Was MHS a FAILURE? SIG vs. Glock, an In-Depth Analysis

After 13 years of searching for the US Army’s next pistol, a successor to the Beretta M9 has been selected. However, with the selection of the SIG P320 as the M17 and M18 Modular Handgun System, many individuals in the industry have been compelled to cry foul and demand the Army retry the competition between the two finalists, Glock and SIG.

Although I personally prefer Glock pistols to those made by SIG, and I believe Glock’s pistol was very likely the better of the two weapons, I am going to have to come down against the side that believes the competition should be retried. Doing so, I believe, would be a risky waste of time and money on what is essentially known quantity. Re-opening the problem would extend an already shamefully long effort to find a successor to the Beretta M9 handgun, as well as make the program vulnerable to a significant risk of cancellation. If the latter happened, there would be no new handgun at all, until a new program could be begun.

The video embedded below was released by firearms expert Chris Bartocci, and serves as a basic summary of the complaints against the Modular Handgun System program’s conclusion, and the arguments for re-opening the competition:

A brief summary of the points raised in his argument are as follows:

  1. The US Army did not conclude the testing laid out in the MHS RFP, and in doing so selected a winner prematurely after conducting a 12,500 round test. Because testing was not concluded, the Army does not know which pistol is the best one
  2. Also, for the same reason, maintenance schedules and spare parts packages cannot be developed for the handguns
  3. SIG’s Performance (sic) Verification Testing was conducted on the full-size pistol, with only 500 rounds through the compact variant
  4. No environmental/harsh conditions testing was conducted
  5. The military could see issues with the pistol after adoption, which testing would have uncovered
  6. SIG’s price is likely unsustainable, and he is skeptical about their spare parts bid as they submitted two separate pistols
  7. There is a lawsuit out on SIG from Steyr regarding the pistol’s chassis design, which is likely to be decided in Steyr’s favor – royalties from a favorable decision for Steyr would cost SIG even more on price
  8. The Government selected for “value” over “performance”
  9. The Army has a responsibility to complete this test
  10. It’s unfair to the companies who competed
  11. The US Army needs to provide the US serviceman with the finest weapon available, even if the weapon in question is just a pistol

Before I get into these arguments, I want to point out a couple of pieces of confusing language in the MHS RFP, the first being the difference between an Offeror and a Contractor. An Offeror is a competitor who has not yet won a contract. A Contractor has already won a contract. The MHS RFP has provision for up to 3 Offerors to become Contractors via contract award; but less than that could be chosen (in the event, only 1 was).

Second is the difference between the Bid Sample Test (BST) and the Product Validation Test (PVT) – which Bartocci accidentally refers to as the “Performance Verification Test”. The BST is a 49,300 round test involving sixteen sample firearms (out of a total of 36 sample firearms). Three of those firearms were each subjected to the 12,500 round test which Bartocci describes in his video, but also 3 more were each subjected to a 3,600 round high temperature test, and 10 more each subjected to a 1,000 round user evaluation.

Bartocci believes that the PVT was a “Phase II” of the program, however the RFP does not reflect this. Instead, it makes clear that the PVT is a test to ensure that the initial production handguns match the performance of the guns tested in the BST. From Section C of the RFP:


C.1.1. Objectives

The objective of this statement of work (SOW) is to define the requirements for the production and delivery of the Modular Handgun System (MHS) to the Government in accordance with the Governments MHS Purchase Descriptions, this SOW, and the associated product and data deliverables. The Contractor shall support and sustain the proposed handgun system to meet the Governments quantities required for the U.S. Army to test, operate, maintain and sustain the proposed MHS.

This SOW is broken out into 4 parts to support handgun and ammunition Production Verification Testing (PVT) / Down-Select and Evaluation (DSE) and Production. The layout is as follows:


Part A Handgun PVT/DSE

Part B Handgun Production / Compact PVT


Part A Ammunition PVT/DSE

Part B Ammunition Production

NOTE: The entire statement of work (parts A & B) is applicable to the single Contractor selected as a result of the down-select evaluation.

[emphasis mine]

The confusion regarding the BST versus the PVT is probably the result of this section. The Down-Select Evaluation (DSE) was a secondary evaluation that would only occur in the event that more than one Offeror was awarded a contract. Note that the Statement of Work (SOW) only references “the Contractor”, and states that the SOW applies to a single Contractor as well.

With that out of the way, I will address Bartocci’s individual points as briefly as I can while doing them justice. Note that, while I disagree with Bartocci’s overall conclusions about the program, I do not always disagree with each individual point.

  1. The MHS RFP did not guarantee a downselect to more than one pistol. The program manager had – as laid out in the RFP – a choice between downselecting to multiple pistols and running PVTs on all of them, or downselecting to just one, adopting the handgun, and then performing PVT. We can see that in the language of the RFP, below. From the Executive Summary:

    The Government intends to award up to three (3) Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts based on the results of the initial evaluation of the proposal submission by following the evaluation procedure contained in section M of this RFP. The Government will then make a final down-selection to a single contractor by following the evaluation procedures contained in section H of this RFP. The period of performance of the base contract(s) will be ten (10) years for the handgun, accessories and spares and five (5) years for the ammunition. Each contract that is awarded will be issued a delivery order in the base year to meet the minimum guarantee for the contract. The minimum contract guarantee will consist of the weapon system component package (CLIN 0001), as described in the statement of work. The weapon system component package items, which will be due 60 days from receipt of order will be used as part of the down-select evaluation as described in section H of this RFP. The Contractors not selected to provide production units, as a result of the down-select evaluation will have their contracts considered complete with no further obligation required by the Government. All bid sample hardware received from unsuccessful Offerors, with the exception of ammunition, will be returned in an as tested condition. These items will be returned to the respective Offeror per the same address from which it was received.

    From Section M:

    SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARDM.1 BASIS FOR AWARDM.1.1 The Government intends to make up to three (3) base awards as a result of this RFP. Each contractor will receive an order for the Weapon System Component Package requirements in accordance with CLIN 1001 of the base contract and Statement of Work C.3.1 which will satisfy the minimum quantity guarantee of each of the ID/IQ contract. The Government will select for award the proposals that are most advantageous and represent the best value to the Government using the trade-off method, with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving the appropriate consideration to the nine (9) evaluation factors: Bid Sample Test – Technical, Bid Sample Test – Other, Written Technical, License Rights Ammunition, License Rights Handgun and Accessories, Production/Manufacturing, Price, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making the integrated assessment of the evaluation results, the SSA will give due consideration to all of the Factors and Sub-Factors and their relative order of importance. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Sub-factor level are ineligible for award.

    These passages demonstrate that the contract allowed the Government to downselect to just 1 Offeror, and that a contract could be awarded on the basis of the initial Bid Sample Test (BST) and not the Product Validation Test (PVT).This fact is reflected in the opinion presented by the GAO in their rejection of Glock’s protest on the MHS contract.Further, the idea that the 12,500 round per gun (49,300 round per system) test was insufficient to determine which system was “the best” is unsupported. Bartocci cites the 35,000 rounds fired in the 1984 handgun trials that led to the Beretta 92FS being adopted as evidence that the MHS trials were insufficient. However, Bartocci fails to note that the 35,000 round figure was per system, not per gun. From the GAO report on the selection of the XM9:

    As shown by the table, the majority of malfunctions were class I, minor Class II malfunctions were generally not a problem. Army systems analysts noted that none of the class III malfunction rates was high considering that about 35,000 rounds had been fired on each system.

    In fact, in the XM9 trials, no individual pistol was subjected to firing more than 10,000 rounds:

  2. Spare parts packages and maintenance schedules are the responsibility of the Contractor, as per the MHS RFP. From Section C:

    C.3.2.11. MHS Rework and Repair
    Rework and Repair Procedures, along with the associated inspection and acceptance procedures, shall be documented by the Contractor and submitted to the Government, DI-MGMT-81910 (CDRL A039) for review and written approval by the PCO prior to implementation.

    Also, spare parts packages and maintenance schedules were required to be provided by the Offerors during Bid Sample Testing (BST), as per Section L:

    L.1.5.6. Replacement Barrels and Spare and Repair Parts: Each Offeror shall provide replacement barrels, spare and repair parts, magazines, and spare supplies for the cleaning kits adequate to support the evaluation.

    NOTE: A sufficient number of replacement barrels, magazines, spare and repair parts as determined by the Offeror, is required to support the following tests.

  3. Bartocci is referring to the BST, not the PVT. Whether only 500 rounds were fired through the compact SIG XM18 or not is unknown, and probably irrelevant. The XM18 is just an XM17 with a shorter slide and barrel, and probably does not have significant performance differences.
  4. High temperature testing was conducted as part of the BST, as per Page 317 of the RFP. While no dust tests or other such tests were conducted, it is unlikely that these tests were needed. Every pistol submitted to the competition shared the same basic design, and in the harsh conditions testing conducted during the M9 trials, no pistol displayed an exceptional degree of performance in these conditions. All performed well. From the GAO report on the M9 trials:
    Given that the designs tested in the MHS program were even more similar to each other than those of the XM9 trials, the absence of mud or salt water testing in the MHS program does not seem concerning.
  5. While it is possible that the military could see issues with the M17 post-adoption, these issues would almost certainly be due to manufacturing issues or easily changed design details, not due to issues with the fundamental design of the handgun. The fundamental operating mechanisms of all handguns tested in the MHS program are over 100 years old, their architecture over 40 years old, and they were all made by reputable manufacturers. This does not necessarily mean that these handguns will not have issues in service, but does suggest that any issues will be soluble and will not result in program termination.Further, it is the purpose of the PVT and First Article Testing (FAT) to establish that production articles are up to the standards established during the selection process.
  6. SIG’s bid is indeed very low, and the possibility that this price might come up in the future represents Bartocci’s strongest argument, by far. However, it is unclear how the Government would be supposed to justify the selection of the higher-priced competitor, over SIG, especially given that SIG’s bid was $100 million lower than Glock’s. If SIG’s price does rise in the future, that could be a matter of contention, but it does not seem to be a sound basis for selection of a different pistol, or for awarding more than one contract.
  7. I agree with Bartocci that Steyr’s lawsuit against SIG is – at least technically – on fairly firm ground. However, Steyr’s lawsuit came months after the MHS decision, so while it could possibly be justification for opening up bidding again, it is not a reason to determine that the MHS selection process was a failure.
  8. There does not appear to be any evidence that the Government selected for value over performance. The Government selected for value in the absence of any major performance differences – which is not a shock, given how similar the competitors were, and how mature modern handgun design is.
  9. The US Government will very likely complete both PVT and FAT testing, as per the requirements for the MHS program. If they did not, there would indeed be a scandal. Neither of these tests are intended to precede a contract award.
  10. Whether we like it or not, Glock competed, and lost. The US Government is under no obligation to award more than one contract.
  11. The US Army has an obligation to the taxpayer not to waste their money, as well. In the face of a $100 million price difference between the two bids, any performance differences between the SIG and Glock MHS submissions seem downright trivial, unless a major defect with one or the other is uncovered.

All this rebuttal is not to suggest that the MHS program was not in some way unusual. In June of 2015, the US Army released its second draft of the MHS RFP, and with it, Colonel Scott Armstrong, then Project Manager of Soldier Weapons, was quoted as saying:

We expect to release the final solicitation in 2016; this will be followed by a phased down-select process that will run through 2017.

So in mid-2015, the MHS program was expected to run until 2018 before a selection was made. Yet, selection was in fact made in mid-January of 2017, virtually a full year ahead of schedule. Those familiar with military procurement know that this virtually never happens without major program restructuring, suggesting that something very unusual occurred during MHS’s selection process. Conveniently, I have a theory as to what that was, and it has to do with the timing of the announcement of SIG’s win:

The announcement was made the day before the inauguration of the new administration, which was expected to carry with it a massive change leadership. Specifically, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter would be replaced with General James Mattis. Mattis, a Marine known for being a tenacious and hard-nosed but fair leader, was already by that time expected to shake up the defense landscape as Secretary. With MHS already on the chopping block and Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley having publicly denounced the program’s lagging time schedule, it is not unreasonable to suggest that program management feared it would be cancelled outright. In that event, it’s likely that the program’s officers were searching for ways to end the program early and declare a winner, before it could be cancelled by a porkfat-boiling Secretary Mattis.

Assuming this theory is true (and it may not be), soliciting final bids and down-selecting to just one contract would be the perfect way to close out the program early while still having done due diligence. If this is how it went down, then I applaud the MHS team for making a selection and salvaging a 13 year old effort that might otherwise have been canceled with nothing to show for it. Although SIG would probably not have been my pick, it is very likely that the P320 will do just fine as a standard handgun, and I have nothing but congratulations for SIG for their big win.

It’s not all over for Glock, either. There will be other contracts – the other services are reportedly not entirely on-board with MHS yet – and Glock is still an extremely strong competitor on the market. And, if they’re listening, I hope they bring their XM17 to market, as it’s quite a slick little handgun.


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.


  • Don Ward

    This is why military contractors should just be forced to battle in THUNDERDOME!

    “Two men enter. One man leaves”

    Of course that would mean a contract to build THUNDERDOME would have to be negotiated…

    • Beju

      Unless a war is going on, then it will just be awarded to Halliburton.

      • Klaus Von Schmitto

        And my old friends at Dyncorp will supply the manpower.

        • Brad

          Hey hey!!! L3 wants in too!

      • Stephen Paraski

        PAE is the new favorite.

    • Major Tom

      The THUNDERDOME will be built ad-hoc by infantry assigned the detail. Which means it will mostly be a pit dug out of the ground.

    • Bill

      I can’t imagine the specs for the bungy cords, but getting a hard-to-start chainsaw should be easy.

      • Bobby McKellar

        Can you IMAGINE the safety brief about bungee cord usage?

        • Bill


    • n0truscotsman

      It will be built 5 years late and 300 million over budget. With skillcraft hammers and shovels the government paid 500 dollars a piece for.

  • iksnilol

    Is it just me or is a Glock with a safety a bit weird to look at?

    • Sermon 7.62

      Not just the safety but the oversized grip too. The safety sucks because it’s obviously should be uncomfortable, and the grip comes from the 17 series.

      • richard kluesek

        Correct, they are mimicking the configurations of Ruger SR9, FN 509, and even the earlier French MAT 1950 pistol, – short slide and barrel for quick holster presentation and large grip frame for control while drawing and rapid firing.

        • iksnilol

          Looks weird, I’ve always preferred the opposite. Longer barrel and slide for easier shooting and a shorter grip for easier concealing.

          • A.WChuck

            I don’t think the US Army concerns itself with concealment of pistols, but I can see your point for personal concealed carry.

    • noob

      it looks a lot like an ambi version of the Cominolli Custom glock safety lever kit people install with a dremel


      • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

        actually hat safety looks better Glocks looks like the copies the safety of a high point.

  • Hopefully the formatting unflucks itself by the time I wake up.

    • Don Ward

      Do I get a prize for reading EVERYTHING that is written and not simply scrolling past the middle and most of the end bits in order to make a smart aleck comment?

      • Samuel Millwright

        Yes, you’ve now been promoted to compliance and contractual fulfillment department…



        That’s kinda punishment

      • Yeah, a booby prize ya fkn NERD!

  • ReadyOrNot

    I’d love to own an XM17 myself, it looks slick in that configuration and I’m not even a Glock guy! I think Glock is missing out on the market that likes manual safeties..

