OPINION: Did the Government fail in its evaluation process for the MHS ? Yes they certainly did!

This article reflects the opinion of the author, not necessarily of The Firearm Blog.  

Since 2006 the government has been attempting to acquire a new pistol to replace the now well worn M9. There have been many starts and stops, claims of lack of funds to continue and other excuses ad nauseum. The most recent failure not only has Glock livid over the “final” decision but other companies as well who still believe the guns they submitted passed the basic requirements in the first stage of testing and evaluation.

I’m not going to go over all of the documents that have been presented on the Internet over and over again. I will show you a few I doubt you’ve seen before. My intent is to explain what was done in this competition and why. I’ll refrain from expressing a personal opinion of which pistol should have been chosen. That answer is simple it should be the best pistol for our warfighters use to defend themselves when the primary weapon malfunctions.

Our government had a two part test to determine the answer to the question which is the best handgun for the conditions our warfighters operate in. During the first part of the evaluation, the testing was simple and straightforward. Did the 9 pistols presented by several well known companies meet the basic criteria set forth in the solicitation? The bottom line is SIG and the P320 passed as did the MHS Glock.

After these two pistols were chosen to continue both were tested for ergonomics which only required a number of testers hold the pistols in various stances and shooting grips. Further test were done firing the guns while mounted in a Ransom rest type device. The purpose of this test was to determine accuracy and reliability. Testing a pistol for reliability by using a machine doesn’t really give a realistic idea only testing by a human being with all of our differences in stance, grip etc will provide that answer only after firing many rounds.

At some point in this very basic testing, the bids were released. The SIG bid was a great deal less that Glock. Mind you this includes pistols, magazines, parts, training as well as other ancillary equipment. Sometime during this revelation, the government in it’s usual consistency in decision making chose the lowest bidder and called a halt to the second and most revealing portion of the testing. The reasoning behind the governments decision was based on the first set of test where the government declared that both guns were so close in performance there was no need to continue with the second phase of testing and awarded the contract to SIG because of the much lower price that they believed Glock could never match or come close to.

GlockPro

This is when the government made it’s biggest mistake calling off phase two testing even though both the Glock and SIG were chosen to go head to head in the second phase. The second phase should have been conclusive but unless things change we’ll never know who would have won the realistic phase two testing. At this point and considering the pressure being applied it’s unknown if phase two will ever go forward.

Before I continue let me address something that has caused more controversy than anything else and that’s the manual thumb safety. Many people like the idea of a manual safety while many others deplore the idea. Let me clarify this straight from Glock. The solicitation called for a manual thumb safety but the winner would do away with the manual safety. The actual issue pistols would not have a manual safety of any kind. So why did the government ask for a manual safety on the test guns when they knew full well the issued pistols would not have one!

If you’ve studied what would be done in phase two you realize this would be close to real world use. Actual soldiers of every shape and size would fire approximately 35,000 issued 9mm rounds. Over a longer period, the ergonomics would be further tested as would the life expectancy of each entry. The expected figure before breakdown was right at 20,000 rounds. There would be the usual water immersion, mud test, sand, drop test etcetera which when done should have provided conclusive proof of which pistol was correct for our soldiers. Would the low bidder have been the best pistol for the job or the high bidder? We’ll never know unless the test are continued and completed with both companies guns involved.

GAO Redacted MHS Protest Decision (4)

So far with the track record of the past decade, I’m skeptical the government will get back on track in the testing and not base a decision on money as it appears they have done to this point. Which pistol is better? Let’s find out and go forward with phase two and give the soldiers the pistol they deserve to protect their lives and our countries freedom.

Glock’s Protest MHS — Army Contracting Command – 02 24 17



Phil White

Retired police officer with 30 years of service. Firearms instructor and SRU team member. I still instruct with local agencies. My daily carry pistol is the tried and true 1911. I’m the Associate Editor and moderator at TFB. I really enjoy answering readers questions and comments. We can all learn from each other about our favorite hobby!


Advertisement

  • Noah Bama

    awww, Glock fanboy gawt he feewings hut

    • Tym O’Byrne

      I;ll get a Glock as soon as i find one that actually fits in my hand properly…..

      • Sasquatch

        Amen! Sig feels awesome in my hands. But personally my favorite is the fn hand guns.

        • Tym O’Byrne

          My favorite so far has been a Bisley griped frame Ruger Blackhawk…no other handgun has felt so good no matter how hot the loads….

        • FN has the best trigger—-

      • Nicks87

        Small hands?

        • Tym O’Byrne

          Compared to who? My hands, if my hands dont fit it doesnt matter much how big or small they are, they may be medium sized. Im 5’9″ and weigh 134 lbs…ya maybe im just not as fat, i mean as big as say, you.

        • AustinPowers

          Smells like cabbage? Carnies?

      • john huscio

        Gen4s were the ones that finally fit me.

      • Tim

        Word… I have medium sized hands with big knuckles.

        For double stacked, I’m all in on the P320C with the small grip module.

        I do however like my G43, it and the G42 are the only Glock products that I can hold correctly.

      • D*#$inaBox

        Step One: Cut a hole in the box.
        Step Two: Put your junk in that box.
        Step Three: Make her open the box.

      • Good luck without having someone charge you $400 to reshape the grip.

    • Nicks87

      Ah, Phil is a 1911 guy so… probably not.

  • Connor

    There are quite a few conflicting opinions from different writers on here, and the ones who disagree with this article seem to be right.

  • G B

    “…it should be the best pistol for our warfighters…” is where I think a lot of people will disagree. Sure, we would love for our service men and women to have the best equipment possible whenever possible. But we live in a world where money is a factor and if having a (potentially) better sidearm means they would have to make sacrifices in other more important areas then they probably made the right call.

    • The hell with the money aspect. The government waste more money daily than completing this test would cost. Give the troops the best equipment without exception.

      • G B

        I agree the government wastes an awful lot of money, but in that case they shouldn’t be considering any of these handguns. Plenty of $2,500+ handguns out there that will do a heck of a lot better job than a 320 or g19. While we’re at it let’s issue every single troop two of every cutting edge precision rifle, carbine, smg, optic, thermal, NV, armor, etc. because you never know what they might need for a mission, two is one and one is none, and they only deserve the best equipment without exception and regardless of cost.

        Now back to reality where money matters and only a very very small percentage of our military ever rises to the experience and skill level where all of “the best equipment without exception” actually makes a significant difference. And the funny thing is, the guys at that level would tell you they’d get it done with an AK and a radio. And maybe a 40mm or two. 😉

      • ActionPhysicalMan

        I posit that the problem there is that bidders would make little to no attempt to keep costs down. The DoD also has a limited, albeit huge, budget. Using less than the best available equipment will likely result in the loss of more lives than with the best. Unfortunately, in a world of limited resources you do have to put a price on everything, including human lives.

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        A ridiculous notion by any economic analysis. You need to study the term “sunk costs.”

  • codfilet

    I really can’t believe how emotionally involved gun forum guys get over these handgun selections. For about 99% of the servicemen that have to carry a pistol, an 1873 SAA revolver would be just as good as the latest auto.

    • Nicks87

      Wow that’s kind of un-patriotic isn’t it? I thought we wanted to give our soldiers the best weapons available to win the war. You have to prepare for “what if” situations too, like if the base gets over-run. Maybe civilians should only get to own single action revolvers because the chance of them using it to protect themselves is slim to none. We all think we know whats best for each other, right?

      • TheNotoriousIUD

        You dont win wars with pistols.
        And if you get overrun with nothing else but a pistol then you should probably use it on yourself instead of ending up on Youtube getting your head cut off.

        • john huscio

          Your assuming we’ll always be fighting only islamists.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            If we end up fighting Russia, China or the Norks then pistols will be even more useless.
            The war after that will be fought with rocks and sticks.

          • James Young

            That logic doesn’t make sense. In war with Russia, China, or NK you would have more fighting, more troops, and so by default, more incidents to use pistols.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Armed conflict with any of those three will rapidly devolve into a nuclear exchange which will end very quickly.
            The idea of limited nuclear warfare is absurd.

