Over and out.
Glock makes an excellent weapon that meets all the minimum requirements placed upon a duty weapon by most agencies. Do they make the best gun that gets tested? Usually not. I personally have been involved in a few different trials. Glock never once finished first in overall tests, but they did always finish very high in every test. The guns that beat them usually cost nearly twice as much. When making a decision with a budget you often take the second place finisher if they can do the job for less. It is just how government contracting works.I love Glocks and all but is there any truth in that Glock pretty much gives them away to military/PDs at very low costs to win these contracts? I don't blame them for doing it but is that really a big factor in Glocks being picked over and over?
It is probably true that Glock undercuts the competition in pricing. However, it is also true that Glock pistols perform very well on grueling trials.I love Glocks and all but is there any truth in that Glock pretty much gives them away to military/PDs at very low costs to win these contracts? I don't blame them for doing it but is that really a big factor in Glocks being picked over and over?
To be fair, SIG actually filed a complaint regarding these tests. The tests showed the SIG having many failures but most of them being "user attributed" which were later rumored to be related to removing and reloading magazines. SIG did then redesign the mags and the frame.It is probably true that Glock undercuts the competition in pricing. However, it is also true that Glock pistols perform very well on grueling trials.
In the ATF trials last year, Sig was eliminated on the first round, due to too many failures. Glocks and the S&W M&Ps had zero failures in the first round. On the succeeding rounds, Glocks had less than half the failures of the S&W. Here is a GAO document on the result:
U.S. GAO - B-402339.3, Sig Sauer, Inc., July 23, 2010
Both Glock and S&W eventually won the ATF contract, with Glock being "favored" (whatever that means).
So, this Swiss trials won't be the first time that Glock wins over the Sig. And I'm pretty sure that it is more than just because Glocks are less expensive.
I am a fan of the FN handguns. I will admit that I have not tried the S&W M&P, but my FNP-40 and FNP-45 are both stellar handguns even though they do sport a plastic bottom. I guess next trip to the range I should rent one of their S&W so that I can compare.It is in Switzerland. That is the point I was trying to make and I seem to have been missed. It's not about the Swiss historical neutrality or even Glock "superiority", but rather the slap in the face to Sig who loses out to the Austrian made Glock in Switzerland. Much in the same way FN lost out to the S&W M&P in Belgium.
I mean "ouch" what is next, the US military adopting a Kalashnikov?
Had one, just didn't point naturally. the grip angle was wrong for me, maybe the newer ones with interchangeable grip inserts would work? I don't know, and I might never find out.I figured this thread would go this way
I can't think of one bad thing to say about any of the Glock's I've owned, they've all been fantastic. I think people are just upset that Glock makes a gun that can outperform guns for which they paid several hundreds more