    • jonp

      I’ve always thought so. I don’t know why they don’t make both to give the consumer a choice. I have no preference in a self defense sidearm but my wife likes a safety. I got us each an M&P Shield, one of each. Another good feature of the full size M&P which I also have one of is the 3 backstrap size choice. Easily done for a manu, heck the friggen frame is plastic. The only reason I can think of for Glock to not do so at this point is shear arrogance. “We are Glock, the finest handgun on the planet, we don’t have to change anything”

      • ReadyOrNot

        I think it’s an Austrian superiority complex too of which I think of Steyr too.

  • Paul Rain

    Not a failure. The Glock was not adopted.

  • jonp

    Great write up. I am and was amazed and slightly appalled that it took Big Army over a decade to select a new sidearm. That is just ridiculous and I think the conclusion that Gen Mattis would have ended this fiasco immediately is not far off the mark. It might take that long for a new tank, submarine or airplane but for a pistol?

    You do express your opinion that the Glock was your preference or that it was most likely a better pistol but the article says it was not better, it says they both are good and the Sig was $100 Million cheaper. Why do you think the Glock would have been a better choice?

    • Klaus Von Schmitto

      Never be surprised that people who have a program called “Money as a Weapon System(MAAWS)” waste money.

    • It is what is required to ensure that contracts are fairly awarded. Without a system like this contracts would be awarded to whoever was buddies up with the contracting officer, or whoever make the most convincing proposal which would be untested.

      Col Boyd tells a story where as an USAF acquisitions officer a manufacture came in to make a proposal for an aircraft. They didn’t know he was also an engineer, they thought he was some dumb fighter jock. They showed him a drag graphs that were clearly faked, and he piped up looking at it “So if I follow this chart right, it wouldn’t even need an engine, at slow speed it would be generating thrust.”

    • I personally like Glocks for a variety of minor reasons, and I like that Glock met both requirements with a single handgun. I am not sure why there needs to be two different variants for this role; one would seem to do just fine.

      But SIG’s gun was very good, too.

  • Glock was also the laziest, least innovative or modular pistol submitted to the MHS.

    The Gen 4 ‘modular backstraps’ are a sham – they offer no provision to make the grip smaller / change the grip angle. They just let you stick larger back straps on top of the handguns frame. As if increasing the size of the grip was needed.

    It’s at the point where Lone Wolf and Polymer 80 make a better Glock frame then Glock.

    • Paveway

      Not to mention they put a 19 slide on a 17 frame. Probably the most useless combination.

      Sig submitted their compact frame with a compact and a full size slide. Glock could have easily done the same.

      I’m really starting to buy into the theory that glock didn’t really want the contract.

      • Sunshine_Shooter

        I don’t buy that. They stood to make way too much money to not even want it. I believe that they were just super lazy and figured that their name and reputation and afterthought compliance (source: thumb safety) would be enough to carry through and win the day.

      • John Morrison

        Actually, NO. Sig submitted one frame size with 2 different slides. The M17 is the P320 Carry with a full size slide (Note the short dust cover). The M18 is the P320 Carry. Both are 17 round guns and use the same mags.

    • john huscio

      The gen 4s have excellent ergonomics imo.

      • I’m a Glock guy, the bulk of my pistols and pistol shooting is done with Glocks.

        But compared to the Timberwolf Glock frame, or any of the modern striker designs out there (P99, PPQ, VP9, M&P, CZ P10, etc)

        • Frederick Davison

          I have tried 2 different Glocks. Both of them,after just a few rounds, totally messed up my trigger finger. I’m talking blister! They were the only handguns that I’ve shot that caused that. I think the Sig was the better choice. Yes I’m a Sig fan.

      • Sunshine_Shooter

        If Gen4 ergos are so good, then why are there a ton of successful businesses operating who’s sole purpose is to re-contour and re-angle Glock frames?

    • n0truscotsman

      Why should Glock reinvent the wheel?

      You act as if the P320 is a pinnacle of innovation when it isn’t. All handguns are derivatives of tech thats been on the market for some time.

      • int19h

        It wasn’t asked to reinvent the wheel. It was asked for a very specific wheel configuration, and it said, “here, we have this thing, it’s round!”.

        • n0truscotsman

          Why is this myth being spread around that glock didn’t somehow ‘meet the requirements’?

      • Glock doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel. But incorporating the basic ergonomics of “removable back straps” that Walther invented in 1997 with the P99, and are now incorporated into nearly every polymer pistol on the market, is not too much to ask.

        Glock is one of the largest and most profitable firearms companies in the world. If a small company like Lone Wolf can make the Timberwolf frame, but the best Glock will field is their Gen 4 stackable backstraps, something is wrong.

      • tiger

        They were asked for a modular pistol. The Glock did not even try to be.

        • People keep saying that, but Glock met all the requirements and made the downselect. So, it seems like everyone’s perception of modularity is related to a single feature (chassis system), while the Army’s requirements for modularity are related to capability.

        • nicholsda

          Modular meant more than just grip size. It also included barrel and mag changes so that more than one caliber could be used. I have both a Sig P250 and a P320. I can change barrels between them and have a 9mm striker fired, a 9mm hammer fired, a .40S&W striker fired, and a .40S&W hammer fired. And then you can go for the size changes as a plus.

  • Tym O’Byrne

    Pick a handgun and live with it, whats the big deal, some act like its going to be a soldiers main battle weapon, lowest bidder who meets the requirements, that the .mil way…

    • Bullphrog855

      This entire competition is a waste of money for a new gun that has little utility to replace an old gun that had it’s problems polished out.

      Just get it over with all ready and move on.

      • int19h

        You know what the real problem with the old guns was?

        They were too heavy. Being that a handgun is a dead weight for the vast majority of soldiers carrying it, shaving quite a few ounces by utilizing polymer frames is a good thing.

        • Koh

          We should have just adopted a Hi-Power like pretty much all of our allies.

          • noob
          • Samuel Millwright

            I have a full size and compact! Love them!

            They’d be great service pistols too, since the 1.2 inch width is no big deal for service pistols.

          • Kivaari

            Not many places still use the High Power.

          • Anonymoose

            Yeah, they’ve mostly switched to Glocks or USPs, but that could be us now if we had done it years ago when the Army was looking at new sidearms in the early 1950s (the program that the Colt Commander and the S&W M39 were developed for)…

          • tiger

            After 75 years, it has seen it’s day too. And is being retired.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Err …. No.. For one most if our allies use glocks..

            For two, pistol technologies etc have advanced substantially in the near CENTURY since hi power came out.

            For three … If you didn’t know1&2 … Democratic underground is that way… *points left… Faaaarrr left*

          • James O Donnell

            All of whom have since dumped it. Mostly for Glocks.

        • Bullphrog855

          Pistols have no place on the hip of anyone who is hard press for ounces; and the military acknowledges this.

          If an MP is having issue with the weight of an M9, I don’t think that’s an issue with the gun, and it sure as hell doesn’t justify a 600mil contract.

          • int19h

            Of course. What justified the contract was that the existing pile of M9s was too costly to continue servicing. So they’d have to either order more of those – under new terms – or find something better. They went and found something better.

          • Bullphrog855

            If you can support that, then that’s enough to justify it IMO, I’ll concede but I haven’t seen those numbers. And in which case, buying the best and most modern gun in the competition is ideal.

            That said if servicing an M9 isn’t as expensive as procuring a new gun then there isn’t enough there to justify the competition.

          • James O Donnell

            The problem with that theory is that it’s not really “something better” — it’s just another 9mm pistol — and in the real world those M9s are going to remain in service for many years. I was still carrying an M1911A1 on duty a dozen years after the M9 had “replaced” it.

            A new, completely different design being adopted means a lot more than shiny new pistols. It means a complete revamp of training — but the old system still has to be trained on as well. New training for armorers. A whole new set of spare parts, new magazines, potentially new web gear… While still continuing to support the legacy system.

            In the real military, what this ends up meaning is that troops end up inadequately trained — or completely untrained — on the weapon they are actually carrying. Armorers end up with even more spares and tools to account for and maintain.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Hmm… All those green on blues etc say you’re 100% wrong and completely out of touch in your beliefs.

          • Bradley

            You could just as easily apply that logic to every single piece of equipment and probably add an extra 100 pounds. It probably wasn’t a big deal when the average soldier only carried a uniform, a rifle, and a few essentials. As the amount of equipment increases you would have to reduce weight more and more for it to be feasible to carry everything.

        • iksnilol

          I think the problem with the old guns was that they were 20+ years old and worn.

          • Samuel Millwright

            And obsolete, heavy, and very much unsatisfactory in light of increasing numbers of female service personnel!

            I’ve owned a beretta 92 for most of my adult life and out of dozens of females who I’ve had try the 92 less than 5 liked it or were comfortable with it. Whether they were 95 pound 4’11” or 6’2″ and .. Solid it didn’t seem to matter.

            My buddy whose wife was 6’2″ aettled on a .40 springfield xd compact, which she loved and shot great… A glaringly different response and skill level than the beretta elicited

        • Bobby McKellar

          The old guns (M9’s) were/are worn smooth out… Just like the 1911’s were when the M9 replaced it. Many were just completely “junked out” and you couldn’t hit a thing with them. The last one I qualified with and carried was pitiful. That being said I wonder how either of these two MHS finalists would hold up over the years…

      • Koh

        There is also the issue of a decocker vs. a safety on the M9. A decocker drops the hammer and leaves a safe double action pistol ready to use. The safety on the M9 drops the hammer and leaves you with a dead gun until the safety is taken off. The problem with this is that the decocker/safety lever on the Beretta 92 family is ergonomically horrible…it is not east to take off when presented from a holster, and has a high probably of being inadvertently activated when manipulating the slide to charge a gun or clear a malfunction.

        The only way I would consider a 92-family gun is a decocker model so worst case you have to deal with a double action pull instead of a potentially dead gun.

        • idahoguy101

          Geez… How come no one complains about the slide mounted safeties on S&W, Ruger, and Walther? Why is it just with Beretta? IMO this is called a lack of training issue!
          Every M9 can be modified to either a no external safety double action only aka, Beretta 92D, or to decock only Beretta 92G like the French have.
          If you don’t like Beretta just say you don’t like Beretta…

          • A.WChuck

            Modern S&W, Ruger, and Walther all moved the safety to where it belongs, on the frame and all use down for safety off.

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          The M9A3 addresses that issue fairly well (in my opinion, yours may differ). I think it’s also user-switchable from safety to decocker-only, which I’d do as soon as I got it home.

      • tiger

        Not true. Gun tech has moved on since 1985. The 320 represents that change.

        • Bullphrog855

          I’m not arguing otherwise

    • tiger

      Well for many users it is. All the services are involved.

    • Gary Griffiths

      Oh, that that were the case! I actually had to overcome a great obstacle in the XM11 program in that the quantity required to arm CID Special Agents and various other plainclothes personnel was not sufficient to justify a procurement program. Since all weapons systems HAD to “jump through all the hoops” we were all but told “You can’t have a compact pistol. You’ll just have to carry the M9 and like it.” The Navy had already pulled out of the program, pouting because we wouldn’t consider a 9mm revolver, and the Air Force had been told that the M9 WOULD be acceptable for pilot use. Fortunately, the AF gun guys made it plain that they would issue a more compact 9mm to aircrews if one was adopted, so the program continued.

      There are more specs involved in procuring a weapon, even one for concealed carry, than anyone not familiar with the process could imagine. For example, the finish and grips had to be resistant to chemical warfare agents and decontamination agents. Likewise, nuclear radiation. If it all went into the pot, we were supposed to be able to pry the M11 out of the crispy fried hands of an unfortunate colleague and immediately shoot Spetsnaz with it! Not something you’d ordinarily consider when procuring weapons for your detective force.

      • Sunshine_Shooter

        The Navy wanted a 9mm REVOLVER to be considered? What the what?

        • Gary Griffiths

          Yep. Rationale given to me was that they couldn’t keep their hotshot carrier pilots from loading hot/exotic rounds into their survival weapons, so they wanted a revolver to ensure it would function reliably with whatever rounds were loaded into it. Also, it would function with 9mm flare rounds! Strange but true!

    • RBR

      A sidearm is for when you are in deep dodo. It had better be reliable. It is also useful in clearing buildings. I’ll ask the question, if they are not used much how did they get worn out?

      • MSG1000

        Getting carried around can still cause wear on certain parts. Personnel also have to regularly qualify with them anyway. It all adds up.

  • Dave

    ” and I believe Glock’s pistol was very likely the better of the two weapons”

    Except it was only ever at best equal in a small number of tests and the 320 outperformed it significantly in everywhere else.

    • JD

      No, no it didn’t.

      • DougSK

        It seems you haven’t read page 6 of the GAO release. By their very own metrics, SIG did win.

        • JD

          Sig didn’t win, they were awarded the contract. How can you say they won when all the testing wasn’t even completed?

          • DougSK

            Discounting factors 7 & 8 for now we’ll concentrate on factors 1-6.

            Marginal = 1
            Acceptable = 2
            Good = 3
            Outstanding = 4

            On Factors 1-6

            Glock scored 15

            and on those same factors

            SIG scored 20.

            Factor 8 is a push and the $100 million in Factor 7 stands pretty peerless.

            The strippers and blow didn’t work this time.

          • JD

            I will have to read this factor list you refer to before i comment further. As ive read other accounts that the glock outperformed the sig. I think right here on TFB there was info about the sigs having problems. But like i said ill do more research before i comment.

          • Bobby McKellar

            It’s in black and white on the GAO report. They tested to the point where they were SATISFIED with the results. That was all that was required, so your “point” is moot.

          • JD

            Its clearly obvious you havent a clue as to how things work.

    • Nicks87

      “significantly”? That’s a bit of a stretch isnt it?

  • it’s just Boris

    Folks, the way this works is, if two pistols meet the specs, the less expensive one represents the best value, and will likely be purchased; even if the other one is substantially “better” by some measure, if that measure isn’t part of the specs it just doesn’t matter.

    Let’s say, hypothetically, there’s a spec to have an average group size of 2″ or less from a rest at 25 yards, using standard 124 grain ball ammo.

    If pistol “A” makes 1.97″ groups, and pistol “B” makes 0.12″ groups, which one meets the spec? The answer is both. If pistol “A” costs 1/2 of what pistol “B” does, then the best value for the money is pistol “A”. No matter that “B” might be a better pistol in some sense, “A” also met the specs and cost less.

    You can argue the specs aren’t good enough, sure. You can argue that “B” is a better gun, absolutely. But the real question is, is “A” good enough, according to the specs, and does it represent the best value from the set of entrants that meet the specs?

    • int19h

      The thing that people always forget about the money saved is that it’s not like that money will not be spent. It will be spent alright, it’ll just be spent on something else. Hopefully, something else that’s more important than a sidearm.

    • MIke H


      It’s not about what’s “best”, it’s about what gets the job done adequately in the most cost effective way. The Glock might have been “better” but the P320 was good enough to more than adequately get the job done, and did it far cheaper. Bonus points that it was the more modular platform in the Modular Handgun System competition than the Glock.

  • Sermon 7.62

    Both these pistols suck a big one. In comparison to what the Chinese are offering and the Russians, this crap should be mentioned with a prefix “it’s a shame”.


    Time doesn’t stand still, and the times of the NATO handguns as the standard are over. The Russian PL-15 is a much better pistol than both of these cheep gimmicks, too.

    • Joe

      I can’t tell if this is saracasm or if he’s serious. It’s funnier if he’s serious.

      • Sermon 7.62

        You must have a lot of experience with the QX-04 and PL-15.
        Tell me about it.

        • Green Hell

          Noone has any experience with PL-15 because it’s still a prototype, but you can find enough negative opinions on other new Russian pistols like Grach and GSh-18 to understand why Russian SF buy thousands of Glocks instead. Read the guy named k-a-r-d-e-n on LJ.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You are referencing a blogger as a source of reliable information? I can open a blog too. Quote me, then.

