The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: The Semi-automatic Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 25, 2019, 09:06 PM   #1
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,061
SIG M17 fixes

According to the Army Times, Sig Sauer has made multiple tweaks to the M17 and M18 pistols, with the goal of achieving minimal reliability in performance.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...ndgun-problem/

My question is: If the original design didn't perform ... why and how was it selected?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 01:04 AM   #2
greentick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2011
Location: Deep South
Posts: 198
Murphy's Law of Combat #33:

Always remember your weapon was produced by the lowest bidder
__________________
nous défions
greentick is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 05:39 AM   #3
Chui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Posts: 1,753
Here is a summary.

https://youtu.be/WW-u0H5rRdA



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chui is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 05:50 AM   #4
Chui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Posts: 1,753
Here is another summary.

Between the both of them you’ll get an idea of what happened.

https://youtu.be/v0LUbLu6TqA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chui is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 11:32 AM   #5
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,571
It appears that SIG Sauer USA is learning that the same level of QC that their commercial products receive is not going to be acceptable for large military contracts (and a larger sample base that makes issues more readily apparent).
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 12:04 PM   #6
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,430
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kZKHNHGzCg
__________________
Know the status of your weapon
Keep your muzzle oriented so that no one will be hurt if the firearm discharges
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have an adequate sight picture
Maintain situational awareness
TunnelRat is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 12:56 PM   #7
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,829
"Always remember your weapon was produced by the lowest bidder"

Military weapons, perhaps. But, not MY gun! As a civilian, I have access to better firearms than are supplied to the military.
Skans is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 01:59 PM   #8
sigarms228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentick View Post
Murphy's Law of Combat #33:

Always remember your weapon was produced by the lowest bidder
You forgot to include "that meets specifications".

As a taxpayer I feel strongly that is the way it should be
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
sigarms228 is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 06:46 PM   #9
greentick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2011
Location: Deep South
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally Posted by sigarms228 View Post
You forgot to include "that meets specifications".

As a taxpayer I feel strongly that is the way it should be
Quote:
Military weapons, perhaps. But, not MY gun! As a civilian, I have access to better firearms than are supplied to the military.

Just making a funny guys.

As someone who will eventually probably be issued one, as always, we will use it. Nobody cares if you are happy with it or not.
__________________
nous défions
greentick is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 07:18 PM   #10
1stmar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 21, 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,359
Not unusual for there to be “A1” versions of weapon systems. 1911, m16..
1stmar is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 07:38 PM   #11
sigarms228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2011
Posts: 1,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentick View Post
Just making a funny guys.

As someone who will eventually probably be issued one, as always, we will use it. Nobody cares if you are happy with it or not.
No problem. Stay safe.
__________________
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
sigarms228 is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 09:14 PM   #12
Chui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Posts: 1,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by TunnelRat View Post
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.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kZKHNHGzCg


I care because I’m paying for this crap.

It may end up being a pistol for the ages but neither you or I know if it’s the best pistol in that competition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chui is offline  
Old February 26, 2019, 09:33 PM   #13
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chui View Post
I care because I’m paying for this crap.

It may end up being a pistol for the ages but neither you or I know if it’s the best pistol in that competition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You're paying for a lot of crap. You always are. In the grand scheme of the DoD budget this contract is a rounding error. If you're worried about how the military is spending your tax dollars there's a long list of programs ahead of this one worth examining, and some that are likely far more impactful.

From what we did learn from the GAO report in the testing that was done (and yes I watched the video above from Small Arm Solutions) there wasn't a significant difference in performance but there was in cost. Having owned both yes I'd rather the Glock personally, but do I think the SIG is a catastrophe? No. I think it will be iterated on and improved, just like the M16 and any number of other technologies that are praised today.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Last edited by TunnelRat; February 26, 2019 at 09:48 PM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old February 27, 2019, 12:10 AM   #14
Chui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Posts: 1,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by TunnelRat View Post
You're paying for a lot of crap. You always are. In the grand scheme of the DoD budget this contract is a rounding error. If you're worried about how the military is spending your tax dollars there's a long list of programs ahead of this one worth examining, and some that are likely far more impactful.

From what we did learn from the GAO report in the testing that was done (and yes I watched the video above from Small Arm Solutions) there wasn't a significant difference in performance but there was in cost. Having owned both yes I'd rather the Glock personally, but do I think the SIG is a catastrophe? No. I think it will be iterated on and improved, just like the M16 and any number of other technologies that are praised today.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk


This is merely the “death by a thousand cuts”.

