M&P and the MHS Army trial
- Thread starter mdrd375
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
Doug M.
Member
I'm pretty sure you can find the results with use of your favorite search engine. I used to know, but no longer recall. I do recall there were some shenanigans in the trial that are likely to come up again and again.
wnderr
Member
If I remember correctly, the Smith was not modular enuf, and asked that their weapon be withdrawn!
Russian Bot
Member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2018
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 4
Don't think so, their press releases made it sound like they were informed of the Army's decision.
SEC Report said:
(Their partner being General Dynamics)
I haven't been able to find anything concrete on this either, and there may not be since obviously this sort of thing is always largely political and less about what's best than it should be...
Fastbolt
Member
Many guns companies remain closed mouthed about why their guns may not win a contract. Not uncommon for people involved in the testing to be required to sign NDA's.
From what little I've heard, the M&P's weren't picked to proceed to the actual test-fire stage of the MHS testing.
FWIW, the original M&P's passed the testing and were accepted for issue by LASD, LAPD and the CHP out here on the West Coast in the last several years. (I was told that only academy cadets were initially getting the M&P 9's at LAPD, as they have a lot of existing guns in the field, as well as a list of authorized guns that may be personally owned.)
From what little I've heard, the M&P's weren't picked to proceed to the actual test-fire stage of the MHS testing.
FWIW, the original M&P's passed the testing and were accepted for issue by LASD, LAPD and the CHP out here on the West Coast in the last several years. (I was told that only academy cadets were initially getting the M&P 9's at LAPD, as they have a lot of existing guns in the field, as well as a list of authorized guns that may be personally owned.)
andyo5
Member
Here's an article on the subject:
The 8 Pistols That Battled to Win the Army's XM17 MHS Competition
It appears that S&W did retract their entry, since it did not meet the requirement of modularity and therefore stood no chance of success.
The 8 Pistols That Battled to Win the Army's XM17 MHS Competition
It appears that S&W did retract their entry, since it did not meet the requirement of modularity and therefore stood no chance of success.
wnderr
Member
I may not know much, but my rememberer works pretty good!
deadduck357
Member
That article is very lacking and probably shouldn't be solely relied upon. It states the Glock 19 didn't meet the MHS requirements because of the lack of a manual safety. Glocks entry, the 19MHS did have a manual safety from the factory.
DOD hasn't released any of the test results and probably won't for a few years, if ever.
CBStuard
Member
One could surmise, based on their selection, that they really aren't interested in making any details public.
Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,708
- Reaction score
- 4,880
No gun maker would want to make public anything that would suggest their gun has a flaw.
When the requirements were released I thought it was a slam dunk for SIG. They were the only one to introduce a true modular platform. As long as it didn’t fail at everything else it was theirs to lose.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Government solicitations are sometimes written in such a way that only a specific item, basically already in existence, will meet the criteria. Other bidders are often excluded by tight specifications favoring the manufacturer of the one item already chosen.
Ziggy2525
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,530
- Reaction score
- 3,247
This comes up on glocktalk (surprise) every now and then. A person posted a link to the army procurement scorecard. IIRC, Sig was selected because of financial terms (it’s the government, right) not the quality of their pistol. Sig’s price was something like 1/2 the next closest bidder and Sig alone agreed to co-license patent rights on the pistol with .gov so .gov had the ability second source parts. The P320 met the minimum functional requirements with by far the best financial terms. It was wasn’t necessarily picked because it was the “best” pistol.
Last edited:
Fastbolt
Member
I sometimes wonder where people get the weird impression that local, state or federal government agencies are looking to select the "best" of some particular type of equipment, rather than the equipment which meets the minimum stated requirements and offers the best cost?
ScaryWoody
Member
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 400
If you want to buy military arms that have been rigorously tested and cost is not the driving factor, look to the Seals.
"FLAW" is in the eye of the beholder......Not satisfying the particular criteria for a Government contract does not necessarily mean it has a "flaw"...
Telecaster
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,708
- Reaction score
- 4,880
"FLAW" is in the eye of the beholder......Not satisfying the particular criteria for a Government contract does not necessarily mean it has a "flaw"...
Yup, and that's the point. Some customers perceive it as flawed if it didn't pass military testing. Someone had a thread on this forum not long ago claiming something like he wouldn't own any gun that didn't meet military testing. That was his criteria of "flawed." I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way it is.
The request solicitation was written EXACTLY for the Sig. Must meet this, must be that, which coincidentally, was exactly what the Sig 320 already was. It was rigged from the get go.
I would have preferred that Glock won. The Britts use the Glock, as do many other nations, and it is very much the ideal battle pistol. Requiring a safety is horse non-sense. Well trained army's dont need a safety, and train around the gun, not the idiots that will blow away their knee caps because they cant safely handle a gun without a safety.
The good news is, that the Sig will become a very well tested, engineered, and battle ready platform after Private Snuffy and friends get their hands on them. We are likely to see many mid model upgrades over the years to improve the platform and make it better.
I would have preferred that Glock won. The Britts use the Glock, as do many other nations, and it is very much the ideal battle pistol. Requiring a safety is horse non-sense. Well trained army's dont need a safety, and train around the gun, not the idiots that will blow away their knee caps because they cant safely handle a gun without a safety.
The good news is, that the Sig will become a very well tested, engineered, and battle ready platform after Private Snuffy and friends get their hands on them. We are likely to see many mid model upgrades over the years to improve the platform and make it better.
rsrocket1
Member
I wonder if they were deselected because of too many cartridges flipping over in the magazine 
But maybe that's just a Kansas thing.
<inside joke from a thread in 2015>
But maybe that's just a Kansas thing.
<inside joke from a thread in 2015>
The good news on the MHS test is that a lot of the proposed pistols have made it to the commercial market. No doubt the P320 line will sell ok due to its service linkage (like the Beretta 92/M9).
I'm not sure but wondering if the 5" FDE M&P 2.0 model was an outcome of this, as there isn't a black version at this point.
I'm not sure but wondering if the 5" FDE M&P 2.0 model was an outcome of this, as there isn't a black version at this point.
