SIG M17 fixes

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Not exactly, not at all. The testing was never completed and Sig made a low ball offer(selling less than cost?) in the middle of testing that the Gov't couldn't refuse and now Sig is scrambling to make sure the weapon is minimally reliable.

Yes, small potatoes in the grand scheme of the bloated defense budget but it still matters..to us tax payers(at least to me and Chui)..



Not any kind of theory but what actually happened. Matter of record. What ISN'T is what $ changed hands during this 'competition'...

Again, if you have proof of money changing hands, by all means let us know and contact your congressmen. Otherwise, spare us the conspiracy theories that have no proof. And again, why would you have to bribe people to spend less money? Take off the Glock fanboy glasses.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Ibmikey]

Tunnel Rat, your arguments can go on until eternity but you will never convince the “conspiracy boys” that come up with an attack on anything not in their realm of acceptance. Certainly the Glock boys will he heard until the cows come home and beyond.
I fought the bean counters for years because they could not ( or would not) understand the ammunition and pistol that is specified in the requisition and the one tha all the testing done proclaimed was the material to adopt, cost more than brand x and by the way you did not re bid the ammo each year. I finally won the battle in a personal presentation to the City Council and televised on local cable and never had a complaint from purchasing about pistol and ammunition orders not going through the bid process again. Sure we had distributors crying “foul” but finally with support by the Council our people received the best we could provide for their safety.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

Again, if you have proof of money changing hands, by all means let us know and contact your congressmen. Otherwise, spare us the conspiracy theories that have no proof. And again, why would you have to bribe people to spend less money? Take off the Glock fanboy glasses.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

HA..I think they should have kept the Beretta..what was wrong with it? Is having a smaller handgun for 'smaller' handed people that much of a priority?
In the USN, I KNOW that 'gifts' and other things are pretty common among the 'deciders;..if you'd like to have a disneyland opinion of government competitions and contracts, that's fine.
As for getting this contract..it is a YUGE marketing coup for Sig..in the end, having this govt contract will be a sales boon for them..in spite of the extra $ Sig had to spend to fix this thing.

[davidsog]

Uh, no.

No, it didn’t.

Here is what the US ARMY says:

Based upon the technical evaluation and my comparative analysis of the proposals, the Sig Sauer proposal has a slight technical advantage over the Glock proposal given that their proposal was rated higher in Factor 1,

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/685461.pdf

Factor 1 is the combat characteristics of the weapon and the most important characteristic in the DoD process.

Had Glock exhibits an advantage, that would have outweighed all other factors.

Facts are the SIG was simply better where it counted. It was not a huge advantage but it was enough of a one to make a difference to the warfighter.

[USNRet93]

MY last post as the sig won the competition.

It was not a huge advantage but it was enough of a one to make a difference to the warfighter.

It would have been nice if
-they really did complete the published testing plan
-the P320/M17 didn't have all the issues it ended up having($$)..

Taping out.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

HA..I think they should have kept the Beretta..what was wrong with it? Is having a smaller handgun for 'smaller' handed people that much of a priority?

In the USN, I KNOW that 'gifts' and other things are pretty common among the 'deciders;..if you'd like to have a disneyland opinion of government competitions and contracts, that's fine.

As for getting this contract..it is a YUGE marketing coup for Sig..in the end, having this govt contract will be a sales boon for them..in spite of the extra $ Sig had to spend to fix this thing.

Actually I work at a FFRDC as an advisor for government procurement and R/D. I KNOW the very harsh penalities that exist for those caught accepting bribes. I have to go through the training for such multiple times per year where I'm reminded if I accept more than $20 worth of a gift in a calendar year my job is lost as well as likely any chance I have of continuing to work in that field, not to mention the legal ramifications I could face. But yes, that's totally worth bribing someone to get them to spend less money and certainly the most logical conclusion to make here. It may well have been the way you describe back in the old days, but the people caught doing it today are ridden out of town on a rail. You're welcome to believe otherwise, but I say this as someone doing this now, not decades ago.

You know the irony of all of this? I don't like the P320. I like any number of designs better than the P320, including Glock and the M9. However, I'm not so enamored with an inanimate object that I have to invent ways for another object to win despite the GAO coming out with a report specifically addressing the concerns that have been brought up here. The competition is over. If you can't accept that idk what to tell you.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[USNRet93]

The competition is over

If you can't accept that idk what to tell you.

I DO accept it..plus whether or not this retired USN Aviator 'accepts' it or not means NADA. My gripe wasn't about the result, my gripe was about the process.
(OK, a little about Sig..)

really tapping out..

[tipoc]

Someone asked, why didn't they keep the M9 or go to the M9A1?

It's possible that they would have but a series of long and endless wars (that they don't know how to end) that the U.S. has been involved in led them in another direction.

Another point to consider is that the Army, other branches of the service, the GAO and the Pentagon made a decision on which guns to get and that discussion is closed.

Folks who want to contest it still can. Of course the U.S. has purchased many tens of thousands of Glocks for the military. Many thousands it gave to the Iraqi military, a few years back, where they ended up with ISIS. So Glock has been thoroughly battle tested with ISIS. A trusted name in mayhem and slaughter.

