GLOCK VICE PRESIDENT: “Continue MHS, Don’t Settle for SIG” – Glock Asks Army to Keep Testing Pistols

Glocks' MHS submission, a variant of the G19.

Glock isn’t done yet: Despite being passed over by the Army and having their protest of the MHS contract rejected by the GAO, Glock is still hoping for a chance. In a recent interview with Matthew Cox of Military.com, Glock Vice President Josh Dorsey spoke out against the Army’s decision to adopt the SIG Sauer P320 as the new M17 Modular Handgun System. Dorsey’s comments, excerpted below, express dissatisfaction with the Army’s selection process:

“This is not about Glock. This is not about Sig. And it’s not about the U.S. Army,” Dorsey, a retired Marine, told Military.com. “It’s about those that are on the ground, in harm’s way.”

It comes down to “the importance of a pistol, which doesn’t sound like much unless you realize, if you pull a pistol in combat, you are in deep s***.”

“So one of the least important factors as they said in the RFP would be the price; that is what became the most important factor,” Dorsey said.

“So let’s think about that for a minute … you are going to go forward making that decision now without completing the test on the two candidate systems that are in the competitive range? Does that make sense if it’s your son or daughter sitting in that foxhole somewhere?”

I recommend readers click through the link to read the whole thing.

Ultimately, the question of whether SIG Sauer’s P320 handgun will meet Army requirements seems, at the moment, moot. In the face of a 13-year-long procurement process, a suite of already mature competitors, and a $100 million dollar price difference between the bids of the two companies, Glock’s argument for a continuing competition seems thin. There certainly is an argument that Glock’s offering was indeed superior, especially given that Glock was evidently able to satisfy both full-size and compact requirements with a single configuration. However, this must be weighed against the consequence of more time, effort, and money spent to procure a weapon that may not be substantially better than the one already selected. If the Army has made a truly grievous error in procurement, or if there was foul play, then certainly the results of MHS should be re-examined. If, on the other hand, the US Army selected the best deal out of several satisfactory pistol offerings, then re-opening the competition seems unnecessary.



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 nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Raptor Fred
  • Raptor Fred
  • Billy Vegas

    So Glock is the Hillary Clinton of pistols?

    • Major Tom

      Nah, they’re more like Colt was the last time they had a large contract for M4’s. Only Colt dealt with it with a bit more class.

      Therefore, Colt > Glock.

      • Brett baker

        Damn straight!

  • Joshua

    Lololol.

    Glock…Go away.

    GAO ruled on the matter, and now Glock is acting like HIllary Clinton.

    • Paul Rain

      “Here’s how Glock can still win!”

      • Joshua

        Glock won the popular vote!!!!

    • Raptor Fred

      We are forming a coalition, you must resist.

    • USMC03Vet

      Glock is like the CNN of the firearm world right now. They keep digging themselves in deeper and don’t get it.

      • Major Tom

        Careful or else CNN will dox you.

        • noob

          My money is on CNN getting bodyslammed.

        • Bill

          you guys are awesome. Thanks for your service … real and comedic. I can feel the LUUUV.

    • john huscio

      Boeing lost the tanker contract to airbus but kept fighting till they got it. You expect glock to do any less?

      • Joshua

        That’s actually what I expect to happen. Not saying it’s right but I can entirely see it going this route.

    • n0truscotsman

      If Glock is the hilldog of handguns, then the P320 is DJT. And so far, it *aint* looking good.

      It might be discovered that the Glock and Hilldog might be the better of the two.

      • Joshua

        Well that’s just the dumbest thing i’ve ever heard anyone say in my entire life.

        • n0truscotsman

          Lets re-examine that statement even 6 months from now. Never mind 3 years.

      • Wow!

        Glock is a better all around handgun than the SIG, but the issue is that SIG is selling their handgun for WAY less than Glock, making Sig the better choice for a military.

        • jp2336

          “Glock is a better all around handgun…..” huh? That’s a very hilarious statment to make. It must be based on your decades of studying and partaking in actual Sig & Glock prototyping, understanding the R&D that goes into each and every platform, redesigning the slightest geometry to maximize performance, conducting metallurgy and composite stress tests……shall I continue?

          • Wow!

            All you have to do is basic research into both to understand “the slightest geometry to maximize performance”. The last part of comment is BS, since strength of metals is a safety factor, not performance issue. The metallurgy of all commercial firearms (except maybe die cast) are sound. Arguing on metallurgy is the kind of stupid stuff knife connoisseurs do. At a certain point the material no longer affects the safety of the part in question.

            First, most of Sigs line is mostly hammer fired handguns. Aside from the obvious issue of debris getting inbetween the hammer and the firing pin, you also have the issue that the only thing holding the hammer from flying forward is a single sear. This is why militaries that use hammer fired handguns place such an emphasis on decockers since, while it is unlikely, it is possible to have an AD in condition one. Contrast that with Striker fired designs, most notably Glocks, the striker is not fully cocked except during the trigger pull. This makes it impossible to AD. To add safety during the firing process, Glock utilized a plunger which serves as an extractor retention as well as a striker block until the exact end of the trigger pull. Glock also has a trigger safety which prevents anything from possibly bumping the trigger and pulling it.

            Comparing Sigs striker fired guns such as the full sized P320 to a Glock 22, the trigger pull is heavier than a Glock. You will also note that the space on the frame to house the trigger group is enormous on the SIg compared to the Glock. This is due to poorly optimized fitment of parts. While the Sig slide is smaller than Glock, you don’t get benefits in recoil reduction because it is suspended higher than the glock is. You can even compare S&W M&P series to see that S&W did it right with the efficient uses of space in their striker trigger group.

            The overall weight is heavier than a glock. The height is almost an 1″ longer than a Glock because Sig uses the old browning hi power style magazines where there is a deep notch down the upper third of the magazine to align the rounds. Glock takes a smarter approach by just using the angle of the feed lips which extend downward to tilt the rounds at the angle needed for feeding. As a result, Glock magazines are basically the most compact single feed magazines available. The compactness results in their already light fames being even more compact. Sig has the benefit of a swelled grip to make up for their larger bulk, but the issue with their design is that the swell doesn’t end at the frame. They uses their magazine baseplate to fill the gap. This makes the magazines bulky in width compared to Glock or M9 magazine baseplates. Even glock can copy the swell via grip sleeves if comfort is desired, negating any advantage Sig seeks with a less efficient frame geometry.

            And yet despite all this, Sigs are a good couple hundred dollars over glocks MSRP.

            …shall I continue?

          • Dennis

            Glocks are good at everything. They just aren’t great at anything.

          • Wow!

            I can agree with that. Glocks won’t beat the speed of a STI 2011, and at the same time wont beat the concealment of a pen gun. For what they are marketed for though, they are arguably the best in its class unless budget is an issue.

          • jp2336

            With all that said does Glock make a great pistol, yes. You cannot beat the statistical data. Do I have any/have I had any issues with my 17/19, no, nothing that was due to the firearm. But…that horse is long dead.

          • Wow!

            What statistical data? None was released as far as I know, and I am not even sure if an extensive live fire test was done like they did with the ACR contest. Even the Army’s statement hints that the driving force behind the choice was the logistical value above all else. “The Army determined that this MHS (full size handgun, compact handgun, ammunition, and ancillary components) was the best value in terms of its performance capability, the terms and conditions of the vendor’s proposal, and price.”

            And definitely, the price is great which is why I am behind the choice of Sig. But for anyone aside from the military being offered that price and for those who rely on their handgun for more than just a rarely used backup, there are better choices. Say if Sig decided to sell at the M9A3’s pricing, really the M9A3 should have won since logistically everyone is already supplied and trained in armoring for that weapon, and it fulfilled all of the Army’s requirements. Price was the key factor in Sig’s win, and no one could beat that (which was probably why Ruger dropped out so early).

            If you aren’t looking at price, going back to my second comment or so, it is basically impossible to argue that the Sig is better than the Glock since hard facts like size and weight are already beat by Glock. If you were to argue for any handgun to be better than Glock, I think S&W would give Glock a good run for their money.