          • James Young

            Even if they were fighting outside of their country? Countries will most likely (North Korea may use them regardless) not use nuclear weapons unless their very existence threatened such as invasion about to be upon Moscow. But fighting in say Poland and eastern Europe would not rapidly devolve into nuclear war since mutually assured destruction would want to be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Then there are also changes in tech such as shooting down ICBMs, etc. that could nullify M.A.D. changing warfare again

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Yeah right, our intercept system has a 50% hit rate in controlled tests.
            Eastern Europe will be a smoking hole and the norks will unload without hesitation because they won’t have anything to lose.
            But yeah a few guys will be left scurrying around blasting each other with pistols probably.

          • James Young

            Uh huh, because technology never improves…And how many wars and conflicts have the US and Russia been involved in with other countries since WW2 and never used nukes? Generally countries avoid using nukes because the cost far exceeds the benefit. Do you think if, for example, Russia invades eastern Europe that the US would quickly start blanketing Russia with nukes? That’s absurd.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            NATO war plans call for the use of tactical nukes in the event of a Russian invasion of Eastern Europe, yes.
            Read up, son.
            Vietnam and Afghanistan were proxy wars.
            If we go for real the big guns are coming out. Period.
            With our current leadership diplomacy has no chance.

          • James Young

            Of course they call for it. They have to be ready for it and use the threat of it to make the Russians too afraid to try. That doesn’t mean NATO would immediately damn the entirety of the Western and Russian world as soon as the Russians crossed into Estonia. “Sir Russian tanks have crossed into Estonia.” “Nuke em.” “Um, what, sir?”

            My point with the other wars is made by your response. They didn’t use them because (fill in the blank), because they had reasons not to.
            They won’t use them until absolutely necessary.

            Our current leadership is engaged in diplomacy right now, to say that tough talk doesn’t include diplomacy is a misunderstanding of diplomacy. And even Trump won’t nuke any enemy right away. He will threaten it, of course, as a means to stop the Russians from going any farther.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Sorry, which tactical nukes are those? Specify type and delivery system please.

            Or are you stuck in 1970?

          • valorius

            We have zero chance of intercepting any more than 2-3% of all incoming missiles in a war with Russia.

          • James Young

            Currently, yes. But as I said technology changes and the US has been in the process of increasing the number of intercept sites for ICBMs and upgrading Aegis ship based systems to be able to counter ICBM threats. Also, if Russia uses short range missiles carrying nukes (not ICBMs) they can easily be shot down by very effective and prolific systems like the Patriot system. Allied countries also have their own systems in place on both levels. Compare this technology to thirty years ago, and now consider 30 years from now. Another thing is the use of EMPs via nukes that could shut down electrical grids and satellites, preventing the use of ICBMs altogether.

          • valorius

            Man the Russians have the ability to saturate our defenses with thousands of warheads. It would break the treasury to even attempt to defend against that sort of saturation attack.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Man, the US has TRILLIONS of pistol rounds. It would break the Russian treasury to even attempt to defend against that sort of saturation attack.–every bit as accurate as your statement.

          • valorius

            Actually your statement is idiotic.

          • n0truscotsman

            ICBM intercept is utterly irrelevant of “only” five major cities are vaporized.

            Thats overly optimistic anyways.

            Russia has THOUSANDS of thermonuclear, hypersonic ICBMs. Any interception would be like keeping rain off your house with an umbrella.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Your information about the Russian missile network is inaccurate.

          • n0truscotsman

            In what way?

            Even if a huge number are effectively defunct, they still represent a threat too great for existing interception technology to defeat.

          • valorius

            Our current missile defense system should be more than enough to deal with DPRK. It is standard practice to fire 3 interceptors at one incoming missile, btw.

          • James Young

            Those are anti ICBM systems. There are other interceptors for use against shorter range missiles that are prolific. But you avoided my point for some reason: what was that hit rate 30 years ago? How many anti ICBM launchers did we have? Technology will continue to improve and so will the number of launch sites, ground and ship based.

            I already discussed the “nothing to lose” scenario, but I guess you missed it. If you’re say Russia, and you are losing in Eastern Europe and are forced to retreat. You negotiate a ceasefire and an end to the war and you still have your country and your lives. If Western forces pursue into Russia to take the country then the Russians have nothing to lose and turn their enemies into smoking holes along with themselves.

            That’s not to say that it could devolve into nuclear war, but it would be suicidal and the people in power will know it and know the outcome, so they will avoid it.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            You do not know nearly as much about either strategy or nuclear engagement as you believe you do.

          • valorius

            A pistol would be utterly irrelevant to victory in a war vs any 1st world power.

          • James Young

            You’re not arguing the point. Nobody said it would be the difference between victory and defeat. This is a question of which weapon system is most effective for the role.

          • valorius

            The sig is the most effective for the role because it saved over 100m that can be used on a weapon system that actually matters. Like artillery.

          • Curious_G

            The Sig apparently is, because it meets the requirements for performance and cost.

          • Matt Taylor

            You’re assuming that the Chinese or North Koreans won’t be beheading us either.

          • Major Tom

            East Asian cultures aren’t very keen on the whole beheading thing. Instead they’ll either have ya shot, tortured or put in some kind of camp.

          • iksnilol

            Or y’know, used for bayonet practice.

          • Matt Taylor

            Except China and North Korea both have done public decapitation executions… Not saying it’s as common but it is a thing.

          • Nayden

            If we’re going to be fighting any non-ISIS enemies who will behead us, it’s far more likely to be the Mexican cartels.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            So, we need the Glock then, because it can take the Homeboy NiTeSiTes for shooting sideways.

          • James Young

            Really I seem to remember the Japanese having beheading contests among the officers in WW2.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            Ask the Chinese about the Japanese.

          • Ed Forney

            I’m going with the Chinese. They are definitely not our friends. And NK is a coin toss.

          • valorius

            So a pistol will be the difference in a war with China or Russia?

            Those Americans almost won, but they chose the Sig…

        • John

          False. Hitler was killed with a pistol, winning the European theater.

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            I cant argue with that.

          • valorius

            Hitler used it on himself.

          • ozzallos .

            The European theater was already won. That’s why Hitler killed himself with a pistol. It did not win any wars.

          • Robert Kalani Foxworthy

            but they do start them.

          • n0truscotsman

            He was about 5 years too late, IMO.

          • Just Say’n

            I thought Hitler poisoned himself?

          • iksnilol

            Both actually.

        • The Tin Star Kid

          If it comes down to just me and a pistol I’m not going down without a fight. Alivn York anyone?

        • dub baillie

          WWI was started with a pistol

          • TheNotoriousIUD

            It was not won with one.

      • It certainly seems so at times. News flash— most people simply have different opinions which others look at as faulty reasoning.

      • valorius

        The solution to REMFs getting over run was solved in the 1940s with the m1 carbine. And then again with the M4 carbine in the 1990s.

        • iksnilol

          And by the M1 40mm carbine in the 2040s (one can hope).

      • RealitiCzech

        What pistol can we adopt that will make up for totally idiotic strategy?

      • MichaelZWilliamson

        Who said anything about what civilians “Should” get? This is about a military contract for hundreds of thousands of weapons.

      • M40

        “I thought we wanted to give our soldiers the best weapons available to win the war.”
        – It’s really kinda cute when civilians believe things like this.

        Anyone who’s ever served KNOWS that they are humping the best gear that our government could possibly provide… from the rock-bottom lowest bidder.

        It’s like bragging that you are driving the absolute fastest car on the road… which can be purchased for under $1,000.

    • Black Dots

      Hey dude, it’s either this or talk to my family, so…

      • iksnilol

        Have you tried day drinking?

        I can really recommend it.

        • Gary Kirk

          I’m doing it..

          • iksnilol

            Well, if you’re complaining you ain’t really doing it enough.

          • Gary Kirk

            I’m not complaining.. Was merely backing your statement brother..

          • iksnilol

            Ah, sorry, it’s all a blur.

            Sometimes I get a bit confused,

          • Gary Kirk

            So you’re partaking as well.. 😉

          • iksnilol

            Do as I do, not as I say.

            😛

        • n0truscotsman

          Day drinking is underrated 🙂

        • Black Dots

          That’s my fallback position. Defense in depth, bro.