            Now, as for the PL-15, it has received lots of favourable reviews and it is made by the KC. That also means something. And as for the “thousands” of Glocks, it is in fact just 400. And just for the FSB. And it was in 2010.

          • Destro Yakisoba

            You should start a blog, so we can know everything you know. And then you will have a blog of you own.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Hire me.

          • Destro Yakisoba

            Will you work for skittles?

          • Sermon 7.62

            You are so sharp, man. Your tongue is like a razor.

          • Destro Yakisoba
          • Green Hell

            Read the damn guy before you judje, damn it. He is a Russian SF operative who worked in anti-terrosrist operations in Caucasus for years who happens to run a blog about weapons and gear he uses. There’s no other way to find “reliable information” about modern Russian weapons because our domestic civilian market is next to nothing and hanguns are banned completely.
            KC is almost completely a monopolist for Russian military small arms right now and non of their “reviews” and information can’t be trusted more than any other advertisement. The opinions of people like Larry Vickers shooting a gun for 5 minutes are not reviews eather. K-a-r-d-e-n on the other hand have anough expirience on the field to say about the quality control on post-soviet weapons, even modern AK’s. Read him.

          • Sermon 7.62

            But I looked it up, and the official information is that in 2010 FSB purchased 400 Glocks.

          • Green Hell

            Orsis factory is curently assembling Glocks in Russia for both government and sport shooters and those 400 was an order from Austria before they even started. It’s safe to to say there are much more than just a few hundreds of them in Russia. And i wasn’t talking about Glocks, i was talking about other highly advertised but failed russian pistol designs. Most people who had to use MP-443 said they’d rather have their Makarov’s and Stechkin’s back, not to say the good modern pistol like Glock.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Perhaps, so.
            But I like PL-15 a lot.

          • int19h

            I’ve got to ask: who the hell are you, if you’re a Russian gun enthusiast, yet don’t know who KardeN is?

          • I think he’s a troll from /k/.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I have no idea what /k/ is. Explain, please.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I am 50% Russian. Been to Russia 3 times, as a tourist.
            I am from Ukraine, but left it a long time ago.

          • int19h
          • Sermon 7.62

            You know that for 8 out of 10 it goes in reversed orientation. Post all kinds of crap about Russia. I think that is much more sickening.

            As for me, I don’t even like Russia, or the Russian culture, and to be honest I think the Russians are too rude and are not too sensible people.

            But at the same time I am a socialist, and I hate capitalism. I hate all these stupid liberals. So I support the Russians.

        • Joe

          Do you have any experience with either of them whatsoever? Both are quite interesting designs, I like the bore axis of the PL15 and the locking mechanism of the QX04 is fascinating. But until they are commercially available, independently tested, and evaluated in combat, there’s no evidence backing your opinion. Maybe a decade from now you’ll end up being right, we’ll just have to wait and see.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Have these Glock and Sig gimmicks been evaluated in combat?
            Nope. So, “we’ll just have to wait and see”.

            For now we can assume that both QX-04 and PL-15 are more interesting, promising examples of a modern pistol.

          • SP mclaughlin

            The MHS Glock isn’t that different from regular Glocks that have been used by military forces for a while now.

          • Sermon 7.62

            In combat? No.

          • Kivaari

            Lots of Glocks have seen service in military and police combat.

          • Sermon 7.62

            For example?
            Police doesn’t count.

          • Kivaari

            Police don’t count? They get years of service and high round counts, at least where I come from. My G17 had over 30,000 round through it.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Because conditions matter. Police doesn’t count.

          • john huscio


          • Sermon 7.62

            Who is using Glocks in Iraq?

          • Matt

            I’m pretty sure the Navy SEALs adopted Glocks a couple years ago, and several foreign military units use them. LE agencies have been using Glocks for decades now. The Sig is new but it is based on proven design principles and developed by a company with a proven track record.

            Sure the QX-04 and PL-15 may be interesting and promising designs but what evidence do we have that they are better than Glock which is a known quantity.

          • Sermon 7.62

            I am 100% sure that PL-15 is going to be better than Glock.

          • Uniform223

            I’m 100% sure that your comment is your own opinion and when compared to the facts of reality is 100% pure uncut male bovine fecal matter.

          • Sermon 7.62

            The facts are, in this case, that both pistols in question are foreign products for the US, and that PL-15 is a Russian pistol we still know nothing about, except for what we have heard from the people who are testing it.

    • Paul Patriot

      Nonsense. A Glock with possess all the reliability that the military will ever need, I have been shooting glocks for over 25 years, they are more than a viable option.

      To say it sucks a big one is nonsensical ignorance…..but everyone is entitled their opinion.

      • Sermon 7.62

        Glocks are reliable but not ergonomic.

        • Green Hell

          They are perfectly ergonomic for a combat pistol unless you have baby hands.

          • Sermon 7.62

            “For a combat pistol”. Interesting.
            Explain, please.

          • Green Hell

            Well, AK-47 is a perfect example of a combat weapon that sacrifised some ergonomics for ruggidness and reliability. It could have easily had a magwell instaead of a rock in mag, a bolt catch, left side nonresblahblahing charging handle, some fancy safety selector, but all of those are potential weak points and AK is loved exactly because it doesn’t have any of them. Same with Glock. It’s just a thick square brick with a big magazine, that just fires when you need it. Always. The more extre features and “emprovements” – the more of a chance to screw something up.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Yes, but that is not what I meant.

            It has to be a safe pistol. It is not.
            It has to be a comfortable pistol. It is not, the grip is terrible and not comfortable at all.
            It has to accept all accessories and it doesn’t have the 1913 rail.
            It sucks!

            Yet, the PL-15 has an ergonomic grip, the 1913 rail and safeties on both sides, and so it is a better pistol.

          • john huscio

            Pistols with safties are inferior

          • MrPotatoHead

            I have huge hands and I get slide bite every time I shoot a Glock. Owned one for several years, but sold it because I was tired of bleeding after every match and range session. Couple that with the fact that the grip angle was just not comfortable. Adding a beavertail to the Glock took care of the slide bite, but actually made the grip angle worse because there was now a piece of plastic pushing the gun down in your hand.

            I own a P320 Compact and it’s a far more comfortable gun to shoot over any Glock.

        • JD

          That’s your opinion, not fact dumbass.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Such facts are based on opinions, imbecile!

          • n0truscotsman

            I really dont understand how people dont think they’re ergonomic.

            I can operate them just as quick firing left or right handed, the magazine release is located in a convenient place, and anything else functions like 99% of every other pistol.

            So it doesn’t have the grip comfort of a race gun. BFD.

      • txJM

        Reliability? Check
        Have to pull the trigger to field strip? Check
        Long trigger reset that makes handling with gloves prohibitive? Check
        No night sights from the factory? Check

        My ax is reliable. Doesn’t make it better than my chainsaw.

        • Sledgecrowbar

          I never understood why it’s a detractor to have to pull the trigger to field strip. Billions of field strips have occurred with Glocks, maybe trillions, and the only negligent discharges that have occurred are because someone didn’t check the chamber first.

          Also I find my Glock trigger resets to be in line with my SIGs, HK, and CZs.

          And a cursory glance at online retailers shows plenty of night sight-equipped Glocks. I honestly don’t know if that’s a distributor-added thing or what. I have tritium sights on some of my guns and I do like them. I think a military pistol should have them, so the MHS should specify that the offerings come with them and any contract require them too. No industry giant in the MHS would have a problem securing a supply if it meant the difference between getting the contract or not.

          Don’t get me wrong, I’m not entirely against the P320 being chosen, after all, it is a modular pistol light years moreso than Glock. Being able to replace the grip frame is a great idea.

          • SPQR9

            “….. the only negligent discharges that have occurred are because someone didn’t check the chamber first.”

            So you answered your question and did not realize it? A design that increases a failure scenario unnecessarily is a bad design. If the service saw a small rate increase of injuries as a result, those costs alone could be significant in aggregate.

          • Sledgecrowbar

            It doesn’t increase a failure scenario if checking the chamber is something you are always supposed to do anyway. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

          • some other joe

            You used an S-word with respect to a military force. ” Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”
            Seriously, does requiring a trigger pull to disassemble the weapon increase the chance of a negligent discharge? Add in ~50,000 users in a given year. With each ND costing ~$500K (based on life insurance + death gratuity, assume similar cost for long term care and catastrophic injury insurance), how much does the gov’t risk adding each year to already >$100,000,000 overage incurred with adopting the Glock vs. the SIG?

          • Samuel Millwright

            Play exhausted games accidentally kill a fellow soldier…

            Wtf man… Sadistic control freaks and the militantly stupid..


          • txJM

            Asking why it matters whether or not the trigger needs to be pulled for takedown – on the basis of statistical improbability – is like asking why the trigger should be covered by the holster…or why loaded chamber indicators exist…or why anyone would care about a drop safety. We shouldn’t be dropping our guns, right?

            But, since you did ask, here’s a direct answer: it’s a sloppy design, and a better one exists.
            Seems pretty simple.

          • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

            never under estimate the potential for human stupidity

        • john huscio

          Theres nothing about thd p320 that makes it a chainsaw compared to a glock.

          • txJM

            I’ve just given you three.

            Go shoot a P320 and come back for a bite of humble pie.

      • Samuel Millwright

        Nope, it sucks… Hard and so does the sig too…

    • DW

      QX4 is meh, according to Chinese special forces personnel who wrote a review… in Chinese and in their state-run media.

      • Sermon 7.62

        “It is targeted for international market and exportation”.
        QX-04 is based on QSZ-92, their service pistol in 5.8×21mm.

  • Brian

    I do wish they would provide the best pistol instead of the cheapest regardless of who it is. Also, I do agree the modularity aspect of this selection was over-emphasized. I just don’t see soldiers, sailors swapping grip frames at all. This really is an example of gov’t bureaucracy and how bad it is at making decisions.

    • it’s just Boris

      How do you define “best”? Keep in mind it’s not just for you, but for the service as a whole.

      And how much are you prepared to pay for “best” vs “good enough to meet all of the predeternined specs?”

      • Treiz

        You defined “best” by putting the products through extensive testing, at least as extensive as the last pistol that was selected, which is the point of the video Chris made. Watch it.

        • Which is what the Army did, contra to Chris’s argument.

          • Treiz

            opinions vary

          • “at least as extensive as the last pistol that was selected”

            They fired 25% more rounds through the guns, how is this not “at least as extensive”?

            You can make the harsh conditions testing argument, but does anyone really believe that would reveal differences between the competing pistols when they all share the same design?

          • Treiz

            “They fired 25% more rounds through the guns”
            Through SOME of the guns.
            “but does anyone really believe that would reveal differences between the competing pistols when they all share the same design?”
            Most of the guns that FAILED to make the down select also share the “same design”, so obviously there are differences that need to be teased out through extensive testing.

          • “”They fired 25% more rounds through the guns”
            Through SOME of the guns.”

            System round count for XM9 was 35,000 rounds. System round count for XM17 was 49,300. That’s 41% more. Each individual pistol got 12,500 rounds, versus 7,000-10,000. That’s at least 25% more rounds fired on individual pistols.

            So the idea that MHS wasn’t tested as much as M9 is simply false.

          • Treiz

            Do I really need to quote your own piece at you?
            “Whether only 500 rounds were fired through the compact SIG XM18 or not is unknown, and probably irrelevant.”
            That’s not 41% more than anything, or even 25%, I find that highly relevant and Chris would be one of the people to know. I don’t know why you are so quick to dismiss this, maybe do some of that journalist stuff instead of squatting in the comments.
            You glossed over my point about the other “same designs” failing the down select, is that probably irrelevant too?

          • You are aware that the SIG compact MHS is just the full size with a slightly longer slide and barrel, right? It’s very unlikely to have any performance differences. Also, the compact having only 500 rounds through it is an unverified claim.

            “You glossed over my point about the other “same designs” failing the down select, is that probably irrelevant too?”

            It’s entirely irrelevant. Exactly what about mud and saltwater testing do you expect to cause substantial variance between the different competitors? This is something that is much more dependent on the basic mechanics and construction of the pistols, something that is practically uniform across all the contestants.

          • Treiz

            “You are aware that the SIG compact MHS is just the full size with a slightly longer slide and barrel, right? ”
            I am aware that making seemingly innocuous changes to mechanical systems can lead to changes in performance. It is not a given that similar systems will perform similarly, otherwise we wouldn’t need testing at all and the Army could have saved a lot of money by looking at the reported issues with the P320s that have already been adopted by other agencies and disqualified them from the program.
            “It’s entirely irrelevant. Exactly what about mud and saltwater testing do you expect to cause substantial variance between the different competitors? This is something that is much more dependent on the basic mechanics and construction of the pistols, something that is practically uniform across all the contestants”
            …and yet all contestants didn’t uniformly make it past the down select.

          • “I am aware that making seemingly innocuous changes to mechanical systems can lead to changes in performance. It is not a given that similar systems will perform similarly, otherwise we wouldn’t need testing at all and the Army could have saved a lot of money by looking at the reported issues with the P320s that have already been adopted by other agencies and disqualified them from the program.”

            Mountain out of a molehill. There is almost certainly no difference in performance between the full size and compact. There’s probably not even a major difference in slide weight.

            “…and yet all contestants didn’t uniformly make it past the down select.”

            Which didn’t include mud or salt spray testing, so what’s your point?

            What about the different pistols leads you to believe they would perform differently at salt spray testing – and especially in such a way that would be uncorrectable later? What about them leads to you believe there would be a substantial difference in mud testing?

            Salt spray is going to be a corrosion test. All of the pistols are made of polymer and coated steel. How should we expect there to be a major difference, especially given that the basic design is so mature?

            Mud is going to have to do with the vulnerability of the locking surfaces, frame rails, and the feedway. All pistols have virtually identical locking surfaces, frame rails, and feedways, and in each respect the design has been established for several decades. Why should we expect a difference?

          • Treiz

            “Mountain out of a molehill. There is almost certainly no difference in performance between the full size and compact. There’s probably not even a major difference in slide weight.”
            Opinions vary. I see a whole lot of “almost certainly” and “probably” that could be avoided with sufficient testing.
            “Which didn’t include mud or salt spray testing, so what’s your point?”
            The point is your “same design” justification is bullshit. What’s good for the SIG is good for the Glock, or M&P or any of the others.
            “What about them leads to you believe there would be a substantial difference in mud testing?

            How should we expect there to be a major difference, especially given that the basic design is so mature?

            Why should we expect a difference?”

            Because the pistols ARE different, and have already performed differently in basic and strenuous testing. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t acknowledge that VERY similar pistols performed very differently even in preliminary tests, and then expect similar pistols to always perform similarly. You are contradicting yourself.

          • “Opinions vary. I see a whole lot of “almost certainly” and “probably” that could be avoided with sufficient testing.”

            Full side P320 slide:


            Carry P320 slide:


            So the 0.005 pounds difference between them is going to make a huge difference? I don’t think so. That’s like the weight of the front sight.

            “The point is your “same design” justification is bullshit. What’s good for the SIG is good for the Glock, or M&P or any of the others.”

            It’s a non-issue. The basic design has been established to work well in those conditions. You could test for those things, but it would almost certainly be unnecessary, like it was in the XM9 trials.

            “Because the pistols ARE different, and have already performed differently in basic and strenuous testing.”

            If you have a gun with a magazine that has a screwed up feed angle, it won’t feed right. If a gun’s action block isn’t properly hardened and tempered, it will break. If the pins aren’t made right, they may break or fall out. You discover those things during evaluation and endurance testing, not in mud or salt spray testing.

