Military Handgun Contract

Does anybody have information as to why S&W pulled out of the contest for the new handgun now apparently awarded to Sig?

Simple. The best gun won.

I don't know about "best" but the Sig seemed to meet all the criteria as if they were written with it in mind. YMMV.

They did not withdraw, the US Army removed the M & P offering from competition back in 9/2016. The 'modular" requirement pretty much ensured a pistol with an easily swappable fire control system would win, meaning the Sig. Looks to be a good choice to me.

It would seem the feds have a very loving relationship with SIG. My best guess would be that the correct palms are being greased.

Awwwww. How cynical. We all know that never happens..

It's all BULL **** they are telling us that the U.S. cn not produce a weapon good enough for the U.S. military! I own all three top contenders and prefer the smith! Somebody grease the wheel. The majority of the army does not even touch a side arm and spec ops will carry what they want, ut most of them are not fighting over a side arm because it is backup!

None of it made much sense to me and I think it was a colossal waste of money.

I don't really see the "modular" requirement being of much advantage and they ended up choosing an unproven pistol that was largely based on a previous failed one since it was the only entry that met the modular requirements.

Simple, a bunch of Congressmen got their palms greased, happens every day.

mansel said:

It's all BULL **** they are telling us that the U.S. cn not produce a weapon good enough for the U.S. military! I own all three top contenders and prefer the smith! Somebody grease the wheel. The majority of the army does not even touch a side arm and spec ops will carry what they want, ut most of them are not fighting over a side arm because it is backup!

Click to expand...

Not bull. Quite simple actually. Army asked for a specific pistol and only Sig made it. That's it. Doesn't go past that.they asked for a modular design. Do you see S&W make one? No! Neither did HK or Glock or Beretta or any other company that was involved. So Sig made a modular gun.....Part 1. Part 2....gun was tested and it passed.

It's like this with everything else. If they ask for a purple gun and you make a green one it automatically fails. This is why AR rifles have the TDP. If it doesn't conform to their specific set of standards it's rejected.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Ozark Marine said:

Simple. The best gun won.

Click to expand...

That make sense!

Arik said:

Not bull. Quite simple actually. Army asked for a specific pistol and only Sig made it. That's it. Doesn't go past that.they asked for a modular design. Do you see S&W make one? No! Neither did HK or Glock or Beretta or any other company that was involved. So Sig made a modular gun.....Part 1. Part 2....gun was tested and it passed.

It's like this with everything else. If they ask for a purple gun and you make a green one it automatically fails. This is why AR rifles have the TDP. If it doesn't conform to their specific set of standards it's rejected.

Click to expand...

I imagine the palms being greased asked Sig to write the specification. It happens all the time that when you want a specific company to win a contract you have them write the specification and you put your name on it.

I notice that army is returning to the original concept of field repairability. The 1911, in its original concept, was designed to be repaired in the field with a minimum of tools (i.e. only your two hands and replacement parts-usually firing pins, extractors, and springs. The Beretta could not be field repairable. Although the SIG cannot be completely detailed stripped like the 1911, it still simpler in design.

Arik said:

Not bull. Quite simple actually. Army asked for a specific pistol and only Sig made it. That's it. Doesn't go past that.they asked for a modular design. Do you see S&W make one? No! Neither did HK or Glock or Beretta or any other company that was involved. So Sig made a modular gun.....Part 1. Part 2....gun was tested and it passed.

Click to expand...

This. I am in agreement the whole "modular" thing is a gimmick. Maybe for places like CA or places in Europe that make it a PITA to buy guns it can make sense to have one "gun" that you can reconfigure, but no other reason than that. Plus the kits to change it over are not inexpensive. They did what they did, I could really care less as long as they run.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

What caliber did they pick in the Sig 320? One model shoots three calibers and fits three sizes of frames: 9MM, .357 Sig, and .40S&W. That gives the innards 9 possible finished guns, if you buy all the different frames and barrels.
If it is 45, it just shoots the 45 ACP....as of right now.

"Modular" is the wave of the future. Everything sooner or later is going that way. The Army is just getting ahead of things with this program, since based on past history, they'll be keeping the Sig for more than 30 years.