    • Audie Bakerson

      Nah, SAA is half a pound heavier than the sub-compact P320. That’s important.

    • Some are very invested for whatever reason. I tend to like most guns with a few exceptions.
      As far as these test I’d just prefer they finish what they started,

      • Sorry I am calling BS. If Glock had won the complaints would be a whimper compared to what we have coming from all the Glock fans.

        Look at the FBI contract, even though people decried “This contract was practically written for SIG P320.” When Glock won everyone shrugged their shoulders and went about their lives.

        Compare that to the response to this contract. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a1c70fa8dd66fc65851cf356757d2b394d4dd59342abc793a4198592a206478e.jpg

        • Not this time for sure. Either pistol is fine with me I just feel they should continue with phase two.

          • Rob

            I think that is a fair statement. It is odd to issue an award without vetting the submitted samples to he minimum outlined in the RFP and I think that is where a lot of the complaints are directed toward. I honsyely don’t care which pistol is ultimately selected but I think it is an injustice to go forward with the award without completing the trial.

          • That’s my whole point and it sounds like we agree as far as not really caring which pistol wins. Lets just complete what was started and may the best pistol win.

        • Rob

          I don’t think that is fare. Far more people pay attention to what the Army buys than the FBI. There was no collective overblown reaction from Glock guys when Sig won the ICE contract and that was more guns than the FBI.

        • Curious_G

          But there is also a cost to those trials – don’t forget that – and all this for a sidearm that will see little use comparative to a carbine.

          • throwedoff

            That’s what I’m thinking as well. For 99% of the Army service members the only time their new side arms will be fired will be during weapons qualifications. The rest of the time they will reside in armories and in holsters on the hips of MP’s. How much testing is necessary to base a decision for purchasing a new sidearm?

            Phil W. how many thousands of rounds need to be fired through a dozen of each brand of weapon tested (many thousands of dollars expended doing so) to reach a reasonable conclusion that all parties will be agreeable to? Then we find out that “hey, both weapons meet the criteria for adoption.” Yay, more wasted tax payers’ dollars gone up in smoke!!!

        • n0truscotsman

          LMAO

          So no SIG fans would have been outraged? Mind you, SIG has a pretty big following in the US, especially given the circumstances of SIG’s defeat to Beretta a generation ago.

          But no, there would be no outrage. no siree. /rolls eyes/

    • John

      Six bullets. More than enough to kill anything that moves.

    • valorius

      So very true.

  • Bullphrog855

    Yippee, another MHS post from the perspective of a Glock fanboy.

  • Major Tom

    The Glock fanboyism is strong in this post. Even after all this time, they still can’t accept that SIG actually did their jobs and won as a result while Glock did not on either count.

    • Not hardly!

      Nicks87 Noah Bama • 4 hours ago
      Ah, Phil is a 1911 guy so… probably not.

      •Reply•Share ›

      Avatar
      Phil W “Associate Editor TFB” TFB Moderator Nicks87 • a few seconds ago
      Nick that you know well and I still carry a 1911 each and every day. Nothing has changed except I carry a Wilson CQB now.

  • Cody Butkiewicz

    The more boohoo BS I see about glock not winning, I’ll be half tempted to trade my two glocks in for sigs

    • CATMguyMT

      I’ve actually seen more Glock haters whining about these posts than Glock “fanboy” whining about the MHS outcome or actual TFB posts on the topic.

      Do you even math bro? Perspective should be applied liberally.

  • Sasquatch
  • Brad

    GET OVER IT!!! I carried a pistol for 19 of my 26 years on active duty, 2 as a M60 gunner, 2 as an Infantry scout, and 15 as a scout pilot. It was never my primary weapons system and they all (M1911A1s and M9s) went bang when I pulled the trigger.
    The fanboi hand ringing is getting pathetic at this point.

    • iksnilol

      Yup, can we rather have some more interesting articles? Like, literally anything by Ronaldo or Hrachya 😛

      • Hey what can I say you get an assignment you write it.

        • iksnilol

          Yeah, but seriously, how much MHS people can one assign a poor writer?

          • I hope until something significant comes up we’re done with it. The whole point of what I wrote was how the government fouls things up and just maybe they should have completed the test. That pretty much sums it up.

  • Ron Merrell

    “Testing a pistol for reliability by using a machine doesn’t really give a realistic idea..” Wrong. Testing by machine is the ONLY way to provide both accuracy and precision in determining reliability because reliability problems can be caused by poor handling which should be trained out of shooters. And it is certain to be the only way to measure accuracy – which the author cannot possibly argue, so he simply doesn’t address it. In doing so he makes it impossible to treat his argument as anything but biased. In addition, the way this is written, it doesn’t sound like a carefully thought out discussion. It reads like an angry rant. Would the phase two testing have produced a different result? Maybe. But from what I’ve read, the test wasn’t concluded because the government wanted to save money. It did it because THE DAY AFTER they made the decision, there was a new team taking over – New SecDef, new SecArmy – and they had loudly proclaimed their interest in killing unnecessary programs. The team decided they had enough data to choose a pistol from the two selectees, and that – most important – either would be a major improvement over the M9. So they closed the deal while they still had a program to work with. This wasn’t a plot, it wasn’t an accident, and it wasn’t the guv’mint trying to save a buck at the cost of soldier’s lives. And the implication that they would do that after spending 13 years on the program is insulting to everyone involved.

    • Machine rests simply don’t play well with polymer frame pistols. I suspect that that the rest’s side inserts can’t maintain a consistent grip on the frame.

    • Mystick

      …because the US government has never never ever had any programs that were, bloated, redundant, pointless, and unnecessary for anything other than corporate welfare… RIGHT?

      Furthermore, there has never never ever been any extensively funded government program that, in the end, was completely invalidated by some political decision thereby wasting all the money spent of “testing” and “studies” that completely went out the door when an arbitrary decision was made – most probably with some closed-door peddling by one entity or another.

      • James Kachman

        “redundant, pointless, and unnecessary”

        I disagree. Even if this competition had selected to purchase newly built M9s, it would’ve succeeded. The current stock of pistols are either worn out or not far from it. The program selected an at-worst decent pistol at significant savings compared to the other options. They achieved their purpose, and their purpose was valid.

    • Lets say you’re right on the ransom rest. Are we more interested in how reliable/accurate a gun is in the hands of those who will be using them. Yes you would. A machine rest gives you an idea but the testing that counts is that done by those who will actually carry and use them.

      • Kinetics

        Even if testing for reliability using human shooters were done, it wouldn’t actually show which handgun was inherently more reliable because the captured rest eliminates the possibility of handling error inducing a malfunction…in other words, it’s actually the purest form of reliability.

        “Are we more interested in how reliable a gun is in the hands of those who will be using them”

        It would show which pistol suffered from more user initiated malfunctions, something that is very different from reliability.

        This is just an excuse to continue testing in search of some vague hope that Glock could somehow win.

        • James Young

          Exactly. Of all tests Glock wouldn’t win this is definitely one I couldn’t see Glock win. New shooters in the civilian world shoot the P320 very well compared to Glocks. Most of that is to do with the trigger of the P320 and ergos.

        • I don’t really care who wins as long as the test are completed. That pretty much sums up how I feel about it in a nutshell.

  • anonymoose

    Whoever proofread this piece and promptly rubber-stamped it shouldn’t be proofreading anything. Ever.

  • Covert Gamer

    I love how ppl like this idiot push their agenda for Glock unabashed. Glock submitted a single platform to cover both full sized and compact sizes (really??) and it wasn’t even modular, yet ppl will defend them with such arrogance. Shouldn’t let idiots like this opine on TFB, makes me visit the site less.

    • Submission of a single platform to cover both sizes was allowed under the rules. The G19MHS would roughly be the same size as the SIG XM18 submission (P320 Carry.)

      “Each proposal will consist of either a two (2) handgun solution (one full size and one compact), or one (1) handgun solution that meets requirements for both a full size and compact weapon, plus the following ammunition: ball, special purpose, and dummy drilled inert (DDI), as well as, accessories (to include spare parts).”