            Go look at actual military environmental testing. This is a well-characterized problem.

            “You can’t have it both ways, you can’t acknowledge that VERY similar pistols performed very differently even in preliminary tests, and then expect similar pistols to always perform similarly. You are contradicting yourself.”

            No, I’m not contradicting myself. Manufacturing issues are not something that would be winnowed out by salt spray or mud testing. Those tests are useless for that.

          • Treiz

            “So the 0.005 pounds difference between them is going to make a huge difference? I don’t think so.”
            Opinions vary.
            “It’s a non-issue. ”
            Opinions vary.
            “You discover those things during evaluation and endurance testing, not in mud or salt spray testing”
            Opinions vary.
            “No, I’m not contradicting myself.”
            Opinions vary. In 5 posts you have managed to arrive exactly where we started. You want to go another round?

          • Sounds like you’re outta gas.

          • Treiz

            lol, there was never any gas, that’s the point, or in your case, there probably wasn’t any gas, or almost certainly no gas, or no gas in the mole hill, or no gas in the environmental testing, or maybe the presence or lack of gas isn’t all that relevant. You do post a lot about something that you claim to be irrelevant. >.>

          • Cool bro.

          • Treiz

            You really can’t stop? lol

          • iksnilol

            Opinions vary.

          • Samuel Millwright

            You’re wrong…. And btw he has facts plus working knowledge of the subject which lets him just say you’re wrong without doing the math…

            Why? Because we understand how statistics, tolerances, and basic physics math which … If you understood these things you wouldn’t be arguing this point.

          • Treiz

            “You’re wrong…. And btw he has facts plus working knowledge of the subject which lets him just say you’re wrong without doing the math…”
            LOL, you are free to place your faith in whomever you want, don’t expect me to take on faith OPINIONS of a person blatantly contradicting themselves in the comments section, and when presented with clear and concise evidence of such their response is “nuh uh”
            “Why? Because we understand how statistics, tolerances, and basic physics math which … If you understood these things you wouldn’t be arguing this point.”
            By all means, don’t stop there, please explain. I mean, it’s “we” now, that reach for authority, I love to hear all about it.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Of course it won’t make a difference!

            I mean… Test 5000 pistols with slides weighing each amount with 5000 rounds per pistol and you MIGHT gather enough data to find a performance difference…

            Except no, that doesn’t work either!

            Why? Because i am 100% certain that AT LEAST 5 other much more critical parameters, dimensions, friction coefficients, and etc of slides of identical weight to another have AT LEAST 10X & maybe an order of magnitude more effect on actual pistol function and reliability!!

            This is why people who don’t have a machinerys handbook on their desk another at their workbench and or a pdf copy on your go to digital devices shouldn’t white knight for Bartocci here…

            Because the only people who are, don’t know anything about even the basic building block concepts a wiki search can explain in 3 seconds WRT evaluation and T&E Of mechanical systems much less the damn math which makes everyone who knows anything about this subject go WTF BARTOCCI…yeah.. He’s wrong

          • Treiz

            “Why? Because i am 100% certain that …”
            Opinions vary.
            “shouldn’t white knight for Bartocci here…”
            … he says from his white armor atop his snowy steed, SIG and big Army firmly to his rear. Whatever helps you sleep at night bro.
            “the only people who are, don’t know anything about even the basic building block concepts a wiki search can explain in 3 seconds WRT evaluation and T&E Of mechanical systems ”
            You are right, we don’t even need the tests, we can just take each other’s opinions on faith. We’ll just explain it real slow to anyone that objects.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Facts don’t though, that’s Nathaniels point!

            Bartocci has misread or misinterpreted the information available and is basing his arguments off that incorrect information, and thus misinforming those who watch his yt video and don’t read the information themselves….

            Fyi: responding to Nathaniels response to you with opinions vary is proof positive of your poor education…

            Nathaniels response to you stated FACTS, so responding with opinions vary is the same rank sophistry as antigunners saying that if unconstitutional gun laws save just one child THEY are worth it!

            It clearly announces your total apathy and disregard for the truth and proudly declares your willingness to spread false information to “win” an argument.

          • Treiz

            “Bartocci has misread or misinterpreted the information available and is basing his arguments off that incorrect information,”
            Some of them.
            “Fyi: responding to Nathaniels response to you with opinions vary is proof positive of your poor education…”
            Opinions vary.
            “Nathaniels response to you stated FACTS”
            No, this response: “Which is what the Army did, contra to Chris’s argument.” did NOT state facts. It conveys Nathaniel’s OPINION that the Army’s testing was sufficient, and did not address the rumored lack of testing of some of the variant entries. Reading comprehension is a thing, get on it.
            “It clearly announces your total apathy and disregard for the truth and proudly declares your willingness to spread false information to “win” an argument.”
            Which “it”?

          • iksnilol

            Opinions vary on that.

    • Harry’s Holsters

      I agree that your average user switching out grip modules or changing slide from compact to full size is crazy. Heck I think different back straps are stupid for a group like the military. Simple is best. But from a maniac and armorer standpoint the P320 system is easier/faster to work on saving money on labor. That’s the real advantage of modularity in this situation.

      • iksnilol

        By that logic adjustable stocks are also stupid. And so are cheek and scope risers.

        • Samuel Millwright

          So are boots and gloves made for either a left or right foot/hand!

          Jesus, why do military equipment threads just seem to summon militant stupidity / the inner sadistic malignant tyrants in people?

          Seriously, if you can make comments like that one you responded to… You shouldn’t EVER EVER EVER be given even pretend authority over another human!

        • Harry’s Holsters

          I don’t see how? If they can find a way to adjust the grip without adding/removing or having separate parts I’m all for it. The issue at an departmental level is the potential for parts being lost and the time it take for the armor to do so. There is very little potential downside to an adjustable stock like on the M4 while there is a great upside.

          The reverse is true on a handgun. If someone had to pickup or use their fellow soldiers rifle they can quickly adjust the stock with no tool as without adding parts or temporarily disabling the gun like you would have to do with a Gen 4 glock or Sig P320.

          • iksnilol

            Cheek risers are a separate part.

          • Harry’s Holsters

            Not necessarily a lot of stocks ball screw adjustable cheek risers or maybe it’s technically a rest.

    • Marc

      Modularity simplifies maintenance, it’s not for constantly swapping parts in the field.

      • Treiz

        Modularity doesn’t have anything to do with maintenance, and the SIG P320 is far from simple when taken down.

        • int19h

          It’s much easier for the armorers to simply swap out modules to quickly fix issues in the field, while the damaged module can be sent out for repairs. It also makes logistics to supply said armorers simpler.

          • Treiz

            The only module that can be easily swapped out is the whole chasse. They might as well swap out the whole gun at that point as that is essentially what is happening. You are sending out the serialized part for repairs either way.
            At best you could make the argument that the P320s would be a lot easier to clean because the chasse can be quickly and entirely removed, but in this case the Army is going to include locks to prevent anyone but the armorers removing the chasse so that nixes that argument too.

          • Kivaari

            A Glock armorers course can be taught in a few hours.

          • Stephen Paraski

            For $7 now

          • Samuel Millwright

            No… Just no… It’s not a god damn server rack or Atx computer case!

            The “modules” are to adjust frame size and grip. Shapes dimensions and proportions via a pair of polymer pistol frames and 4 interchangeable backstrap setups. Past that, you have caliber change kits including simunition (armory), the ability to mount accessories via threaded bbl and acessory rail under bbl….

            I think that’s it, there may or may not be slides with precut red dot mount points (at least one pistol available for retail purchase actually comes with ALL slides set up for red dot mounts and a blanking cover for people who don’t mount one!), trigger group options, etc…

            As you see absolutely nothing like you’re describing.

            Bonus fun fact: sig open sourced the 320 frames and backstraps. The dimensioned 3d cad models are or were available for free download. This means that if you were inclined to, you could modify an existing backstrap model to suit your preferences and exactly fit your hands!

            At that point you could 3d print or otherwise cnc manufacture your custom item yourself or pay to have it done.

            Cool right?

    • Sermon 7.62

      For a capitalist, Darwinist social model the most important argument is profit.

    • They won’t. It will likely be an armorer level job, using a special security screw locking the take down level in the grip module.

      • James O Donnell

        There’s no way in hell the Army is going to let individual users swap out parts.

        The reality will be that the armorer/supply sergeant will have a box fill of tagged plastic bags holding all of the extra grip parts — each bag serialized to match one of the pistols on hand — and they will remain in his box until a pistol needs to be transferred to another unit or to a maintenance facility.

        • And when the LT asks why SPC Smallhands, and SGT Extralavegloves is having problems qualifying they will know who to blame.

          My understanding is that they will be treated similarly to current M9 grip panels.

          • James O Donnell

            You mean the grip panels that are either on the gun, or there’s a NMC tag on the M9 while waiting for a replacement panel to be shipped from the OMS?

            The unused grip parts will be part of the pistol’s BII. Neither the supply sergeant nor the company commander are going to agree to being on the hook financially for missing BII.

            The LT is going to be told that he needs to stay in his lane. Soldiers got along fine for more than a century with non-customizeable pistol grips.

    • n0truscotsman

      I dont see it either. Its a pile of horsecrap that borders on wishful, magical thinking.

  • HenryV

    I have never seen so many down votes on a TFB article. 🙂

  • txJM

    “SIG’s Performance (sic) Verification Testing…”

    Why are you noting a spelling error when the word is spelled correctly?

    • Bill

      I can’t figure that out either.

      • Michael Shannon

        The “P” stands for Product not Performance

        • Bill

          Are you the actor? If so, you’ve been in some great movies.

  • Destro Yakisoba
    • noob


    • ozzallos .

      You need a CNN logo in there somewhere to be legit.
      9/10 would interfere again.

  • Brad

    Long story short, Glock halfassed their presentation so the Army halfassed the competition and awarded the contract to SIG, the end.

    • Nicks87

      Pretty much this. You can’t blame the Army for not wanting a Glock with features not desirable on glock pistols (thumb safety/oversized grip).

      • richard kluesek

        I’m a glockie guy but would not privately buy what they presented.

        • Nicks87

          Same here.

    • Captain Obvious

      Sig low balled their bid and tax payers will be stuck with huge overruns on upgrades, parts, service, and future procurement once this is finalize. Some general just ensured his financial future on this deal. Just so you know, I am no Glock fanboy nor do I really caer what pistol our military uses but this deal doesn’t pass the smell test.

      • noob

        “equipped for-but-not-with cost-plus overruns”

      • Brad

        Obviously you didn’t read WHAT was included in the cost.
        ” The $580 million dollar figure does not just include those guns, however, but also spares, accessories, and even holsters, all to be procured from SIG Sauer.”

        Thanks for playing though!

      • Samuel Millwright

        The bid per pistol isn’t actually that low… Certainly enough meat on the bone to stay profitable, as to everything else i can’t say for sure.

        This underbid meme is people not understanding that if you can manufacture Ar15’s and sell them for $500 profitably, then a polymer striker fired pistol at $207 each with Guaranteed 5 digit plus per year minimum production for at least a decade will actually make you a fair bit of cash!

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          That doesn’t even matter. You could make every pistol the Army buys at cost-plus-$5 and still come out ahead.

          How? The private market. How many people bought Beretta 92’s for 30 years because “it’s what the military uses”? The P320 is a good gun, which would keep them around (XDs and XDMs aren’t going anywhere fast) for a while, but as the gun the entire military uses? Plus, add in that it officially beat Glock and I’ll be really surprised if they don’t become the #2 or #1 gun in their category in the next few years.

          I mean, it’s how Glock got to dominate the exact same market. Sell to cops for near cost and use “because its what the cops use” as your marketing slogan for 30 years.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Yup we agree here completely… I’m just saying that even without the civilian demand phenomena etc that the actual per unit price per gun is not even close to them losing money!

            People keep saying sig can’t actually deliver pistols at that price point without losing money on each one, thus causing cost overruns etc…

            They’re wrong, really wrong!

      • GOT12

        exactly, some 320’s have already been sent back with broken extractors, i suspect many more issues to follow

    • Anonymoose


    • Edohiguma

      The army’s wants were crap to begin with. Marines, MARSOC, special operations command, the 75th, they all went Glock and didn’t get their panties in a twist over lacking external safety or lack of being modular.

      But I get it, the regular army needs something speshul for their desk jockeys and pencil pushers. Now random officer clerks and motor pools guys can carry modular handguns. Woooo!

      • majorrod

        Marines bought M9’s not Glocks.

        The conventional guys get no where near the training the SOF guys do.

      • Bobby McKellar

        What’s “speshul” about them having to choose a handgun that MEETS THE SPECIFICATIONS? All of the BS about Rangers, Seals, SOCOM, etc “wanting Glock’s” has absolutely ZERO bearing on the requirements of a “STANDARD ISSUE SIDEARM”. If you’d EVER been on the range where you had to be a Range NCO and Safety NCO you’d absolutely know why the standard Glock WILL NOT WORK for the 95% of the combined services that aren’t Combat Arms.

        • Mel_Anosis

          Yes, for most safety and simplicity is the key. The vast majority of Army people will never have to fire the sidearm in combat. Seals etc are a different story.

      • Yeah, because operators actually know how to shoot.

  • JD

    It seems most have missed the single most important sentence in the entire article, “sigs bid was 100 million dollars lower than glocks.” And that is the bottom line folks.

    • Sermon 7.62

      Having the largest budget in the world, such a shame to think like that. In particular, taking into account that in the US there is no spending on social programs, such as free higher education or medical care.

      • iksnilol

        There’s only two responses to “free higher education or medical care”:

        “But it isn’t free, you pay taxes trolololol” -quote, the person who never considered how much they pay in insurance and also pay taxes (hint: it’s more than what I pay in taxes).

        Alternatively: “that’s communism, waah, waaah”.

        • Sermon 7.62

          That’s how people are taught to think.

        • Evan

          Part of why the Education and Healthcare systems, in the US at least, cost so much *IS* public subsidy. Over the past 35 years, college tuition at public universities has nearly quadrupled. In fact, public investment in higher education in America is vastly larger today, in inflation-adjusted dollars, than it was during the supposed “golden age” of public funding in the 1960s. Spending on education has increased at a much faster rate than government spending in general, in fact. For example, the military’s budget is about 1.8 times higher today than it was in 1960, while legislative appropriations to higher education are more than 10 times higher.

          In other words, far from being caused by funding cuts, the astonishing rise in college tuition correlates closely with a huge increase in public subsidies for higher education. If over the past three decades car prices had gone up as fast as tuition, the average new car would cost more than $80,000. And we’re talking base package, no-option, small sedan.

          It is disingenuous to call a large increase in public spending a “cut,” as some university administrators do, because a huge programmatic expansion features somewhat lower per capita subsidies. Suppose that since 1990 the government had doubled the number of military bases, while spending slightly less per base. A claim that funding for military bases was down, even though in fact such funding had nearly doubled, would properly be met with derision. But this is the nature of public funds. Johnny Q. Peon the government accountant doesn’t care cuz it’s not his money, it’s “taxes”. So her rubber stamps along, and people take advantage of the system. Like Universities. According to the Department of Education data, administrative positions at colleges and universities grew by 60 percent between 1993 and 2009, which Bloomberg reported was 10 times the rate of growth of tenured faculty positions… Even more strikingly, an analysis by a professor at California Polytechnic University, Pomona, found that, while the total number of full-time faculty members in the C.S.U. system grew from 11,614 to 12,019 between 1975 and 2008, the total number of administrators grew from 3,800 to 12,183 — a 221 percent increase. There are no valid arguments to support the recent trend toward seven-figure salaries for high-ranking university administrators, unless one considers evidence-free assertions about “the market” to be intellectually rigorous.

