SIG wins Army contract

Demilitarized vehicle weapons and static display accessories
User avatar
wreckless
Gee Addict
Posts: 32675
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:05 pm
Location: SW Florida & SNJ

SIG wins Army contract

Post by wreckless » Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:31 pm

Army: Your new handgun will be a Sig Sauer
By: Meghann Myers, January 19, 2017

Half a decade into its search for a new handgun, the Army has chosen Sig Sauer's version of the Modular Handgun System, according to a Thursday announcement from the Army.

The new sidearm will replace the M9 Beretta, the Army's pistol of choice for more than 30 years.

"I am tremendously proud of the Modular Handgun System team," said Army acquisition executive Steffanie Easter in the release. "By maximizing full and open competition across our industry partners, we have optimized private sector advancements in handguns, ammunition and magazines and the end result will ensure a decidedly superior weapon system for our warfighters."

The Army first announced the competition for the MHS back in 2011, but multiple delays left the most recent solicitation deadline at February of 2016.

Sig Sauer beat out Smith & Wesson, Beretta and Glock for the contract worth up to $580 million, which includes firearms, accessories and ammunition.

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/army ... -sig-sauer
Rob
Jersey Wrecking Crew
1943 Ford GPW G503

“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a Congress.“ John Adams


gpw6335
G-Captain
G-Captain
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:20 am
Location: Alvin Texas
Contact:

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by gpw6335 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 3:26 am

To bad we can't buy American, as many fine guns manufactured and designed in this country, sure makes me wonder. You think the Army would have learned a lesson on the Beretta. As a former Infantry Officer this really bothers me.
1943 GPW 103951
1951 M38 27714
1952 M38a1 28888
1969 M274A5
1972 M151A2
1943 MBT
1951 M100
1979 M416
1962 M37B1

User avatar
wreckless
Gee Addict
Posts: 32675
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:05 pm
Location: SW Florida & SNJ

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by wreckless » Fri Jan 20, 2017 4:45 am

They will build them in the US and hire Americans for the grunt work. Sig's US factory and HQ is in Exeter, NH.
Rob
Jersey Wrecking Crew
1943 Ford GPW G503

“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a Congress.“ John Adams

halfgun
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Sergeant Major of the Gee
Posts: 263
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by halfgun » Fri Jan 20, 2017 1:44 pm

Sig is opening plants in the south , power is to expensive in NH
To bad for NH
LIVE FREE OR DIE
Attachments
1 2016 001.jpg
1 2016 001.jpg (13.72 KiB) Viewed 1082 times
43 GPW 45 MB 55 M38A1 71 M151A2 85 M1025 54 M37 UH1D [ HANGAR QUEEN] 1 WIFE 1 KID 1DOG

User avatar
wreckless
Gee Addict
Posts: 32675
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:05 pm
Location: SW Florida & SNJ

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by wreckless » Fri Jan 20, 2017 2:07 pm

They will need them to fill the ammunition and gun order. It's huge and will last years.
Rob
Jersey Wrecking Crew
1943 Ford GPW G503

“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a Congress.“ John Adams

User avatar
wreckless
Gee Addict
Posts: 32675
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:05 pm
Location: SW Florida & SNJ

That is a good price

Post by wreckless » Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:00 am

GRAPEVINE: US Army Pays $207 Per Pistol to SIG SAUER for M17 Modular Handguns

With SIG’s recent win of the $580 million dollar contract for the US Army’s Modular Handgun System pistol, many are asking just how the American outlet of the Swiss-German SIG Sauer could have won such a large contract, especially against what many perceived was the strongest contender, Glock. Some saw the very text of the MHS solicitation as being biased towards SIG’s entry (which I do not think is true), while others assumed some backdoor deal must have occurred.

The answer may be far simpler than that. SIG, having learned its lesson from the XM9 trials where it was beaten by the inferior but cheaper Beretta 92FS, simply underbid the competition. And how! Unconfirmed reports coming from the “writer grapevine” – specifically contacts of Andrew Branca’s – claim that SIG bid just $207 per P320 pistol to win the MHS contract, an incredibly low price even for a bulk order of modern polymer-framed striker-fired handguns. Although the exact quantity of pistols being procured is not known (because the contract is for an indefinite quantity over an indefinite delivery, called “IDIQ”), it is estimated that hundreds of thousands of pistols will be procured. The $580 million dollar figure does not just include those guns, however, but also spares, accessories, and even holsters, all to be procured from SIG Sauer.

The low procurement cost per pistol puts concerns that the M9 was “good enough” and that no pistol should have been selected to replace it essentially to bed: It’s very difficult to imagine that the M9 could have been kept operational for the projected lifespan of the M17 handgun for less than a mere $207 per gun, especially since the M9 uses lifed aluminum frames which eventually need replacing. In the long run – and probably the short run, too – the SIG P320 is likely actually cheaper than keeping the M9 on, especially when one considers just how ludicrously easy the P320 is to maintain when compared to its predecessor!

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... -handguns/
Rob
Jersey Wrecking Crew
1943 Ford GPW G503

“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a Congress.“ John Adams

User avatar
Chuck Lutz
Gee Addict
Posts: 26829
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Jeep Heaven

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by Chuck Lutz » Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:40 am

"Buy American" isn't what it used to be.....

Which is better, an American company that makes a weapon overseas and sells it to the US military or a "foreign" company that makes a weapon and sells it to the US military?
It ain't that easy to tell...who owns the stock in the company and benefits the most?

First of all "Made In America" doesn't mean diddly squat if it is just made from components and raw materials from overseas....that is "assembled" which is what probably most "American" cars/trucks are today....maybe 20-40% or more of the parts are from off-shore mfgers. Or maybe an "American" company just makes components in Bangladesh or Malaysia or Brazil or Mexico.