          • jp2336

            Again, your generalized statement is heavily biased toward Glock. There’s no way around it. To say “Glock is a better all around handgun…” screams this. Competitors were asked to present their platform. The 320 made the most sense. B&W. It does what was asked, performed, and came in far less than than the next closest competitor. Glock was riding its own coat tails and lost. It presented what was identified as an inferior platform. I could care less who was chosen because this whole MHS took far too long and it’s not my problem anymore. Glock lost. People need to get over it and stop acting like they know everything just because they own a Glock OR a Sig. Just be thankful it’s not a POS Beretta.

          • Wow!

            Generalized? I’m pretty sure I was quite specific on what I said, why I think the Glock is better and why Sig won and deserved to win. Glock was not ever identified as an inferior platform, just not fitting the Army’s request and if you reviewed my other comment, you would see that if you were to find a lesser handgun between the two it would be Sig. You need to be back up your statements with at least some reasoning because as it is, the only one being biased is you.

        • Dennis

          Are you kidding me with that statement? Have you ever even seen a Sig Sauer? You Glock fanboys need help…

          • Wow!

            Only one fanboying is you. Take a look at my comment below and argue with reasons why Sig is better not just brand loyalty. I dont care which brand is on my belt, only what is the best, and currently Glock sets the standard for the reasons I listed below. If you can give good reasons, I would be switching from carrying a glock to a sig.

  • Joshua

    Oh I also loved the appeal to emotion of “your babies gon’ die with the P320, they gon’ be true snake eaters with the Glock”.

    • Bullphrog855

      Flashback to the HK advertisements of 2000s

    • James Young

      I read his comments and was wondering how someone’s “son or daughter” pulling a P320 in a foxhole would give them less of a chance than a Glock?? Heck they could pull an M9 and be just as well off.

      • 2War Abn Vet

        … or pull a 1911 and be better off.

        • James Young

          Not unless that 1911 was a double stack.

  • Jedediah Pendergast

    They wanted a modular handgun, hence the “M” in “MHS” and the Glock isn’t modular, so there!

    • M&M’s

      You do know that troops issed P320’s will get one size or the other. Not both. The package doesn’t include multiple frames for each gun issued.

      • tt_ttf

        seriously? That’s your take on what modularity means?

        Aside from the $100M less buy in price, the ability to recover and reuse parts across all versions is huge cost saving above and beyond – even if they issue more than one size to a person

      • Sunshine_Shooter

        A Joe could send off $45 and get whatever size grip they want and paint/stipple/modify/ it however they want and then put the issue grip back on at turn-in. How is this a bad thing?

        For about an order of magnitude more, he could buy a slide mounted red dot for his duty weapon, keep the side & dot when he turns it back in.

        • CommonSense23

          Except Joe isn’t going to be modifying his weapon.

          • Rick O’Shay

            Apparently you’ve never met Joe.

    • Wow!

      Modularity isn’t what won the contract for Sig, it was the superb pricing. If modularity was the factor, then the M9A3 would have won. As much as I think Glock is the better handgun, the Army made the right move by not throwing money into something that will get them relatively low returns since the handgun is not their bread and butter.

    • Pumpkin King XXIII

      Glock’s idea of modular is the fact the the gun can take magazines from the 17,19 and 18.
      Changing the capacity with a simple mag change.
      IT’S REVOLUTIONARY!!!!!

  • A Guest

    Says the company that seems to have put in the least amount of effort into the contract, but ok

  • A Guest

    Says the company that seems to have put the least amount of effort into the contract, but ok

    • Billy Vegas

      Pretty much. Gaston rolled in there with his $150 to make handgun charging too much and expected to win on reputation alone.

      • Phillip Cooper

        “Rolled in with his $150 to make handgun charging too much”

        Can someone translate this please?

        • Billy Vegas

          The gun costs about $100-150 to make. Read “Glock: Rise of America’s Gun”
          Everything above that is pure profit for Gaston & Co.

          • DLLambert

            Glocks have only 28 parts. That’s part of why Gaston Glock made such sweeping changes in the modern firearms industry. Polymer, polygonal barrels, plastic mags, etc.

          • Wow!

            The author of “Glock: Rise of America’s Gun” makes a lot of claims in his book and he is the only one saying it without sources. I am skeptical to how he got his information. The author also isn’t exactly a “pro-gun” guy being part of the bloomberg thinktank, and the timing of his book might not have been a coincidence. While glock may only cost $150 to make (I kind of doubt it considering the expense of synthetic manufacturing) the source is fishy as all hell.

          • Billy Vegas

            so what if hes not pro gun? Most people that read the book think it was pretty fair.
            You didnt read it did you?
            Expense of synthetic manufacturing? Explain Hi-Point then? XD? Canik?

            triggered fanboy is triggered.

          • Wow!

            Most people who read the book don’t know much if anything about the Glock company itself making their opinions on the book’s accuracy irrelevant. They can think it is fair all they want, but taking a single source as fact isn’t very smart. If you can’t cross reference, you can’t trust information. Anyone can make up stuff to paint a picture and the businesses of Bloomberg has a well established reputation of doing that in their anti-2a agendas.

            Hi point is a metal zinc alloy not plastic, and there is a reason Hi point hasn’t gone to plastics to further reduce cost. People think that plastics are cheap to produce. Maybe cheap thermoplastic injection molding like HDPE or ABS can be cheap for sure, but when you get into the kind of plastics required for frames of handguns the cost rapidly rises. Even the material itself can be just as costly if not more than an aluminum or steel alternative. Why are magpuls more costly than aluminum magazines despite being plastic? Certainly demand from marketing is a factor, but there is a cost to quality balance. Promags are cheap, but they are generally bad quality and usually made of some kind of soft nylon. Synthetic manufacturing is not always chosen to save money

        • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

          I thought the same thing. Upon his explanation I finally was able to correctly parse the sentence, but until then I could not stop chuckling.

        • RocketScientist

          … rolled in there with his $150-to-make handgun, charging too much …

          ie, treat “$150-to-make” as a single adjective describing handgun, and make the rest of the sentence a separate clause. Billy was trying to communicate that GLOCK submitted a cheaply-made firearm and was charging a price premium as a result of their reputation… I think.

          • Roderick Lalley

            I would like to get in on the ( government purchase ) program. Oh thats right I already am. I pay taxes !!!

        • raz-0

          It means that Glock showed up to the test with a pistol that cost $150 to make and put in a bid with a per unit price too high. They assumed either nobody would under bid them, or that the selection would not count price as a factor given that the glock 19 was already extremely popular with segments of the military that get to purchase pistols other than the primary issued one.

          It’s really not that hard to parse.

          Glock claims 68% profit per unit, and if you look at LEO sale prices without excise, I’m guessing it’s more like $100, and at some point in the past it was disclosed as $83. Adjust for inflation and such, and I’m back at a guestimate of $100.

          If glock’s employees managing this process thought price doesn’t matter in government bids, they must have been dropped on their heads as children.
          .

          • Louis Bethel

            Bs….that gun is about $75 to make (after tooling is paid for).
            Those parts are cheap to make.
            Grip @$6
            Magazine @ $7
            Barrel @ $17
            Slide @ $35
            Springs @ $1
            Small parts @ $10
            They have been gouging for years.
            It caught up with them.

            So cry a river Josh Dorsey.
            It’s not like Sig doesn’t have a boatload of people with more military experience than Glock.
            You lost, get over it.

          • richard kluesek

            Have read that a glock costs about $65.00 to fabricate in the 1980s, adjustments since then would still be far below what retail msrp would be.

          • spiff1

            I guess “profit” is a dirty word to some, but what do we say to the “over runs” for the F-35, navy ships, and other military contracts? There is a price for reliability…Making a profit to enable the continued reliability is not wrong…

          • raz-0

            They weren’t the only ones to pass the test. At that point you better not over bid. Block over bid.