          Health care is similar. It costs as much as it does is because not everyone carries health insurance, so not only are health-care prices driven up by the insurance and providers, but also by vast swaths of the public using the Emergency Room at the local hospital like a clinic to get General Practitioner care, that they cannot pay for. And similar to the aforementioned education example, there’s some sleight-of-hand here going on as well, as there always is in systems where the individuals involved aren’t directly paying so there’s no incentive to be frugal. Health insurance companies and drug companies, etc. CERTAINLY noticed that the public officials involved with health care didn’t care what the costs are, and they too have taken advantage of the system. This is why a “routine” physical check up is estimated around $250, and an average sick-patient visit is estimated to be around $180, before factoring in driving time, Rx’s prescribed, etc.
          When in reality the latest Harvard study shows a patient on average spend 121 minutes traveling and waiting at the Doctor’s office, to see the doctor for maybe 10 minutes.
          ER visits cost estimates are substantially more, closer to $600, just for the visit, without any administration of any care of medication.

          Furthermore don’t forget to add in tricky things like taxpayer-subsidized birth control for women…

          Interestingly, I have an enumerated right to guns. That’s literally what the 2nd amendment says.

          Why aren’t guns subsidized by government, then, like the “right” to birth control and healthcare, and education (which aren’t specifically enumerated) in the Constitution? And I still must pay taxes on guns too…?

          Food for thought.

        • nova3930

          Roughly translated, someone else pays your bills. I’m just not in the habit of holding a gun to someones head to make them pay for my wants….

          • iksnilol

            What, no.

            You pay taxes, and the taxes pay for your service. You are paying for it, and you aren’t forcing anybody.

          • nova3930

            Missing the point. The costs don’t change based on who’s paying the bill. If you’re paying less in taxes than the cost of providing the service, then someone else is paying the bill by definition.

            And yeah, if you’re paying for something via taxation, then it’s being paid for via force of arms. I expect your country is similar to the US in the respect that if you don’t pay said taxes, men with guns will kick in your door and make you pay. The power of government, even so called representative gov’t, only comes at the tip of the spear….

          • Sermon 7.62

            Educated people earn more, so it is profitable for the state and for the nation. So, if “someone else” paid for someone’s education, then the person who received the aid becomes “someone else” for others.

          • nova3930

            We believed that myth here in the US too. Subsidized who knows how many people into getting “educated” in worthless BS. Now we’ve got the most educated waitress and bartending staff in the world. Supply and demand works in everything, including educated people. So here I sit, having paid for MY useful, relatively rare engineering education, and pretty soon when the defaults get high enough I’m going to have to pay for all the other worthless degrees out there to go along with it.

            But again, you’re going along with my point. Nothing costs less just because of the payment mechanism. If YOU are paying less than the cost of the service, then it means someone else is paying. Period. And not only that you’re using the threat of force to do it. And eventually you do run out of OPM and reality hits…

          • Sermon 7.62

            Yes, I’m going along with your point. Now go along with mine. Imagine this:

            You can’t afford education. So, the state pays for it, with “someone else’s” money. Then, you become an educated man. You get a good job and start to earn well. Now you can afford education, but you don’t need it. And someone does, but can’t afford it. So, you return the favour. You become “someone else” for someone.

            What’s bad about that?

          • nova3930

            1. You’re assuming that education automatically equates to increased earnings. As I said above, that assumption has lead the US to having the best educated waiters and bartenders in the world. The cost of that gender studies degree is never going to pay for itself, much less someone else’s education.

            2. Education is a want. And a want not everyone is cut out for. IF you are cut out for it, there’s plenty of money available in the form of academic scholarships to satisfy that want. Utilizing the state to take via coercion to satisfy a want for everyone that not everyone is cut out for is a special kind of BS.

          • Sermon 7.62

            If someone is not “cut out” for education, but still wants to get it, he won’t be able to get it regardless of his abilities to finance it.

            And, although higher education doesn’t equate to increased earnings in some specific cases, it does in general. Just because of the fact that people in need are motivated to become professionals and get paid much more than those who are not in need, and that is those who are not in need that are interested in gender studies, for the most part, and for this reason.

            It is much better to have educated waiters and bartenders than to have uneducated ones also. Trust me, I know this for sure. I used to live in Ukraine. And the raised bar of the requirements for professionals is good for the state. Look at the Germans.

          • Bobby McKellar

            Nothing but making everyone else pay for education that has absolutely ZERO guarantee of a job at all. A quick look into unemployment numbers and those that are not even being counted anymore will reveal quite a bit. And it’s not GOOD.

          • Bobby McKellar

            Unfortunately that is just NOT the case anymore. “Higher education” these days doesn’t translate to “smarter people”…at all, it doesn’t guarantee a job and it doesn’t translate to higher pay anymore. All “higher education” is these days is a way to saddle a good many young people with a great amount of debt that they can barely pay for. The “answer” is NOT “free education”….because you’re then saddling EVERYBODY with debt in the form of higher taxes, etc. I’ve got a nephew that graduated from college after 8 years, he had his college PAID FOR and he still can’t find or hold a job in the psychology field. He recently QUIT his last job as a DISPATCHER for a TRUCKING COMPANY. The sad fact is that I know MANY more just like him…

          • Sermon 7.62

            “One-third of the 500 billionaires on the recently relaunched Bloomberg Billionaires Index — including the top three — hail from the US.

            The 18 richest — culled from the global top 30 — are worth an astounding $793 billion.”

          • iksnilol

            No… our police is pretty good with not shooting people without reason. And even if they have a reason to shoot, they usually wound folks and arrest them instead of doing stuff like using combustible smoke and then “accidentally” lighting it up with tracers.

          • nova3930

            But still, men with guns will come make you pay. The power of the state is coming at the tip of the spear. A state that cannot mandate compliance via force is not much of a state. Imagine the neighborhood weakling trying to take the local meatheads lunch money and you get the idea….

          • iksnilol

            No, again, you must be confusing Norway with North Korea.

          • nova3930

            So what happens if you don’t pay your taxes?

          • iksnilol

            I guess you get a fine.

          • nova3930

            And if you don’t pay that? Follow the progression of consequences for continued non-compliance in your mind and tell me where you end up….

          • iksnilol

            I can guarantee you won’t get shot in the back or burnt alive like in the US.

            Worst I can think is that you get thrown out of the country. And frankly, if you’re gonna be that annoying I don’t mind you getting thrown out. Country don’t need no goddamn freeloaders.

          • nova3930

            They expel citizens? That’s interesting if true. Anyway, so how do they throw you out? Stand on your front steps and ask nicely? And what happens if you’re non-compliant with their “requests” for expulsion

          • iksnilol

            That’s the worst I can think of. Though no recorded cases of it. Again, we don’t shoot or burn people alive.

          • nova3930

            Not asking if it HAS happened. I’m asking what WOULD happen. If you continue to defy the commands of your gov’t, what will happen?

          • iksnilol

            Again, no idea, but you won’t get shot, that I can guarantee.

          • nova3930

            I think you need to re-examine your thought process on this. It’s the same story no matter what your gov’t looks like. If you continue to defy them, they’ll send guys that looks something like this to MAKE you comply and if you defy THEM then the use of force will escalate rapidly up to and including your death. That is the way the state works. To say that something carries the force of law is to say that it is backed up by the power that comes from physical force up to and including death. The difference between a democracy and a tin pot dictatorship, is not the source of the power, but whether or not the power is utilized in a legitimate manner that constitutes the will of the governed. The US, Norway and pretty much the entirety of western states utilize power in that manner, while a place like North Korea does not.


          • iksnilol

            Again, makes no sense. Killing your own citizens would be bad PR. Which leads to govt change, which then means former govt goes to jail.

            Those guns are actually for tickling people, you can see how the dog has a muzzle to more effectively tickle and snuggle. Also, y’know, “counter-terrorism”, that doesn’t mean IRS. So no, no guys like those or guys anything remotely resembling them would kick down your door and press a jackboot against your back.

            I know, it’s kinda hard to accept for people like you with a hard on for revolution and bloodshed.

          • nova3930

            You’re reading what I’m saying wrong. It has nothing to do with revolution. There’s a difference between power and authority and I think you’re confusing the two. The use of power without legitimate authority is a just cause for revolution, not just the exercise of power. By and large western societies utilize power constituted under legitimate authority.

            From the village chieftan of ancient days to the most advanced modern civilizations, a govt that does not have the will and ability to use force is not a gov’t, it’s a suggestion. It’s just the way the world is.

            As I asked you earlier, if Norway wants to expel you from the country, do they stand on your front steps and ask nicely or do they send armed (whether it’s guns, clubs, tazers or whatever) men to round you up and haul you off? You’re right it’s probably not going to be the counter terror guys but they’ll probably look like this. Strip them of their MP5s and sidearms and I still see clubs and pepper spray ie tools used to force compliance from the unwilling.


          • Sermon 7.62

            Man, listen.
            You in the US get it all backwards. Upside down.
            It’s not the poor or even the middle class who has to finance the social programs, but the rich. So, it’s fine if the power is utilized in a legitimate manner, that constitutes the will of the governed, because this is the will of the governed: to make the fat cats share the wealth and for the benefit of all, to make them contribute to their nations instead of accumulating more wealth.

          • nova3930

            And this is more of a basic philosophical discussion than anything, the conclusion of which most people find hard to accept. The idea that the nicest, most cuddly representative gov’t derives it’s power from the same mechanism as the worst dictatorship can be hard to swallow…

          • iksnilol

            Not really.

            North Korea is boring, EFFINCENCY ÜBER ALLES! [Marching intensifies]… Whilst Scandinavia in general is based more around nurturing and fixing stuff (IE rehabilitation in prisons vs punishment). Sure, since I didn’t slash my neighbours throat for a pack of smokes I will probably get derided as a commie in the US… but truth is, you don’t really need to be that brutal against everybody.

            I mean, how are you gonna make people in Norway comply by force? People are waaay too spread out and over a ginormous area to make any effort to do so. That and since we got primarily a conscript based military means you get all kinds of folks in the military (IE normal people with connection to their counties and families). What I’m trying to say, is that a tyrannical dictatorship (which is unofficially the wet dream of many folks in the US) is sorta… impossible just from a logistical and social scale.

          • nova3930

            See my other comment to continue the discussion and thought processes. I should have edited a prior comment instead of commenting again :p

          • iksnilol

            Yes, you should have.

      • JD

        Oh now that explains everything, your not american.

  • Jerry_In_Detroit

    Both are proven designs. My only objection to the Glock is that I know several people who have experienced negligent discharges with Glocks. Something different in handling Glocks from common industry practice.

    • JD

      That’s not a fault of the weapon. The weapon does what it’s designed to do, fire a round when the trigger is pulled.

      • BillyOblivion

        Clearly that is a defect.

        It should know to only fire when the trigger is pulled AND the puller REALLY wants it to go bang. REALLY wants, not just KINDA wants.

        • JD

          Exactly! Lmao!

          • Curmudgeon

            Sorry, safety snobs, but when Uncle Sugar’s Misguided Children, ordinary Army grunts, Chairforce folks, Squids, Coastal Guardians and POGs from all branches shoot themselves or others under such predictable circumstances, your and my sacred tax dollars are going to pay for medical care, possibly disability, and sometimes even death benefits. I vote for pulling the trigger on an empty chamber to disassemble a sidearm as a no longer acceptable design. Sure, YOU won’t make such a silly and dangerous error, but a statistically-known small subset of our armed forces WILL.

            Read up on “the burden of adequate precautions” sometime. Like others have pointed out in another context, there’s money that could be better spent on other military priorities.

          • crackedlenses

            “Sure, YOU won’t make such a silly and dangerous error, but a statistically-known small subset of our armed forces WILL.”

            Nothing’s grunt-proof. You could use this argument to disqualify just about any piece of military-issued equipment.

        • JumpIf NotZero

          Yea, I pressed the trigger because I’m a moron… but you should have known what I really meant!

        • n0truscotsman

          Clearly thats not a defect.

          User error. Gun does precisely as designed. If you ‘just kinda want’ a trigger to go off, keep your finger off of it.

          • BillyOblivion

            Is irony normally opaque to you, or did I just need to trowel it on a little thicker?

          • n0truscotsman

            Im normally used to responding to ill-informed glock bashing retardation, so pardon me if you were being ironic.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Lots of Glock users have shot their balls off, and it wasn’t their finger that pulled the trigger.

      • Jerry_In_Detroit

        To field strip a Glock, the manual says to drop the magazine then lock the slide back. Visually check that the chamber is empty and insert your pinkie finger into the chamber to verify that it is indeed empty. Next release the slide, point the gun in a safe direction and pull the trigger then proceed to disassembly.

        I suspect a negligent discharge works something like this. The owner drops the magazine, racks the slide and pulls the trigger. Bang! The round in the chamber had not been extracted when the slide was cycled.

        This is, of course, due to the gun owner not following the instruction manual exactly. However, the need to pull the trigger prior to disassembly creates a safety hazard requiring extra precautions that are not typically required with other guns and are easily overlooked.

  • Bill

    Which one wears better in a shoulder holster in a cafeteria line?

    • Tritro29

      Oh you…

    • Pilot

      I lol’ed so hard at this. All the HQ officers in the dfac….

    • Edohiguma

      Don’t forget color variants. Very important.

    • Stuki Moi


  • JumpIf NotZero

    Some Sunday morning clickbait….

    Where you there for testing? No.
    Do you have any facts that prove the SIG isn’t as good of a gun? No.
    Do both go bang when trigger pressed? Yes.

    IGAF, and I like Glock. But the SIG undeniably has some better features and was presented at a better price. It’s over.

    Now bring on the P320 USW, P320 PCC SBR, P320 manual cycle modern welrod, … whatever

    • So you don’t actually disagree, but it’s “clickbait” anyway.

      The entire article is a discussion of different sections of the RFP and a GAO report. What are you gonna claim is clickbait next time, a spreadsheet analysis?

      • the_duck

        probably would be best to start with watching the entire video in question before commenting. chris knows his stuff and is one of my favorite channels because he actually has some background in this field so his comments are a little more than just regurgitated internet follklore.

        anyways, i agree with the premise that the test was not conducted appropriately. i don’t like either gun, but i do want our military to have the best equipment that we can afford to give them.

        • I like Chris too, but I think he’s provably wrong on this one. Unless he’s got evidence that SIG and/or Glock did not complete BST, his argument is pretty much null.

        • feetpiece _

          Hell, I never watch the videos and am impressed with the Text breakdown.

  • Gary Griffiths

    Some historical perspective: I was responsible for the resurrection of the XM11 pistol program, and served as the Army CID representative during the pistol development. A decision was made to allow the Glock 19 to participate in the program, which I objected to, inasmuch as the Glock 17 was ruled not to conform to the XM9 pistol specifications; but was now being ruled in conformance with the SAME action specifications in the XM11 program. To me, that was just inviting a protest from Glock over the still ongoing XM9 program.

    M882 Ball ammo is loaded EXTREMELY HOT. At the time of contract award, Beretta had not yet proven it’s USA-made frames could withstand the pounding of 10K M882s. An M9 pistol failed (slide broke) during use, causing serious injury to the shooter. Before the program manager at Rock Island had even been informed of the incident, Beretta had a press release out claiming the pistol had failed when SEALS were using it with extremely hot 9mm submachine gun ammo. That was a lie. It failed with M882 ball. More failures resulted in modification to the M9s so that the rear of the slide wouldn’t fly into the shooter’s head WHEN they failed. Both the Sig 226 and Beretta 92F passed the Army’s tests. The Army chose (had to choose, based on procurement rules) the Beretta because it was cheaper when all the spare parts were included in the bid package. In retrospect, they should have chosen the more robust Sig 226.

