(from TFB, in part)
GLOCK VICE PRESIDENT: “Continue MHS, Don’t Settle for SIG”
– Glock Asks Army to Keep Testing Pistols
Glock isn’t done yet: Despite being passed over by the Army and having their protest of the MHS contract rejected by the GAO, Glock is still hoping for a chance. In a recent interview with Matthew Cox of Military.com, Glock Vice President Josh Dorsey spoke out against the Army’s decision to adopt the SIG Sauer P320 as the new M17 Modular Handgun System. Dorsey’s comments, excerpted below, express dissatisfaction with the Army’s selection process:
“This is not about Glock. This is not about Sig. And it’s not about the U.S. Army,” Dorsey, a retired Marine, told Military.com. “It’s about those that are on the ground, in harm’s way.”
It comes down to “the importance of a pistol, which doesn’t sound like much unless you realize, if you pull a pistol in combat, you are in deep s***.”
“So one of the least important factors as they said in the RFP would be the price; that is what became the most important factor,” Dorsey said.
“So let’s think about that for a minute … you are going to go forward making that decision now without completing the test on the two candidate systems that are in the competitive range? Does that make sense if it’s your son or daughter sitting in that foxhole somewhere?”
I recommend readers click through the link to read the whole thing.
Ultimately, the question of whether SIG Sauer’s P320 handgun will meet Army requirements seems, at the moment, moot. In the face of a 13-year-long procurement process, a suite of already mature competitors, and a $100 million dollar price difference between the bids of the two companies, Glock’s argument for a continuing competition seems thin. There certainly is an argument that Glock’s offering was indeed superior, especially given that Glock was evidently able to satisfy both full-size and compact requirements with a single configuration. However, this must be weighed against the consequence of more time, effort, and money spent to procure a weapon that may not be substantially better than the one already selected. If the Army has made a truly grievous error in procurement, or if there was foul play, then certainly the results of MHS should be re-examined. If, on the other hand, the US Army selected the best deal out of several satisfactory pistol offerings, then re-opening the competition seems unnecessary.
I’ve no dog in this fight. I’ve never been in the military, but I have paid taxes. I’ve owned Glocks; I’ve owned Sigs. I’ve no financial interest in either company.
I like them both, sufficiently.
If it were up to me, we’d still be issuing 1911s…
TFB’s last couple of lines state it best:
If the Army has made a truly grievous error in procurement, or if there was foul play, then certainly the results of MHS should be re-examined. If, on the other hand, the US Army selected the best deal out of several satisfactory pistol offerings, then re-opening the competition seems unnecessary.
I’m a big believer in giving credit where credit is due. And blame. AND RESPONSIBILITY.
Much of the media likes to pin the badge of how evil the Koch Brothers are, because they support conservative causes. Funny how they rarely look at George Soros and his tentacles with anything more than a passing glance.
90 Miles From Tyranny recently posted a list of those organizations funded by Mr. Soros and his minions. A smattering off the list:
As with so many progressive-based organizations, they may have been started as independent of politics, with good intentions, but later co-opted by the progressive movement. Others were poisoned from the beginning.
You should really visit 90 Miles From Tyranny and see the whole, long list.
Then go back to poo-poohing the Koch brothers.
Cato @ Liberty
Daniel J. Mitchell asks the question(s):
Why Are American Tax Dollars Subsidizing a Paris-Based Bureaucracy so It Can Help the AFL-CIO Push Obama’s Class-Warfare Agenda?
“And I am very upset that the OECD gets a giant $100 million-plus subsidy every year from American taxpayers. For all intents and purposes, we’re paying for a bunch of left-wing bureaucrats so they can recommend that the United States adopt that policies that have caused so much misery in Europe. And to add insult to injury, these socialist pencil pushers receive tax-free salaries.
And now, just when you thought things couldn’t get worse, the OECD has opened a new front in its battle against free markets. The bureaucrats from Paris have climbed into bed with the hard left at the AFL-CIO and are pushing a class-warfare agenda. Next Wednesday, the two organizations will be at the union’s headquarters for a panel on “Divided We Stand – Tackling Growing Inequality Now.” “
I, for one, am sick of reading how my tax dollars are continually being used to promote an anti-American, anti-Capitalist, and anti-Constitutional agendas.
If we’re fools enough to vote for such stuff, then it’s our own fault. But, just like money we give to the U.N., or terrorist covers, or unfriendly nations, it’s the bureaucrats making these choices, not us! This is just nauseating.
We’re hoisting ourselves on our own petard, and paying for the cable to do it!
h/t Daniel J. Mitchell