          • Travis Lee

            You’re right, but we’re kind of screwed once we go with a single contractor, as in the case of the F35. They bid, we bought, and now they’re raping us and not producing a reliable product.
            A fighter takes decades to develop. After the bid, there is no competition. The government needs more teeth to hold companies responsible to the bids they submitted.

          • The Brigadier

            Fighter procurement has always been a round robin process. Contracts are awarded to each surviving company in an orderly process. Its a problem, but the aerospace industry is very expensive and a lack of government money to each company will rapidly result in too few companies participating and that will be ruinously expensive in the long run. They do pay attention to the specs usually, and the fact that the F-35 works well as a Vertical Take Off and Short run Take Off, but does not meet the requirements in the bid as to speed and maneuverability shows that sometimes we get shafted.

            It was to replace the Harrier and it solved the problem of planes crashing and killing their pilots, but as a uniform fighter for each service it was a very bad decision. Thankfully the old administration is history, and if we can keep their replacements out of office, then maybe we can get the best in fighter planes and handguns.

          • Jon Goodwin

            Seriously? First, the MHS is not a fighter jet. Second, one word: competition. Profit is always a good thing, and the market has a way of leveling profit takers and serious competitors. Glock got greedy and complacent. End of story.

        • DLLambert

          “Gaston” is Gaston Glock. The 85 year old guy who runs-started Glock. There are several non fiction books out there on Glock & his “colorful” career in the gun industry.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Yes, but that wasn’t the question, now was it?

  • Ninoslav Trifunovic

    “It’s about those that are on the ground, in harm’s way.”
    What a bunch of crap!

  • AD

    Saying that “the price doesn’t matter” in this case seems to be a rather poor argument to me, as the money that you save can potentially be spent on other things that contribute as much or more to protecting the lives of your men – that’s even if you accept Glock’s stance that their pistol is so superior that it will save lives (which I don’t).

    Honestly, I’m a bit surprised at how much effort Glock is putting into fighting this. Are they in a difficult financial situation right now or something like that?

    • Some Guy

      >Are they in a difficult financial situation right now or something like that?

      I mean it’s not like they’ve made any effort to be competitive within their segment. They’ve been getting by on ubiquity and institutional inertia for years now.

      • Rick O’Shay

        So basically, they’re becoming Colt.

        • Major Tom

          Worse than Colt in some ways.

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          Exactly.

      • AD

        I don’t know, Colt’s main designs were being produced by, well, EVERYONE for the last couple of decades. The same is not exactly true of Glock. So my impression based on how often people talk about Glock specifically is that Glock SHOULD be doing fine?

        • Eric S

          Glock is the new 1911. You can buy a “Glock” that’s made with zero Glock Inc parts. They essentially have Colt’s problem.

        • RocketScientist

          Riiiiiiight, I can’t think of a SINGLE other manufacturer that makes polymer-framed striker-fired handguns across a wide variety of frame sizes, with options for minimal/no manual safeties. Nope, not a single other manufacturer doing what GLOCK does. It’s still 1993 right?

          • Louis Bethel

            And dont forget the “modular” portion of this Modular Handgun RFP.
            Oh wait, I forgot Glock is not modular.
            Sorry.

    • USMC03Vet

      Their entire marketing strategy revolves around appeal to authority fallacy. When they lose authority contracts like this it is devastating to a company that isn’t innovating and now has now found itself offering sub par products at premium prices in the market. They act like it’s the 90’s still and there aren’t endless strike fired reliable polymers handguns.

  • Vuyo Ncube

    Maybe making a new gun will keep them busy.

  • Sorry, Glock– it’s just too dang nougaty. Turn in a sample that doesn’t look like Halloween candy next time.

    • SGT Fish

      the color is mandated by the army. its the new standard

      • Yeah, but there’s just something about how the Coyote Fugly or Full Diaper Explosion or Tan M&M or whatever they’re calling the new invisible-in-mud color of the week sits on the Glock design that makes it look considerably less… serious than the SIG. It’s like the way the SCAR looks like a mistake because every major component is a different shade of diaper pudding thanks to different formulations being applied on different materials by different suppliers.

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          I’d bet $10 that Sig submitted a gun in FDE right alongside Glock’s tan disappointment. Also, I’d add a $5 wager on top that the slide & grip were slightly different shades, too.

  • Sasquatch

    Wow so the glock ego does come from the top and not just the followers.

  • Geoff Timm

    They think they can keep the bribe money flowing and the tests continuing until they can find some excuse to win and then charge the taxpayer billions. Geoff Who is sick of failed .gov programs.

    • Phillip Cooper

      The “geoff who” bit is REALLY getting old.

      • Major Tom

        I dunno. I find it mildly amusing.

        • Suppressed

          Sometimes I’ll go off on mental tangents about what a trip this dude must be. To talk about yourself in the third person, and to do so in a consistently repeating way as though he’s trying to get it to catch on with everyone is something that I can only recall professional wrestlers doing while hamming it up for the camera. Can you imagine all the other stuff homeboy must do in his daily life? I imagine him making the worst lunches and taking them to work, writing his name on the bags/containers in giant letters and stopping by co-workers cubicles to talk about “there’s gonna be trouble if anyone even looks at my lunch” while his captive audiences feign being super-busy in hopes he’ll move on and find another victim to verbally hold hostage.

          • Geoff Timm

            Actually I’m a retired Computer Geek and my customers were either VERY happy to see me, or terrified that our leaders had decreed new software. Geoff Who is happily retired from the second generation of Information Technology Specialists, yes, we made it all up as we went along.

      • Geoff Timm

        Yes, it goes back on the Internet to the 1980s and the old Cleveland Freenet, where people outside the University family were given access to what became the “World Wide Web” eventually. Tag lines were for U students and Staff only, so we started adding our own, made up on the spot, tag lines appropriate to the Postie. I maintain the tradition for the education of the young and innocent. I ran a hot 1200 baud modem and an Osborne I back then. Geoff Who notes searching his Freenet ID gets posts from 1991…;>) (Note: Ancient ANSII Emoticon substitute)

    • Wow!

      Where has Glock bribed anyone? I guess if you count Bloombergs reporting but they have conspiracy theories for everyone in the firearms and military industries. Glock is priced high because it is arguably the best handgun out there, and that reflects also in private sales, not just gov. Glock lost because they could not beat Sigs great pricing, not because their “bribe” wasn’t high enough.

      • Geoff Timm

        Ask a few honest cops about Glock sponsored visits to strip clubs at various Police Conventions. Geoff Who notes he got an earful from a SWAT specialist who was an instructor and actually like the Glock 17.

        • Wow!

          Again, where has Glock bribed anyone? I’m not up to date on industry scandals, but the only conviction I can remember was a couple years back where someone bribed a Glock employee to have priority in procuring Glock handguns, not the other way around.

  • Klaus Von Schmitto

    I can imagine Josh slowly driving past the Pentagon late at night. Every night. Over and over.

  • Raginzerker

    Stay classy glock

  • Rocky Mountain 9

    What a pitiful, desperate, and graceless way for Mr. Dorsey to take his loss.

  • Sab zero

    So basically the Army did not perform any real reliability test and chose the P320 almost exclusively for its price, and it seems okay to you ? Seriously ?
    I recommend reading the article entirely, because apparently even with the limited tests that were conducted, the Sig had more stoppages… What a joke.

    • Anonymoose

      Says the SIG fanboi from the 1980s. Oh, what’s that? They didn’t drop it 500 feet out of an airplane?

      • Sab zero

        That’s troubling when a future service weapon displays more stoppages (and accuracy issues) than its competitor and not even during a reliability test…

    • Dave

      Except in the reports from the appeal, the 320 was either equal or outperformed the Glock in every test.

      • Sab zero

        Not true, read more carefully.

        “13 Under the factor 1 reliability evaluation, Sig Sauer’s full-sized handgun had a higher stoppage rate than Glock’s handgun, and there may have been other problems with the weapon’s accuracy. AR, Tab 3, SSDD, at 12. Due to the Army’s redactions of the agency report, the results of Sig Sauer’s compact handgun test are unknown.”