    During the XM11 testing, the ONLY catastrophic failure of a weapon was a Glock 19 that exploded during the endurance testing. The barrel blew out and the surrounding slide directed the force of the explosion downward, blowing off the front of the frame, and completely destroying the serial number; which caused consternation on how to account for the now numberless weapon. (Oh, the military!) Fortunately, the tester was not injured because he was wearing heavy leather gloves.

    At the end of the testing phase, the decision was made, over adult beverages at the East Moline Holiday Inn, to disallow the Glock from eligibility because it did not have a manual safety; which was a requirement. Someone pointed out that the Sig did not have a manual safety, either; rather it had a decocking lever. I observed that since a panel of General Officers would be making the final decision, and the Sig had a lever on the side, none of them would be sharp enough to know that that wasn’t a manual safety. And so it was.

    My take on the current “controversy:” (1) Glocks are not the indestructible uber-guns that their fanboys claim; and (2) Buying the cheapest weapons is not always the best plan.

    • That was a top notch comment, thank you for taking the time, sir.

      • CavScout

        If true…

    • jonp

      Excellent and informative comment. There is a reason several of the SF Teams across the military including the SEAL’s routinely carried the SIG 226. Robustness was one of them and I suspect from several conversations with someone that knows something being able to shoot the hotter ammo in a pinch was a very large consideration

      • noob

        whoever wins the new contract, we will need them to come up with a new cool guy rhyme as good as “You’re not a SEAL until you’ve eaten Italian steel”

      • spiff1

        I aided the SEAL teams while at GLOCK in the ’80’s in getting G17’s, heard some facinating stories of the pistol in combat…Have yet to hear of a Sig Sauer P320 in a combat arena…

        • TNoebel

          And of course, G17’s were “born” in a combat arena? No, you mean they had to be tested there as well? Huh.

        • jonp

          Since they were just adopted I’m not sure what your point is?

      • GOT12

        lol, that is why sig nearly gives there guns to police & military, the general public thinks if the military or police buy sig they must be best, so they go buy one

        even if they are officially issued a sig several police officers and probably most special ops carry a glock

        • BR549

          But that was the exact same tactic that Glock used to stuff their foot in the door. In the end, the police departments chose long term economics as their primary reason, but only because of Glock’s buy-back program. It was simply fancy marketing that created all the hooplah. Personally, I think the Glock platform sucks and the complexity of their design will ultimately do them in. The fact that they thought they wouldn’t need a safety only added to their arrogance.

          By the way, I haven’t heard of “Sig-Sauer Leg” or “Beretta Leg”; at least not with the frequency that Glock has.

          • The irony is that Glocks were designed without a manual safety FOR safety. When that decision was made during the first Glock’s development, Glock and his team researched a number of incidents that occurred among Austrian military and police forces, and concluded that a manual safety was actually UNsafe, as officers/soldiers sometimes intended to fire without remembering to disengage the safety, and other times ND’ed when they thought the safety was still engaged.

            They concluded that a pistol would actually be safer WITHOUT an integrated manual safety, because the operator would never err in guessing what condition the safety was in, and thus would always treat it as if it was ready to be fired. A gun without a manual safety could also be deployed faster in tactical situations, possibly saving lives, so the manual safety was foregone in place of the trigger safety which would help prevent accidental discharges during handling or transport.

          • BR549

            Aaron, thank you, but I was aware of all that.

            Perhaps I am from the “old school”. Regarding a manual safety, if a person can’t remember that their safety is on, how is it that they can remember to unholster the weapon when a threat arose …… or even properly assess a situation that required the weapon to be unholstered in the first place?

            I see the Glock nonsense as equivalent to safety belts being required to be worn in automobiles. Personally, when I started driving 50 years ago, I wore a belt (a lap belt only back then) ALL the time. It only made sense. I even installed seat belts into two vehicles that never required them at the time of their manufacture. So, by my way of figuring, if a person couldn’t figure out why a seat belt was a great idea …… on their own, and they had to be FORCED to wear one, why in God’s name are we giving weapons to people who may be incapable of making sound decisions under stress, whether in the constabulary or the citizenry? If someone can’t remember that their safety was on, how is it that then still possess the acumen to fire at the right time or the right target? The Glock would be the perfect gun for liberals ….. because who needs to bother with petty details?

        • jonp

          yeah, I can tell you that may be true for big army but the sf teams across the services have great latitude in picking equipment. They picked sigs among others for a reason but don’t take my word for it. How about a conversation with a Navy Capt in charge of one of the SEAL training centers?

          • GOT12

            i believe the seals, marsoc and a few other special ops groups have officially switched to glock, only makes sense as rumor is most already carried glocks

          • jonp

            See above. They roll with what works and what will be commonly available in the locations they may end up in.

          • GOT12

            what works and would be commonly available would probably rule out the 320, the 226 would probably be best for pretty gun day the glock would probably be best for we might have a gun fight day

          • jonp

            idk…maybe. I have no dog in the fight as I don’t like Glocks myself but don’t run down those that do.
            As for the “we might have a gun fight day”. Have a gun no matter what is the first and only rule you need to remember. If you don’t then nothing else matters

      • CavScout

        They dumped the Sig’s for Glocks.

        • jonp

          Not all of them did but most. Universal parts repair plays a big role

    • Curmudgeon

      Thought that Dean Speir over on another now-mostly-retired site had rather definitively tracked down a bad steel alloy as the primary and real cause of the Beretta slide failures.

      But having had to replace a slide on a P38, I would also say that the locking block cutouts in the Beretta system were and remain a minor design defect leaving it unacceptably MORE susceptible to materials/abuse failure, without the benefit of other designs that don’t leave the rear of the slide unrestrained on its rearward trajectory. A known issue from WWII was inadequately provided for in both the area of failure, and the design’s failure to restrain a broken slide fragment.

      So all the other comments using a variation on the word “robust” hold water. Yet it was a design defect of no consequence until their materials betrayed them.

      I agree with Nathaniel that it’s irrelevant for this article why he has *his opinion* that the Austrian Wonder is the better sidearm. So we invite a separate article.

      • Steve_7

        It was overpressure ammo. I had someone involved directly in the pressure testing at Elgin AFB email me about it many years ago, he did provide me with all the stats which I’ve still got lying around somewhere but the main thing he told me that I remember is that Beretta was compensated by the DoD for the engineering changes after the testing showed that Olin was at fault.

      • Steve_7

        I should add, I think there was a batch of bad slides at one point, I remember that too, but it wasn’t the main reason. Those bad slides weren’t to spec. I think they were Italian-made because some of them ended up in the French guns.

      • The only reason I even mentioned it was to assuage the feeling that I was taking SIG’s “side”.

    • Steve_7

      Well that was a really useful comment, because I’ve wondered in the past how the P226 qualified with a decocking lever.

      As far as M882 ball goes, it was determined later (at Elgin AFB) that the ammo Olin was supplying was overpressure and Beretta won an award from the DoD for the engineering changes that resulted in the 92FS.

      As far as the P226 goes, the XM11 guns were a lot different from the XM9 guns, I owned one of the Saco XM9 guns and a friend of mine has an XM11. A lot of people say the P226 would have been the better choice but I’m here to say it wouldn’t have been, the P226 was essentially a prototype whereas the Beretta had been around for several years. The XM11 my friend has got isn’t quite as bad but it’s got the scalloped frame rail cuts that were notorious for cracking (I’ve owned several P226s with slightly later serial numbers and they all cracked). My XM9 had totally straight rails which I’m sure would have cracked easily, but I was only brave enough to shoot 50 rounds through it. Plus the barrel was bent, not sure how they managed that in testing.

      • Steve_7

        Sorry I meant my friend’s gun is an XM10, the XM11 is the P228 obviously.

    • Sermon 7.62

      You people should have just kept Beretta. It’s a great pistol, and the latest incarnation is the best pistol Beretta has ever made.


      • Mmmtacos

        I’m a biased fan boy when it comes to the 92 series but I don’t see why the M9 needed to be replaced. Yeah, polymer is lighter, but realistically an unloaded, full size M9 is something like a five ounce difference in weight to a Glock 17 and every other plastic fantastic is typically within an ounce of the Glock 17 give or take (in before “ounces equal pounds blah blah”).

        Yeah, a threaded barrel is nice, but that’s an easy replacement on any handgun where it’s not fixed to the frame and lest we forget the M9 doesn’t need a Nielsen device either. As for the 1913 rail, well, nothing to say there, but at least you wouldn’t have to buy all new guns (from the look of the single slot still on the Glock MHS I’d be willing to bet it’s still a U rail instead of a 1913 anyway).

        Pistols are so rarely used anyway and the M9 seems like it’s only problem is stigma and a lack of proficient armorers and good spare parts from all I’ve heard. Everything I’ve read about pistols and the military is that outside of any special forces they appear woefully inept on the subject. This article makes that clear and it looks all the more like the XM17 trials should have never happened in the first place.

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          Weren’t all the M9 frames extremely worn out and the whole fleet needed replacing? And if you need to buy a whole new fleet of arms, why not just buy a newer design?

          I do agree that the M9 itself isn’t in need of replacing, and that the M9A3 in FDE is a beautiful piece.

          • Mmmtacos

            If by newer design you mean the M9A3 frame then yes, I agree. I don’t know if that was part of the reasoning of replacing the M9 in the first place but I wouldn’t be surprised. Aluminum frames have come a long way since the 1950s but it’s still a softer metal under a lot of stress.

            So yeah, just upgrade the worn out frames and parts as needed. A new gun means teaching new armorers, new parts, new logistics involved, new inventory, new training, new manual of arms, et cetera. It’s not quite so simple to just replace something as one might think.

          • jp2336

            When someone blows the dust off of the M9/M9-series it makes me immediately think:

            1. It’s natural to resist/fear (used loosely) change and accept new technology.

            2. Some have not actually done anything with the M9 except an annual quality and something to drop in a holster.

      • Sure is purdy.

    • nova3930

      Hallelujah someone that understands acquisition….


      I agree completely with your 2 final points. However unfortunately the government will 99.99% of the time go with the lowest bidder and then be surprised when the price goes up due to “unexpected cost over runs”

    • The sig did not have a safety, that is one reason why it lost. It had a decocker, but not a safety.

      The safety is also why Glock continues to lose military contracts. Glock refuses to adapt to military specifications, so they lose.

      • Gary Griffiths

        If you’re talking about the M9 competition you’re wrong. Sig was one of the two weapons that were acceptable. They lost due solely to cost factors. If you’re talking about the M11 competition you’re dead wrong. The Sig 228 was accepted as the M11.

        • You are partially wrong and partially rights. Maybe you have a dislike for the Beretta that clouds your judgement?

          The Beretta M9 was the only hand gun to offer all the features the military wanted. The sig was accepted, but was slightly more expensive and did not have a real safety.

    • Bobby McKellar

      Brother, I don’t think it could be said ANY better.
      The Beretta was a TERRIBLE choice…period. IF the P226 had been accepted I think it likely there wouldn’t have had to have been a replacement chosen for a LONG time.
      Sig won this competition and I think Glock has an incredibly bad case of sour grapes and they’re making themselves look like whiners. Now having said that (I have no preference because I don’t like either pistol), only time will tell if the P320/M17 will hold up to the use and abuse of Army and other services and determine if it was a good choice.

      • GOT12

        sig is basically donating guns to win those contracts to boost civilian sales. sig might be the official gun of some special ops teams and police departments, but most all them guys have the option to carry the gun of there choice and many dont carry a sig.

        the sig 226 is excellent, the sig 320 is not. if glock wasnt the better gun all the other companies wouldnt be trying to copy the glock

    • RBR

      The low responsive, responsible bidder is ordinarily chosen. In the case of the M9, the Beretta entry quite simply failed. Although the mod to keep the operator from being injured when the slide failed was nice, it did nothing to improve reliability of the slide. If it failed in combat, the user was going to have a very bad day. Determining that a bidder is a properly qualified “responible” bidder is essential. The M-16 contract, for example, was awarded to H&R which had no capability to chrome plate barrels (and no intention of acquiring such capability). They were not a responsible bidder and should not even have been considered. Political forces resulted in the award of the contract.

    • CavScout

      I’ve heard it was improperly loaded ammo from Winchester. Not super hot subgun ammo. You, an anon internet poster says one thing, and Beretta says another. And an industry guy with a verified identity says something else, though not different from Beretta or even any mil entity.

  • Falcon642

    As a Beretta fan, I look forward to the Sig receiving the same hate from Glock fanboys that the Beretta has received from all the Sig fanboys who are still convinced Sig should have won in 1983.

    We can just recycle all those threads about the 1983 competition and replace Beretta with Sig and Sig with Glock and save alot of time.

    The Sig is going to be the hated winner whose every flaw will be magnified 1000X while the Glock will become the darling backup QB that everyone thinks could do better.

    • richard kluesek

      Yes M1911s, S&W “K” frames, and broadswords and battleaxes. There will always be dissenters. Requirement #11 is the holy grail that the service members be provided their choice and the best.

    • MIke H

      Hey, I’m a Sig fanboy, but I wouldn’t complain if someone gave me a 92 as a gift. They’re darned good guns.

      • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

        they are the last service pistol with class.

        • Samuel Millwright


          We care about this because?

          I want a service pistol to do a select few things, none of which are class panache or being fashion forward (does this tec-9 go with these shoes?)

          1. Go bang and fire bullets where i aimed it.
          2. Preferably not beat the part of my body it is up against to a permanent bone bruise from it’s weight in holster
          3. Require as little actual maintenance cleaning fiddling farting etc as possible… If i have to THINK about my pistol other than when it’s in my hand to be used it has failed at it’s purpose and sux at life
          4. I’d like to be able to beat someone bloody with it if they’re still fighting and I’m out of rpunds in the magazine. (But not at the cost of its deadweight murdering my soul and tenderizing whatever anatomy it’s holstered by… We have rocks e tools big f***ing wrenches knives and other stuff if our opponents are too stupid to give up after we bash their teeth out with the butt of the gun or etc…)

          See… Class is nowhere in there… If you like class become a classical instrumentalist or conductor in the Philharmonic…

          If pomp circumstance precision timed group maneuvers and spiffy outfits are your thing… Become a male cheerleader, join marching band, take up square and or line dancing, or join a jump rope squad!

          But for God’s sake don’t join the military!

        • Sunshine_Shooter

          “Class” is purely subjective. Some would say that the 1911 was truly the last service pistol with class and that the 92FS is a chunky, blocky mess. Some would say that the 1911 is too modern, and that only revolvers have enough class. Your comment is dumb, and you should feel bad.

    • Rob

      The Beretta actually had to pass testing and was the only pistol to pass all evaluations(Sig failed fried mud test).

      This time around Sig didn’t actually have to face its competitors or complete endurance testing. Brilliant.

      • Gary Griffiths

        Not accurate. Both the Sig 226 and Beretta 92F passed all tests. The sole determining factor in the selection of the Beretta was cost.

        • Beretta had both the safety and the decocker, while the sig only had the decocker,

          • Gary Griffiths

            Simply not accurate. Glock submitted a weapon with a manual safety for the XM17 competition. The safety/decocker factor played NO role in the M9 or M11 selection. I was there; you weren’t.

          • Where were the pictures of the Glock with a safety before the recent test?