It ALL matters. Or should.

It’s MY money and I want them held accountable.

They NEVER finished testing so no one can say for sure how good the pistol is.

I also prefer the Glock if it were my coin. But that’s based upon the FBI’s testing of the Gen 5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chui is offline  
Old February 27, 2019, 12:26 AM   #15
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chui View Post
This is merely the “death by a thousand cuts”.

It ALL matters. Or should.

It’s MY money and I want them held accountable.

They NEVER finished testing so no one can say for sure how good the pistol is.

I also prefer the Glock if it were my coin. But that’s based upon the FBI’s testing of the Gen 5.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm not saying it doesn't matter. I'm saying your outrage should start elsewhere. I find it eye roll worthy that people lose their mind over this when you could pick any number of other programs to get upset about that make this contract look like chump change. By all means hold the government accountable. But maybe worry about the giant crack in the dam before you stick your finger in the nearby hole.

As for what is or isn't the "best", how marginal of a difference matters? Would things really have changed dramatically in the second phase? There's more proof they wouldn't than there is that they would. As far as your money, the government saved you $100 million. You're welcome. And if you don't think there would have been issues had they adopted Glocks, then you weren't paying attention at the beginning of the Gen 4 or some of Glock's other recent offerings. But hey. If you want to keep being outraged about this (I'm assuming by the use of all caps) it's your call.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Last edited by TunnelRat; March 2, 2019 at 10:52 AM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old February 27, 2019, 10:49 AM   #16
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chui View Post
I care because I’m paying for this crap.

It may end up being a pistol for the ages but neither you or I know if it’s the best pistol in that competition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree..seems that the 'big boys' who make these decisions forgot all about the M16...that got more than a few young men, killed. Too much $ changed hands=M17..
Quote:
From what we did learn from the GAO report in the testing that was done (and yes I watched the video above from Small Arm Solutions) there wasn't a significant difference in performance but there was in cost.
Seems, with use, there was a significant difference in performance(reliability being a BIG part of performance).
Quote:
I find it eye roll worthy that people lose their mind over this when you could pick any number of other programs to get upset about that make this contract look like chump change
Well, considering the bloated Defense budget, yes, but $580 million..That's a squadron + of F-15C....
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”

Last edited by USNRet93; February 27, 2019 at 10:55 AM.
USNRet93 is offline  
Old February 27, 2019, 10:51 AM   #17
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,430
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRet93 View Post
I agree..seems that the 'big boys' who make these decisions forgot all about the M16...that got more than a few young men, killed. Too much $ changed hands=M17..
If you have the proof on money changing hands, by all means share it with the class (why they would need to exchange money under the table to convince the government to spend less money for what had been shown to be equal performance is a bit of a head scratcher). And to your point, that M16 is fine now. Sometimes it takes field service to iron out issues (though not using the wrong powder and issuing cleaning kits helps too, in the case of the M16).

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Last edited by TunnelRat; February 27, 2019 at 12:13 PM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old February 27, 2019, 11:00 AM   #18
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by TunnelRat View Post
If you have the proof on money changing hands, by all means share it with the class (why they would need to exchange money under the table to convince the government to spend less money for what had been shown to be equal performance is a bit if a head scratcher). And to your point, that M16 is fine now. Sometimes it takes field service to iron out issues (though not using the wrong powder and issuing cleaning kits helps too, in the case of the M16).

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
I guess flawed contracts with military laptops or stoves is OK, but I think with a 'weapon', that is going to be used in COMBAT, NOW, with reliability issues...it is a problem. Quite the 'field' to test a weapon..actual combat.

"Equal performance"? Donno, since the complete testing protocol was never carrried out.
Quote:
Glock lodged its protest Feb. 24, citing three main reasons: U.S. Army Material Command did not properly evaluate its proposal; the second downselect phase of the testing program was not carried out; and finally, Sig Sauer’s XM17 entry was not properly evaluated. Glock also claimed Army evaluators were biased during evaluations.
Were they? Why?

I was XO of a test and evaluation squadron in the USN(VX-4)...WE gave the brand new F-18 a big, fat thumb's down..yet...????
Developmental test(USN TPS)...also gave it a thumb's down but...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”

Last edited by USNRet93; February 27, 2019 at 11:06 AM.
USNRet93 is offline  
Old February 27, 2019, 11:06 AM   #19
TunnelRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2011
Posts: 9,430
Quote:
I guess flawed contracts with military laptops or stoves is OK, but I think with a 'weapon', that is going to be used in COMBAT, NOW, with reliability issues...it is a problem. Quite the 'field' to test a weapon..actual combat.
Ironing out flaws with weapons in service has happened with literally dozens of weapon systems. Fighter craft, firearms, land vehicles, the list goes on. It's pretty far from abnormal and has been this way since literally the beginning of weapon development.