        There you go, page 11, footnote 13 of the GAO report.

    • Phillip Cooper

      Would love to see some sources- the AAR I saw stated there weren’t stoppages.

      • Sab zero

        GAO report, page 11, footnote 13. My messages keep being deleted, don’t know why.

      • Sab zero

        GAO report, page 11 footnote 13:

        “13 Under the factor 1 reliability evaluation, Sig Sauer’s full-sized handgun had a higher stoppage rate than Glock’s handgun, and there may have been other problems with the weapon’s accuracy. AR, Tab 3, SSDD, at 12. Due to the Army’s redactions of the agency report, the results of Sig Sauer’s compact handgun test are unknown.”

    • tt_ttf

      ok we get it – but you aren’t able to quote the actual numbers so your position is meaningless

      if the stoppage rate was high but say only a few percentage points, then really hard to argue that against $100M lower price

      the actual data has meaning – unless you know that, you are just assuming it validates your position

      • Sab zero

        The precise numbers of stoppages aren’t put in the report from what I’ve read so far. But the number of stoppages still matter, don’t you think so ? Frankly I don’t care if the winner is Sig or Glock, as long as the selection process is fair and the tests are done by the book. But we will soon see how this Sig performs. I believe the 101st will receive them in a few months.

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    The Glock was “able to satisfy both full-size and compact requirements with a single configuration.”

    Rosie O’Donnell also satisfies the requirements for a companion to reproduce, but is it really the best choice?

    • B-Sabre

      Please! I’m eating! Or I was….

    • Stuki Moi

      Rumor has it, she failed the compact requirement…..

  • A.WChuck

    Shaking my head at the obvious desperation in his comments. Pathetic.

  • kn1023
    • SMH

      Didn’t notice that Glock hand until now…

    • Hazztech

      Sig fanboys aren’t paying attention to the fact that their handgun *didn’t actually complete trials and was selected on the basis of the lowest bidder.*

      Chris has a video on this up now

      • jp2336

        It’s not about “fanboys”. It’s what the DoD wanted. It’s THEIR test, and if it’s a quality platform that meets all the needs and can perform equally as well or outperform another while being made available at a lower cost it’s not rocket surgery. I’m not not a fanboy of either, I own a very very wide array of items; just want to ensure that’s clear. But….Sig’s modularity makes LOGISTICAL sense, while it also can walk and talk.

        • James Smith

          Bet you love the F-35.

      • squat251

        Probably because it was the only one that was submitted that actually met the main requirement of being modular. Being a fan or not, that’s what the customer wanted, no one else seemed to care.

        • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

          modular and cheaper.

      • Bobby McKellar

        Well…by YOUR rationale Glock DIDN’T COMPLETE THEM EITHER. LOL! “Completing trials” wasn’t a requirement for the selection so that whole line of thought is irrelevant.

  • Gregory

    I have Glocks, I carry one on-duty. Are they an excellent pistol? Yes. Did Glock loose the competition? Yes. Get over it and move on.

    • Phil Hsueh

      No, but they did lose. 😀

  • SP mclaughlin

    Maybe he should talk to some Navy SEALs that carries P226s….and survived without Glocks.

    • J.T.

      The P226 is a great gun, but it isn’t what SIG submitted in the MHS trials.

    • Rob

      You do know that the Glock 19 replaced all Sig pistols in NSW service right? As of right now NSW and SOCOM plan to continue to issue the Glocks. That MAY change with the P320 but that has yet come to pass.

      • Evan

        And IIRC, wasn’t one of the big selling points of Glock 19s over the P226 price?

        Secondly size and I remember reading here and elsewhere around the ‘net harping on “34 parts! it juss werks! Sheepdawg! Ooh-rah!”

      • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

        To my knowledge those guys actually carry whatever gun they want, but they have to be issued something and Glocks are cheap so why spend more money on something most of the guys will lock up and never use? But now Sigs are cheaper so we will see.

        • CommonSense23

          Guys don’t carry what ever they want. That’s something people say to make the job seem cooler.

  • J.T.

    So, Just like with the XM9 trials, the winner was slightly less reliable but cheaper, and the looser is throwing a fit. It’s amazing how history repeats itself.

    • Joshua

      It makes sense though.

      Does a few round extra between Stoppages make up for the extra $100,000,000 it would cost for the gun?

      Nope, nope, noppity, nope.

      The other thing is the P320 has more room to grow and expand with emerging technologies and future requirements due to it’s modular design.

      • Rob

        I would have preferred the one gun solution Glock proposed and I generally prefer shooting Glocks to the Sig but it is hard to fault the Army for their choice on this one. I hope the M18 sees a wider issue as o don’t believe much is gained by the longer slide and barrel.

        I do however agree with Glock that the test should have continued to its conclusion before an award was issued.

        • Joshua

          They tested the full size guns. They did not test the sub compact guns.

          Plenty of information was gained, and since the full size will be the general issued one it was the most important to test.

  • Gun Fu Guru

    Do it for the children!

  • Renov8

    This is what happens when politics play in the way these contracts are administered…and there is a lot of politics in play here. This process is outdated and plays to those willing to corrupt themselves the most…time will tell.

    • ARCNA442

      Pray tell exactly what politics are in play here? If anything a number of Generals made public statements that they want Glock. Sig won the contract fairly with it extremely low bid and better licensing deals.

  • GuySerious

    At what point does this kind of commentary from C level execs become just sore losing? And if the product is just that reliable and amazing, why is this variant not being sold to the public? Nope, glock is taking its pefection-ball and going home.

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      That gun *is* being sold to the public, and has been since the 80s. It’s the same Glock 17/19 that you see in stores, just with an afterthought of a thumb safety slapped on it.

      • Tony

        Except it’s a 17 frame with a 19 length slide, and no finger grooves to boot.

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          I think you proved my point.

          • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

            they literally used the shity flimsy safety from a davis/cobra/high point. I know they.

  • Risto Kantonen

    Reminds me of Rocky: “It ain’t over ’til it’s over.”

    • Major Tom

      Except he’s sayin it while down and bleeding on the mat and the ref just called TKO.

  • Phillip Cooper

    Hmm.. Pres of Glock says this isn’t about Glock…

    Full stop. Wait. My BS meter is pegged…

  • Phillip Cooper

    As an old Infantry soldier, no- it’s indeed a foxhole.

    • Jeremy

      The future is now, old man

  • Nicks87

    Nobody wants a Glock with a safety… even the military apparently.

    • M&M’s

      You do know that the manual safety was a requirement. Look at the P320 MHS pistol.

  • Mmmtacos

    Good as Sig may be with the P320 I would choose the Glock. They’re reputation as a side arm used by literally every field of use that a handgun could be used as is unparalleled. Military, police, security, competition, home defense, carry defense and probably even hunting to some silly extent.

    That might be overkill but it is a pedigree. I mean realistically I am sure the P320 holds up comparably well to any Glock through torture testing, I’m sure a lot of guns nowadays do: we are in a veritable golden age of pistols it seems.

    Oh well, the tide has been cast. If the stories are true then Sig may have learned their lesson from last time and made sure they came in as the cheapest option (supposedly this is why they lost to Beretta in the 80’s, but there are other stories). Amazingly they even undercut the famed undercutter, Glock.

    Still, something about Glock. I’m not the world’s biggest Glock fanboy but I do own and carry a 19 because… well, begrudgingly, it’s a tough act to follow.

    • ARCNA442

      I choose Glock as my primary handgun – but if I could get P320’s for $250 you can bet I would go with Sig.

    • Rick O’Shay

      Sorry, but name/reputation isn’t good enough. That’s essentially what got Colt in trouble. It’s not like the P320 is some revolutionary, untested design. As you say, we are in a veritable golden age of pistols. Just because the Glock’s been around longer is no reason they should automatically win. I mean, if you reaaaallly wanted to push that argument, why not just go with a 1911? I mean, it’s been around for over 100 years, right?

