Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Glock releases photos of their MHS submission

Here's what Glock put together for the competition. I think the Army made the right choice.

Can't seem to get the photo link to work, maybe someone else can do better than I.

https://kitup.military.com/2017/06/glock-inc.html

And here's a link to the response from the government on Glock's protest.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...glock-mhs-protest-decision-released-gao/

Meh, I think it's just as well. I'm glad we won't be seeing manual-safety Glocks as mainstream. The only "improvement" I see on that MHS Glock I like is the bevels at the front of the slide, since the current 19 doesn't come with those. Some people would be giddy about the lack of finger grooves, but I like them personally.

I like Glocks, but if they didn't submit what was requested (whether it made sense or not), and didn't support the marketing campaign necessary to win anyway, then they didn't deserve to win. It would be a foolish mistake for any of us civilians to think this matters to us even a little bit though, or that it should influence any of our choices on what to buy and carry.

When the Military finally gets away from the NATO requirement for weapons, Glock will get the contract.

What did NATO requirements have to do with it? Several NATO countries field the Glock.

Glock, as well as Glock owners, will most likely be better off by Glock being not selected and entangled in the govt contract. Watch the Sig quality dive in the future. Greed is a terrible damn thing. So is prosperity if not handled properly.

g

Yeah, we all know how Beretta's quality dropped off when they had the contract. (Sarcasm font)

I have no issue with the manual safety. Some will use it, and take comfort in it. If I had the handgun given/issued to me, I would simply leave it off, or deactivate it and not worry about it.

The slightly flared magwell is a nice touch, as well as the lack of finger grooves. That said, I can run a Glock fine with or without them.

I played with a Sig 320 with a Romeo RDO today. Great trigger pull and reset. The bore axis was pretty high, but nothing unmanageable.

I would be interested to see the differences in accuracy and time in regards to controlled pairs between a G17 and 320.



`

Looks great, except for the thumb safety.

1911A1 was a hard act to follow. Too bad Beretta suffered. Don't think any of the candidates will suffer by following Beretta at this point.

This was directed to GeoW, not GG.

I think you misunderstood my post. Sig, Glock, FN, and Berretta are among the finest arms makers in the world.
Other than Glock (for not getting the pistol contract) how have any of them suffered due to U.S. Military contracts?

I don’t mind a safety at all, as long as it is a real safety instead of an afterthought that could be tricky with gloves or easy to miss. The right side safety also looks like it was MacGyvered. So, this safety looks like a fail to me. I also would prefer to not have an ambidextrous slide release, especially if they did it like the Indianapolis Police model that I saw in the net. I understand that Glock had to eliminate the locking block pin on this design because of the design of the release. Finally, the lanyard ring and the extension of the front strap below the magazine well appear to create hangup points for reloading. (Look at the clearance between the magazine and the lanyard ring.) My impression is that they turned a horse into a camel to meet a bid spec.

I suppose if I got to handle one I could change my mind on some or all of this.

Over history there have been a lot of poor choices made in the selection of small arms, based on either our perception of what is right or actual poor field performance. I have no idea if the Sig is better than the Glock, it certainly has the interchangeable frames. I am interested in how it will perform over time. Wish they would offer the 320 in 10mm.

So is this the Gen 5? Other than the safety and lanyard stud are these other features the Gen 5 stuff that's supposed to be released this summer some time?

After the US had it in service for a decade, the Beretta 92 was 10x the pistol it was when we adopted it. I don't think you get the benefits of a weapon being fielded by the US military.

All in all, I'd say Sig straight up came to play. Their submission matched Glock for reliability and their price was over $100 million dollars less than Glock. So it better met the criteria laid out, beat Glock in most categories, and in the one's it didn't beat Glock, they matched Glock. And their bid was over 30% less...I'd say Sig won pretty clearly.

Clear case of Sig needing the business and Glock wanting the business if they could make a profit!

