Sig 320 fails most all drop tests

[UCFBS]

I'd be shocked if all SOCOM units didn't just say screw it and reject deliveries of the M17 in favor of buying more Glock 19's. In fact I've heard this has already happened at some locations. They're the only units who may actually use a handgun at some point; for 99% of the military a handgun is just a doorstop.
That's the crock in all of this. They spent millions of dollars running this competition to ultimately end up with a very shady product. They could have just used the USMC and SOCOM contracts to buy more Glock 19's at volume discounts and called it a day.

If you think it's this bad for small arms, you should be a party to the insides of major USAF and USN contracts on aircraft and ship subsystems.

The USAF tanker back'n forth has probably one of the biggest wastes of all-time. I mean, even our allies had 'voted,' with several European allies (let alone Asian) picking the Boeing over the AirBus-EADS. But Boeing was stupid, and was shady, and McCain had to call them out on that.

At least the nice thing about the small arms contracts is that there are a lot of civilian and LEO adoption to showcase what's wrong with a firearm. So we have far more 'fodder' to throw at the US gov't.

 

[UCFKnight85]

It'd be interesting to see the AOAs, because if volume discounts of existing designs was a possibility it should've been addressed. It would be interesting to see what justification they used to turn away from that route.

Beretta had already developed the M9A3 which basically featured all of the modularity that the USG claimed to want, and they were offering to do it at a discount vs. current contract prices.

Of course the USG ignored and spent $250M on a friggin handgun competition anyways.

The only service members I've seen really utilize a pistol are MPs and aviators as their "get out of $hit" last resort if their aircraft is downed. They all carry the M11 which, by the way, is much better than the 320 as well.

 

[UCFBS]

Beretta had already developed the M9A3 which basically featured all of the modularity that the USG claimed to want, and they were offering to do it at a discount vs. current contract prices.

Of course the USG ignored and spent $250M on a friggin handgun competition anyways.

The only service members I've seen really utilize a pistol are MPs and aviators as their "get out of $hit" last resort if their aircraft is downed. They all carry the M11 which, by the way, is much better than the 320 as well.

I utterly agree.

This is all about inertia, and if it ain't broke (at least not bad), don't fix it. We switched away from the M1911 for a lot of reasons, partially political (since we forced an USAF .22 survival round on everyone), partially logistical (made sense with European and other deployments).

But why we moved away from the M9, especially as -- you clearly said -- the M9A3 does the job, including a lot of roles, I have no idea.

At least the world agrees that moving to the 5.7mm or 4.6mm is stupid. It's more of the same non-sense that the USAF did that caused us to get the .22 survival round in the first place. Especially since there are sub-calibre 9mm options out there too, that work in a 9.6mm rim.

 

[sk8knight]

If you think it's this bad for small arms, you should be a party to the insides of major USAF and USN contracts on aircraft and ship subsystems.

The USAF tanker back'n forth has probably one of the biggest wastes of all-time. I mean, even our allies had 'voted,' with several European allies (let alone Asian) picking the Boeing over the AirBus-EADS. But Boeing was stupid, and was shady, and McCain had to call them out on that.

At least the nice thing about the small arms contracts is that there are a lot of civilian and LEO adoption to showcase what's wrong with a firearm. So we have far more 'fodder' to throw at the US gov't.

The Airbus-EADS was a Northrop Grumman prime win that got reopened after a protest that swung on a very small technicality (regardless of what the articles say). What followed was a bunch of crazy and NG no-bid the contract. To say that's Boeing was the first choice all along is wrong.

 

[UCFBS]

The Airbus-EADS was a Northrop Grumman prime win that got reopened after a protest that swung on a very small technicality (regardless of what the articles say). What followed was a bunch of crazy and NG no-bid the contract. To say that's Boeing was the first choice all along is wrong.

Ummm, there were 2 re-opens. Go check the full details.

Win #1: Boeing -- reopened over various improprieties
Win #2: Airbus-EADS -- reopened as requirements had changed from Win #1
Win #3: Boeing

I fully admitted that Boeing was wrong in Win #1. They had the better solution to the requirements, but they played dirty to guarantee the win. McCain called them out on that, and forced the re-compete.

