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 in topic: 1
Posts: 18491
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#1

Post by Keith B »

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 in topic: 4
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#2

Post by Liberty »

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 in topic: 2
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#3

Post by Pawpaw »

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
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
User avatar

johncanfield
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2011 9:04 pm
Location: Texas Hill Country

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#4

Post by johncanfield »

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.
LC9s, M&P 22, 9c, Sig P238-P239-P226-P365XL, 1911 clone

crazy2medic
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2453
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#5

Post by crazy2medic »

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
Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here- John Parker
User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#6

Post by Liberty »

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 in topic: 1
Posts: 3485
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#7

Post by flechero »

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 in topic: 2
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 11:16 am
Location: Hunt County

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#8

Post by Pawpaw »

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.
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams
User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#9

Post by Flightmare »

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 in topic: 1
Posts: 545
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#10

Post by OlBill »

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 in topic: 4
Posts: 6343
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#11

Post by Liberty »

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

parabelum
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2717
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:22 pm

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#12

Post by parabelum »

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.
User avatar

Jusme
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5350
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:23 pm
Location: Johnson County, Texas

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#13

Post by Jusme »

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 in topic: 2
Posts: 26789
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#14

Post by The Annoyed Man »

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.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

1911 10MM
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Why Glock didn't make the Army Cut

#15

Post by 1911 10MM »

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

Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”