Mike

So SIG’s deal was $217 per pistol. I’m sure they’re still making a profit at that price, there’s HUGE margin in the Tupperware pistols which is why that’s the direction pretty much everyone is going. It seems SIG wanted it badly…They had the strongest submission, so I expected them to come in above Glock in price…Perhaps so did everyone else, including Glock. Glock isn’t goin anywhere though…they still own the lion’s share of the market, but these days there are a lot of players beginning to eat into that market share…but then, that’s just business.

I like everything but the manual safety

Looks a lot like the Cominolli Glock Manual Safety, actually a well proven modification. I wouldn't be adverse to seeing it added as a factory option.

Glock is getting khtunty over the whole contract deal.

It's not gonna help them.




Travis

Figured you'd like it.

Factor 4--License Rights--Ammunition was probably the actual determining factor.

So what's the deal with that? Glock chamber some kind of 9 3/16 mm proprietary round or something?

Yeah, looks like they beat Glock on:
Ergos

License (price):
Ammunition
Handgun
Accessories

And manufacturing plan…which is kinda interesting. Sig had the better ammunition manufacturing plan (wonder who they partnered with?), and matched Glock on production plan for the pistol.

Glock won on “Early warfighter acceptance”…which I take to mean “reputation among troops?”
And Program management plan…I guess Glock has good project managers…or a good line of BS??



Sig's bid was over 100 million less than Glock, so that tells me they beat Glock on ammunition, pistol, and accessories (holsters, suppressors, magazines, cleaning equipment, armorer's tools, etc). With that big of a price gap, they had to beat Glock on pretty much everything. Clearly Sig wanted this one for real! Hope it works out for them.

Well we know that neither Sig or Glock manufacture ammunition, so they had to partner with an Ammo maker. And I can't imagine the DOD would accept a foreign ammunition maker for very obvious reasons. So Sig struck a very good deal with someone...whom, I have no clue. If I were Sig I'd ask for a larger quantity bid for ammo from the makers to try to gain an edge in price. Then figure that I'll just take the excess from the government contract, brand it Sig and sell commercially to get my money back. Ammo is like oil, it doesn't really go un-sold...you can always sell ammo.

I don't know who they partnered with (maybe I'll ask on Monday), but it's good schit.

George

Yea I like the Sig ammo

Sig offers the ammo already; Glock does not.

Poor business planning on Glock's part if they really wanted to win.

This just in, Sig partnered with Winchester for the ammo.
http://taskandpurpose.com/winchester-will-supply-ammo-armys-new-service-pistol/

I sure as hell would not want to go to war with "low bid". A million bucks less!


http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...il-evaluation-process-mhs-yes-certainly/

Not a million less, a HUNDRED million less!

And it's not just low bid. They establish the minimum performance criteria (life span, MRBF, etc.) and then they take the lowest bid / best value from those that pass the test and meet their criteria. The 320 is only about 4-5 years old, but I have yet to hear of any real issues with it. I don't know how it will stack up to the M9 for reliability (probably pretty darned close, maybe even better), but it beats the hell out of the M9 in pretty much every other category, and I'll bet it holds it's own on reliability.

Somebody that really knows his schit predicted Sig would take over the LE market.

So far I think he's spot on.



Clark

That's funny, because I remember that post...and I remember thinking to myself...YEP!!!

Perhaps, and then again, perhaps not. The Beretta M9 (92FS) was adopted by the military around 1987, just about the time the Glock 17 began making inroads into the LE market (City of Miami Police Department). While some law enforcement agencies did adopt the Beretta 92, the vast majority went with the Glock and still issue or approve it for duty use today. About 65% of the nation's LEOs carry Glocks. Just because the military adopts a particular weapon is no guarantee civilian police departments will do so as well. There are a myriad of factors that enter into such a decision, and unit cost is just one of those factors. Only time will tell.

100 million less. Time will tell.

🎈👍🏻 🔫

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.

Over a longer (testing) 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.

Time will tell if once again .gov bought a pig in a poke, MacNamara saved 1 cent per barrel and killed a lot of men.

McNamara made the right call…the mistake was in pressing it into the field before it was really ready.

what possesses you to say that sending a bare steel barrel into a rain forest was the right call? Secondly having shot early glocks with north of 50,000 rounds through them, time will tell if the modular sig will last as they shut the test down after sig bought the order. so again only time will tell.