    • Now now name calling? I got this assignment because I’m not biased towards either pistol. I believe I explained I wanted the best pistol for the troops and completing the testing as planned would be the best way to do that.
      Nobody is twisting your arm to read an obvious MHS post unless you just enjoy name calling.

    • It would help if you actually read the whole article. I don’t have a strong opinion either way. I just want the test completed than runs both pistols hard. I want to see the government complete what they started.

  • it’s just Boris

    Your team lost, Hillary. Get over it.

  • Phillip Cooper

    One person’s opinion.

    Noone cares.

    Waste of an article.

  • A.WChuck

    OPINION: This click bait BS needs to stop.

    • JumpIf NotZero

      Agreed. This is just a rehash of last weeks entry which was already a little buzzfeedy.

    • Dirk Hardpeck

      OPINION: This article cleared up a lot of questions I had about the GAO’s process of selection and steps involved in the MHS contract. I found it informative and not at all clickbait.

      Then again, I actually *read* the article.

      • It does help if they read the entire article.

        • FulMetlJakit

          Read, thrice.
          B-, if this is middle school.
          Decent info on actual testing procedure, but…
          Multiple redundancy and inferred Glock payroll.
          “Which pistol should have been chosen. That answer is simple it should be the best pistol for our warfighters use to defend themselves when the primary weapon malfunctions.”(sic?)

          “The best handgun for the conditions our warfighters operate in.”
          (Please, god, stop using that term. It’s like “boots on the ground” at the beginning of Libya and Syria.)
          Which is why the entire military should be armed with SCARs, or XXX, in XXX caliber, cost be darned, right?)
          And if it wasn’t a ransom rest we would hear complaints that the results weren’t valid because “limp-wristing” & “lowered physical requirements” and if not, because “testers don’t represent the diversity of today’s modern US ‘warfighters’ ”

          Nevermind the fact that this boondoggle is already +MILLIONS over budget, and a pistol in a modern war theatre is at worst an “Oh sh*t! ‘Bout to die anyways/imminently” component, and at best, an afterthought.
          Which a Hi-Point or Kel-tec could do.
          Not that I wouldn’t want the finest pistol possible in that situation, but, sh*t happens and paraphrasing Rumsfield, “You go to war with what you have.” Or can afford.
          Guess it’s not like those $$$ millions could have gone towards VA care/reform. Or even better comms battery life.

          Competitions happen, and a direct result of that is that the MAJORITY of entrants LOSE.
          Clean up your milk.

    • James Young

      How is distinguishing whether a piece is opinion vs their normal news click bait? Since this isn’t “reporting” it is appropriate to separate it from their normal news articles.

    • Just Say’n

      Yeah, why didn’t the Army just ask Battlefield Las Vegas which pistol lasts longer and be done with it?

  • Michael Boudreaux

    it was a 100 million dollar difference, not 1 million as stated in the article

    • Phillip Cooper

      Now now, you can’t expect these “journalists” to actually, you know, check their facts.

      • Brad

        Facts be damned, there are real feelings involved here!

        • Jason Adams

          Yeah… Everybody should be a winner so let’s give them all a contract then nobody is a looser just like the liberal flakes like it. If it costs a lot of money well just raise taxes. I hope you know I am being facetious here.

      • You’ve never done a typo?

        • Phillip Cooper

          It would have been a typo if their finger had strayed somewhere near the 0…. not the other end of the keyboard.. 😉

        • txJM

          Technically, missing two zeros is two typos, right?

          • Flounder

            I think it is 99 million typos…

        • ozzallos .

          Typos on TFB seem to happen pretty regularly, especially for a blog so heavily reliant on advertiser revenue. No, you don’t get a pass.

        • Dr. Daniel Jackson

          In my line of work a simple typo can ruin a whole block of code,it pays to proof read everything you type several times.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            You should proof read things if you type them several times?

            Nice comma, btw.

        • CJS3

          Professionally? NO.

    • Corrected——

      • Bart Jabroni

        But not right still.

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    Funny how its the same crowd that a year or two ago was saying “The MHS program is a money pit that should be scrapped and we should just buy Glocks” that is now complaining that the MHS was cut short and should have been allowed to finish.

    0% of people who complain about the conclusion of the MHS are doing so out of genuine concern for soldiers. Im not saying that nobody cares about them. Im just saying that deep down inside everyone knows that both pistols are more than sufficient as a sidearm meaning that complaints of this variety are a facade.

    About 10% of the people complaining are doing it out of general frustration with government procurement procedures. And quite justifiably so.

    The rest are Glock fanboys who require validation in the form of the choices of agencies that most of them have zero connection to.

    If youre actually going to be carrying one of these pistols you have the right to complain. The rest of us taxpayers should just be happy that the Army actually picked something at all.

    • I only care about the soldiers period. I agree many are more interested in a brand name.

      • flashoverride

        Well, I lol’d. You only cared about the soldiers you think should have Glocks because… You know, Glocks, man!

        This whole thing is a joke. The M777 contract was a waaaay bigger deal, since indirect fire leads to so many more casualties. Pistols are dumb. They literally could have gone back to 1911’s and it would not have changed any casualty statistics by more than single digits.

        • I wish people would actually read the article. I said I don’t really care which pistol is chosen I just want the test finished. Why? Because the second phase is the series of test that really give both guns a workout.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            Possibly not you, but I recall a lot of (legitimate) complaints over the duration and cost of the program to replace _a sidearm._.

            They concluded, “Both guns are adequate. This one is cheaper. Done.”

            Spending more money to determine that the Sig is still cheaper than the Glock would be pointless.

            It does not take billions of dollars and complicated criteria to issue a sidearm that isn’t going to make any real difference in combat, and mostly ride on the hips of escorts, couriers and security.

  • Matt Taylor

    Reach down, grab your Glock, and man up.

  • Texas Irregular

    I’ve carried and own many Glocks since the early 90’s. I bought a 320 about a year ago. Both seem perfectly adequate for duty use. The only additional question that should’ve been addressed IMO is overall durability/reliability. Glock has a decades long track record where the 320 does not. With Texas, Oklahoma and other state agencies choosing the Sig 320 maybe the military decision makers felt it proven enough. Only time will tell.

    • iksnilol

      I’ve always found that “time proven” argument a bit weird. I mean, how many guns are never used simply because they’re new? And when they don’t get used (again, due to being new) they don’t get a track record and then people later use that to justify it being bad (IE if it was any good it would have been used a decade ago).

      I mean, at one point the Glock, 1911 or CZ-75 were new and unproven.. so was the Browning HP.

      • Texas Irregular

        True. But from personal experience, being the first to own the latest and greatest firearm has bit me a couple of times. In fact both companies are out of business and I have 2 broken guns that will probably remain that way. Live and learn. I’ll let the other guy be the guinea pig from now on.

        • iksnilol

          True as well…. can’t you fix them yourself, though?

          • Texas Irregular

            I wish.

      • ostiariusalpha

        It should be pointed out that the first G17, M1911, and ČZ-75 were not without some minor problems that were improved on in later versions. Even so, I would sell my neighbor’s show dogs to a Korean restaurant if someone offered me a mint condition M1911 or short-frame ČZ.

  • Full Name

    Any of the submitted guns would have been just fine. They went with a low bidder, probably a lowball. Gee, that has never happened before in gov’t procurements.

    Next!

  • USMC03Vet

    I applaud the US Army for rustling Glock fanboys so hard. 5 alarm fires all across America and cindered jimmies.

    • iksnilol

      I don’t applaud them. Burn centers all across America are flooded with Glock fanboys.

    • DealtWithIt

      This just in, MARSOC/RAIDERs use Glock 19s. Deal with it.

      • Rob

        All of SOCOM does. The SEALs turned in their Sig pistols for Glock 19s and they plan to still buy more.

        • James Young

          SEALs carry what they want. My buddy isn’t going to ditch his Sig for the new Glocks since he is already became so proficient on the Sig before they made the change.

          • MichaelZWilliamson

            No, they don’t “Carry what they want.” They carry what the mission calls for, with certain leeway allowed with justification and approval.

      • Special Forces have been using 17’s and 19’s for almost a decade. The supply of pistols is pretty low so they hot swap with incoming units and those going home.

      • USMC03Vet

        And next week they’ll be using the next flavor of the month piece of gear. When you’re special using standard gear takes a toll on your street rep.

