of having one… I planned on keeping my P226 as my nightstand gun, and my P239 as my carry. I finally shot one about two weeks ago, and am now selling my P226 and P239 in favor of the P320 Compact, with plans on getting the Full Size RX conversion kit when they’re eventually released.

      • Brian P

        I carry a P239 as well. I was thinking of getting a P320 variant to allow a few more rounds on my hip. I haven’t had the time to pour through all the different models. I don’t want heavier/bulkier than the P239 but want more rounds of 9MM. I don’t want a reflex sight for a carry gun. Which do you suggest?

        • MIke H

          Get the compact model. I put it side by side with the P239 when I rented it at my LGS range… it’s roughly same height as the P239, and the barrel is only 1/3″ longer. The P320 is marginally thicker (I think 1/10″). My previous carry gun was a P229, which was quite a bit thicker and heavier. Unloaded, the P320 is supposed to be 4oz lighter with the medium frame, which should offset doubling the amount of ammo it can carry.

    • American Patriot

      They are already getting LEO contracts for the Pistol

    • philippes

      I bought several after the results of the contract award came out — because “it’s the gun the army uses!”

      And as a dealer, the first two I bought for myself ended up selling to clients who wanted them because of the contract. So I bought another for myself.

      That’s three sales just because of the US Army contract. And for several weeks after the results came out in the press, wholesalers didn’t have them in stock — probably for the same reason.

    • Raguel A’septem

      Yup, read my post above! Right with ya, SIG learned from history, Glock took it for granted!

  • Captain Obvious

    I am not a Glock fan boy but Sig substantially low balled them to get the contract. They can’t supply guns for the contract at that low price. They will make it up on the back end by overages, overruns, amendments to the contract, technical/developmental changes and what not.

    • Gun Fu Guru

      Or just good old fashioned overcharging civilians. That’s what Glock did to get every contract they got in the 90s and 00s.

      • Glock has always been overcharging nearly everyone. IIRC they could priced their gun in Saturday Special price levels. But the importer at the time realized that people would be weary of a gun that cheap. Thus he priced it closer to the SIGs and Smiths that dominated the LE market at the time, but still cheaper than those guns to be attractive.

    • This is a mostly COTS contract, I highly doubt there will be many opportunities for amendments and overruns. The gun don’t cost that much to make. I am sure that SIG is make a modest profit overall.

      If I were a betting man Glock thought they had it in the bag and went for a higher profit margin.

      • nova3930

        Yep, probably going to be a definite quantity indefinite delivery variant. SIG won’t have any opportunity to raise their price until they next contract if there is one….

  • Brett baker

    “Remember, the equipment you are trusting to save your life was made by THE LOWEST BIDDER.” Murphy’s Rules of War. That said, SIG is good product.

    • Mystick

      Note the accuracy ratings on both: “Marginal”

      • LCON

        what do you expect from a handgun?

        • Curious_G

          Well, it depends on what the specification for ‘acceptable’ is to begin with.

  • Phillip Cooper

    OK so the title says “Glock underbid Sig” but then the document says “t SIG substantially underbid Glock”

    Make up your mind!!!

    • Major Tom

      It says “Glock underbid by Sig”.

      • Phillip Cooper


        I haven’t had my coffee yet. Can you tell? 🙂

        • TonyP

          I made the same mistake lol

  • GunStoreEmployeeMan

    So, I work at gun store. We sell a fair amount of P320’s. Demand hasn’t gone up on them since they came out, but production and availability from distributors is way down. Being based near Glock’s American HQ we sell a TON of Glock’s too. We’ve had 12 p320’s come back for repair in the past 6 months. Just throwing that out there.

    • R

      Could you elaborate on the p320 repairs?

      Were the repairs all due to a similar issue? Were issues with stock parts or did they relate to people putting after market triggers and/or mixing and matching parts?

      • GunStoreEmployeeMan

        A few were returned with new extractors and springs. One had the whole slide (including barrel replaced). One was sent back with “new springs” throughout. It went back and got it’s extractor replaced. Our range gun has been back 4 times as well for failures to extract. I think they are just trying to pump as many civilian guns out as possible.

