Why the Army didn't finish testing the Sig Sauer P320 during the XM17 competition

Yahoo

4 days ago

That's right, the Army did not complete phase two testing during the Modular Handgun System competition before selecting the Sig Sauer P320 as the new XM17/XM18 pistol. No, it's not because the Sig performed so exceptionally or that the Glock submission failed so spectacularly that continuing the test was pointless. Rather, the Army chose to make its decision based on cost before testing concluded.
First, let's lay the groundwork for how military acquisitions, specifically pistols, work. And no, it's not as simple as 'lowest bidder.'
The military puts out a requirement for a piece of equipment, and manufacturers submit their products for consideration. These submissions are judged on whether or not they meet the basic requirements in the first phase of the competition. Following this initial down select, submissions that pass phase one are then competed in destructive testing to determine which is truly best. In the event of a draw, competitive bidding is then used to determine a winner.
The XM17 MHS program was designed to replace the Beretta M9 pistol. In 1985, the Beretta won the XM9 competition to replace the M1911 pistol. So, how did that competition go?
Eight different pistols were submitted and subjected to phase one testing. Only the Italian Beretta 92F and SIG Sauer's P226, designed and built by the Swiss-German SIG Sauer and imported by Saco Defense for the XM9 trials, passed and advanced to phase two. Through destructive testing of 35,000 rounds per pistol, the 92F and P226 performed similarly and exceeded the requirements set forth by the Army. Moreover, they outperformed the M1911 they were meant to replace.
At that point, both pistols proved that they could serve the U.S. military well. Although SIG Sauer priced individual pistols lower, Beretta's overall price was lower after factoring in spare parts and magazines, and the 92F became the M9. Early models experienced slide cracks due to improper loading of military 9mm ammunition, but Beretta's design was sound.
So, why did the Army want a new handgun just 30 years later?
While the Beretta performed exceptionally during testing, troops had issues with it. First, the Army contracted spare magazines that did not perform well in the sandy environment of the Middle East. Second, 9mm ball ammunition lacked the stopping power to put down threats effectively. Third, the M9's size made it difficult for smaller troops to handle, and it was easy to accidentally engage the safety when racking the slide.
The Army also wanted to incorporate technological advances with a new pistol. As the name states, the Modular Handgun System needed to be configurable for different troops and different missions. Among the requirements were the ability to mount a light/laser, attach a suppressor, and adjust the grip to fit various hand sizes.
As the contract holder, Beretta offered the M9A3 to address some of these issues as well as upgrade existing stocks of M9s. While upgrades corrected issues with the original M16 rifle and M4 carbine, the Army was determined to acquire a new pistol and rejected Beretta.
In 2015, the Army released the Request for Proposals and started testing the 12 submitted pistols the following year. After phase one testing, the SIG Sauer and Glock submissions were the only ones that made it past the down select. Phase two destructive testing began, but was stopped at 12,500 rounds, half of the 25,000-round required service life. Moreover, destructive testing called for the pistols to fire up to 35,000 rounds to test reliability.
Glock protested the Army's premature selection of the Sig Sauer submission and asked that testing resume. An investigation by the Government Accountability Office found that 'Sig Sauer's full-sized handgun had a higher stoppage rate than Glock's handgun, and there may have been other problems with the weapon's accuracy.'
The investigation also noted that the Army redacted the results of Sig's compact handgun. Sig submitted two handgun frames in three different grip sizes with a swappable trigger unit, while Glock submitted one handgun with interchangeable backstraps to meet the Army's modularity requirements.
In the end, Glock's protest was denied.
'[T]here is no correlating superior performance factor for Glock, as compared to Sig Sauer's, to support paying that premium. Consequently, I cannot justify paying a price premium of 37% for the Glock submission, even as a second award,' wrote Susan Poling in the GAO report. She did note the investigation uncovered 'evaluation errors' by the Army, but could not justify paying more for the Glock.
The short of it is that Sig Sauer's price to the government was so low that the Army felt that it had a good enough pistol at a great price. So, testing was stopped and did not resume.
Formally adopted as the full-size XM17 and compact XM18, the Sig underwent Product Verification Testing in FY17, which found that the gun could discharge when dropped. An Engineering Change Proposal by Sig Sauer corrected this with lightweight components in the trigger group mechanism.
While Sig Sauer made the ECP changes to all military pistols, it was offered as a Voluntary Upgrade Program on the civilian market. The FY17 PVT also revealed issues with double-ejections, where unfired rounds were ejected from the gun, as well as a high rate of stoppages with ball ammunition.
Product Verification Testing in FY18 with an upgraded configuration of the MHS resulted in reduced stoppages with ball ammunition. Interestingly, the pistols performed better with jacketed hollow-point ammunition. The PVT also showed no issues with accuracy, as addressed in the GAO report. After this, the Army concluded that the MHS 'meets or exceeds requirements for accuracy, lethality, ergonomics, and safety.'
The Sig Sauer P320 was arguably awarded the MHS contract prematurely. Issues following the weapon's adoption by the Army may have been revealed during trial testing. Additionally, reports of P320s firing uncommanded have resulted in a recommendation for a Marine Corps engineering review and the disuse of the M18 by an Air Force command following the death of an airman.
'SIG SAUER followed all acquisition regulations and solicitation protocols related to the competitive process,' Sig Sauer's Vice President of Marketing Jason Wright told WATM. 'The decision to select the P320 as the winner of the XM17 MHS competition prior to the conclusion of phase two testing was exclusively determined by the U.S. Army.'
We Are The Mighty reached out to the Army for comment on the MHS competition and M17/M18 acquisition following these incidents and did not receive a response.
Featured
Weapons
Sig Sauer's P320 banned by Chicago Police Department and other law enforcement agencies
By Miguel Ortiz
Feature
SIG Sauer's legal battles and why the XM7 might not replace the M4 SIG Sauer's legal battles and why the XM7 might not replace the M4
By Miguel Ortiz
Solve the daily Crossword