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

    Glocks' MHS submission, a variant of the G19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Nathaniel F

    Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. He can be reached via email at [email protected]


    Advertisement