    • Sunshine_Shooter

      Glock may have been a tough act to follow, but the gun industry has spent 30 years figuring out how to do just that. And they have beaten it. Glock is a good gun, sure, but there are so many others that are just as good and cost less, or cost the same and are significantly better, or both (source: Army MHS trials, 2017).

      What you describe is an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Pedigree only indicates what will happen, not make sub-par performances suddenly better.

    • Evan

      Somebody’s never heard of the NYPD Glocks…(NOTE: Departments who issue Glock’s had an “Accidental Discharge” rate 5x (500%) higher than departments with ANY other weapon).
      Glock makes a great gun, but for how much it’s loved over other products, many of the disciples of Gaston don’t know much about them.

      I will remind the Glock lovers that until 1998, 100% of the guns made until that point were under recall.

      And that doesn’t include:
      – the 1990 Upgrade: That dealt with the slide locking back on a full magazine, failure to lock into battery because the barrel lug drags on the slide lock, magazine follower tips or sticks in the magazine tube.

      – the 1992, 6 part Upgrade: a production change of the firing pin safety system.

      – 1993, G19 Upgrade: UNINTENTIONAL DISCHARGE of a cartridge with the action open. The pistol slide has a bottom protrusion that could hit primers.

      – 2000, G26/27 Recoil spring upgrade: recoil springs produced before September 1999 may shear off on some of these pistols due to over hardness of the support tube.

      – 2002 Frame Upgrade: rear slide rail: potential of breaking a rear frame rail in pistols produced between September of 2001 and May of 2002.

      – 2005 G36 issue: an abnormality from production could possibly interfere with the operation of the Glock trigger safety.

      – 2011 Recoil spring assembly: on its new Gen4 pistols shipped since August, 2009, reports of problems with a batch of recoil spring assemblies ranging from FTF to the recoil springs compressing together, causing jams etc. Glock initially denied the issue saying that owners were using poor quality ammunition that caused the jams. Roughly two years after the release of the Gen 4 Glock admitted that there was a problem and issued a recall on the recoil spring.

      In all, there have been 7 official updates/recalls; all for excessive “perfection” I’m sure.

      And that’s not even to touch the extractor/ejection issues, etc. or the outdated “tenifer” mantra (EPA doesn’t allow the specific “tenifer” salt-bath nitriding process in the USA kiddos. Similar processes yes, but your USA Glock is not “tenifered”.) How MIM parts were bullshit until Glock started doing it, etc.

  • USMC03Vet

    If he would have just “We were beat. Next time we will go back to the drawing board and innovate to bring features people want” they would have gained a lot of respect. Instead they doubled down on stupid.

    • Bill

      HOPEFULLY and I say hopefully,,,the people of this great country will realize that WE do not operate on pity like the examples that have been forcefed to U.S. by hammerheaded politicians that receive huge kickbacks from contractors.

  • Andrew Duffey

    It’s like their plan was to win the contract by simply being Glock and are flabbergasted that it wasn’t enough to get them the contract.

  • mosinman

    this is like an American football team down 21 points with half a minute to go throwing hail marys to try and win the game

  • Madison J Coleman

    And with one more press release, Glock slips even deeper into irrelevance. Good to know that one day my kids will grow up and say “Glock? Isn’t that what cops carried back in the olden days?”.

  • darrell_b8

    The Army spent BILLIONS “testing” for a new pistol; DRAIN THE SWAMP…..even the US Army has gone ‘establishment’….

  • Bucho4Prez

    Oh my, you guys offer it in FDE… that changes everything! Seriously, though, for the 50 or so pistol rounds shot in anger since the M9 came to town, this is silly.

    • Major Tom

      Only 50? I’ve heard it was closer to 60.

  • john huscio

    All of this could have been avoided by the army finishing its testing after they downselected to glock & sig instead of immideatly biting sig’s lowball offer.

  • Jackson Andrew Lewis

    Glock gets butt-hurt so quickly….

    Love how they say “settle” a better gun for less money is not settling its literally the better option in every way….
    The rattings put glock behind the sig granted not by much but still behind in reliability, cost and even in aimplicity and configuration…….

  • Kurt Ingalls

    LOL….none of us, with the exception of being taxpayers (or parents….) have a dog in the hunt on this issue…me, for what its worth, don’t give a fat rats ass what you like to carry as long as you don’t muzzle me….’nuff said……. 🙂

  • OC Duce

    The difference of $100 million is concerning here. Both companies have fixed costs. Hopefully the Army was smart enough to investigate carefully to make sure SIG was not selling below their cost to manufacture??? If SIG made a mistake they could be on the hook for a ton of money and have serious future legal problems. If I was the contracting officer, I would put in additional safeguards were they would default on the contract if they were to change pricing beyond normal inflation.

    Just my thoughts.

    OC Duce

    • Samuel Millwright

      No, modern striker fired polymer pistols really are just stupid cheap to make…

      This has been a known fact that’s easily verified for a really long time.

  • valorius

    It’s getting to the point where if Glock was an ex girlfriend, the Army would be seeking a protective stay away order.

  • valorius

    I do kind of wish glock would have won, because the army model with the manaul safeties would’ve become the most popular glock overnight, and all the glock users that said a safety equals “BAD” would’ve had to reverse course, exposing themselves as the fanboys that they are. 🙂

  • valorius

    This is a lot of huffing and puffing about a completely obsolete weapon type on the modern military battlefield.

    • Stuki Moi

      Even soldiers don’t spend every waking (and sleeping) hour of their lives, “on a battlefield,” rifle at the ready. I don’t have hard numbers, but I’d bet the probability of someone stationed in Kabul finding legitimate self defense use of a pistol, is higher than that of the average CCV’er in Salt Lake City. Yet pistols are not considered completely obsolete for the latter.

      • valorius

        Troops on post carry their rifles, do they not?

        • andrey kireev

          Not always, I only had my M9 with me working in the armory. M16A2 also isn’t very easy to move around in a truck cabin either, it’s also a general pain in the ass to lug around when I do my job. Behind every fighting force there’s a much bigger support force, which doesn’t necessarily needs a full size rifle.

          • valorius

            Who still uses M16s?

          • andrey kireev

            Marine Corps and USAF (different variations of them)

          • valorius

            All our infantry forces should still be using them, honestly.

          • andrey kireev

            I’ve also seen Army with M16A2s using Eotech 512 with a funky carry handle mount… but that was back in 2012

          • valorius

            Might’ve been some reserve unit.

        • Samuel Millwright

          Try shooting the friendly laundry attendant who has suddenly went all green on blue on you while you’re trying to take a post patrol 5 day MRE dump in a stall so narrow you can actually pass a roll of TP PAST the empty courtesy buffer stall to the guy who was in there first With your ACOG equipped a4…

          Then get back to us about how pistols are completely irrelevant to modern military personnel!

          It matters not whether you like the way we currently do the whole foreign adventures thing, the reality though is that pistols are probably more relevant than they’ve been at any point in the past century right now.

          Focus on what IS not what should be

          • valorius

            When is the last time you saw a troop in a narrow stall pull his pistol and shoot a tango?

          • Samuel Millwright

            Seen… Never…

            Read about multiple separate incidents where that or a variation of that has happened in Iraq or Afghanistan… More than 5!

            This is actually a very real issue which has very much affected all the various nations who have had troops rotate through these places.

            As an example the Brits essentially acquired well over 10,000 g19’s that exist solely to ensure that every British serviceman in Afghanistan has a pistol issued to them for the entire duration of their stay.

            And yes btw i have read about AT LEAST one incident which started with the soldier doing their business in a bathroom stall when the assault began! Obviously this incident stuck with me after i read about it and actually inspired my research into the situation.

            This isn’t the only situation we expect our service people to endure fairly routinely where pistols are pretty vital these days…

            Almost every single one of which are more due to bad policy and top down mandated directives from asshats like the state department.

            But as a dedicated realist who values results and especially the lives of our guys, i know that the policies etc are not going anywhere and thus we must enact hardware and TTP based risk reduction strategies to keep our people safe.