Reading comprehension dood, read the second part of the sentence above. The decision to dump the M14 and adopt the M16 was the right call. Pushing the M16 into service in a war before it was ready, was the wrong call.

Somehow that doesn't sound like your writing. Did you copy it from somewhere?

Much to learn you have.




Dave

Yea he pulled it from a cry a lot article from the firearms blog.

They were crying the the mgs process was not fair

glock fan boys should invest in figure sized condoms

the gun was ready, how he saved some money by elimination of the chrome in the bore before they started using them is part of history. Please post your sources regards how the gun was not ready, it was a choice on DOD's part to send the gun non chromed and with the wrong powder...low bid choice....just like the sig320.

sorry I copied it from the link that I posted. my apologies for the confusion.

just for them records, I own sigs, glocks, SWMP's, Kimber and some others i cannot recall.

Source is the book The Black Rifle by Blake Stevens. It wasn’t ready in the sense that when they issued the rifle, the cleaning equipment hadn’t even been made. The contract for cleaning equipment went out AFTER they put the rifle in the field. Nor had they settled on a standardized loading of the ammunition; they were still experimenting with at least 3 different powders. The lots of ammunition that were identified as problematic hadn’t even been properly tested by the Army before issuance in the field. As it turns out, the port pressure was significantly higher (21k vs 16k), which resulted in a much higher cyclic rate (900 vs 650 as spec’d). That caused significant reliability problems because the bolt was traveling forward again before the next round in the magazine fully advanced, causing jams (and other issues). The Edgewater buffer was replaced with what is standard in all 20” AR’s today, and that solved much of the cyclic rate problems, but they had to go back to the drawing board and re-formulate the powder. If you don’t even have a standardized cartridge specification, then the rifle isn’t ready.

There’s a youtube video also with an interview with L. James Sullivan, the man who designed the AR-15 (Stoner actually didn’t have a whole lot to do with the design of the AR15 until much after the fact). In that interview he states that the AR worked, but they weren’t aware how on the edge of not working the rifle was as designed. Following all the crap that happened in ’66, they had to make a few changes, specifically to the ammunition, buffer, extractor and extractor spring.

As for chrome lining, the rifle was never spec’d for chrome lining, which was an oversight. Chrome lining was a new concept to the US military, with the M14 being our first chrome lined rifle. During the M14 program they had a good deal of issues with chrome lining which lead to a very high barrel reject rate, thus driving up the cost. Even barrels that were accepted often had high & low spots in the bore which wasn’t real great for accuracy. Vietnam era M21 sniper rifles all had air gauged standard M14 barrels that skipped the chrome lining. On the M16 could have skipped the chrome lining on purpose because of the issues they had with the M14 (pure speculation on my part). Still, the chrome lining thing could have been dealt with had our troops had cleaning equipment. There were oodles of M1 Carbines, Garands, Thompson’s, 1919’s, M3’s, various shotguns, etc. that didn’t have chrome lining and while they didn’t go unscathed, they didn’t experience anything near the disaster that was experienced with the M16…It’s amazing what you can accomplish when you’re given the tools to succeed.

ETA - The rifles issued were Colt 603's, and they were still stamped XM16E1. They didn't even call it the A1 until '67. XM is the designation for an experimental rifle.

Actually I am glad the army didn't adopt the Glock. Now it won't interrupt the supply to the rest of us.

Let me get this straight..So the WW2 era weapons didn't have Crome lining, but the '16s are "better" ok I got it😉

I don’t think you took that quite right. I was contrasting how they were able to use the WWII era weapons without all the big rust related issues that the M16 had, and the difference was, they had cleaning equipment for the WWII stuff, but didn’t have it for the M16’s. I see that is THE biggest critical failure with the roll out of the M16. That’s why the chambers got so badly rusted that rounds would get stuck in the chamber once fired. Even without the chrome lining they could have averted that kind of damage to their weapons if they just had cleaning equipment. That really was the point. To Jimmy’s point though, they really should have spec’d the rifle with a chrome bore.

I don't think I'd condemn the 320 this early...