I'll open a thread where folks who want to debate this further can. It's also open to the folks who think that the M9 should never have been adopted and that was due to bribes and secret deals with Italy. It's open to the folks who believe the M1911A1 and M45 should still be the sidearm of choice. Also open to those who believe that the M16 is a lousy military long gun. While we're at it add the fellas who believe the military never should have made the transition to semis from revolvers. The latter being "much more reliable".

tipoc

[rodfac]

No offense meant, but why do we care at this point? I feel like the M17 competition is a horse that is beyond dead. It's been beaten into the ground so much that someone should press charges for animal cruelty. The contract is awarded, I don't see anything changing that. SIG will have to find a way to make things work, and my experience with the P320 suggests they should be able to do that.

You are correct, Sir. Rod

[TxFlyFish]

I do have a question: did any pistol fail the modularity requirement?

[tipoc]

I do have a question: did any pistol fail the modularity requirement?

As I recall the Glock entries were ruled insufficiently modular but were allowed to compete anyway due to other attributes. Meaning that they were good enough that the modularity shortcomings could be worked with.

P.S. The Sig passed all the requirements and tests that were contractually dictated. The tests were conducted with small numbers of guns by a small number of testers (many the particulars of this have been spelled out many times in this forum and others and by the GAO). So once they began sending out thousands of the guns to units in the field other issues crop up. This is routine.

tipoc

[TxFlyFish]

Originally Posted by tipoc

As I recall the Glock entries were ruled insufficiently modular but were allowed to compete anyway due to other attributes. Meaning that they were good enough that the modularity shortcomings could be worked with.

P.S. The Sig passed all the requirements and tests that were contractually dictated. The tests were conducted with small numbers of guns by a small number of testers (many the particulars of this have been spelled out many times in this forum and others and by the GAO). So once they began sending out thousands of the guns to units in the field other issues crop up. This is routine.

tipoc

Gotcha I watched the video summary by small arms solutions posted earlier, where he explains that the Glock passed the modularity requirement and goes on by explaining that term “modularity” is not what we think it is.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by TxFlyFish

Gotcha I watched the video summary by small arms solutions posted earlier, where he explains that the Glock passed the modularity requirement and goes on by explaining that term “modularity” is not what we think it is.

Hmmmm, I guess if the complete test as designed was completed....never mind, the Sig was chosen...

[R_P_K_]

Or Glock could have supplied a pistol that met requirements, modular rings a bell. But ole Gaston thought that his basically unchanged 35 plus year design could slip by.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by R_P_K_

Or Glock could have supplied a pistol that met requirements, modular rings a bell. But ole Gaston thought that his basically unchanged 35 plus year design could slip by.

Or Gaston didn't want to undercut his price as much as SIG did.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

Or Gaston didn't want to undercut his price as much as SIG did.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

+ a bunch...

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Not exactly, not at all. The testing was never completed and Sig made a low ball offer(selling less than cost?) in the middle of testing that the Gov't couldn't refuse and now Sig is scrambling to make sure the weapon is minimally reliable.
Yes, small potatoes in the grand scheme of the bloated defense budget but it still matters..to us tax payers(at least to me and Chui)..

Not any kind of theory but what actually happened. Matter of record. What ISN'T is what $ changed hands during this 'competition'...

Was the testing not completed, or was it just delayed? My understanding the schedule moved out and it was delayed, and may have been completed by now. Did I misunderstand the status?

As to making a low ball offer, that's a very very smart move strategy wise for a new product using the learning curve: Your costs drop 10% every time you double production.

Sig will probably double production more than ten times, resulting in a production cost about 40% of their current costs. Smart move Sig.

[TunnelRat]

I wonder in part if some of it was them losing the bid last time to Beretta, and they were damned if that was going to happen again.

[tipoc]

The bid was not only for guns and maintenance but also for ammo. Sig also offered 2 guns to Glock's one. Folks can read a bit more on that here.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...-handgun-28907

Here a bit on why Glock's protests about the Sig decision were rejected...

https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...tols-unveiled/

https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...test-rejected/

And the ammo.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/art...points-stupid/

And from the GAO on Glock's protest...

1. Protest that the solicitation required the agency to make at least two awards after the
initial evaluation phase is denied, where the solicitation did not require this outcome.
Instead, the agency reasonably determined that a single award was in the best interest
of the government, where proposals were technically proximate and the protester’s
proposed price was substantially higher than the awardee’s price.

tipoc

[USNRet93]

the agency reasonably determined that a single award was in the best interest
of the government, where proposals were technically proximate and the protester’s
proposed price was substantially higher than the awardee’s price.

AYup..all about the benjamins...

[TunnelRat]

Well, given that same quote says the examples were technically approximate, certainly makes sense to look at price.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

Well, given that same quote says the examples were technically approximate, certainly makes sense to look at price.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Of course but unfortunately that price didn’t include the $ spent by Sig to fix the deficiencies discovered. So it all ended up costing Sig even more than low ball
$.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Of course but unfortunately that price didn’t include the $ spent by Sig to fix the deficiencies discovered. So it all ended up costing Sig even more than low ball
$.

Given that neither I nor you know how much it cost to fix those problems, we don't know how that factors in to the overall cost versus the contract award.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Bart Noir]

I do testing for a living. Not, most unfortunately, testing of firearms but still I have seen some variations of test programs.

Was the "planned testing" (which Glock was so hung-up on) really planned to be "testing which we will do if results lead us to go all the way"? Meaning, if the contest is so close that US Gov needs every bit of test data to make a decision?

I don't know, but it is certainly possible that the test program was always intended to keep gathering data until there was a stand-out winner, at which point the testing would stop.

It kind of seems like that is what happened. And the Gov is entitled to reconsider the test program in the middle of it, no matter what the original plan was.

Bart Noir