Quote:
"Equal performance"? Donno, since the complete testing protocol was never carrried out.
The first phase was, and there was no significant difference found in that phase. Again, could the story have done a complete 180 at the end of that second phase? Maybe, and maybe they would have gone with Glocks as a result. And maybe we'd be reading then about issues with Glock instead and people would be saying that Glock paid the Army off and the contest was rigged. It happens with every procurement.

Quote:
Glock lodged its protest Feb. 24, citing three main reasons: U.S. Army Material Command did not properly evaluate its proposal; the second downselect phase of the testing program was not carried out; and finally, Sig Sauer’s XM17 entry was not properly evaluated. Glock also claimed Army evaluators were biased during evaluations.
Lol, right, and Glock a competitor in the program is surely an unbiased source in this instance. It's not like they have any financial motivation to complain, right? The GAO also responded to those complaints, btw.
__________________
Know the status of your weapon
Keep your muzzle oriented so that no one will be hurt if the firearm discharges
Keep your finger off the trigger until you have an adequate sight picture
Maintain situational awareness

Last edited by TunnelRat; February 27, 2019 at 05:43 PM.
TunnelRat is offline  
Old February 27, 2019, 11:37 AM   #20
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,571
Quote:
I guess flawed contracts with military laptops or stoves is OK, but I think with a 'weapon', that is going to be used in COMBAT, NOW, with reliability issues...it is a problem. Quite the 'field' to test a weapon..actual combat.
Flawed laptops and stoves can kill people too.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old March 2, 2019, 10:22 AM   #21
davidsog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Posts: 779
Quote:
According to the Army Times, Sig Sauer has made multiple tweaks to the M17 and M18 pistols, with the goal of achieving minimal reliability in performance.

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...ndgun-problem/

My question is: If the original design didn't perform ... why and how was it selected?
Sounds like your article has an axe to grind.

In reality, The SIG M17 simply beat the GLOCK at the tip of the spear in the combat performance evaluations. That is why it was selected.

The fact SIG was smart in their licensing agreements with the Military and sweetened the deal. SIG was smart with the logistics and beat out the GLOCK on the range.

No conspiracy theory required.
davidsog is offline  
Old March 2, 2019, 11:16 AM   #22
Ricklin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2008
Location: SW Washington state
Posts: 1,512
Imagine......

Imagine how much we would be complaining about our personally owned F-35's oh wait, we can't buy one, even if we could afford it.

It was well put earlier in the thread, in Govt. dollars the pistol contract amounts to a rounding error.
__________________
ricklin
Freedom is not free
Ricklin is offline  
Old March 2, 2019, 08:49 PM   #23
Chui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Posts: 1,753
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog View Post
Sounds like your article has an axe to grind.

In reality, The SIG M17 simply beat the GLOCK at the tip of the spear in the combat performance evaluations. That is why it was selected.

The fact SIG was smart in their licensing agreements with the Military and sweetened the deal. SIG was smart with the logistics and beat out the GLOCK on the range.

No conspiracy theory required.


Uh, no.

No, it didn’t.

Some people really need to sit down and research a bit.

Links were provided and you can research what was claimed. It’s ALL in he public domain so you’re just flat out incorrect...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chui is offline  
Old March 2, 2019, 08:50 PM   #24
Chui
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2004
Posts: 1,753
SIG M17 fixes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricklin View Post
Imagine how much we would be complaining about our personally owned F-35's oh wait, we can't buy one, even if we could afford it.



It was well put earlier in the thread, in Govt. dollars the pistol contract amounts to a rounding error.


Pennies make dollars.

Your attitude reflects, admirably I might add, why we are fast becoming a feces-hole of a nation.

Just sit back and enjoy the show...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chui is offline  
Old March 3, 2019, 07:38 AM   #25
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsog View Post
Sounds like your article has an axe to grind.

In reality, The SIG M17 simply beat the GLOCK at the tip of the spear in the combat performance evaluations. That is why it was selected.

The fact SIG was smart in their licensing agreements with the Military and sweetened the deal. SIG was smart with the logistics and beat out the GLOCK on the range.

No conspiracy theory required.
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'...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.24373 seconds with 10 queries