Dave

Where is the fun in that?

The 320 45ACP I saw today looks cool, trigger is awesome.

Sig's rock

I’ve shot a couple of 320’s, the full size and the compact; both in 9mm. I really found very little to complain about. Both worked perfectly, felt good in the hand, good triggers, relatively good sights, functioned perfectly, shot very straight. The military tests showed the full sized matched Glock for reliability, and I personally believed they hurried up the results and declared a winner before Mattis was in as Sec-Def, because they were afraid he’d kill the program. Ideally, they should have fully tested the compact pistols. In the end, they may get away with it, or they may not. I think once the 320 is in US military service we’re going to find some inadequacies with the pistol (that always happens), and the DOD will be criticized because they rushed the program. And they’ll take the heat regardless of whether any flaws would have been discovered during testing or not. The problem is, they didn’t do what they said they were going to do, and that’s always going to be a point of controversy.

Still, considering the submissions, and the requirements of the RFP, I think they bought the right pistol.

i am curious how many rounds the modular frame will last, time will tell..

I recalled a service life of 35,000 rounds, so I looked it up. The expected/required service live is 25,000 rounds, but each pistol was to be tested with 35,000 rounds. However, they indicate that while 25k is the requirement, 35k is more desirable (duh!!)
file:///C:/Users/Kevin%20Gibson/Downloads/W15QKN15R0002-RFP_Final.pdf


While looking that up, I stumbled upon something pertinent to Glock's complaint of not testing the compact pistols. The original RFP was for 280,000 full size pistols, and just 7,000 of the compact pistols. Doesn't really excuse not fully testing them, but it does give a bit more perspective.

Also, new frames are $40.00 retail IIRC, so probably about $20.00 for the govt.

I think Glock was angling for the secondary contract all along. That would explain submitting a pistol that didn't even remotely meet the MHS specs, but had a chance in a standalone compact with the Glock 19. However, Glock so missed the price point they didn't even get that. This was an epic butt kicking delivered by Sig.

The modular frame probably cost something like $40. No biggie.

The 1911 as adopted in by the military had the meet the grouling demand of 6,000 rounds.

I am sure it will be an epic success.

BREAKING: P320 Recall Issued By Dallas Police | Prohibited From Duty Till Repaired

Epic!

However I am sure it will be an epic success

Sig Sauer has identified that there is a defect in the P320 handgun that could cause the weapon system to go off when dropped. The Sig Sauer P320 was approved for primary duty, secondary primary duty, and back-up use. The Firearms Training Center is currently working with Sig Sauer to obtain a solution for the safety issue. Until Sig Sauer is able to find a solution to the safety issue, the Sig Sauer P320 is no longer approved by the ****** Police Department for any use.

I just read that article on TFB.

Did you note that there had been no safety issues, none, nada, zip

This was lawyers responding to Sigs letter. PmIn and simple.

But hey no agency has EVER pulled Glocks from issue have they??

Glock's had been out for around a decade before anyone took serious note of the fact that if you dropped them hard on concrete the slides popped off. The TFB story is a little contradictory in places, but I'm not willing to discount it. Could be a real issue, or nothing at all; time will tell.

And even though I support the Army's decision of the 320, I fully expect flaws in the pistol will be discovered when it reaches wide spread use in the military; but I would expect that with most any pistol they adopted.

TFB just a bunch of Glock fans. The 320 is going to be an epic success

I have found TFB to be a generally trustworthy site. Unlike the mainstream media, they at least put SOME due diligence into reporting newsworthy items. I saw in the case of the Sig 320’s that they did take the effort to reach out to Sig.

The one thing that is funny about this story is


I find it very odd that the product manager A – wasn’t the person who issued the recall/notification/whatever it was. B – Is completely unaware of any recall.
In places I have worked, something like this is a career defining moment for SOMEONE.

Either Strader is incompetent (career defining)
or
Someone in the Sig organization just went over his head/behind his back (career defining)

Otherwise, there exists the possibility that the whole thing is a hoax, and there is no problem (stranger things have happened).


Now on to the Dallas PD.

