Did the Army even test the MHS entries?

[IMightBeWrong]

Just some speculation, but I have a hunch that the SIG won the contract for purely political reasons. This is NOT to say it isn't a good choice. I think it's a great handgun. But I don't think the guns ever got tested against each other for reliability.

Here's why... I kept up with any news on the MHS competition as it was developing because it held my interest. The RFA went out and apparently stated that at the end of 2016, 3 final entries would be down selected for competition. Throughout most of 2017 these 3 entries would be further tested against each other and their ability to produce their products efficiently and within the US would be verified. The final winner was to be selected later in 2017. At least, this was my understanding.

What happened instead? Well, at the very beginning of this year John McCain and some other politicians went back to attacking the MHS competition as a waste of time and money (which they had done before the election as well). About 2 or 3 days later, SIG was announced the winner numerous months earlier than a winner of the contract was expected. Some know that Glock has filed a protest, but not why. Maybe this is the reason?

Maybe I'm just overthinking this, but it doesn't seem like the Army did their due diligence in testing the entries and selecting the best possible option for our troops. I think the SIG is a great pistol, and I think the P226 should have won the last contract. The P320 is still an early product, though, and is still undergoing changes to address concerns on the civilian market. The Beretta APX also met the modular standards set by the RFA and likely wasn't given a fair shake if the guns didn't get tested. Sounds like Glock may have entered a modular variant if their design as well, but that wasn't really publicly confirmed. Something tells me, though, that the Army just picked out the SIG based on company reputation and the fact that US manufacturing was already well established for both the guns and the ammo. What do you all think?

 

[FITASC]

I think McCain is correct.

 

[IMightBeWrong]

That's a valid point of view as far as I'm concerned, but pushing through a 580 million dollar contract that was supposed to be for 350 million after more testing doesn't really satisfy the view that the competition was a waste of money either.

 

[rickyrick]

Looking for a replacement handgun is/was a huge waste of money in my opinion.

 

[JoeSixpack]

I think McCain is correct.

+1

Glock protest?
they was never gonna win because they refuse to change their "perfection"
If this trial was a 3rd grade class room glock is the kid who writes "bananna" where it says "print name".
They simply didn't meet the requirements.

I agree something smells a bit rotten here.. it was a waste of money.

The m9's primary problem was the mags and even checkmate who was contracted to make them told them (gov) phosphate finishes was a bad idea.. but gov wants what gov wants.

Although at this point I'd imagine the m9's are pretty well worn and needing replaced anyway.

Im sure the Sig will serve well.. a small part of me is actually glad Beretta lost.
Maybe now that they're off the gov tit they'll start paying consumer market some attention.. they've ignored us long enough.

 

[IMightBeWrong]

How do you know that Glock didn't meet the requirements? They very well could have modified the gun to serialize the trigger group. The Glock 17M notably has a 2 pin design rather than a 3 pin design. Maybe something similar along with different serialized parts made for a Glock of that fit the requirements that wasn't tested?

Regardless, whether it was a waste of tax dollars or not, companies invested in R&D and likely tweaked their designs to fit the new requirements. Money was spent on their part in the understanding that the guns would compete. If there was no competition then the Army would have screwed over companies in the private sector while handing a contract over for a much larger sum of money than was originally on the table to a company that was picked arbitrarily.

 

[jmr40]

There was no need for any testing, there is plenty of real world experience to show that most any 9mm handgun would be acceptable. It should have simply come down to who got the low bid.

Glocks work for me personally and I'd have not had a problem if they had won the contract. But I can find no fault with the Sig that was selected.

 

[FITASC]

Personally, they could eliminate the sidearm and use the weight to have each soldier carry more AR mags

 

[dogtown tom]

IMightBeWrong Some know that Glock has filed a protest, but not why. Maybe this is the reason?

Glock took a page from SIG's playbook. If you don't win the bid, protest. It worked for SIG when Beretta won the M9 contract.

JoeSixpack Glock protest?
they was never gonna win because they refuse to change their "perfection"

Really? How do you know? Glock won the FBI contract by providing a unique model.

If this trial was a 3rd grade class room glock is the kid who writes "bananna" where it says "print name".
They simply didn't meet the requirements.

Again....how YOU know that?
Glock survived all but the final selection. S&W, CZ, FN, Beretta and all the rest being eliminated much earlier. If Glock didn't meet the requirements it would not have been in the running at the very end.

jmr40 There was no need for any testing, there is plenty of real world experience to show that most any 9mm handgun would be acceptable.

I agree. My biggest problem with the selection of the P320 is it has virtually no real world experience. It's a three year old design.

FITASC Personally, they could eliminate the sidearm and use the weight to have each soldier carry more AR mags

And when your AR fails what are you going to do with those extra AR mags?
Handguns have a place in the military, its a small place but significant enough that a handgun is needed.

 

[carguychris]

...I have a hunch that the SIG won the contract for purely political reasons... I don't think the guns ever got tested against each other for reliability.

U.S. military contract evaluations are not conducted without accountability to the vendors. The vendors are generally NOT kept in the dark.

I'm certain that the gunmakers' reps were at least aware when and where the reliability tests were taking place, and some were likely physically present at the tests.

Additionally, as has been pointed out in a past thread on the SIG P320 selection, it's routine for contract vendors to protest the results of evaluations. Sometimes the grounds for the protest(s) are specious, and sometimes not. However, the general public often doesn't get to see what's behind the curtain until much later.

I speculate that Glock's protest—if related to the tests at all—has more to do with how the results were evaluated than whether the tests were conducted in the first place. Skipping the tests altogether would be too easy to prove and would immediately result in protests by ALL of the vendors, if not a public scandal.