            As for the M9 selection, Glock offered almost no features that were required in the 1980s test.

          • What was the final score of the Beretta and Sig during the M9 test?

            If I remember right, each handgun was given a numerical score, what was it?

          • I am still waiting on you to provide the final score of the sig and beretta during the M9 project. If you were really “there”, the beretta scored slightly higher than the sig and was cheaper.

            The idea that the beretta won “solely” on price is bull crap.

      • Bobby McKellar

        Rob…c’mon man, that is just absolute BS that you made up. You should READ more and attempt to know a bit about the subject before commenting. I suggest you read the CURRENT GAO report on the XM-17 testing and WHY Glock’s protest/appeal was flatly denied. THEN go back and look at the other information out there…

  • Flint IronStag

    TLDR: The U.S. Army, as always, selected the lowest bidder to fill a contract.

    It’s that simple. All other criteria are secondary to cost, so we’re left with an oversized, top-heavy/high bore-axis, mediocre pistol with an inconsistent/fragile trigger to sear engagement system and a brittle polymer (i.e. plastic) frame…er..housing(?).

    Next up, replacing all GOVs with Fiat because they’re the cheapest vehicles.

    • CapeMorgan

      Actually, that has not been true for years. The FAR was ‘modernized’ years ago and included ‘Best Value’ criteria. “Best Value” refers to competitive, negotiated procurements in which the Government reserves the right to select the most advantageous offer to the Government by evaluating and comparing factors in addition to cost or price. A Best Value procurement enables the Government to purchase technical superiority even if it means paying a premium price. A “premium” is the difference between the price of the lowest priced proposal and the one which the Government believes offers the best value. It is up to the Agency to determine which procurements will be made under a ‘Best Value” criteria.

  • TX223

    When asking why the SIG was chosen, one must ask how the Army thinks.
    1. The SIG does not require the trigger to be pulled when disassembled. I believe this is one major reason the SIG was chosen. Safety of our soldiers. Risk mitigation. Nanyism.
    The user cannot even actuate the takedown lever on a SIG with the magazine in place. It’s a very well thought out and engineered system of user safeties.
    2. The “Safety” on the Glock is an afterthought… and not well executed.
    3. The SIG is very likely the most “Modular” of all the entrants for the “Modular Handgun System” trials.
    4. Trigger pull. The trigger of the SIG is far superior the the trigger on the Glock, especially in terms of break, and overtravel.

    Simply put – SIG executed better.
    If Glock really wanted the contract, they should have designed an entirely new firearm that more closely met the requirements.

    I’m a huge Glock fan, and I own several Glocks, and carry one daily. I wish Glock would offer an entirely new firearm. Right now we’re going on what, 38 years of the same basic design? Technology has changed significantly. Glock definitely has the resources to develop the next generation handgun. Glock – Call me. I’m an engineer and all in.

    The SIG is significantly more complicated and should cost significantly more than the Glock to produce, so Glock should have been able to underbid SIG.

    SIG may be relying on civilian and other government sales to offset the low bid for the MHS – a market Glock already rules.

    • jonp

      “he SIG does not require the trigger to be pulled when disassembled. I believe this is one major reason the SIG was chosen. Safety of our soldiers. Risk mitigation. Nanyism”

      This is a giant consideration considering the majority of our soldiers now enter service without any firearms experience at all. Heck, 30yrs ago when I went through Basic over 1/2 had no idea how to shoot or handle a firearm. From my daughters tales of woe it has just gotten worse. She was a Company Armorer and the stories of what showed back up after a range session are not good.

  • Tom J

    I can fix this. Create a set of standards and dimensions that the pistol must adhere to. Then the Government can buy any pistol that meets the criteria regardless of brand. They already do this with most personal equipment like boots, helmets, and vests. Hell, even the M4/M16 and the SAW have been manufactured by different companies.

    • That sure would be nice…

    • int19h

      Why do you hate armorers so much? Can you imagine the amount of headache from having to deal with a dozen different handguns with different manuals, parts etc?

    • some other joe

      “They already do this with most personal equipment like boots, helmets, and vests.” No, we don’t. Everything, especially helmets and body armor, is contracted to specific entities. MSA makes ACHs and ECHs. If MSA can’t meet the production numbers a supplemental contract could be awarded to another entity to make up the excess (based on licensing of the initial contract to MSA). But the not-MSA helmets will still be ACHs or ECHs; no deviance from the form or performance of the original model. It’s the same with the weapons you mentioned; regardless of who’s name is stamped on the side (Colt, FN, SACO, etc), that is the only difference. An FN M16 has identical bolt, trigger, sear, etc to a Colt model and a Colt manufactured replacement part will drop in without issue. And vice-versa.
      What you seem to be suggesting is that the Army can buy a SIG P320 or a Glock 19MHS or a FNP9 or… and it’s all good. The effect could end up with a single rifle company having more than a dozen different models of “Pistol, 9mm” in the arms room. That’s ridiculous.

  • Lady Libby

    I just want to know why Nathaniel thinks that Glock is better than Sig. Kind of a blanket statement without any facts.

    • I didn’t think it was relevant to the article to explain.

  • Archimedes

    TFB has now joined fake news. Clearly no one on their staff has any experience in acquisitions.

    The selected winner will have to under go type classification to receive a full material release to become M-17 from a XM-17. During this process the pistol will undergo more testing in which they will further development the pistol. The down select in which glock, sig, and fn went head to head only established who did the best to decide who the army wants to work with to deliver the final material solution.

    This program wasn’t to determine who makes the best pistol. It was establish who can follow the army’s recipe the best. The requirements are set by the army.

    Glock fan boys at the tfb need to conduct proper due diligence before releasing garbage.

    • I see you did not actually read my article.

      • Archimedes

        I did read it. Must of it is regurgitated garbage from other places with your opinion offered. Typical of most gun bloggers with no experience on the subject they are covering.

        Your article reenforces the opinion that the testing conducted during the MHS trials was incomplete. You are in fact wrong. The testing was sufficient to select a contractor the army deemed suitable to work with. It’s is not a difinitive test of acceptance. Developmental testing will be conducted and I’m sure there will be several engineering change proposals before the final material solution is fielded to the army and others.

        Again, this was not a test of who makes the best gun, which seems to be the prevailing theme here. This was a competition to see would could meet the army’s requirements and be cost effective.

        Glock clearly didn’t meet those standards. It’s over and people need to support THE ARMY’S decision so we can move forward and stop wasting tax payer dollars. Sig also has many hoops to jump through before there is officially a M17. Right now they are merely the contractor selected to make the final product.

        Your article is an extension of the last TFB MHS in which you quoted the VP of Glock who I’m sure has a difference of opinion in what he said. TFB seems to feel Sig’s award of the MHS contract isn’t warranted. You clearly stated you think glock is the superior product. But that the goverment shouldn’t reopen the test. No need to be passive aggressive. You guys love glocks.

        As a journorlist(I use that term loosely) you have a responsibility to report on the facts. And facts are this was a fair competion that glock was fully prepared for. This goes all the way back to Joint Combat Pistol. They knew what the army wanted and chose to submit what the did. They lost. End of story. Now all the whining and crying might cost them their socom contract as the goverment is closely evaluating what is in its best interest. That and forth coming protest against glock for the socom contract.

        • crackedlenses

          Maybe I misread the article, but I could have sworn he agrees with you.

          • You didn’t misread. I don’t think Archimedes bothered beyond the title and first sentence.

            But it’s my due diligence in question here, I musn’t forget.

          • Archimedes

            I guess the title says it all. You offered a “in depth analysis” of a program that hasn’t been completed. Nor has the material solution been fielded to the end user. Yet you have graced the internet with your expert opinion on its failure or success. So yes, the due dilligence is on you.

            Kinda like the last article you wrote in which you threw an intrusty professional under the bus.

          • Hahahah, nice save bro.

          • some other joe

            I’m trading up my BDE’s M9s for the completed materiel solution by the end of the calendar year. It’s the M17. The MHS competition was for a COTS solution to the question of a new pistol for the Army. If the option tendered required more developmental time after the contract award, it was not a viable contender for contract award.

            I agree, get over it, SIG won. I’ll have one in my holster in the new year.

          • crackedlenses

            His article is a response to someone else’s “expert opinion on its failure or success”. At this point you’re trying way too hard to be edgy here.

          • Sermon 7.62

            You are missing the point: “people need to support THE ARMY’S decision so we can move forward”.

  • Hazztech

    Everybody who has even an eighth of a brain (read: people who didn’t go LMFAO EKEKKEKEKEKJEJEJJEJEJEXDXDXDXD GLOCK BTFO) when the “winner” was announced knows damn well the site was chosen only because it was cheaper, despite the fact that it has numerous production issues, no scale production, little reputation, has an insustainable cost and no parts ability but nevermind.

    Whatever. Hopefully Sig will be able to iron out the issues.

  • Richard Jones

    Am assuming they will stay with 9mm, so what is wrong with the Beretta? I think the 40 is a better caliber. I have fired both the Sig and the Glock and for me the one that fits my hand best.

    • int19h

      The question isn’t whether .40 S&W is a better caliber. The question is whether it is better enough to justify a switch away from 9mm, and the corresponding changes to the logistics pipeline etc, not to mention NATO standardization.

      And the answer to that question is: no, it’s not. Especially not in something as unimportant as a sidearm.

      • Samuel Millwright

        Actually the answer to both is no LOL…

        40 is not only not better than9 it’s worse

  • Some Rabbit

    Attention! All Glock fanboys please report to the 1911 fanboy ‘safe space’. Crying towels and fidget spinners will be issued upon arrival.

    • Nicks87

      I dont really think that’s necessary. It’s not like the 320 is THAT much better.

      • tiger

        It was better than the rest, met spec, and costs less.

    • Billy Vegas

      and coloring books and Play Doh

    • Eric H

      Capri Suns and cookies will be served as refreshments.

    • Steve Alexander
      • Brandon Cord Bradshaw


        • Steve Alexander

          Not directed at you. Lighten up Francis…

          • Brandon Cord Bradshaw


  • Tom

    The Sig won because they passed the tests at a price of $207 a handgun, the later is mostly what won the contract. The lowest bidder that meets specs, Sig was cheaper by $100 million. It doesn’t matter if the glock is twice as good as the Sig as long as they both met the spec and passed testing. That’s the game with government contracts, you make the cheapest something that you know will meet spec. If the specs are vaguely or poorly written (many times by someone who is not a top expert in the area) as the often are it’s not surprising that the government often chooses to (or is forced into) buying an item that while meets spec is not the best choice.

    Companies have figured this out with the government, and the government has not caught on or refused to really do anything about it. Even big S&P 500 companies are underbidding contracts bigtime to win them, knowing if they run into problems they can get more funding later. You really really really have to mess something up to actually lose a contract, and the government typically does not hold a grudge for future contracts. Unfortunately it typically means that the work that gets completed, is not to the standards it should be.

  • NukeItFromOrbit

    As long as we’re throwing around opinions of questionable value I still think they should have gone with the .45 variant of the Sig because this is America.

    If .45 is too much recoil for the individual let them fill out the requisition form for the 9mm variant.

  • 3of11

    Its entirely possible GLOCK wasnt even all that interested in winning this contract? I mean, you have to bid, just to ensure your more-interested competitors bid and bid low. So you slap together a design that more or less meets the RFQ and a price that, if somehow you do win, you’ll be more than okay with. Sometimes seeing your competitor stuck struggling to make money on a really large & long contract (with an irritable and public customer) is good for your business elsewhere in the big wide world of handguns. Any minor problem with the 320 going forward is going to be (rightly or wrongly) blown waaaay up. Remember the Beretta M9 slide cracking stuff? Imagine if they picked a gen 4 glock and it had the teething problems it had with the Army first… three times the PR/reputation disaster.

    All in all, this Modularity thing will soon be forgotten about, sort of like the idea of “disposable magazines” of the M16/M4 platform. This gun will not shoot very many shots in anger or distress and mostly sit in holsters or be shot on the range. Why use any handgun when your primary fighting tool is a rifle or crew serviced weapon. Meanwhile, GLOCKS mostly sit in the holsters of people whom rely on a handgun as their primarygo to weapon /glockfanboy 😛

  • Clark Hanson

    Sig has a much better weapon for the military. So anyone who thinks Glock should have been the winner needs to get over it.

  • MIke H

    Me– “I need to get across town in under 30 minutes”

    Taxi #1– “I can do it in 20 minutes, for $25, and I have more leg room”

    Taxi #2– “I can do it in 17 minutes, for $45, and I have a better sound system”

    Me– “I’ll go with Taxi #1”

    Taxi #2– “What a load of crap! I demand you go with me, because I’m the better taxi!”

    And this, folks, is what we’re arguing about. Does the extra three minutes and better sound justify the additional $20, when both get me across town in well under my 30 minutes requirement?

  • idahoguy101

    I’m unclear why the M11 pistol wasn’t selected. The military SIG P228. It’s already been adopted and is in service.

  • Sermon 7.62

    I told them that QX-04 was a better design and people laughed at that. And QX-04 is based on this pistol.

    • iksnilol

      Does Sig use a rotating barrel?

      • Sermon 7.62

        You know that I am not an expert or engineer, as far as I know it doesn’t use a rotating barrel, and I also have no idea if it is good or not, but I also know that in this particular comment the point is in something else.

        • iksnilol

          QX-04 looks to use a rotating barrel.

          • Sermon 7.62

            QSZ-92, that is on the picture, “has a rotating barrel locking system, in which the barrel rotates on recoil to lock and unlock itself from the slide”, and QX-04 “shares a similar structure with the QSZ-92 service pistol”, but differs in some aspects: “the gun uses a unique operating principle… the barrel is fluted in an opposite twist of the rifling…this fluting causes the pistol when fired to exert opposite rotational force on the barrel… locking the front of the slide to the barrel until the fired round leaves the gun”.

            But to me it’s like the Chinese grammar. I have no opinion about that.

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            Savage tried that ‘barrel unlocks by rotating opposite to the barrel rifling’ nonsense in their trial pistol that was beat out by the 1911. Slo mo footage from years (decades) later determined that the barrel and slide unlocked almost immediately upon firing, and made the pistol functionally a .45 ACP blowback. I highly doubt that this pistol is any different.

          • Sermon 7.62

            Because China?

  • Sermon 7.62

    You have not tested, or used Chinese pistols, at all, and for sure not used or tested the one I mentioned.

    • JD

      And neither have you.

  • Sermon 7.62

    I couldn’t find Sig P320 users.

  • Sasquatch

    Needed to choose dat Dar deagle. It be one shot one kill. The video games told me so.

  • Samuel Millwright

    Hmmn…. Yup, that’s why norinco AK’s sks “hunters” m14 clones and etc are highly sought after to this day in the US right?

    Even though they’re rarer and more expensive every year…



  • iksnilol

    .460 Rowland ?

    • Samuel Millwright

      Meh… .38 casull or go f***ing home!

      Aka 7.62 tokarev texas style!

  • iksnilol

    But China has no original ideas, they’re only good at copying stuff.

  • Horned Frog

    Either pistol would be great, if our service members were allowed to carry them, loaded, at all times.

  • nova3930

    6. He has no insight into SIGs costs to say that one way or the other. This is a fixed price contract so if SIG has cost over runs, they have to eat it, not Uncle Sam. In the next round of contracting, might they raise they price? Yeah, but they also might lower it after they recoup their R&D costs. In the end it’s all 100% speculation. It isn’t like someone bidding half price on an aircraft carrier in a cost+ contract where Uncle Sam will have to eat the over runs. You can’t speculate and make assumptions on price when awarding the contract.

