TexasCHLforum.com

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

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 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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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