  • M&M’s

    The Government will never admit wrong doing on their part. Move on.

  • Bud Harton

    Now I understand the phrase “butt hurt like a Democrat”

  • No, the government succeeded in generating grist for the gin blog mill.

  • Destro Yakisoba
    • Phillip Cooper

      I think a “Hurt Feelings Report” is more in order than this..

      • Nicks87

        I dont think anybody’s feelings are hurt really. I think the 320 is a nice pistol and they made the right choice, I will probably even buy a 320 in the near future. But I dont feel that the difference between the Glock and the Sig are big enough for everybody to just throw their Glocks in the trash. I think the new CZ P-10 might be better than both. The point is that this will boost the aftermarket for Sig pistols and maybe bring the price down on parts for Glocks, 1911s, M&Ps, etc.

        • Nicks that CZ is a nice one no doubt about it,

        • n0truscotsman

          Furthermore, US Special Operations, other foreign militaries and police agencies aren’t going to immediately melt their glocks to tupperware because the US Army adopted the P320.

          The ‘butthurt’ is an imaginary strawman by Glock haters. Most of us Glock users prefer a rifle above all else and only carry a pistol because we absolutely have to. Its not a preferable choice.

          • nova3930

            Most certainly correct. Those groups did their own independent evals and determined the Glock met their requirements which are not necessarily the same as the US Army.

            People forget that the purpose of a procurement competition is not to pick the “best” competitor it’s to pick the “best value” competitor which is generally defined as meeting the requirements at the lowest cost.

            Everyone talks a good game about wanting the soldier to have the absolute best, but I guarantee nobody wants to stomach the taxes required to actually fund that. We’ve got to buy stuff within the realities of the budget.

          • M40

            EXACTLY… this had nothing to do with what the author called, “the best pistol for our warfighters”. Anyone who’s ever served knows the gear they hump is the best we could get… from the cheapest bidder.

            In any government contract deal, once they’ve narrowed the testing down to a few contenders, ALL of the contenders are considered adequate for the intended purpose. The remaining “testing” is largely a waste of time, and it becomes all about which company is willing to drop their shorts and sell their products at (or below) the cost to produce them.

            So Glock losing to Sig has ZERO to do with which is best. It comes down to which company will sell at rock bottom prices. From what I’ve heard, Beretta was selling them M9’s at under $40 a pop. They only managed to turn a profit through long term parts sales. If an armorer requisitioned a new barrel through the military supply chain, it actually cost a lot more than a new pistol.

            The problem is that Glocks don’t go through a lot of parts… and the parts that DO wear, are really cheap. They have no reason to enter into a contract where they lose money on the initial sale, and basically gamble on long term parts sales to eventually turn a profit. That would be a losing deal for Glock.

            So the Army chose to go with Sig. I haven’t heard what Sig’s final offer was, but I’m betting it’s under $50/each in volume. Sig will make up for that in parts sales, magazine sales, and advertising for police and civilian sales.

          • pepprdog

            The reason Sig won was it is a completely modular system, a requirement for the contract.

          • aaronbbrown

            To some degree you’re right. In the initial changeover Sig only lost out to Beretta because they were going to be cheaper per unit. But by any objective measure the P226 is a better gun then the Beretta, more accurate, more reliable, more compact and easier to handle. It also did away with the external safety without any gimmicky devices like you see in a Glock or the new Springfield arms polymer guns.

            But there’s a reason why the Secret Service and all of our intelligence services use a Sig, they are the best.

            The only thing that has undermined them, has been their US production, which turn out substandard firearms. That’s why the Secret Service get their pistols from Germany where they are still made properly.

            What most Americans don’t know is that US-made guns are garbage, made by minimum-wage clowns Who learned about metallurgy in night school at the community college.

          • aaronbbrown

            Another brainwashed Republican heard from.

            That was always a BS argument, the US military spends 4.5 billion a year on air-conditioning. And you know what, they buy the very best air-conditioners available. 🙂

          • CavScout

            Do you know how many pistols we could have bought for the price of MHS??

          • Mikial

            The number one factor that influenced the Army to buy Sig was that Sig’s bid was over $102 Million lower than Glock’s,

          • aaronbbrown

            Right in the military rifles do the work, pistols are for back up an MP’s. For a grunt who is humping all day The Glock is the best option because it’s lightweight.

            But the military isn’t going to adopt a polymer weapon, or a weapon that breaks down into so many pieces, which makes field stripping too slow.

            Back when they switch from the 1911, the only reason they went with Beretta over Sig, cost. The 226 was always a better choice, more reliable, more accurate, more compact and easier to handle. The Beretta had a bit of an edge in when it came to wear and strength, that’s it.

            Also I don’t think the military want to go with the striker fire or safety action, they want a double action pistol with a hammer.

            So it looks like the Beretta will be around for a while.

            But there’s a reason why the Secret Service and all our intelligence agencies use Sig, they are the best.

          • Colonel K

            I agree, but I got hammered a couple of years ago by an armchair commando for making a similar comment. I also recommended personnel be allowed the option of providing their own personal sidearm, provided it met minimal requirements and they demonstrated proficiency with it. This was the process the British Army used over a century ago.

        • CavScout

          No, the Sig is not a good gun. The Army is having major durability problems with it already. The CZ P10 is nothing special. I have no idea why the market is so hyped for it, but it doesn’t do anything that isn’t plentifully available. To get excited for it is a current puzzling internet fad.

    • Gern Blanston

      LOL

    • Steve Alexander
      • Burninoil

        ROFL

    • Nicks87

      I see more posts accusing Glock fanboys of butthurt than the actual butthurt itself. We should be more worried about Beretta fanboys. Has anybody seen them lately? I hope they’re all doing ok.

      • Come to think of it I haven’t seen any?????

      • Aaron Hsu

        We’re here! I think most of us feel that Sig simply beat everyone fair and square through a huge underbid. While the details on the APX submission haven’t been released, I doubt that Beretta matched the Sig price any better than Glock did, so what more is there to say? It was clear from the beginning, IMO, that Beretta had a *huge* uphill battle given that their M9A3 was rejected in favor of a more expensive approach, and it just seemed like a difficult fight to win no matter how competitive their APX might have been.

        That being said, I absolutely love my APX and consider it one of the best striker-fired firearms on the market today. For me it is an easy win over the P320 or Glock for me as a consumer.

  • Jason Culligan

    “The most recent failure not only has Glock livid over the “final” decision but other companies as well who still believe the guns they submitted passed the basic requirements in the first stage of testing and evaluation.”

    And?

    You say this as if an interested party would never lodge an appeal or be “livid” if they lost a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars and everything was ‘fair’.

    Appeals are lodged (and in this case firmly defeated) all the time. It’s a non-point.

  • PeterK

    This sentence could use another edit pass. Like the whole thing:

    “SIG bid was over $1.000,000 less that Glock.”

  • armatus rebellio

    Note from a Glock Fanboi:
    The Glock is not modular any more than the M-9 was modular.

    • DW

      Not a glock fanboy, but you can switch calibers and barrel length with glock, try that with an M9.

      • armatus rebellio

        You got me there.

  • Tour18

    ‘The best sidearm’? Are you kidding me Only people who can’t buy real guns buy plastic guns. This is all about the lowest price and nothing else. NOTHING ELSE. So all the plastic fan boys go crawl back in your hole and pray you never have to face anything that shoots back at you.

    • R

      Lol, you need to work on your baiting skills if you intend to continue your life as a troll.

      • Tour18

        Crawl back in your hole. Twit. Come back when you don’t have to make excuses for not having enough money to buy a real sidearm.

        • Treiz

          “real sidearm” You misspelled “safe queen”. Get some training.

    • CallMeSiggy

      Do you realize the Glock is the best-selling handgun in the world….right? There are more Glocks in the hands of professional trigger-pullers than anything else.

      Also, you keep talking about crawling in holes, methinks Freud would have a field day with your nebulous sexuality.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      I bet you’re a Garand fanbois, too.

  • Big Daddy

    The Army made the right decision. It’s what they wanted. Maybe not the best or exactly what they needed but it is what they wanted.