            Pistols are a massive part of this

          • valorius

            I actually did read one story where a soldier used a privately obtained and owned Ruger LCP to kill a tango on base (It was a G&A story but i’ve never been able to find it since that first time i saw it). So i guess concede that it “can happen.”

          • Samuel Millwright

            When i read about the British army pistol UOR the article i found originally listed a frankly astounding number of incidents just among the British army contingent and cited a number more than 3 times as large of overall incidents just in Afghanistan in a pretty small time period. (with only incidents that they could 100% verify counted amongst other nation’s forces in Afghanistan. The article stated that the actual totals were likely at least triple again the numbers they were showing too!)

            It’s a large problem other places besides Afghanistan as well….

            It’s likely going to get even worse as we see our forces spread out in penny packets all over the globe in various training, FID, and other missions continuing to accelerate and multiply.

            This is another area like individual soldier encumbrance, often from carrying too much of the wrong stuff…

            When you actually start looking at what SHOULD be carried, and or actually is carried in war zones versus what the manual prescribes, you quickly find that our guys will still wind up carrying the same or more weight once in a real fight!

            Many people look at this and just insist mindlessly that stuff needs to be cut from the load, guns and gear lightweighted at any cost, and somehow magically using preventative care to make paratrooper knees and backs not have essentially year maximum working lives!

            Me personally, i just approached this problem from the perspective that realistically all we can hope for right now is maintaining neutral weight profiles especially since as expensive as gear is the cost of the VA and disability claims etc is way larger!

            Therefore I’ve been pursuing a sort of system of systems approach to basic gear that’s primary and driving purpose is drastically reducing cumulative musculoskeletal and other damage from carrying the weight and quantity of gear modern soldiers need to carry while improving the soldier ability to move with agility and skill at the same time as mitigation of injuries etc from those times you just have to dive face first into a trench with full gear on!

            What surprised me is just how possible it is to drastically reduce injuries etc and increase the average working life of a paratrooper etc just by building smarter better gear in smarter better ways.

          • valorius

            Having some troops with sidearms would’ve definitely made a difference at fort hood.

            But to be fair to myself, my comment was in reference to BATTLEFIELD utility, not on post responses to terror attacks.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Yeah and the thing is the US military is still not letting nearly enough people actually carry guns when in CONUS duty stations, so in that respect, these issue pistols still really don’t do as much good as they should do.

            And while i kinda get your differentation between battlefield utility and other stuff, it’s kind of a logical fallacy / thinking error in that even during a time of actual sustained warfare soldiers will still spend the vast majority of their time away from the battlefield…

            However, even 50 or 100 years ago being 50 or 100 miles behind the actual battle front made you no sort of immune from attack etc!

            This is even more the case now, and unfortunately even though the danger level and likelihood of needing a weapon urgently even when far from the battlefield are exponentially higher… Bureaucracy and hoplophobia makes you exponentially LESS LIKELY to actually have a rifle close at hand!

            This is precisely why I’m harping on this false distinction between battlefield usage and everything else… Reasoning like that is actually what got us to the point we’re at now where pistols are the best our poor service people can HOPE to have access to if the enemy decides that they wish to engage you outside of the designated “battlefield”…

            Bottom line: if you’re a soldier, you do support work etc for soldiers within close proximity of soldiers, or etc… Wherever you are is the battlefield because you are there!

          • valorius

            During WWII rear echelon troops were issued M1s because even back then the military knew pistols sucked. That was -supposed- to be the entire rationale behind the M4, before they started issuing them to everyone. A stripped of all doo-dads M4 is a pretty light, compact, and handy rifle (it could be a whole lot lighter still, but that’s another discussion for another thread). I really don’t see how asking REMFs to carry one around on post would be much of a burden.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Me either but the people in charge actually FORBID IT most of the time, that’s my point.

          • valorius

            Well, stupid is as stupid does.

          • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

            still a pain in the ass for medics,

  • Tom

    Of course it was about price, pretty much every government contract is about price these days, Sig was simply the one that met the standards and was willing to underbid the most. SIG won mostly because they are willing to sell them for $207 a pistol. However, whining about it isn’t doing Glock and favors.

  • Stuki Moi

    Sounds like the decision about how to price and execute the bid, was made by specific C-levels at Glock USA.

    And that Austria is not particularly happy with how those specific guys did their job….

  • Mike Lashewitz

    UH, waaah. I prefer my Sig over my Glock. In the military I would have preferred my Sig over the 1911 I carried.

    I bought my first Glock in the late 90s. It was different. I liked the Ceramic of it, but it was just a gimmick.
    As long as Sig fixes the take down lever rivet problem and the binding problems on the new-est ones, it should be a fine service weapon.

  • Louis Bethel

    Cuidado Josh. FN might get the bid!

  • Pumpkin King XXIII

    lost to beretta 92, lost to sig 320. Glocks going to lose so much it going to get tired of losing.
    Glock should be tired of all this losing.

    • Wow!

      I don’t think Glock really cares since the military contract was pretty small. They already get their bread and butter from private and LEO sales and this is evident in how little effort they went to modify their handgun. This is more of a nothing to lose kind of appeal.

      • Pumpkin King XXIII

        Their was something to lose, they look like a spoiled 13 year old kid who is throwing a tantrum.
        It was not for the military contract, it’s the civilian market sales that they wanted the contract. A lot of people who are the 1 gun guy or newbies will say hey if the military chose it it must be a pretty good gun.
        They have not had anything revolutionary since they were first introduced. Sorry but adding a 10mm longslide or limited edition engraved slides do not reinvigorate a stale brand.

        • Wow!

          I suppose that makes sense, but I personally don’t think so. When people show up to my shop to ask for “what the military uses” they almost always ask for a Sig, Beretta, or often an H&K. Glock is not and never really has been popularized by charm or romantism of gov service. Most people including newbies are distanced from Glock because they see it as ugly and generic and they want something new and cool (you even say it is a “stale” brand despite it being a best seller in most shops). Most people who buy Glocks are generally those who already did research into other brands and are choosing a Glock based on their needs, not the perception of it. Those who like the pragmatics of Glock but not the feel, generally choose an M&P (before that it was a Springfield XD).

          As far as innovation, lets be honest, who even has innovated anything greater than Glock? All the full sized handguns coming out recently are just catching up to Glock’s design. Glock may be old but it is kind of like the AK or M16, right now there really isn’t anything that can beat it because the original design works and makes sense.

          Glock loses nothing by complaining about the results. Even if they know they likely won’t win, all companies try to open up opportunities when they can because it doesn’t cost anything. However, if Glock was really in it to win they would have tried to beat Sig, but they didn’t/

      • robert57Q

        I don’t know where you come by the notion that military contracts are “small” in the arms business, they are anything but. If Glock didn’t care, they wouldn’t by putting up such an embarrassing fuss about it.

        • Wow!

          Contracts for small arms and military in general are pretty small. Consider the fact the MHS is worth a couple hundred million (estimates from ~150m to 700m). This worth has to cover the development costs and the fact that many companies won’t even get a profit if they lose.

          Then look at Gov IT contracts which are much lest costly to attempt and yet are usually several BILLION in worth. Or you can look at environmental contracts which are also in the high 100 million to billion dollar worth and in many cases companies are not required to actually put up products for testing like the military requires, but instead they look at the company’s history.

          Getting rich by military contracts alone especially in the small arms business is difficult if not impossible. The contracts are not worth that much compared to other fields and they don’t last nearly as long. The media always hypes about the “military industrial complex” but in the end it is more BS to cover the real wastes in the gov from social programs to infrastructure projects to nowhere.

          Glock is putting up a fuss because they have nothing to lose by doing so. However, if they really wanted to win, they would have modified their handgun more to fit the Army’s requirements as well as try to beat Sigs price.

          • spiff1

            Well said…

  • TW

    Glock does have a point though. The final test between SIG and Glock was never done. We don’t know if the 320 is better.

    I love my SIG but I haven’t put 18000 rounds in it to see if it can survive. 18000 is nothing for the DOD to test.

    • Wow!

