Keep in mind, the Term "Made by the lowest bidder" should also include "That met the standard" Folks always forget that part.
A item has a list of specifications it must meet and pass testing to insure that it does, if out of three bidders, only two meet the spec, then the bidder with the lowest bid, received the order.
While Milspec gear gets a bad wrap, a lot of it holds up fine, the issue is how the specs were laid out by the Military. The Military procurement process can be pants on head retarded sometimes.
I mention the M9 magazine fiasco as a perfect example. When the Army fielded the M9 Beretta, the magazines were made by Beretta. Many were stamped Made in Italy. The inside of the magazines were smooth and allowed the cartridges to roll as the spring and follower pushed them up towards the feed lips.
The the GWOT comes along and the Army needs more M9 Magazines. So they put out a bid and Checkmate wins it. In the bid, the Army specified that the magazine bodies be Manganese Phosphate. That process coats the entire magazine (inside & Out) with a rough textured parkerized finish. Cause the Army likes durability.
Add that rough texture, along with Middle eastern fine powder sand and the need for the cartridges to have a smooth finish to allow them to rotate and you get failure to feed issues. Troops stretch the springs to try and correct the issue.
Beretta is clueless as they were not told and there TDP (Technical Data package) is not shared with Checkmate, plus checkmate is told to add the finish as part of the bid. Which they do, if they want to be selected an win the bid.
And the M9 got a black eye on its reliability reputation thanks to the US Army.
So MilSpec can cut both ways. And now you know the rest of the story....