    8. Even if the Army awarded for value and not performance, they’re allowed to do that. For the last 4-5 years it’s been actively encouraged to do so under the “Low Price Technically Acceptable” mantra. As long as the competitor meets the threshold requirements, it can be selected with preference to the low cost option. Any selection above the low cost option has to be justified by increased performance, but gone are the days of silver bullets where you can pay 200% more for a 2% increase in performance. They generally only go that route when they get a 200% increase in performance for a 2% increase in cost….

  • jcobbers

    So TLDR version of this article about this video: Guy who has some knowledge and experience in Army hand gun selection process sees errors where there aren’t really any and conflates different parts of the process with requirements for process as needing to be met that didn’t actually have to be met. Also Glock is whining, because SIG bid low and got picked when there’s no major performance differences. Got it.

  • Vozlek V

    So the thing with the lawsuit is that they are suing due to the modular system but what they didn’t sue them on is the P250. Which that came out in 2007, so with that gun being out for over 10 years by the time this goes to court all SIG’s lawyers have to do is bring that up. So if SIG is in violation of the patent they have been for so long that they can win by using that the patent is invalid due to the patent not being defended for 10 years.

    • John Morrison

      Not enforcing a patent doesn’t make it invalid. However, the release of the new Steyr pistol gives them a little better claim of damages beyond a reasonable royalty.

  • Sunshine_Shooter

    So, what gun design do you think is significantly more reliable than the Glock or P320?

    And what commercially available caliber are you considering actually worth the military’s time? .32 auto? 5.7×22?

    • Samuel Millwright

      … I said nothing about commercially available cartridges..

      Matter of fact, that’s a massive part of the problem!

      Though 7mm penna can be made from 5.7fn fired brass, 7.92 vbr-b used 30 carbine brass as start point…

      Also the grand power k100 is better than both from reliability and parts life. In the Slovakian military pistol trials test guns managed 25,000 rounds without breakage etc.

      • JD

        My friggen word, you can stop posting your utter BS now. For the love of all that is holy!

  • lowell houser

    You mean a failure in the sense that the MHS actually was awarded the contract, or that it would have been far more cost effective to just select the Glock 19 from the start? Because this was one of the stupidest military acquisition programs that I’ve ever seen. I don’t even like Glock, but hey, they work, the logistics were already in place, and they were cheap. I mean, it’s a fracking handgun, I suppose a giant program to pick the next combat knife/bayonet would have been even more wasteful, but this is almost that bad.

  • Native Born American

    Well, considering Sig also holds a valid patent for their trigger group, essentially the gun itself, and it obviously is designed as part of a modular system, the US government has already decided that Sig can make the weapon, having granted the patent.

    • John Morrison

      A patent doesn’t give you the right to do anything. It gives you the right to prevent others from doing something. As for the Steyr lawsuit, simply having a patent doesn’t mean you will win. You have to look at all patents and products that preceded Steyr. Maybe it will cost Sig, but it will not significantly change this contract.

      • Native Born American

        The implication was that Sig likely used their own patent, which was granted after a search of conflicting patents. Can’t really be held accountable for infringing on someone else’s patent if you’re manufacturing under your own patent. The US Patent Office obviously considered the two designs to be different enough to warrant separate patents.

  • Gordon Couger

    The Goock didn’t meet specifications or make any attempt to accommodate any modularity at all and weren’t going to. Glock has no history of supporting multiple very different model of guns Sig does. In 21 categories Sig out performed Glock in 11 and Glock beat Sig in 2. Both guns were marginal in accuracy and I don’t know what licensing rights are all about.

    Worst of all Glock over bid Sig by 159%. The government take the low bid seriously.

    No matter how good the gun you bring to the trials is if it doesn’t meet the specs and costs half and again as much as the one that does your don”t get the bid, ever. There is no point in competition trials to choose which one of one gun that meets the specs wins when the competition has disqualified its self.

  • Wow!

    As I suspected, pricing had a big influence in the choice. That isn’t a failure of the contest at all. That was a smart decision on the Army’s side especially since cost of replacing worn M9 units was the whole reason for the replacement in the first place.

  • jeff

    Sig won, get over it.

  • Kurt

    Is the Glock modular? Case closed.

    • John Morrison

      If it was that simple, the Army would have rejected it. Then we wouldn’t have this discussion.

      • PaulWVa

        They did reject it. And this discussion is moot.

  • Mikele Deziell

    Good God! I love both companies and have owned both pistols. You cannot go wrong with either one. But the optics of this complaint make Glock look like whiney crybaby losers. It reminds me of how the left is acting in the political climate right now. I personally think SIG won because they gave a low-ball bid. As a contractor I have been on both ends of this. Money talks, especially in the government. I would hate for Glock to push this to the limit because no matter what I personally think it will not look good for the company. Everyone knows Glocks are awesome and semi indestructible guns, but just because they got outbid it’s looking like their ego is bruised. Just my opinion.

  • Stu Gotz

    As for the Army taking cost into consideration, since when did the government care about spending taxpayer money? I had a SIG P320 and didn’t think it was anything special. Neither are the Glocks in my view. So it was a choice between two decent but not spectacular pistols. Beretta was in the mix, too, but its APX lost and justifiably so as it is an inferior gun to both the SIG and Glock entries.

    In the scheme of things, the contract is a drop in the Pentagon”s massive $600 trillion annual budget. Saving a hundred mil or so is chump change. It doesn’t surprise me that the Army took several years to pick a successor to the MP but what does surprise me is that it seemed to make its decision hastily after all, based on the scanty test results.

    I suppose either gun will serve as the new sidearm, but I would have selected any CZ over the SIG or Glock. Politics probably played a role. No doubt “made in America” might have been preferable to “made in Austria.” And who knows how much was passed under the table.

    • Phil Hsueh

      At the end of the day, no matter which pistol was selected it would have been made in the US as are pretty much guns in US service. If CZ were in the running and they had won CZ would have to set up shop in the US, if they don’t already, to make that particular gun, just like Sig does for the pistols SOCOM uses, and as FN does for the M240, 249, SCAR, and M4s.

  • Darrell Elmore

    Being a long time veteran and kind of old school, I like a positive mechanical safety on handguns. I do not think the glock so called safety trigger is really appropriate for the military. I have seen or know of too many unintentional discharges with glocks to make it appropriate for carry by the troops. Not all are well trained or use handguns regularly so a bit of secondary safety is appropriate. Its hard to make things soldier proof but we need to try.


    As a vet i have to remind EVERYBODY of one fact made painfully obvious one day while we were checking our loadouts. The Master Sgt made one final comment as we finished. “And remeber people your equipment has been provided to you by the lowest bidder.” Not ” it’s the best equipment you can and should get” the “lowest bidder” The way it has been and the way it always will be. So this point is moot.

    • Travis

      An adage that falls short when you really think about it. If I need a car to get me to work and back, a $250K Ferrari won’t do any better or worse than a Honda costing $20K. What’s the point in spending more when one can get the same capability for less?


        except your comparing a Ferrari to a Honda. We’re talking about comparing a Honda to a Hyundai. asking 40k for the Honda and 20k for the Hyundai

  • Rich White

    I wish Glock, and their fanboys, would just shut up and move on already! The amount of butthurt over this is ridiculous. Glock lost and losing is a fact of life.

  • cisco kid

    Actually the statement in the article about the Sig being more robust proved in time not to be true. Sig had so many failures with its stamped sheet metal slide pistols it finally stopped making them and now makes them out of much more expensive bar stock. No modern firearms company ever makes a part that costs more money if they can “get by” making a less expensive part unless the product simply fails too often with the less costly part because that results in a loss of business. Other Military men at the test stated it was the stamped Sheet metal slide of the Sig that convinced them to go with the Beretta instead.
    I think too the flimsy stamped sheet metal roll pins in the Sig did not gain much praise from the Military either. The Sig also had parts made out of compressed “powdered metal” the forerunner of MIM cast parts. All in all the Beretta made for a much better quality looking pistol than the Sig that had many manufacturing short costs to increase profit. Today Sig now uses MIM cast parts.
    Both guns suffered from the use of Aluminum Frame which is not as durable as a steel frame. The only advantage of the aluminum slide was one of less weight than steel.
    The Sig further suffered from an unprotected main spring which is not encased in a steel housing as the 1911 pistol is or even an aluminum frame as the Beretta is. The Sig only has the plastic grips surrounding the main spring and they could shatter in a fall which would bend the econo grade very soft main spring strut which would result in a pistol which would become inoperable.
    Of course the Military never bothers to study the design of a pistol rather they simply give it a test not realizing that long term durability or actual use in Combat should also be taken into consideration. Its all too complicated for the military mind.

  • cisco kid

    I forgot to make a comment on the reason the Sig was excepted without a manual safety and the Glock was not. The Glock acts much more like a single action pistol and just as the military in 1911 demanded a manual safety on the 1911 pistol to prevent accidents so too the Glock would have needed one. On the other hand the Sig was a double/single action design that is far safer to carry with the hammer in the down position so the Military was correct in letting it pass because it was the more safe design to use even though technically it had no manual safety. I think the article is dead wrong about the Military not being aware that the Sig had no manual safety, indeed they did know that it did not.

    • PaulWVa

      The Sig needs another safety like my car needs two brake pedals.

  • I still don’t understand how Glock’s entry was “modular”?!?!?

  • Margot Aspen

    Good grief! Don’t know what the problem is other than sour grapes on Glock’s part. I know Glock is a high performance firearm, according to everyone I know who owns them. BUT! My first firearm was a SIG (p238 to conceal carry), and I purchased the 938 as fast as I could. I couldn’t wait to get the 320. I have purchased other brands: Ruger & Walther, but I am a die hard SIG Sauer woman. I am shopping around for a 320 sub compact (I have the Carry as my competition gun, which, for my 5′ 1″ size is perfect).

  • RBR

    Sadly, the Army has a history of not following test procedures. One of the most egregious examples was the Bradley armored fighting vehicle. It could not pass a test involving fire resistance when shot with opposition weapon systems so the Army personnel in charge of the program filled the fuel tanks with water…no fire so it passed until their skulduggery was revealed.

    I am troubled by the failure to complete durability testing. The Glock is a known quantity. At least one general had suggested ending the MHS program years ago and just buy Glocks.

    Fielding an unproven weapon system in Vietnam Nam cost lives. Could this be a repeat? There have already been problems with the Sig P320 in the civilian market.

    My suggestion to the Army is to pause the acquisition, complete the durability testing and then proceed accordingly. I realize that Sig made a substantially lower bid than Glock which raises questions in my mind about the company’s ability to deliver the sidearms on time at the contract price.

    Our troops should know that a new weapon system has been thoroughly and properly tested before they are expected to go in harm’s way with it.

  • Smedley54

    Yet again the entire process was rigged against the Colt 1911! When will these sinners repent and return to the righteous ways of John Moses Browning?! Set your faces toward West Hartford! Repent from the ways of polymer EuroTrash! The .45 is a forgiving round that will gladly accept your return!

  • Eric B.

    I have a Gen 1 Glock 17 and will stick with it. NEVER had a stoppage with either the cheapest factory ammo of my own handloads after decades of shooting it.

    But after all that time since the Gen 1 Glocks came out (and all the other Glock generations) other companies have made semi-auto handgun improvements and hopefully the new SIG version(s) will be robust and serve all branches of the military well. I have more faith in the SIG design than the “improved” Beretta.

  • Vince Black

    History repeats itself. Back in the 80’s the better pistol lost to the cheaper one. Thous who had the budgets went with p226s. Like the Navy Seals. Fast forward to today and the same thing is happening. The cheaper gun won over the better more proven one. Did anyone happen to notice that The Seals just adopted the Glock 19? Too funny!

    I’ve run a 92f, Sigs and now Glocks. After two USA made Sigs with issues I won’t use them anymore. I hope the guns they supply to our service men/women are top notch. But I’m not holding my breath.

  • edicius4

    All I hear is “Wah, Wah, Wah”: from butthurt Glock fanboys.

    But seriously though,The SIG is a Cheaper, more flexible gun, that performs similarly to the over-priced Glock.

  • James B.

    The MHS competition was decided on price, and that isn’t a sin. Even if the firearms experts and gun-show ninjas eventually determine that the Glock entry was a smidgen better than the SIG entry, the US Army has 100 million reasons not to care.

    Handguns are secondary weapons for 99.9% of the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines issued them. Even those troops not issued a rifle are meant to fight their battles with something else, so the typical military pistol is never fired outside a qualification range, and will only fire a few hundred rounds a year unless it’s a pool gun for a training command.

  • Braidon Benjamin

    Although you have backed up your argument with facts, it is grossly apparent that the author bears a bias for Glock products (which you do admit in your article, so thank you for your honesty).

    You also failed to mention the shortcomings of Glock’s performance, not to mention that they stubbornly refused to add a manual safety until the last minute, in addition to a catastrophic failure that no other competitor experienced.

    When I say this, I’m not saying that Glock pistols are bad are even less than great firearms. . . however, the basic design of all their products has receive virtually no updating or upgrading in nearly 3 decades. Not mention, their products are over priced and somewhat lacking in features compared to what the competition have to offer, i.e. Sig, H&K, and especially Canik.

    A final note, most people in the industry, as well as informed military personnel, think its HILARIOUS that Glock is filing a suit against Sig. Good luck with that.

  • Richard Lutz

    The trial results are rightly ignored as the wrong pistol was chosen for the wrong reasons. 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.

  • Seth Hill

    Steyr’s lawsuit against SIG is going to be interesting, especially since they waited until now to file a lawsuit and didn’t do it when the P250 or P320 was introduced. I will note that there are some difference (just looking at the images, unknown about the functions) between the SIG chassis and the Steyr’s which could be enough to warrant being considered not an infringement.

  • JD

    Huh, no surprise there. I despise communists.

    • Sermon 7.62

      I despise morons.
      You seem to be one.

  • georgesteele

    My observation: the overwhelmingly biggest issue brought up in the video is that the tests were run shooting from a Ransom Rest. While the information gained regarding accuracy is no doubt beneficial, a Ransom Rest in NO WAY reflects the FTF/FTE failure mode statistics of a pistol being fired by a wide variety of hand size, hand and arm strength, and body weight shooters. This is an altogether unacceptable testing mode for a semi-automatic pistol to be used by troops with a wide variety of physical statures in combat.

  • Mikial

    Glocks are great guns. Sigs are great guns. I personally prefer Glocks, but the Glock entry did not meet as many of the DoD requirements as the Sig, and was considerable more expensive. End of story. I’ve been working on USG contracts for 13 years now, and that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. That’s why there are multiple bidders.

  • Ethan P

    I’m just guessing, but I believe the fact that the Glock trigger has to be pulled for take down is the big strike against it. Not so the Sig.

  • Snakebait511

    I own a Gen 4, Glock 23 and a Sig P320 compact both in .40 cal. I’m not real fond of the Glock because it hasn’t proven to be true to me due to jam sessions I’ve had along with having to install an extended slide release and better sights. Besides that, the trigger action drags and it’s a pain in the neck to disassemble with arthritic fingers. The Sig is much better because all these issues are nonexistent. In my opinion, the Sig is a better product!

  • Mikial

    Sigs are great guns, and they underbid Glock by a large margin. The external safety was not an issue since the Glock submission had one, just look at the stats of the submitted guns and the photos. The Glock did have an external safety as per the solicitation. In the end, Sig won because they underbid Glock and offered a better replacement parts option, which as the article points out may or may not be true in practice.

    IMHO, I think they should have gone with the Glock, but as Hoot says in Blackhawk Down, “Y’know what I think? Don’t really matter what I think.”