    How it affects Glock? Other than losing a huge contract I’m thinking a lot of people and LEO agencies end up back to Glock because they cannot find replacement parts for their 320s.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Glock didn’t lose a contract. They simply didn’t get another contract.

  • Robert Brian Steely

    Color me shocked the government went with the lowest bidder for a weapons contract…

  • Lucas

    I am having a hard time caring, having ETS’d several years ago.

  • Glock disqualified it’s self for not being Modular like the program requested.

    • Yea but they said it passed and on to the next phase. What the reasoning was who knows.

    • Again, the RFP did not mandate a chassis frame. “Modularity” was simply defined as the ability to fit different size hands and to accept multiple accessories such as lasers, lights, and sound suppressors.

      Failure to meet the base requirements of the RFP would result in an immediate disqualification.

      • And the Glock doesn’t really do that.

        • It had an external safety, an integrated rail, and multiple back straps. Presumably, they also included a threaded barrel and optional higher sights for the mandated suppressor kit.

  • Madison J Coleman

    Glock is the new Hillary Clinton, only with 10x the whining after they lost.

  • James Young

    Didn’t TFB write-up last week already say that they tested both these pistols along with the other 9 entries in the first phase (including hot, cold, high round count, ergos etc)? Why would they need to retest them if they already tested them. The only thing left at that would be price on the downselected pistols. Which it appears they did correctly.

    • Treiz

      those tests were preliminary, low round count, some were only tested to 500 rounds if the rumors are true.

  • Uniform223

    This is my summary about this whole subject. I’m not directing this at one particular website or individual. This is my take on people’s reaction…

    “GLOCK SHOULD HAVE WON! HURR DURR DURR!”

  • Kinetics

    “The solicitation called for a manual thumb safety but the winner would do away with the manual safety. ”

    What exactly was the source for this?  

    Firstly, i’m pretty sure that Sig has no plans to remove the manual safety from the M17/M18, seeing as how it is intelligently and ergonomically designed, which means that Glock was referring to themselves as the “winner” before the competition concluded?

    Secondly, where did the requirements mention the acceptability of a disappearing manual safety? It was an MHS req and has been a req on most US service pistols for over 100 years, where exactly did Glock get away thinking that they could drop a component from their production models that was a solid requirement by the buyer?

    What?

    • Rob

      I wouldn’t bother commenting on that quote. There is no source provided and the M17 and M18 pistols will ship with the safety.

    • The source was Glock—–

      • cwolf

        It might help to add the source under the quote.

  • Dave

    So you’d rather be stuck with the M9’s that are falling apart at the seams for however many more years just because your precious Glock didn’t win? Using the excuse that ‘testing wasn’t finished so soldiers will die because of this’ is just crap. Be honest, they are both equally massively improved over the M9, SIG played it right this time and Glock didn’t bother trying.

    Instead of repeating every previous attempt to replace the M9 the brass running the show decided to finally put their foot down and get things done for once and get their men SOMETHING instead of just wasting money year after year with no replacement in sight.

    The first 6 of my 11 years in the ADF were spent with a crummy old Hi-Power strapped to my leg, the moment my unit was given a bunch of USP9’s I couldn’t throw my Hi-Power back at the armorer fast enough to get rid of it. At the time I was shooting a gen 2 Glock 17 pretty extensively in practical competitions outside of service but couldn’t give a rats crap that I wasn’t issued one just because I had something miles better than what I was previously issued.

    For the love of John Moses the Most High Browning, stop it with these articles.

  • James

    Good article Phil!
    I think the whole MHS program was a total waste of time. Most of all because it failed to provide a new pistol caliber and new round to replace the less effective M-882 ball round. It made no sense to replace a 9mm with another 9mm pistol when over half of the combat pistol problem was the 9mm ammo used by the military. Glock is a better choice as SOCOM still uses G -17/19 pistol and swears by them. There was no water test which Glock would have past since Beretta and Glock are the only two designs to shoot submerged. And yes there are situations where you may find yourself in a river lake or at the beach, where you need to shoot coming out of water. Over Nathaniel F points out other services may choose the Glock over Sig’s plastic wonder gun. Over thanks for telling facts.

    • The XM1152 Ball submissions were required to show an improvement over the existing M882 Ball. At the 2016 NDIA Armament Systems Forum, Winchester demonstrated a 115gr “SFMJ” with the internal product code Q4410. The boxes were marked MHS.

    • Thanks James—- Other branches may very well choose Glock or go with one of the other entrants. You just never know. Talking with a friend in Special Forces and they have been using Glock 19s for almost ten years. He said they didn’t have enough to go around so when they rotated in the unit going home gave the Glocks to the units just starting their tour.

    • Samuel Millwright

      I agree with the new pistol caliber new round part of your comment, without actually developing a better chambering with an improved round design it was physically impossible to give our soldiers the mythical best possible weapon of this type!

      We’ve known for decades upon decades that 9×19 really isn’t anywhere close to optimal for a pistol round, and before anyone asks this also by default means 40 45 & even 10 mm even WORSE….

      So yeah, we actually could have almost justified spending all the time and money that was spent here had we just spent the time and money actually developing the weak link in current pistols…. The ammunition!

    • cwolf

      You realize the MHS contract includes 9mm ammunition?

  • Ian Thorne

    This entire thing is based on the fallacy that finding the best gun is the actual point of these competitions, which it is not. The point is to find the ones that are acceptable, then finding the least expensive option, not to find out which is the absolute pinnacle. If they have already determined that both meet the requirements and one is absolutely vastly cheaper, why waste time and money doing more testing? With your logic they should have dumped the M16/M4 platform many years ago as it has not been the winner of any of the recent rifle competitions, it’s just that the competitors failed to reach the 2.0-2.5x improvement over the M16/M4 that is required, even though some came dang close according to some sources.

  • Jackson Andrew Lewis

    Ive shot both types the sig is more accurate, more comfortable, lighter and more modular …….. let alone being cheaper and having identical reliability out of the box…… the right choice was made……

    Remember the m9 has served for 30 years with good record and was chosen over pricing too…..

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      And started off with explosions and injuries.

  • TW

    Can we all just turn the book on this already. SIG won accept it. Dam it’s like trying to replace the M4 all over again.

  • “Phase II MHS” is a myth.

    • James Young

      What happened in Phase 1? How much testing was already done on these pistols? They may have had no reason to do more extended testing if the 1st round testing was enough to downselect to two pistols and get prices.

  • TheChunkNorris

    Honestly who the hell cares other than Glock fanboys? The Army is getting a fine weapon and something that’s a lot better than what they have now… all at a huge price cut. It’s a win win for the guys that actually use the weapons that have been tested. Would you all prefer they do extensive testing, pay millions of dollars, only to go back to the M9 and say the pistols tested were “marginally” better than what we currently use?

  • Joshua

    According to GAO they did not, and really that’s all that matters at the end of the day.

  • MIke H

    And this is my comment from the previous MHS article…

    “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?”

    Folks need to just get over it. Maybe the Glock was the better gun. Maybe it wasn’t. Define “better”.

    But if it was better, did the minuscule amount it was better (and come on, do you really think the Glock is going to be just leaps and bounds better than the P320? Because the GAO sure didn’t seem to think so…) justify the $100,000,000 extra cost for secondary weapon?

  • Martin frank

    Fake news, the Beretta passed the first round as well. I was under the impression it came down to the so and the Beretta. But now all of a sudden your fake news site acts like second place was the Glock. Glock was third. Beretta was second. Everyone but this Glock sponsored fake news site will tell you that.

    • Nope—wrong

      • Martin frank

        Nah, typical glocksucker. Fake news from the glock sponsored gossip mag.

        • MichaelZWilliamson

          Please cite your source. And I’m no Glock fanbois. Not much of a Sig fan, either.

    • n0truscotsman

      You’re probably a infowars listener indicated by your frequent use of the term ‘fake news’.

  • mosinman

    is this going to be the gun world version of the “russian hacker” story that everyone is sick of hearing?