    • Not That Steve

      As a Gunstore employee in the NW, we’ve had 6 or 7 sold with 4 come back, mostly due to light-strikes and failures to fully battery (with Olin and MEN 9mm NATO ammo), and other issues, 2 had faliures to extract and one of those two also had FTF issues.

      Let’s hope these are teething issues, but even after the US Army adoption of the 320 we still sell way more glocks.

    • iksnilol

      Out of how many thousand sold?

    • Mel_Anosis

      A local sig armorer questions Sig’s quality.

  • Harry’s Holsters

    As a glock fanboy I’d rather see the gov save 100mil than go with glock.

    • Curious_G

      Yep. Even if you think the Glock is better, there is no way it is $100m better, particularly as a sidearm that realistically won’t see the same level of use as other small arms.

      • TexTopCat

        When you start counting the number of parts that will need replacement when the Sigs get as old as the existing handguns, the value of this choice may be different. Glocks have very few pieces and all of the can be changed while laying in a muddy field with out tools.
        We still need to see how the Steyr law suit ends on the Sig design.

        • Curious_G

          What parts are you talking about? This is not an alloy frame Sig and I can gursrantee full life cycle cost (including long term serviceability) was part of the eval.

        • Bobby McKellar

          The number of parts on the Sig’s are amazingly few AND LOW PRICED…ESPECIALLY on the parts that tend to see a lot of damage from typical Army use like FRAMES. You crack a Glock frame and you end up having a large cost since the frame rails are integral AND are the serialized “gun”. With the Sig the frames are <$40 FULL BLOWN RETAIL and the serialized "gun" is the trigger module. All in all the Sig is MUCH BETTER SUITED to the use and abuse of PVT Snuffy Smith. The ability to replace those frames alone for next to nothing is worth it's weight in gold.

  • R

    This factor sums Glock up for me.

    Joint Warfighter Ergonomics:
    Glock – Acceptable /// Sig Sauer – Good

  • Malthrak

    What the everloving fark does “joint warfighter ergonomics” mean?

    Also, is “Warfighter” the new “Operator”? Is this the new tactical/gamer-ey fotm lingo or am I missing something?

    As for the contract, either Sig is willing to eat shoe leather in the hopes of making other military sales and gouging civilians, or they’re going to overrun and nickle and dime accessories and upgrades to death. I cant imagine Sig would be able to eat the cost of a major redesign/refit if something did pop up.

    • LCON

      Pentagon buzz Phrase.
      Warfighter is Any one and everyone who is deployable.
      Operator was a buzz phrase for JSOC but quickly became the TactiCool self gender identification.

    • n0truscotsman

      easier than saying ‘marines, airmen, sailors, and soldiers’.

  • Flight Er Doc

    I wonder what Factor 4 – License Rights, Ammunition is, and why Glock was so poorly rated compared to SIG….since they’re all 9mm NATO firearms.

    Also, in Factor 6 – Production / Manufacturing, Glock and SIG both received two “Good” and two “Outstanding” ratings, but Glock was rated only “Good” overall vs. SIG’s “Outstanding”.

    • ARCNA442

      This contract was for new ammo designs (including a new hollow point) as well as guns.

      • Flight Er Doc

        Aha. Thanks

      • Independent George

        I’m still not sure why that’s part of the contract, as opposed to just using the same 124 grain NATO we’ve already got stockpiles of and which manufacturers can already crank out if needed?

        • ARCNA442

          I think the idea was to allow the manufactures to offer calibers other than 9×19 (see the Glock .40 in the MHS post).

        • some other joe

          Because new ammunition was part of the MHS solicitation.

        • John

          Because the army wants hollow points filled with explosive gel. And maybe sig can deliver.

    • For factor 6 I am guessing that they are basing on the fact that the 320 is a US design from a US based company. Literally nothing comes from Germany anymore. They even have US made sources for magazines.

      While Glock USA still relies heavily on Glock Austria, even though they do have some manufacturing facilities in the US.

    • nova3930

      Different sub-factor weighting if I had to guess. Production plan being more heavily weighted than program management plan, probably because the former is a lot harder to change mid-stream if things aren’t working…

      • Flight Er Doc

        They should have included the weighting factors in the table….

  • ToddB

    So basically Sig submitted what the govt asked for and Glock submitted what they wanted to sell. A flimsy snap on beavertail is not ‘modular’. Glock was the innovator at one time, now they act like they are doing you a favor to make a change. They had a chance to make their guns even more popular, a changeable grip. You know like all the other polymer guns on the market. No they went crying to the govt for being unfair.

    • Major Tom

      So now Glock is on the level of Colt?

      • They’ve always been like this. Glock only makes major changes when a large contract agency demands it. And they often only release those changes to the public if there is a drop in sales.

      • Curious_G

        How is it like Colt?

        • Bobby McKellar

          They’re like Colt because Colt refused to actually INNOVATE and offer anything other than the status quo. They thought their NAME and the M16 family would carry the day; they simply got lazy and when the M16/M4 contract ran out they got bested by FN. Beginning to think that Glock is getting that same way…after a while the “same old thing” with a few cosmetic changes is still “the same old thing”.
          Look at some of Colt’s entries for the 1911 replacement that got awarded to Beretta and for “high capacity” semi autos (see Colt Double Eagle)…they’re pitiful. Glock’s MHS entry reminds me of some of those.

          • Curious_G

            Ok – I get the refusal to stray from the M1911 pattern. Your reference to the M16/M4 contract is strange though – that contract was not “to innovate”; it was to deliver something to spec unless I am mistaken. Price was the primary factor there – FN did not “innovate”.

    • Curious_G

      Yep. Sure way to lose a contract – ignore requirements because you “know what they really need”.

    • n0truscotsman

      Not remotely true.

      Glock met the requirements.

      • Bobby McKellar

        Glock “met” the “requirements”, sure….but they sure didn’t try very hard to impress with a truly MODULAR handgun. Their entries were nothing more than odd the shelf Glock’s with a thumb safety and a paint job. They’re FINE HANDGUNS and would do the job BUT Sig outclassed them AND outbid them by a ton.
        Glock honestly didn’t even TRY…you have to admit it. They did the same thing Beretta did…Beretta offered the same old M9 with a threaded barrel, a rail and a new paint job & their “off the rack” striker fired pistol (not really MODULAR).
        What you have now is that almost every manufacturer is producing a “Glock type handgun”…and many are beginning to do it better.

        • n0truscotsman

          Why should glock reinvent the wheel, guy?

          (jesus christ, reread what I posted)

  • JoelC

    Someone at Sig is kicking themselves for not bidding higher…

  • USMC03Vet

    This is good. Maybe Glock will finally innovate.

    • Major Tom

      Nah. Won’t happen. That’d be like AR manufacturers actually innovating instead of making yet more boring old AR’s.

      • USMC03Vet

        The AR has evolved significantly more than the Glock has.

  • Anonymoose

    Glocks are too expensive for what they are anyway.

    • iksnilol

      Been saying that for years.

      *whistles innocently.

  • Dave

    Though SiG won by selling cheap crap. Glock still wins SOCOM contacts. America’s elite troops use Glocks.

    • TonyP

      This is what delusion looks like folks^

      • Pseudo

        He’s not wrong, though. The problem is that might mean Glocks are better or it might mean America’s elite troops overpay for interchangeable firearms. I personally don’t care what SOCOM uses wrt my own firearm purchases.

        • some otehr joe

          We’ll see how long Glock continues to sell guns to SOCOM once the SOCOM elements at Campbell get their new guns. Will the gun big Army pays for be good enough that they stop spending their own money on guns and reallocate it elsewhere.

        • MIke H

          Glocks are battle proven, the P320 is not. That’s not a slam at the P320… I’m probably buying one this weekend… but nearly 30 years of widespread police adoption, plus being used my the militaries of several other NATO nations and allies, makes Glock a known quantity. The P320 is still a comparatively new firearm that had no real widespread adoption until now.

      • n0truscotsman

        Thats what *fact* looks like.

        Look at the other militaries who use the venerable Glock 17 and 19 as well.

  • valorius

    There are a lot of “outstandings” next to sig where the glock is only rated “good” in the same category. It is clearly disingenous to say the Sig was not more highly rated by the Army than the Glock.

  • Mystick

    Notice how the “accuracy” evaluation on both were “marginal”…

    • The notation “no shooter in the loop” indicates that the pistols were fired from a machine rest. MHS candidates were supposed to submit Ransom Rest inserts along with the pistols.

  • Southpaw89

    Glock’s ergonomics were inferior too, imagine that.

  • NukeItFromOrbit

    I would have expected better than “marginal” accuracy on the Sig at least.

    • Polymer frame pistols and machine rests typically don’t play well together.

  • YS

    What does “License Rights – Ammunition” mean? Weren’t both pistols chambered for the 9mm?

    • Yes, but the XM1153 Special Purpose load is definitely not in the DOD’s inventory. Even the XM1152 Ball load should be different from the current issue M882 Ball.

  • Ted Unlis

    Interesting. Based on prices paid by LE agencies purchasing pistols by the thousands, Glock can sell pistols in the low $300 range and still see a profit. At $217 per pistol I find it hard to believe that Sig expects to see much of a profit if any. My guess is that Sig will just break even on the initial military contract with the hope that the notoriety of producing the standard issue pistol of the U.S. Military will translate to a more lucrative share of the U.S. LE duty weapon market. Time will tell. The Sig P320 seems to be a solid pistol that can compete with Glock. I just hope Sig doesn’t let quality control lapse in order to deliver the $217 per pistol MHS winner.

  • keazzy

    Glock won’t be selling these in the civilian market. Hmmm. Very H&Kish. Glock hates you because they are perfect or such?


    OH BOO HOO! You Glock fanboys cry way too much! It’s like a bad dream, you WON’T get over it, because SIG got the contract! LMAO!

  • DropGun25

    So you guys think under bidding was negligent for Sig? They’ve just signed with USBP, soon USCBP and the other branches of Military. Where they may have broke even on the Army contract, they will print money because of other agencies and government branches that take the pistol. Not to mention the ammunition they will be providing and the accessories.

  • Bill

    I don’t think that I could waste my good time on that. I’d rather watch grass grow in the dead of winter.

  • n0truscotsman

    LOL anybody see the Glock submission on kitup?

    I guess the anti-glock crowd and their cheers of ‘they didn’t meet the requirements’ were proven utterly wrong.

  • n0truscotsman

    conspiracy theory, nothing more.

  • USMC03Vet

    Long stock is fine. You’re going to be surprised because that type of stock is now making a comeback. Trigger is fine. Never had an issue with the rear sight.

    All of your complaints aren’t legit complaints and you’re really stretching to find fault with the best M16 produced. I’d take an A2 over an M4 any day.

    • int19h

      Show me where the long stock is making a comeback *in the military*. Hell, even Canadians had the sense to put collapsible stock on their C7A2.

      So you’re saying that not resetting the cycle if it’s not completed (i.e. less than 3 rounds are fired), and not providing the same trigger pull depending on where it is in the cycle, is okay? I wonder what your definition of a good trigger even is, if the bar is that low.

      All of my complaints are taking directly from the Army document that explains why they are real problems. Have you tried reading that?

      M4 inherits many of the same problems from M16A2, so I don’t see how that comparison is of any relevance. If you want to compare, compare to C7A2.

  • n0truscotsman

    SOCOM has a hodgepodge of handguns they use. The Glock 19 and 22 have become more commonplace, due to the nature of GWOT, although the future of this is in question with the M17 adoption.

    “I have found this conversation stimulating rather than argumentative”


    I appreciate the lengthy responses. Good stuff.

    Which CZ are you running?