      I love glock but Sig deserved to win because of the price. Glock didn’t want the contract enough. It really isn’t about a “better” handgun, it is about a cheaper but still reliable handgun. If the MHS requirements were really all there was to it, the M9A3 would have won.

  • churchboy

    SIG has always been my favorite manufacturer when it comes to semi auto handguns. I havent fired the P320 yet but i have not heard one single bad thing yet. Its all been nothing but praise. Im a huge fan of the P229 so i will definitely have to give it a go. Glock is garbage. Sorry, not sorry.

  • Hossi Blumengaarten

    i hate this new sand color weapons! make them black

    • Wow!

      I vote for OD green. Better than black in all lighting IMO.

      • 2ThinkN_Do2

        Kryptek camo pattern in Black, Grays, Olive Grays and Sand Grays . . all combined.

  • Hazztech

    Sig fanboys aren’t paying attention to the fact that their handgun *didn’t actually complete trials and was selected on the basis of the lowest bidder.*

    Chris has a video on this up now.

  • Kelly Jackson

    I kind of like the manual safety, I’d like to see it make its way to other Glock product lines like the G26

    • Wow!

      Glock doesn’t need a safety. Safeties do not make one safer, it makes the gun safer when stowed loaded such as slung or holstered. The glock design already makes it impossible to AD which is why a safety is not need. The only way to prevent ND is trigger discipline.

  • Wow!

    As much as I think Glock has a better handgun than a SIG, unless Glock can match SIG’s pricing, the military should stick with SIG.

  • Wow!

    Its because the final performance test was never done. There isn’t any reliability performance data out there to argue for either side. Basically once the Army saw Sigs great price, they went with that which was a good choice because having cheap units that can be replaced cheaply is more important for a military.

  • ToddB

    Is Glock going to lay on the floor and hold their breath until they get what they want?

    • 2ThinkN_Do2

      One could only hope 😉

  • jp2336

    As each day passes Glock sounds more and more like a “spoiled brat” who didn’t get their way in the store. But in this case the DoD/GAO is an old school “parent” who won’t bend as they tire of these antics. FYI, just because Dorset is a retired Marine is it necessary to keep mentioning it? What bearing does that have on anything? So am I, does that make make my jibberish or comment on something more relevant or more substantial? That world is WAY behind him and it’s a resume filler.

    • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

      considering it was an Army acquisition..

      • jp2336

        Not following you…?

  • jp2336

    If you’re going to attempt to discredit someone/something you may want to ensure you have your ducks in a row

  • 2War Abn Vet

    Glock is taking lessons from American Democrats on how to be a sore loser.

  • Richard Kroll

    This sounds like the repeat of the Boeing tanker deal wherein they lost to Airbus. I have military newspapers dated 2004 which are a “mirror” of this same talk by Glock. It is 2017 and a Boeing tanker has yet to be delivered to the Air Force. Will it be 2030 before the Army gets a new sidearm too?

  • squat251

    I like how he just glosses over the fact that they specifically requested modular pistols, and glock just sent their regular ol’e betty. There’s nothing wrong with them, and if the military wanted to directly replace the Beretta’s they likely would just go glock (assuming they could get a deal on them). But to enter into a race with the wrong car, and then get mad when you’re DQ’d is just sad, really.

  • cruzo1981

    I don’t know about the trials because I didn’t read anymore about that part of the MHS process, but I’ve shot the P320 and Ive shot glocks back to back. They’re both handguns, but the Sig is nicer. I own neither. Am a fan of neither. Personally don’t like Glocks and Sig is ridiculously expensive. Also it seems to me that the Sig submitted was modular where the Glock is not.

    • PaulWVa

      “Sig is ridiculously expensive” ….Huh? I paid $485.00 for my P-320, hardly ridiculous by today’s standards and Sig is supplying these guns for less than $300.00 to the government.

      • cruzo1981

        When I talk Sig its the P226 or bust. Yeah the 320 is nice and affordable. That much is true.

  • Robert Sweeney

    Am I the only one who hears a remarkable similarity between Glock’s VP’s whiny rant about our sons and daughters going to die if they are given Sigs instead of Glocks and the rantings of the anti-Trump Democrat snowflakes? This alone would keep me from ever buying a Glock.

  • HoodooTexas

    The Army needs to stop buying pistols. Worthless.

  • Ed Bergeron

    Hmmm, “sore loser”?? For once the government tries to save us a few bucks by selecting an equally fine sidearm and some other countries company wants to throw a fit and get us to spend more for…what??? (provided testing was not tampered with) WTH is wrong with people?

  • survivor50

    Good God Glock !!! Get over yourself !!!
    You lost because you DIDN’T supply what was wanted, you’re too expensive, and…your pistols HAVE to be modified from the front sight to the mag well to be able to shoot well.
    What part of ” NO ” didn’t you understand ???

  • 2ThinkN_Do2

    Yes, keep testing till you choose Glock . . . yeah sure, and keep testing till the cows come home . . . another crock from Glock . . . get over it, Cry Babies 🙁

  • richard kluesek

    Many other competitive handguns besides these 2 like Baretta APX and what happened to Ruger , ETC

    • PaulWVa

      Ruger didn’t have the guts or the product to enter the competition.

      • richard kluesek

        The “guts” i dont know about but SR9 is not a bad gun, is certainly comparable to compete, and there are many others, H&K, FN, CZ, Spinx, Styer, etc may the best be selected above all others which will then compete in the capitalist market.

        • PaulWVa

          Agree…but the SR9 doesn’t meet what the what the Government asked for. Ruger said, “Meh….we don’t want to play”

          • richard kluesek

            Guess Ruger knew better. I have an SR 9, and a 19 Gen 3 and a 19 Gen 4 and a Lone Wolf brand Timberwolf gen 3 glock 19 knockoff. All are fine and suitable for my needs but I would never do to a sidearm what cops and soldiers do with and to theirs. As a citizen and taxpayer want my favorite adopted sons and nephews in the services to get what they want and for us all to be assured its the best.

          • PaulWVa

            I have two Sig 320s and I really like them. I have shot the Ruger and a couple of Glocks and I think they are all fine guns. Everyone likes something different and I have no issue with that at all. But “our people” over there or anywhere, deserve the best gear they can get and better. Good luck to your family and thank them for their service.

  • robert57Q

    Look, I know losing a chance at a mega-money government contract hurts, but this whining for a ‘do over’ makes him sound like a lefty snowflake. The MHS bid process included some very specific requirements, which Glock knowingly failed to fulfill, with an attitude of ‘let us show you what you actually want’. And that ‘think of your children’ line puts this guy on par with the Moms Demand Attention crowd! This is straight up, arrogant bullshit!

  • John Morrison

    How many contracts has Glock won by underbidding the competition. Those plastic pistols are much cheaper than any metal frame auto or revolver. I still can’t figure out why the ammo was combined with the pistol contract. Also, why not finish the tests? Also, why announce on the last day of the Obama administration? This process was seriously abnormal. Let’s see how many Army parasites retire to Sig and Winchester (Sig’s ammo partner)

    • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

      the test where done actually they ran behind. the winner was to move on to field trails.

  • Dennis

    Glock is embarrassing themselves, they remind me of Hillary Clinton. The better gun won so accept it and go on with your life. Plus Sig Sauer and Glock are not even close.

    • PaulWVa

      Ha! You beat me to it….I was thinking the same thing. He sounds like a sore loser. From now on to be called a “Hillary”. What a whiny little dude. Hey Glock…build a better gun and come back in about 20 years!

  • 2ThinkN_Do2

    So did they complete testing of the other makes they said were not acceptable, or was is the same thing as done to Glock?

  • Jath

    Sorry, glock lost. Get over it.

    When i can disassemble a glock without pulling the trigger, i might recommend it for duty use. Until then, no thanks.