TFB has a copy of the inter-department memo, so it seems as if Dallas did indeed recall the use of personally owned Sig 320’s (issued weapon is 226). Since the Sig product manager doesn’t seem to know anything about it, I start to wonder what kind of notification the Dallas PD got from Sig? Was it a phone call, an official memo on letterhead, etc? Did Dallas PD do their due diligence and check with Sig? If they did, and Strader says he knows nothing about it, that makes Stader incompetent AND a liar. If they didn’t, then shame on Dallas PD for issuing such a recall based on what would essentially be hearsay.


Time will tell, but as it sits right now with the information we have; I don’t know that anyone really has the full picture of what is really going on.

I have seen this a few places, but all are in blog-ville. I have not seen anything on this from an authoritative source. In addition, the recent video of a 320 allegedly discharging after being dropped 3 times was removed from YouTube. Bruce Gray, a Sig guru emeritus, has indicated that the drop-discharge cannot be replicated in a gun that has all proper springs and parts in it. While anything is possible, I remain skeptical. This may be another case of fake news, or of a discharge being investigated to determine if it was equipment malfunction versus operator error. I am prepared to be illuminated as the story develops.

Tscuttlebut has it that an offer duty purposely slammed his empty 320 on the ground numerous times eventually causing the trigger to release or n and have to be reset.

If true I wouldn't call that a design failure

Not even nothing.



This non-issue escalating into an internet thing just demonstrates how deep the Glock fan butt hurt goes.

A cop read the manual? That sounds weird, too.

There is just so much that simply is not true, hard to believe anything you read any more.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1434691139947541&id=255352494548084


Dallas recall was over an issue that never happened

More blog-ville. I don't get it. Sig is a huge company with vast technical, legal and PR resources. It has a website with a tab labelled "Company." That has a drop-down menu with a "Press" section containing press releases. If it wants to say something official, why not say it there? If it is being slandered by YouTube videos and fake news, why not go after the people doing it or try to cajole them into writing retractions? Fighting negative blogs with more blogs just does not seem like the best way to protect one's reputation. That makes me wonder more than anything about what really is going on. Maybe Sig is using some new kind of strategy for dealing with this kind of stuff, but I don't get it.

so is the SIG P320 based on the SIG P250? The SIG250 had a sterling reputation.

Laffin'..........
From a "selfish" (local jobs, etc.) perspective, I was happy to see Sig get the contract. I was even more pleased when it I saw Block attempt to fight the decision.

Now I'm simply grinning watching all the associated angst.

Indeed... it rivals the butt hurt which ensued when DOD ditched the 1911A1 in favor of "'That GD Eyetalian pea-shooter!!"

BREAKING: Omaha Outdoors Halts Sales of SIG SAUER P320 Pistols Following Failed Drop Testing

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...uer-p320-pistols-following-drop-testing/

damn but hurt glock boys trying to torpedo a damn fine pistol.

Well, I would call that smoke if not a fire. A real company lays its future on the line when it puts out a video that would be slander if wholly fictitious. It could explain Sig’s reluctance to go “all-in official” with its refutation. Refute the picky points in blog-ville while trying to figure out what’s going on.

It is not uncommon for products in any field to have some warts not discovered during R&D. The marketplace subjects things to testing that the companies themselves could never imagine. In the firearms field, we had the Beretta slides to the face and locking block issues, the Glock Kbs, the recent Springfield XD-s issues, etc. They all got handled and life went on. It is how a company deals with it that impacts its near future. Springfield got way out in front of the XD-s issue, to the point of aggravating customers by getting customer guns back to the mother ship before they had a fix. While that ruffled feathers (and made it harder for any manufacturer to pull that off in the future), the issue got handled.

We’ll see what happens. I have no vested interest in the outcome either way. I am all for new technology and innovation, if it works.

Oh no, say it isn't so.

But, I thought this was all over something that never happened? Some dummy misreading a manual or something.....

Cop who was shot by dropped 320 suing SIG
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...ice-officer-shot-dropped-holstered-p320/

Guns aren't supposed to be dropped, why not sue the incompetence of the dropper?