  • Gern Blanston

    i like my beretta M9A3 just fine…

  • Gern Blanston

    i like my beretta m9a3 and hk vp9 so much more than these 2 pistols. I still think the m9a3 is the one to beat…

  • MIke H

    The Sig P320, the Glock G17/19/22/23, the FN FN-509, the Beretta APX, the CZ P-09, the S&W M&P… is there anyone here who wouldn’t trust their lives to one of these MHS entrants?

    • Any of the above I’d trust.

      • MIke H

        Then I guess I fail to see the issue. Army is getting a gun that you can trust your life to at a better price than the other handguns that you would trust your life to.

        • The big issue for me is the test series was laid down long before testing started. I think they should have completed the testing as stated just to make sure they really did choose the right pistol, Phase 1 just didn’t do enough testing. It just showed that the SIG could be purchased at a much lower cost. In the end it may have turned out the same but now we will never know.

  • GordonTrenchard

    I’ll take the Beretta APX over both of them.

  • Mike Cramer

    Modular.

    Drop the gun and the frame cracks, the Glock is trashed. Do the same to the Sig, pop the chassis in a new frame, good as new. New pistol vs. $40 frame?

    • Flounder

      It’s 40 to you… But ever look up the polymer type and style of manufacture? It is a 5$ part dude. A lot less if they get to optimizing it… Which they will; since they won.

      It works, and I like it… But that is one incredible margin.
      Now, there are shipping costs and other things. But the cost to make vs the retail makes my head hurt it is so, insanely, profitable.

      As for glock… They are pretty cheap too… Although they use some exotic polymer. so not as cheap… but you can pull out all the little parts and reuse them. And! The polymer is much stronger.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      How many Glocks crack when dropped? Because I’ve never even heard of that. Or are you speculating without data?

      You’re more likely to damage the muzzle of either gun…which will cost about the same to replace.

  • RICH

    $100.000,000 less….. is this a ‘typo’ ???

  • valorius

    The Sig is as good as any of the other pistols (at least) and was WAY cheaper than any of them. The US Gov’t/DoD/Army made the right choice (for once)

  • valorius

    But…glock perfection!

  • Tom Currie

    What the author does not seem to comprehend is that the acquisition process was never looking for “the best pistol” — no acquisition program for any widely issued item of equipment has ever been (or will ever be) looking for “the best [anything]”. (If we had been looking for a “best pistol” decades ago when the M9 was adopted, we wouldn’t have ever considered a 9mm at all — but that’s a whole different subject).

    The acquisition process for any weapon system (and nearly all other equipment) looks for what is commonly (although not 100% accurately) called “Best Value” — this is not always the lowest bidder among the adequate entries, but it takes a major performance advantage to justify a higher price. It is entirely possible that enough testing might have found some combination of circumstances in which the Glock would have out performed the Sig; but realistically the situation is exactly what the military said – there was simply no way that the Glock could have out-performed the Sig by a large enough margin to justify its higher price.

    Let’s pretend that in a longer test the Glock might have done better in EVERY possible category:
    – that more soldiers who fired both guns preferred the Glock
    – that the Glock mean time before failure was longer than the Sig
    – that when used by actual soldiers the Glock was more accurate
    Guess What? Even if ALL those were true, the Sig would still have won. Not on price alone as the author insists, but on the combination of price AND PERFORMANCE.

    If the prices had been close, then there would have been a reason to do more testing.

    If there were any reason to doubt the basic performance and reliability of the Sig, then there would have been a reason to do more testing.

    Bottom line: these were both entirely adequate guns to meet the military requirements but Glock simply wanted too much money.

    If the government asked for a staff car, and GM entered a basic mid-size Chevy while Ford entered a similar size Lincoln; I’m sure that in long term testing more people (who didn’t have to pay for them) would have preferred the Lincoln, but the Chevy would still get the contract because it would still do the job required.

    And as someone who spent many years in the military carrying the issue sidearm, including doing so in combat and having used my pistol in combat, I have no problem with the Best Value approach. I want a pistol that works — i.e. that it does its job if I do mine — I don’t need a gold plated racegun.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Exactly. Any reliable sidearm would do. I always hated the Beretta, but it shot reliably…eventually. The 1911 was reliable. The Canadian Hi Power was reliable.

      The Hi Point…well, okay, there ARE some limits.

  • Able_Dart

    Pistols may not win wars, but they’re more necessary now than in the past due to the insider threat. Military necessity dictates new pistols to replace worn out ones, but the presumed advantages of a polymer frame striker fired design probably aren’t worth the delay and expense of these evaluations. It’s just easier to buy P229s COTS. The current P229 in 9mm is basically an M11 with a rail. You can use the same magazines; you could probably even use M9 mags with simple modifications. If there’s a real need for a smaller, concealable pistol it can also be COTS and the likely quantities needed are such that commonality isn’t necessary for that role. Buy Smith 442 Moonclips and ream the chambers for 9mm. Or not.

  • I wish they would just finish what they started. Like I said I don’t honestly have a preference between the two guns. I just want the government to do phase 2 and let us know how it came out.

  • Sgt. Stedenko

    I dont know why people keep saying the Glock isn’t modular.
    What other gun has owners screeching perfection and then raging butthurt all within 5 minutes?

  • Landru

    Sounds more like the complaints of someone whose candidate did not become POTUS without Teddy bears and Safe Spaces.

  • n0truscotsman

    “considering that Sig fan boys have been flying the butt hurt flag longer and higher than anyone else for the last 30 years”

    Yes,

    This times 1000

    Its almost like SIG fans are conveniently dismissing the XM9 fallout.

    I suppose opportunistic bashing against a competitor brand is more important than intellectual honesty though.

  • Brian James Lewis

    Sounds like a bunch of Glock Fanboi’s are butt hurt. The Austrian Brick has not changed any design in over 30 years. Triggers are garbage as is the whole feeling like you are holding a 2×4 when you grip it. Other companies are coming out with guns far more ergonomic and with much smoother triggers. When you next big “upgrade” is removing finger groves and finally using steel sights after your customer base has complained for over 20= years about it…you are slipping.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      Glocks are not my first choice, but I have exactly the same complaints you just made about Sig and Beretta. I have zero interest in owning either because they feel like crap and appeal only to women or monkeys.

      Because that’s my opinion, it is superior to your opinion. 😉

      Sounds like a Sig fanboi throbbing over the selection regardless of its validity (HINT: I don’t care what they use a sidearm).

      • Brian James Lewis

        Sorry sir not a fanboy at all. I own 4 pistols from,different manufacturers. If it feels good and shoots well ill buy it.

  • chris n

    as an active service member, i actually think its dumb to have wasted money on replacing our m9’s… they shoot fine. we have millions of stockpiled rounds on 9mm you really think that the sig’s alternate caliber option will ever be utilized? i like poly guns… but we essentially committed to spending $500 million dollars to replace pistols that shoot fine with an expensive new gun that is made of plastic? these arent personal guns, these will be issued to the demographic of people that are the roughest on issued equipment. sounds dumb to me. but they look badass so i guess we should do it.

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      The “plastic” is as strong as most metal. Your use of that term in that context suggests you don’t actually know anything about material science.

      Also, the plastic shells are easily replaceable around the frame underneath.

      This is not to say I like the Sig. But they’re functional and that criticism is unsupportable.

    • cwolf

      The SIG is 9mm.

      The M9 fleet is worn out.

      Every contract has its limits. You can’t keep on buying off one contract forever.

  • David Silverstein

    “There would be the usual water immersion, mud test, sand, drop test etcetera which when done should have provided conclusive proof of which pistol was correct for our soldiers.”

    Do you have any concern for which pistol is correct for our taxpayers? Cost is a valid concern whether you like it or not. I mean, by your reasoning, why not just put each soldier in his own battle tank?

  • Brian G. Lowery

    100% agree. We throw away so much money now why skimp on a few bucks if we can give our soldiers better equipment.

  • Rocky Mountain 9

    Did anyone else have hard time getting past the author’s amateurish writing style? After the series of “it’s” in place of “its”, “you” in place of more professional third-person pronouns, and more, I just skimmed and came to the conclusion of “I have a personal collection of Glocks and my babies didn’t win MHS. *Triggered*”. The average high schooler could have formed a more coherent argument than this.

    • uisconfruzed

      Nu-uh!

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      And punctuation errors.