OTOH another interesting possibility—and one that I find much more plausible—is that ALL of the handguns failed the reliability tests, but that the Army chose to score the test results on the basis of which guns did the best, rather than cooking up new testing criteria and starting from zero, which definitely would have resulted in protests by whichever gunmakers thought that the new criteria didn't play to their strengths. However, had this actually happened, I have a hunch we would have heard something about it by now. The press LOVES stories of military contracts gone bad (e.g. F-35, LCS).

All that being said, I'm fairly confident that McCain's protests have more to do with the fact that the U.S. military has bigger fish to fry than a replacement handgun.

 

[50 shooter]

Does it even matter?

People can argue all day long about how or even if the tests were done and it's not going to change the outcome. Everyone knew that the Sig was a better gun then the Beretta and beat it in all stages of the test.

Beretta wasn't stupid and wanted the contract, so much that they lowered the price enough to make money and win. They knew that by lowering the price and winning, sells on the civilian market would more than make up the costs.

Sig still made out as most of the special ops teams got them as well as some other units. I'm sure Sig wasn't taking any chances on the price either. The civilian market has already helped Sig with the P320 making its mark in the short amount of time it's been on the market. With the military choosing it, it will just further Sig's reputation and legacy. Let's just hope that the civilian market doesn't suffer for it like other companies (HK are you listening) have in the past.

No need to discuss Glock's stance, I'm sure being told to change anything on one of their pistols just resulted in a hissy fit. Just because you think that your design is perfect doesn't mean that other people feel the same way. Whether or not they changed the pistol for the tests is a moot point now.

 

[5whiskey]

U.S. military contract evaluations are not conducted without accountability to the vendors. The vendors are generally NOT kept in the dark.

I'm certain that the gunmakers' reps were at least aware when and where the reliability tests were taking place, and some were likely physically present at the tests.

^This. I highly doubt the Sig was picked as a "favorite" of some general or by pulling names out of the hat. Tests were conducted, and I'm sure each manufacturer had privy to viewing the tests. As Chris continued to say, it would be too easy to prove a complaint if no tests were conducted.

I think the fact that the contract is now proving to be much larger than it was initially may be significant, and likely has relevance to Glock's complaint. Either the per unit price was increased to get the SIG, or more units are being ordered than anticipated. If the former, Glock has a complaint that they are reliable, serviceable, and much more budget friendly. If the later, Glock could complain that they would have fielded a model much closer to design requests had they known there would be that kind of a demand. The later holds less water, but as others have said we haven't seen Glock's entry. For all we know they did create a truly modular pistol to enter.

In essence and in summary, we are still all just speculating.

 

[Strafer Gott]

The contract was modded to include ammo. Pretty significant addition.

 

[FITASC]

Handguns have a place in the military, its a small place but significant enough that a handgun is needed.

$600 + million of YOUR money's worth? Should a small group need a sidearm? Sure....but does everyone? I don't think so. If it is almost $600 million NOW, it will be well over $1,000,000,000 with cost overruns and government changes after the fact.

 

[45_auto]

Everyone knew that the Sig was a better gun then the Beretta and beat it in all stages of the test.

Must be nice to have such a selective memory. What color is the sky in your world? The Sig failed the dry mud test so badly (17% lower than anything else - 1911 and H&K were 100%, Beretta was 98%, S&W was 96%, SIG was 76%, see Table III 8 below) compared to the other weapons in the test that the only reason they justified leaving it in was so that there would not be only one candidate (Beretta) left. To keep the SIG in the test, they concluded that the dry mud test that SIG failed was "probably unrealistic". After all, who would expect a military pistol to have to operate in a dry, dusty environment like Iraq or Afghanistan?

From pages 3 of the 1986 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report on the 1984 pistol procurement NSIAD-86-122 (Sig was SACO at the time):

http://olive-drab.com/archive/NSIAD-86-122_9mm.pdf

In another instance, strict interpretation of the mud test results would have eliminated SACO, an otherwise superior candidate, and left only Beretta in contention

Mud test results, pages 37-39:

As shown in Table III 8, the 45 control weapons had no malfunctions m either the wet or dry phase of the mud test, a performance not equaled by any other weapon. SACO’s performance in dry mud, however, was 17 percent less than that of its nearest competitor In other words, SAC0 was not only not equal to the 45 but also not equal to the performance of other weapons tested.

The evaluators concluded that SAC0 had met the requirement because lt had passed the wet mud portion of the test and because the dry mud requirement was probably unrealistic when compared with potential field experience. In addition, the evaluators pointed out that SACO’s exclusion would have resulted in the elimination of an otherwise outstanding candidate and would have left only one candidate in the competition.

 

[T. O'Heir]

Beretta won the M9 contract because other NATO countries were complaining about the imbalance of trade in military procurement. They were buying far more from the U.S. than the U.S. was buying from them.
The M-14 was selected for political reasons(NIH) over the superior FAL. Along with the 7.62 that was jammed down other NATO countries' throats. Then the M-16 was adopted because McNamara wanted it. And the 5.56 was jammed down other NATO countries' throats.
Anyway, pistols are primarily status symbols. Not battle instruments. I'd guess that, like cops, very few of the troopies who get 'em ever practice with 'em. The guy who owned the shop I worked in long ago was at CFB Borden sighting in a rifle for the base commander. Got to the range and found another officer sitting with a bunch of pistols and ammo. Turned out of was 'Officer's Annual Qualification Day' that nobody showed up to do it. My boss got to play.