  • DLLambert

    The Glock USA exec’s points are moot, IMO. Glock’s XM17 failed to get the DA-military MHS bid. The new “M” or gen 05 series designed for US police & selected by the FBI, now has serious problems. From what some soc media sources report, field agents & staff wanted the new SIG P320 but Glock USA & a cabal of DoJ insiders pulled the contract to favor Glock. I’d like to see Glock offer a new “gen 05” pistol/series like the FBI sidearm or MHS. I own & use Glock pistols, so I’m not anti-Glock. I’m also a US Army veteran: 04/four years MP(active duty). I had a M9 9mmNATO pistol for about 24mo. Do I think the P320 9x19mm is a bad choice? No, I do not. US service members carry sidearms much more than use them. Armor, helicopter, MI/CIDC, SF/SOF all use semi auto pistols. The Glock MHS/M may be good but the SIG P320 is better. Glock Inc needs to address the M/gen 05 problems. The US public & armed officers-LE officers will buy them.

    • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

      you for got medical. carries them too.

  • DLLambert

    From what I know(statements of a active MARSOC Marine), the 1911s/M45s were the “sidearms” but the Glock 19 9mmNATOs were for PSD/Embassy Security Guard details(plain clothes work). MARSOC & the USMC generals finally said; “%*+= this” & just issued Glock 19s. Smart move, in my view. BTW, the elite SAS or 22nd Special Air Service would call them “disco guns” because they could conceal them with ease. The SAS issues SIG Sauer guns. They T&Eed several military brands & picked SIG Sauer.

  • spiff1

    OR that GLOCK has been part of NATO for 30 some years, HAS been used by military and LE for 40 some odd years has been in combat, has been there and done it. While Sig Sauer, well it is a good pistol, so far…Remember the AR-15? Was good, then it went into combat…30 years later the government is still trying to make it a reliable piece…Lets finish the testing and see how things turn out!

    • jp2336

      You’re really going down too many rabbit holes, where are you trying to go with the current M-16/M-4 series? Ive used both platforms in combat. They can have issues like any mechanical item. Ive had ZERO issues with the rifles themselves over 5 deployments, but shall we stick to the topic? Both final contestants have proven track records. The client decided that there was no need to finish the testing as THEY had seen enough. So why continue it? You, me and everyone else on here have zero to do with it. Merely expressing opinions. But what is fact is what I stated. If you are the client and upon seeing the RFP drop, I and 2 others submit my item for your testing. In the contractual writing it states that you may end and award at will (just to keep things simple). After 7 of 10 phases you have ID’d that 2 of the 3 will not measure up so you end the testing, leaving 1 remaining who is awarded your contract. Is that wrong?

  • Richard Lutz

    Nice, but it needs a thinner steel magazine, a better grip angle, and an ambi safety.

  • Wow!

    Yeah, I get the logistics of the Sig choice, which is why I said that in almost all of my comments.

    You said that Glock is a better all around handgun is a hilarious statement. I questioned why it is hilarious and I cited the dimensional and functional differences between the handguns as reasoning for my statement. I am asking you what your reasoning is that Sig is better, not in terms of the MHS, but as a product as your comment was in response to.

    • jp2336

      No I understand. It’s a Ford v Chevy question that can go on until the end of eternity. If you took that as a lean towards Sig, that’s not the intent. But like text messages you (I) don’t always get the point across w/o the added voice inflections and facial expressions; while tipping some bourbon. I’ve been in a professional setting for roughly 3+ yrs where, while studying under a gunsmith in a full service shop, I get to now see a vast array of firearms. One thing I can say with 100% confidence is that neither of those two manufacture’s pistols come in for ACTUAL mechanical defects outside of normal wear & items (extractors mainly) which is really good. But we’re not talking weapons being used continuously for week long shooting packages, getting thrashed and banged up and used throughout deployments. These are EDC, range guns, safe queens, CCW class rentals, “toys”, etc. But in the same breath I have a friend who is a professional instructor, loves both Glock/Sig, yet for budgetary investment reasons his CCW class rentals are Glocks, which makes perfect sense to me. Naming your dog ‘Sig’ shows a level of dedication, while carrying either daily. Pistol, not the dog.

      Now I can definitely see what your POV (understanding it’s hypothetical) is to swap Sig and use the M9 series for the logistical aspect, but Berettas just don’t withstand the constant abuse and the overall design is inferior when compared to what is available today. But as for the “better” choice it is what I have interpreted since the client chose what they chose. Being objective, my intent was to state the end result, not my personal opinion regardless of how I may think.

      As a matter of personal opinion, having a quite a bit of time firing the 320 chambered in 9mm as well as the G17/19 I would give it to the 320 hands down. For me it fits near perfect. The ergonomics of a platform are one of the first of my go/no-go criteria I look for when it comes to choosing a pistol, a subset would be OEM construction. Second is size, third is caliber. If it doesn’t feel right immediately then it’s a show stopper. Having large hands, the 320 offers a combination of better grip size/ increased distance from the beaver tail to the slide than the 17/19.

      But that’s just my opinion and that holds no value except to me. That doesn’t mean I like Sig over Glock. I have a P227 that I am still having a hard time making myself like due to the grip size/decocker/ergonomics and a few other OEM I don’t personally care for, but I’m just an end user. It was a smoking deal that I wasn’t passing up; roughly $53.00 shipped after I cashed in all my airline miles for cabela’s gift cards. Hope that answers the question and validates I don’t have an undying love for Sig. I’m typing this with a 2″ Chiappa Rhino on my hip and an XDS in my bag next to me. Only time will tell how the 320 performs after being issued to the masses. Then again, I’d bet a bottle that if you ask anyone with any MIL time will tell you that pistol marksmanship across the services in vanilla units is horrible. But that’s a rabbit hole I’ll avoid.

      • Wow!

        The third paragraph is what I was looking for. Personally, ergonomics aside from fire controls are bottom on my priorities but the appeal of sig makes sense if that is your top consideration.

        I’m sure the 320 will have good reviews n the military until a decade or so later when all the inventories are worn. It seems the military goes through phases of love and hate as stuff wears down. Like the M60 used to be cool stuff, then it was considered trash, and then appreciated again with those that had the E6 updates.

        • jp2336

          Side note, while I don’t field time with the M60-series , I’ve had the “pleasure” on 2 occasions to do a detail dis/ass and HOLY crap are there a ton of parts to finger and potentially lose, even in a sealed white room on the floor, given an inappropriate ratio of caffine:nicotine I’d find a way if I had to do it again. Never again. Hahaha!! Not as bad as tearing down an M32 down to its last screw but it’s up there on the list.

  • Travis Lee

    I agree that US service members should have the best firearms available, but if the difference in quality, performance and reliabilty are negligible, you take the contract that’s a 100 mil cheaper…
    Duh…

  • Guest

    Any chance of Glock’s MHS submission making it onto the commercial market? Gen 4+, external safety (something I like, even though I love my current Glocks) no finger grooves (big plus in my book), mags from the factory with +2 extensions. The lanyard ring I could take or leave. Plus I dig the solid FDE finish on the gun and mags. I’d buy the MHS submission in a heartbeat.

  • 2War Abn Vet

    Glock is taking lessons from the Democrat Party on how to be a sore loser.

  • Dan

    Here come all the Glock whiners. You would think they have such a superior firearm that they had it in the bag. Before all you Glock fans protest I have a models 20,21, 22., 30 ,31, 32, 34, and 35. I like their reliability but compared to my S&W MP’s, Sig 320’s H&KVP’s and Walther PPQ’s they feel like a 2×4 and life is too short to have only ugly guns. There is nothing wrong with the Glocks except their ergonomics and I really only appreciated this after I purchased the S&W’s.

  • lookinoutforu

    The grip angle is not ideal on the Glock. Great handgun, but Glock painted itself in a corner. The M&P, 1911, Sig, Walther, Beretta, CZ, etc. are much more to my liking. More natural shooting, IMO.

  • Richard Lutz

    The US Army should adopt the Gen3 variant of the Glock 19, as did the US Navy SEALs in 2015 to replace the SIG MK25.

  • TNoebel

    Glock is all butt hurt because they lost. Too damn bad. Sig produces awesome pistols. Had my p320 for about a year and love the way it runs. I don’t hate Glock but cracks me up he says not to “settle” for Sig. He sounds so Hillary.