So WTH is up with these tests and trials. Shouldn't that be something tested during the evaluations.

Was Sig "getting" the contract another political favor that came to fruition. I really seems that someone hates Glock. Don't finish the trials, toss Glocks law suit, release the Glock bashers, discredt them for being whiners, accuse them of being "butt hurt".

I can see it now. Get that contract signed before anyone finds out, if we have to fix it, we will suggest everyone wear a short lanyard.

Now I suppose Sig will throw an "army" of lawyers at the whistle blowers.

It will be interesting to see Sigs response and Glocks. As a matter of fact anyone that submitted a pistol to the trials should be bellyaching.

in the case of the sig does anyone know if the striker is fully cocked?

My dad always said if you cannot sell it you can always buy the order, so wasn't it $100 million less than the glock bid?

this is the way things work these days, you buy the order (counting on accessories or other sales at list that will be pulled along by the publicity for your revenue), then and only then you do your actual beta testing in the field with the released product by the actual customer, if they find any problem then circle back and fix it without saying a damn word to anyone, its funny how they responded with out using official letters etc to the first complaint (they knew there was a problem??). Anyone want to bet that the trigger pull wont go up considerably "after" the award has been made. The customer will double down and just suck it up wanting to avoid looking like they were stupid and did not test for everything. I hope no one that buys this gun will get killed by dropping it. It will in the end be an epic success, but it might take a while.

Oh look, Sig finally put something on its website about a "voluntary upgrade" to be explained on August 14, 2017. Link I guess it remembered it has a website.



Kevin’s link above has a purported Sig statement from August 4 that contains the following:



Now, we know that a cop claims to have been shot by one on January 5, 2017 (a couple of weeks before the army announcement, by the way), of which Sig was aware. So, while the wording of the statement may be 100% factually correct, it is seriously misleading. Let’s just say that Sig’s credibility has taken a huge hit in my book. It's not about the gun issue. Those come and go. It is about the way they handled this.

While I agree with the sentiment behind your comment, I can’t agree with the comment…I know where you’re coming from and I come from the same place. That is how you (and I) would teach a shooter to be.

However…

Any and all equipment has to take reasonable steps to ensure safety in the event of something un-planned. Within reason the design needs to account for impacts that can be expected within the course of duty of whomever is carrying that weapon. Generally it’s going to be the military, cops, and citizens who buys that weapon. Each of those, you can build a reasonable “profile” of what those people can/will do while armed with said pistol.

I don’t understand how you can look at what a soldier does and have the expectation that a handgun NEVER gets dropped while loaded under any circumstances. Certainly that’s the goal you strive towards in training, but to walk away and expect that a military of over a million members, most with what we would call a very minimum of handgun training; I just don’t see that as “reasonable” or realistic in any way.
I see engineering in extra safety into your pistol analogous to putting seat belts in a car. If everyone did their job right, we wouldn’t need seat belts. But that’s an expectation of perfection from a human being; and that’s an unreasonable expectation.

Most can envision a multitude of scenarios where someone could end up dropping a firearm while performing their duties…and it’s not always from negligence.

You will never make anything foolproof under 100% of all conditions. But you can take REASONABLE steps to protect against the most common of mistakes/circumstances.

We strive for perfection always, realizing it will never be attained…yet, that realization doesn’t get in the way of us trying anyhow.

Somebody screwed the pooch. Get the contract and worry about the short comings later, F that.

That's like buying a car that is supposed to meet spec.. Warning don't go over 65mph or it might blow up.

1- Do you believe that regulations call for soldiers to have a cartridge in the chamber of their pistol. 2- i wasn't talking solidness

I should of added I really don't care who got the bid, as long as it was legitimate. That's my biggest peeve. If they knowingly and then willfully submitted a product that they knew had potential problems, F them bastids. Time will tell.

The gun is marketed as drop safe. The implicit pitch is: "Buy our gun because you can drop it and it won't go off." Many people know that they aren't perfect, so they make consumer decisions that provide protections against their own mistakes. If a company markets such a product and it does not work as advertised under conditions that one can reasonably anticipate, it should not escape liability because the person dropped it in the first place.