Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
Keith B
Moderator
Posts: 17478
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby Keith B » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:40 am

Good read on why the Army went with Sig Sauer vs. Glock. And the main reason may be not what you think.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ocks-21433
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts: 5195
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby Liberty » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:58 am

Better and cheaper.
Who woulda thought the Glock was the more expencive gun.
I don't understand what the deal is with the "Special Ammo" Are they trying to use some sort of Internationally approved humane softpoint bullets or something?
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby Pawpaw » Sun Jul 09, 2017 8:59 am

Liberty wrote:Better and cheaper.
Who woulda thought the Glock was the more expencive gun.
I don't understand what the deal is with the "Special Ammo" Are they trying to use some sort of Internationally approved humane softpoint bullets or something?

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... he-m9.html
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin 1759

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

johncanfield
Senior Member
Posts: 904
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:04 pm
Location: Texas Hill Country

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby johncanfield » Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:39 am

Also surprised Sig significantly under bid Glock. On a tangent, I'm disappointed they are staying with 9mm, maybe a NATO issue. .357 Sig caliber has much better ballistics than 9mm.
Ruger SR40, LC9s, M&P 22, 9c, Sig P238-P239-P226, 1911 clone


crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby crazy2medic » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:32 pm

johncanfield wrote:Also surprised Sig significantly under bid Glock. On a tangent, I'm disappointed they are staying with 9mm, maybe a NATO issue. .357 Sig caliber has much better ballistics than 9mm.

The main reason they won't switch from 9mm is the same reason they wouldn't switch from 5.56 to the 6.8, they have way to much in warehouses as part of strategic stockpile!
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention

User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts: 5195
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby Liberty » Sun Jul 09, 2017 12:40 pm

johncanfield wrote:Also surprised Sig significantly under bid Glock. On a tangent, I'm disappointed they are staying with 9mm, maybe a NATO issue. .357 Sig caliber has much better ballistics than 9mm.


Most likely because of economics as well as NATO issues. I like the concept of the .357 sig but if stuck with FMJ I would think that over penetration, and clean thru and through might be less devastating than even a 9mm. The sidearm in the military is not only a combat weapon, but also for armed security, LEO, and personal protection similar to civilian use.

The fact that they are signing on to Jacketed hollowpoints is encouraging. In my opinion 9mm FMJ is a poor selection for anything other than range practice.

Keith B wrote:Good read on why the Army went with Sig Sauer vs. Glock. And the main reason may be not what you think.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015 ... he-m9.html


The referenced article was informative, but I really found one of the quotes in it pretty fascinating when they were talking about the M9 and the ability to process jacketed hollow points.
Walker said it was not his decision, but added that he didn't think the Beretta M9 "is optimized to shoot any of those types of rounds. It's optimized to shoot the M882," the U.S. military's standard full-metal jacket 9mm round, he said.

"Any other round you fire through it, there are system-level effects that can affect a whole series of issues" such as "reliability and how many rounds between having a malfunction."


The design of the barrel and feed ramp, makes feeding hollowpoints inconsequential. The M9 should be ambe to feed just about any shaped bullet as long as the length is reasonable. There is no practical ramp, just a mouth to feed. hard to wrong when feeding any ammo.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy


flechero
Senior Member
Posts: 955
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby flechero » Sun Jul 09, 2017 2:59 pm

The article made glock look like an awfully arrogant bunch... if it's reported accurately. Either way, you submit for a proposal and sometimes you win and sometimes you don't. It's not like they were tied and glock lost over a tiny price difference. It reads as if sig won the testing AND was much less expensive.

Price was only one of the factors mentioned, but being underbid by $103 million bucks is HUGE and might suggest they [glock] are either preying on the taxpayer or have misunderstood the RFP. Neither are good.

User avatar

Pawpaw
Senior Member
Posts: 5236
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby Pawpaw » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:20 pm

crazy2medic wrote:
johncanfield wrote:Also surprised Sig significantly under bid Glock. On a tangent, I'm disappointed they are staying with 9mm, maybe a NATO issue. .357 Sig caliber has much better ballistics than 9mm.

The main reason they won't switch from 9mm is the same reason they wouldn't switch from 5.56 to the 6.8, they have way to much in warehouses as part of strategic stockpile!

Considering that it will take about 5 years to phase in the new pistol, that stockpile would not be as big an issue is you might think.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin 1759

NRA Benefactor Life Member

User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts: 1174
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby Flightmare » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:35 pm

flechero wrote:Price was only one of the factors mentioned, but being underbid by $103 million bucks is HUGE and might suggest they [glock] are either preying on the taxpayer or have misunderstood the RFP. Neither are good.


Considering Sig’s bid came in at just about $169.5 million, a discount of 103 million over Glock's bid is a HUGE discount.
Deplorable lunatic since 2016


OlBill
Senior Member
Posts: 309
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby OlBill » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:42 pm

johncanfield wrote:Also surprised Sig significantly under bid Glock. On a tangent, I'm disappointed they are staying with 9mm, maybe a NATO issue. .357 Sig caliber has much better ballistics than 9mm.

You can pick 9mm ammo up off the ground on any battlefield in the world.

User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts: 5195
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby Liberty » Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:53 pm

Just curious. Other than price, Is there any objectively hard advantage of Sig over Glock, or vice versa?
I know some people shoot better with one over the other, some like the feel or fit of one over the other. but both have a reputation as reliable good shooters. Just wondering if there is anything specific in design that either that the military would prefer over the other.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy

User avatar

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts: 1645
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby parabelum » Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:01 pm

As a taxpayer, I am glad to see the savings. Both companies produce quality product. This time military chose Sig, that's all.

I lIke Glock but it's time to move on. Maybe next time.
III%

User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby Jusme » Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:03 pm

Liberty wrote:Just curious. Other than price, Is there any objectively hard advantage of Sig over Glock, or vice versa?
I know some people shoot better with one over the other, some like the feel or fit of one over the other. but both have a reputation as reliable good shooters. Just wondering if there is anything specific in design that either that the military would prefer over the other.



The article mentioned ergonomics, but didn't give any details, or specifics. I wonder if there was a team or panel of testers, who came to a consensus?
Take away the Second first, and the First is gone in a second :rules: :patriot:

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22450
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: Grapevine, Texas

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby The Annoyed Man » Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:17 pm

Liberty wrote:Just curious. Other than price, Is there any objectively hard advantage of Sig over Glock, or vice versa?
I know some people shoot better with one over the other, some like the feel or fit of one over the other. but both have a reputation as reliable good shooters. Just wondering if there is anything specific in design that either that the military would prefer over the other.

I don't think there is a specific performance advantage with Sig. What they brought to the table was modularity, with interchangeable frames so that the working parts can be used to service different sized pistols. After all, the product was called "the Modular Handgun System contract". And the ammo part was self explanatory. Sig has a relationship with Winchester Olins and can procure the required ammo more easily. Glock would have to outsource.
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre


1911 10MM
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

Postby 1911 10MM » Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:36 pm

Besides being ugly as sin, Glock has a penchant for being involved in "Friendly Fire" incidents.


Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Excaliber, Salty1 and 8 guests