  • nova3930

    Heh, somebody didn’t actually read the RFP.

  • Seamus Bradley

    HANDS DOWN BIGGEST REVELATION IN THIS ARTICLE
    “The solicitation called for a manual thumb safety but the winner would do away with the manual safety. The actual issue pistols would NOT have a manual safety of any kind.”

    SO I GUESS THE M17 AND M18 WILL NOT HAVE MANUAL SAFETIES! WOW!

  • Verner

    As an unashamed GLOCK fanboy, I can say yes, they screwed up that evaluation big time 🙂

  • philippes

    It was called the “XM17 Modular Handgun System competition.” Which of the handguns was truly modular? I could never understand why any of the other competitors were surprised at the outcome; particularly Glock.

    Not only was Glock’s entry not modular like the Sig Sauer gun, whose trigger group is the actual firearm, with the frame and everything else interchangeable, but Sig’s price also came in significantly lower. The decision by the US Army was a no-brainer.

    As much as I love Glocks (I’ve had a Glock 19 since 1989), I think the company’s arrogance brought on by their iconic status in the firearm community did them in.

  • Bob

    Time on the Battlefield will tell if they made the right decision.

  • lookinoutforu

    The Sig looks better. The Glock looks like a Buick.

  • albaby2

    If the solicitation called for a manual safety, why was Glock even tested?

    • MichaelZWilliamson

      It only called for one for testing, not for the final product.

      This is like when they tested bullpups and demanded bayonets.

    • cwolf

      The Glock submission had a safety.

  • What was modular about the Glock submissions?

  • Kiran Buenafe

    If both passed and the Glock costs more, why wouldn’t go with the Sig? I don’t get it.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    It’s a sidearm. They’d already spent ridiculously more than what should be the entire lifetime cost of the system, just on testing.

  • ToddB

    Is this ever gonna end, are the glock boys gonna whine and complain for the next 10 yrs?

  • Guido FL

    All this fuss and $$$ spent on hand guns that are seldom used on the battelfield due to limited effective range and lack of real stopping power.

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    To crush your enemies, see them driven before you…

  • MichaelZWilliamson

    Everyone: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you…

  • cwolf

    1. There are a variety of missions for pistols. MPs carry them daily and rely on them for their police mission. Some folks use pistols with suppressors for special missions. For some folks, the pistol is their only weapon. The military is a complex place.

    2. I agree with the author’s preference for the final human testing. But, done is done. Faced with all the critics and impatience, it became a ‘bird in the hand’ issue. Stopping or re-doing the contract would have been worse. I’d love to see ARL do basic research on pistol design factors. Obviously, there are lots of commentators who felt the SIG was the only gun that fully met the requirements.

    3. I look forward to seeing more articles on the SIG contract details and capabilities. For example, is the ‘training ammunition’ Simunition? What is the effect on dynamic shooting with an optic on the SIG?

    4. They are all good guns. The reality is human beings come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes. Going modular is a good thing.

  • CZFan

    Ive read a great deal of whining regarding test protocol, They didnt shoot 30,000! rds out of 20 different guns!
    Who cares, both guns have already proven themselves 10 times over.

  • Jason Adams

    Look Glock fan boys SIG won end of story. I am a SIG fan boy but would have opted for the FN as a Military solution in the context it was intended to be used in. But truth be told they all would work good enough for the purpose so it ended with price and SIG won just like Trump won. Get over it will you.

  • Bobby McKellar

    Oh dear lord…get over it already.

  • Zebra Dun

    The Government, the Military make a mistake?
    The Military and Government don’t never make mistakes son, you been around long enough to know that LOL It is a pistol, either the Glock or the SiG could do the job, the Government/Military had to choose one.
    They did, possibly by a coin toss two out of three.
    Doesn’t mean SiG is better than Glock or versa vica.
    Get over it, move on in Ten Twenty years they will pick another pistol.

    I would take either or and not feel less or better armed.

  • raptur

    Everyone always forgets the Army has been using Sigs in certain units almost as long as they have the Beretta M9. Just like some other units use Glocks. So, the P320 is new but the 220 and 226 have been in use for a long time. I was issued one over 15 years ago by one unit. They are all know entities. Everyone has a preference but the government, in this case, prefers to buy the best it can get for the cheapest price point. Thank god! I already pay enough in taxes. And, the majority of folks that carry pistols are some officers in rear echelon units or machine gunners, armored vehicle drivers, pilots, some medical personnel…etc. These folks are not gun-fighting it out with bad guys everyday.

  • bubba

    I may have never negotiated a govt contract, but why cant the govt go to Glock, and say you were outbid by 100 million dollars. Care to counter? Give Glock the option to beat Sigs price. Then if Glock beats the Sig price, the govt goes to Sig and asks if they care to counter. Go back and forth, back and forth, until the last competitor drops out. The govt could save millions and millions of dollars this way with a competitive bidding process, and not a sealed bid process.

  • Found [another] Glock fanboi.

  • Mel_Anosis

    FNH’s gun had them both beaten.

  • survivor50

    So the ” BID ” said give us a ” SAFETY “…and ” LATER ” we’ll take it OFF !!!
    GIVE THEM A FREAKIN’ SAFETY!!! Then take it off when they say to…
    Plus drop your bid $ 100 million …

    • survivor50

      Plus the biggest mistake they made in ALL their testing…they didn’t let me and my boys do the shooting !!!

  • James Florence

    Tell me why the MHS was being evaluated in 9mm? 9mm is NOT an effective combat round, when compared to the 10mm, .40 caliber or the.45 caliber. I would like to think and know that if my life depends on my sidearm, I will be able to end the enemy threat with the first round, and not having to empty my weapon and reload to neutralize the threat.

  • Dingus

    I am sure that Glock had a nice gun in this race but it wasn’t good enough to overcome the cost vs value considerations.

    And I have to say that a bench test shoot with a gun in a vise (I don’t care what you want to call it…its a vice to me..yes, I know there is a world of difference between the two!) The article says you cannot verify accuracy unless its in the hands of a shooter. LIES! You have to see that the bullet is going to hit where you have the sights set. When you can shoot the gun in a Ransom device and it hits where you have it aimed at or within a tolerance of what ever you will accept then you know the gun is accurate. The shooter will have a different eye alignment from shooter to shooter, variation of skill, positioning of hands and proximity to face and eye alignment etc. The list goes on. That will determine the shooters accuracy. Not the gun’s.
    YES the ergonomics will make a difference. But not the deciding factor if the gun shoots straight and true. Meat cannot isolate the barrel enough to make a mechanical shot that’s measurable enough to determine a straight shooting gun IN MY OPINION. You can have a perfectly aligned gun in all senses of the word and the shooter will either hit or miss the target until they shoot it enough to become properly accustomed to the gun but the gun has to shoot straight first.

    I had a 1911 long ago that for nearly everyone shot low and to the left. Put it in a bench situation and it still shot low and to the left. maybe not the same amount for what everyone else shot but it still shot low and left. Put my old 38 and it shot straight and true. I always hit my mark, others had different experiences but they hit near the mark.

    true the gun and sights, you have an accurate gun.

  • Cautious Optimism

    Why did they “Fail”? I am a huge Glock fan, I know I would prefer that product, but I have handled and fired several Sig 320’s and find them to be good pistols that I think will do the job well. I prefer the size of the 19, but a larger pistol is preferable when it is the primary weapon being deployed, if it is secondary then the smaller, lighter weight becomes a prominent positive factor.

  • pepprdog

    Ai find it interesting that Glock guy didn’t mention the required modularity ability which Glock didn’t have.

  • Colonel K

    As a former acquisition officer, cancelling part of the test and evaluation phase is highly unusual. Did only two pistols successfully complete phase 1?

  • Bram

    You guys sure are worked about a contract meaningless to most people in the military. 6 years in the Marines and 4 more in the National Guard and I fired a pistol exactly zero times while in uniform. Carried a .45 or M9 a few times while on guard duty but never considered myself “armed” without a rifle.

  • Richard Lutz

    Any testing of handguns for military use that does not result in a Glock being adopted is clearly flawed. The US Army should adopt the Glock 19 (Gen3) adopted by the US Navy SEALs in 2015.