Modular concept saves a great deal of money on the big scale of things. It's not really going to be visibly much different for the user, but at higher levels of logistics, it has the potential to save millions.

Maintaining two separate guns, with completely different parts, mags, accessories, publications, training, etc. is pretty stupid frankly. Choosing any new design which can meet both standard and compact will save millions just from being a single platform.

Usually, if a legacy pistol broke, it had to be evacuated to higher maintenance. Despite what many imagine, the arms room isn't some master gunsmith shop. It's mainly a supply function. The modular pieces will now allow much more repair at the unit level. Something breaks, you swap the module out. The broken module is the only thing that has to go up to repair. The weapon is available for a greater amount of time, because it's not spending it's life travelling between the unit and 3rd shop. It's not at 3rd shop being repaired. It's ready at the unit, instead of broken and waiting to be fixed.

A modular system also has the potential to save at the depot level. You no longer have to store two different pistols for the contingency of needed one or the other. If you have 1000 M9's and need 1000 M11's, currently the Army has to buy 1000 M11's and store the 1000 M9's. With a modular system, the Army only has to buy the conversion parts for the full-size guns to reconfigure to compact. The parts that come off the full-size guns are then put back into the system as spare parts. You store nothing. This is where there is a potential for a great deal of savings.

There's a future possible potential of making it VERY easy to retrofit the sidearms as advances, changes, and improvements are made. If they get come out with an improved trigger, they simply send the modules out to the units and they swap them out. You no longer have to send all the hand guns in for the MWO, like the Army had to do with the M9 when it went to the big head hammer pin (AKA "FS"). The module makes all of this possible.

The way the Army is utilizing "modular" and the way Sig markets it to civilians are two different things. It would be a mistake to think that the Army is going to use "modular" in the same way a civilian would. The feature is indeed the same, but the advantage and benifit is completely different, and how the modules are used will be completely different.

The Army has already stated that it will not be replacing the M16/M4 unless it's with something truly modular for the same logistics reasons.

The Army wanted modular for some very good reasons peculiar to the Army, and they bought the one that met their requirements.

JVSIII said:

This. I am in agreement the whole "modular" thing is a gimmick. Maybe for places like CA or places in Europe that make it a PITA to buy guns it can make sense to have one "gun" that you can reconfigure, but no other reason than that. Plus the kits to change it over are not inexpensive. They did what they did, I could really care less as long as they run.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

The kits are about $50 for you and me. It's cheaper for the military. They already get each gun almost $300 cheaper. I'm not sure what Cali has to do with it but it makes sense for people who think Berettas have thick grips

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Raisin said:

I imagine the palms being greased asked Sig to write the specification. It happens all the time that when you want a specific company to win a contract you have them write the specification and you put your name on it.

Click to expand...

Of course. If your side doesn't win it's because of conspiracies and favoritism. However, had your favorite won it would have been fair play with the best being the winner. Happens all the time

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

mansel said:

It's all BULL...they are telling us that the U.S. cn not produce a weapon good enough for the U.S. military!

Click to expand...

No, that isn't what "they" are telling us.

The fact of the matter is, no U. S. manufacturer submitted a pistol good enough to meet all of the required qualifications.

The major American firearms manufacturers, as great as they are (or can be) have a bad habit of resting on their laurels, especially when the civilian and law enforcement marketplace provides more than enough profits to sustain them.

But there's really no point in debating (or complaining about) the issue any further...the decision's been made and S&W didn't make the cut.

Arik said:

Not bull. Quite simple actually. Army asked for a specific pistol and only Sig made it. That's it. Doesn't go past that.they asked for a modular design. Do you see S&W make one? No! Neither did HK or Glock or Beretta or any other company that was involved. So Sig made a modular gun.....Part 1. Part 2....gun was tested and it passed.

It's like this with everything else. If they ask for a purple gun and you make a green one it automatically fails. This is why AR rifles have the TDP. If it doesn't conform to their specific set of standards it's rejected.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Sums it up nicely. Best gun? For what? For those specific specs, yes. Best gun for Joe Schmoe, maybe not.