But then they changed the requirements, and the government wouldn't let them submit a new offer more along the requirements, even though Boeing was already selling the upgraded (and more costly) airframe solution to allies. In other words, the requirements were designed to give it to Airbus-EADS. The US GAO called the USAF out on that, and forced the 2nd re-compete.

Boeing then won the final round.

In both cases, I very strongly believe Boeing met the requirements much better, and at a lower price point. I'm even removing the fact that far more would be built in the US from the equation.

 

[sk8knight]

I don't need to go back and read anything to find out what happened with our bid or why we pulled out. Were you part of the evaluation committee or are you just pulling all of this from the internet?

 

[UCFKnight85]

Another week, another Sig recall. Had to put a notice out for 3 rifles due to potential trigger problems. Again.

This follows the fact that the MCX is still a total mess from its launch 2 years ago.

 

[NinjaKnight]

 

[Knight_Light]

Thought this thread was about the drop tests for new Samsung or Google phone. Nevermind.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Thought this thread was about the drop tests for new Samsung or Google phone. Nevermind.

??????????????????????????

 

[UCFBS]

I don't need to go back and read anything to find out what happened with our bid or why we pulled out. Were you part of the evaluation committee or are you just pulling all of this from the internet?

I was working for Boeing IDS at the time of the 2nd award. They were already smarting from their impropriety in 2003, and we're completely adamant about that never happening again.

But then we went were going ape over the change in requirements for the 2nd award, which basically handed it to EADS.

It didn't surprise me the US GAO ruled the way they did, and forced a 3rd award. I always read GAO reports for myself. I never read the media when it comes to the GAO. It's the one branch of the US Gov't that is worth a damn.

The irony is how much more the US taxpayers ended up paying as a result. McCain was valid in barking about the first round, Boeing was very guilt of various improprieties, but as lobbyists often do, they were able to misdirect that 2nd award.

 

[UCFKnight85]

I had it confirmed to me today that the price on contract is $170/pistol. Just insane.

 

[sk8knight]

I had it confirmed to me today that the price on contract is $170/pistol. Just insane.

"Best Value" in yet another win for the DoD.

 

[UCFWayne]

I had it confirmed to me today that the price on contract is $170/pistol. Just insane.

wow that is insanely low. how is sig even making money on that? ive seen the video of berreta and the testing they have to do on every single batch of pistols they made for the army.

 

[NinjaKnight]

wow that is insanely low. how is sig even making money on that? ive seen the video of berreta and the testing they have to do on every single batch of pistols they made for the army.

They aren't.

They are however making tons of money off the long term contract, parts, service, support, etc. Plus whatever firearm is "mil-spec" gets a huge boost in sales on the civilian side by all the space shuttle door gunner wannabes.

 

[UCFKnight85]

They aren't.

They are however making tons of money off the long term contract, parts, service, support, etc. Plus whatever firearm is "mil-spec" gets a huge boost in sales on the civilian side by all the space shuttle door gunner wannabes.

I’m not so convinced about that. Not many people rushed out to get a Beretta just because of the Army contract. Plus Sig just laid a turd with the 320 in the commercial market; all of our LE customers are either waiting on recall upgrades or have ditched the weapon all together.

Sig truly did a horrid job with price to win. They undercut Glock by $100M which is obscene money to leave on the table. Although maybe that was the reason the Army decided to bypass its own testing specifications ....

They will almost surely attempt to get the USG to cut them a check in the future on an ECP once they realize the financial bath they’re taking wasn’t worth it.

 

[NinjaKnight]

I’m not so convinced about that. Not many people rushed out to get a Beretta just because of the Army contract. Plus Sig just laid a turd with the 320 in the commercial market; all of our LE customers are either waiting on recall upgrades or have ditched the weapon all together.

Sig truly did a horrid job with price to win. They undercut Glock by $100M which is obscene money to leave on the table. Although maybe that was the reason the Army decided to bypass its own testing specifications ....

They will almost surely attempt to get the USG to cut them a check in the future on an ECP once they realize the financial bath they’re taking wasn’t worth it.

Yeah I do agree on this case, I don't see how Sig is making money off this one. I know the civ market realizes this one is a POS, I'm sure Sig is still trying to come out ahead with the long term contract though.