So, is the key here if the materials and from the USA and they are actually completely made HERE by US labor? Well, that's a start, but again....if the company is traded on the NYSE or elsewhere then the shareholders are the beneficiaries of a whopping contract as well.

What about an "American" company that has an item made offshore? Is that item and "American" product? They make some vehicles entirely in Mexico and sell them here (GM or Ford?) and they make Toyotas here in the USA....so the phrase is blurred even further. Which is better for the USA, a Ford made in Mexico or a Toyota made in Tennessee or wherever?

SIG Sauer is owned by Swiss Arms which is owned by a German company. I don't know if that company is a publicly traded company or privately held...

Bottom line is maybe this was the "best" one proposed, maybe it was the cheapest....but at least it will be made in the USA ...and it does not look to be too costly unless all the other parts of the contract besides the basic pistol costs are not inflated to make up for a low-ball per-pistol cost. Now that SIG Sauer has the contract, who and where will all that ammo, holsters, etc, be produced?

Read the fine print as they say....or "The Devil is in the Details"...
Chuck Lutz

GPW 17963 4/24/42 Chester, PA. USA 20113473 (USA est./Tom W.)
Bantam T3-C 1947

User avatar
raymond
G-General
G-General
Posts: 8115
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 1:53 pm
Location: God's country, Clarksville Mo.

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by raymond » Thu Jan 26, 2017 4:21 pm

Read the particulars on the pistol and it truly is a groundbreaking pistol. And the word "groundbreaking" is often used too frivolously. It is a pistol that has a central core that can be exchanged into different frames, barrels, calibers, etc. to make a truly modular pistol that can be fit for different sized hands, missions, caliber requirements, etc. History will be the judge as to whether or not it was or is a good pistol. Personally, I think the Beretta 92 is a fine pistol. Like the 1911, it served the country well, but also like the 1911, it is outdated and bordering on obsolete.

Raymond
"On the day when crime puts on the apparel of innocence, through a curious reversal peculiar to our age, it is innocence that is called on to justify itself." Albert Camus

User avatar
USAFpj
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2217
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:02 pm
Location: SC

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by USAFpj » Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:57 am

I will always critique the shooter more than the firearm.

I do not profess to know all and be all, but I do make a living teaching professionals how to shoot an array of firearms in high threat, overseas conditions: The Sig is a great weapon, the Glock assortments are nice, a Beretta can be nice, but it comes down to the shooter and basic marksmanship fundamentals. Too many times, I see gents who have handled a rifle their entire military Infantry career, and still can not shoot accurately. It is the weakest link of being able to sling lead accurately down range: PRIDE.

It matters not the brand of pistol in hand, I just wish we could send some of that money towards a solid 2 day instructional course for the end users...

User avatar
TopKick
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5657
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:34 am
Location: Olathe, KS.

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by TopKick » Fri Jan 27, 2017 1:54 pm

Why not take the course to them? 8)
"Keep 'Em Rolling"
TopKick

"Until it's melted down and turned into something else, or blown to Smitherines, it's restorable"!

User avatar
wreckless
Gee Addict
Posts: 32675
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:05 pm
Location: SW Florida & SNJ

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by wreckless » Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:48 am

TopKick wrote:Why not take the course to them? 8)
Exactly, you don't see those issues in the USMC.
Rob
Jersey Wrecking Crew
1943 Ford GPW G503

“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a Congress.“ John Adams

User avatar
USAFpj
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2217
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:02 pm
Location: SC

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by USAFpj » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:41 am

Exactly, you don't see those issues in the USMC.
:lol: Not so quick, Wreck. Are you stating that the USMC does not have issues with marksmanship? Remember, this is a lowly retired Chair Force guy that just loves to show Marines how to shoot the G19, M4, M249, and M240 8) . I end up spending more time with Marines than any other service, as they spend more time talking about the other services, than they do shooting!

Seriously, though- Marines have it tough because in the last 15 years, they have been busy fighting a war, rather than training for it. The only group of Marines who remain firearms proficient, that I see, are either Force or MARSOC. My 0311's and 0331's don't get that budget or fine tuning, so there's where I make my living :wink:

User avatar
wreckless
Gee Addict
Posts: 32675
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:05 pm
Location: SW Florida & SNJ

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by wreckless » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:59 am

I was speaking in the most general terms. Average rifle proficiency the Marines do better because they take it seriously. Every man is a rifleman. No offense was intended or implied. I don't have a dog in this fight though I was a recruited ringer for the local MCL Shooting Team once upon a time.

The cutbacks and the grind of unceasing military operations do have a deleterious effect on combat readiness. Hopefully, that is going to be properly addressed forthwith.
Rob
Jersey Wrecking Crew
1943 Ford GPW G503

“In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a Congress.“ John Adams

User avatar
USAFpj
G-Brigadier General
G-Brigadier General
Posts: 2217
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2004 1:02 pm
Location: SC

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by USAFpj » Sat Jan 28, 2017 6:03 am

Average rifle proficiency the Marines do better because they take it seriously
Very true.

User avatar
TopKick
G-Lieutenant General
G-Lieutenant General
Posts: 5657
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 9:34 am
Location: Olathe, KS.

Re: SIG wins Army contract

Post by TopKick » Sat Jan 28, 2017 6:48 am

Combat Arms units will always get more range time than support units. Not everyone fires "Expert" on the range in any branch.
-
What will be the magazine capacity for this new Sig Sauer Modular Handgun? 8)
"Keep 'Em Rolling"
TopKick

"Until it's melted down and turned into something else, or blown to Smitherines, it's restorable"!


Post Reply

Return to “Weapons”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests