Seems the new M17 isn't doing so hot
- Thread starter Robenstein
- Start date
- Status
IMHO, this is a tempest in a teapot. There are a lot of folks who are very unhappy their favorite pistol didn't make the cut and are not above slinging mud. The Army can screw up a wet dream... so I'm not surprised that they are breaking things. There are 100's of thousands of these guns in civilian hands... it is a solid platform.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: twoheeldrive
There are 100's of thousands of these guns in civilian hands... it is a solid platform.
This gun hasn't been out that long compared to other guns like Glocks and the like. And most civilians, even one's who carry, are lucky to run 400 rounds a year through their pistols. This gun has issues. Serious ones.
There are 100's of thousands of these guns in civilian hands... it is a solid platform.
This gun hasn't been out that long compared to other guns like Glocks and the like. And most civilians, even one's who carry, are lucky to run 400 rounds a year through their pistols. This gun has issues. Serious ones.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: das_peikko
Why didn't they go with a proven model like the P220 or the P226 ?
Or a Glock 17. Why select an unproven gun? Now look at the mess they're in.
Lobby money I would guess.
You would guess. I get it that the G17 is much more proven... but there were tests done and so a decision would be made based upon a technical recommendation and a best value evaluation from a source selection board.
Unless you have proof to the contrary, realize that the personnel doing the work are not elected politicians, they arent congress. Testing is done to relay facts. Source selection identifies best value/most responsible offer of some kind based upon such evidence and an assessment of lifecycle cost.
IIRC, the Sig offer was substantially lower in cost per gun than the Glock offering. Assuming the same test results, or very similar/very close, the cost would likely win.
Didnt some astronaut talk about that when going to the moon?
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: das_peikko
Why didn't they go with a proven model like the P220 or the P226 ?
Or a Glock 17. Why select an unproven gun? Now look at the mess they're in.
Lobby money I would guess.
You would guess. I get it that the G17 is much more proven... but there were tests done and so a decision would be made based upon a technical recommendation and a best value evaluation from a source selection board.
Unless you have proof to the contrary, realize that the personnel doing the work are not elected politicians, they arent congress. Testing is done to relay facts. Source selection identifies best value/most responsible offer of some kind based upon such evidence and an assessment of lifecycle cost.
IIRC, the Sig offer was substantially lower in cost per gun than the Glock offering. Assuming the same test results, or very similar/very close, the cost would likely win.
Didnt some astronaut talk about that when going to the moon?
The cost played way more into it than anything. It always does. It has to, legally, most of the time. Also, if a new pistol came out right now, that went 5,000,000 rounds without malfunction, didn't have to be cleaned in that time, blew away all the other standards, and cost a quarter as much, they would't take it. The contract has already been awarded.
I don't know how many times I have heard, "It's in the contract."
I don't know how many times I have heard, "It's in the contract."
I think it’s worth noting that the M1 Garand was widely, publicly, criticized as unreliable, overpriced, and not battle worthy. The USMC resisted being issued M1s and began the Pacific campaign largely equipped with 1903s.
By the end of the war, the M1 was praised as the “greatest battle implement ever devised” and today, we recognize its groundbreaking advantages over the K98 or Ariska in combat.
The rhetoric of 1937-1938 when the rifle was in early production, and troops were complaining about it, is remarkably similar to what’s being said about the new Sig.
Similar things were said about the M9 in 1985. Overpriced, over engineered, unreliable, it lacked performance in combat, etc...and as an M9 owner and user, I’ll come right out and say that it’s a great weapon.
“The new (insert weapon here) is garbage compared with the old (insert weapon here). Overpriced. A waste of taxpayer money. We shouldn’t be buying it. The procurement decision was rigged.”
It’s an old song. Heard it many times before. Sometimes it’s true. Often, it’s not.
By the end of the war, the M1 was praised as the “greatest battle implement ever devised” and today, we recognize its groundbreaking advantages over the K98 or Ariska in combat.
The rhetoric of 1937-1938 when the rifle was in early production, and troops were complaining about it, is remarkably similar to what’s being said about the new Sig.
Similar things were said about the M9 in 1985. Overpriced, over engineered, unreliable, it lacked performance in combat, etc...and as an M9 owner and user, I’ll come right out and say that it’s a great weapon.
“The new (insert weapon here) is garbage compared with the old (insert weapon here). Overpriced. A waste of taxpayer money. We shouldn’t be buying it. The procurement decision was rigged.”
It’s an old song. Heard it many times before. Sometimes it’s true. Often, it’s not.
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: das_peikko
Why didn't they go with a proven model like the P220 or the P226 ?
Because they are not modular in nature (allowing the guns to be ergonomically adapted for different shooters).
!
Blimey!'"ergonomically adapted for different shooters", eh? Pretty fancy talk applied to squaddies.
When I was in the (British, so lower budget) army, it was difficult to get an issue sleeping bag ergonomically adapted to me becase the issue scales were probably still based on undernourished wee Malkies driven out of the Gorbals by 1930's unemployment. You got the one, and the gun, you were given.
Tell that to kids today, and they'll not believe you.
You were issued a sleeping bag? I guess the British Army has to have some sense of comfort and civility. Cheerio!!
In 2004 i turned 18. And apparently the army thought it would be a great idea For me to do military draft( you have to if they say so ) and all was absolutely standard. 1 type of rifle ( c7a1 ) and a completely standard range of sleepingsbacks, underwear, helmet, clothes and so on. The only thing that you could chose yourself, was from a range of boots. Mostly I remember a 1 week long drill where we should defend the island of Bornholm from Russian forces. I was constantly carrying a machine-gun( MG62) with ammunition. I hated that thing so much.
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: das_peikko
Why didn't they go with a proven model like the P220 or the P226 ?
Because they are not modular in nature (allowing the guns to be ergonomically adapted for different shooters).
!
Blimey!'"ergonomically adapted for different shooters", eh? Pretty fancy talk applied to squaddies.
When I was in the (British, so lower budget) army, it was difficult to get an issue sleeping bag ergonomically adapted to me becase the issue scales were probably still based on undernourished wee Malkies driven out of the Gorbals by 1930's unemployment. You got the one, and the gun, you were given.
Tell that to kids today, and they'll not believe you.
You were issued a sleeping bag? I guess the British Army has to have some sense of comfort and civility. Cheerio!!
In 2004 i turned 18. And apparently the army thought it would be a great idea For me to do military draft( you have to if they say so ) and all was absolutely standard. 1 type of rifle ( c7a1 ) and a completely standard range of sleepingsbacks, underwear, helmet, clothes and so on. The only thing that you could chose yourself, was from a range of boots. Mostly I remember a 1 week long drill where we should defend the island of Bornholm from Russian forces. I was constantly carrying a machine-gun( MG62) with ammunition. I hated that thing so much.
People in the military are not much different than the people on this forum. They want what they want. Then try to justify it to the proper individuals. Be it the Appropriations Department, or whomever in the military. Or our wives here. We, and sometimes they, don't always make the best choice. Even when we weigh all the facts and spend the money.
The Army screws things up on a daily basis. Choosing this pistol, was one of those screw ups.
Continuing to test and screw up their "enhanced performance magazine" for the M4 rifle, is one of those screw ups. (the Marines, the British army, and others, have already figured out that the Magpul mag is the most reliable. Not the Army knuckleheads who continue to waste money on their terrible EPM magazine)
From what I understand, they even cancelled the extended testing, durability testing portion of the pistol test, after Sig's ridiculous offer of over $100 million dollars cheaper than Glock.
These sealed bid processes are dumb, dumb, dumb. Whats wrong with going to Glock and saying, "Sig bid $500 million on the contract. You bid $600 million. If you can bid less than Sig, we will consider your offer. Then back and forth, back and forth, until the best price is negotiated. This of course, AFTER the guns are thoroughly tested and approved for purchase. Like back in the 80's when the Sig P226 and Beretta 92 both passed with flying colors, and Beretta won on price.
Continuing to test and screw up their "enhanced performance magazine" for the M4 rifle, is one of those screw ups. (the Marines, the British army, and others, have already figured out that the Magpul mag is the most reliable. Not the Army knuckleheads who continue to waste money on their terrible EPM magazine)
From what I understand, they even cancelled the extended testing, durability testing portion of the pistol test, after Sig's ridiculous offer of over $100 million dollars cheaper than Glock.
These sealed bid processes are dumb, dumb, dumb. Whats wrong with going to Glock and saying, "Sig bid $500 million on the contract. You bid $600 million. If you can bid less than Sig, we will consider your offer. Then back and forth, back and forth, until the best price is negotiated. This of course, AFTER the guns are thoroughly tested and approved for purchase. Like back in the 80's when the Sig P226 and Beretta 92 both passed with flying colors, and Beretta won on price.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
The Army screws things up on a daily basis. Choosing this pistol, was one of those screw ups.
Continuing to test and screw up their "enhanced performance magazine" for the M4 rifle, is one of those screw ups. (the Marines, the British army, and others, have already figured out that the Magpul mag is the most reliable. Not the Army knuckleheads who continue to waste money on their terrible EPM magazine)
From what I understand, they even cancelled the extended testing, durability testing portion of the pistol test, after Sig's ridiculous offer of over $100 million dollars cheaper than Glock.
These sealed bid processes are dumb, dumb, dumb. Whats wrong with going to Glock and saying, "Sig bid $500 million on the contract. You bid $600 million. If you can bid less than Sig, we will consider your offer. Then back and forth, back and forth, until the best price is negotiated. This of course, AFTER the guns are thoroughly tested and approved for purchase. Like back in the 80's when the Sig P226 and Beretta 92 both passed with flying colors, and Beretta won on price.
There are all kinds of laws that dictate how they choose. They have to follow the law.
The Army screws things up on a daily basis. Choosing this pistol, was one of those screw ups.
Continuing to test and screw up their "enhanced performance magazine" for the M4 rifle, is one of those screw ups. (the Marines, the British army, and others, have already figured out that the Magpul mag is the most reliable. Not the Army knuckleheads who continue to waste money on their terrible EPM magazine)
From what I understand, they even cancelled the extended testing, durability testing portion of the pistol test, after Sig's ridiculous offer of over $100 million dollars cheaper than Glock.
These sealed bid processes are dumb, dumb, dumb. Whats wrong with going to Glock and saying, "Sig bid $500 million on the contract. You bid $600 million. If you can bid less than Sig, we will consider your offer. Then back and forth, back and forth, until the best price is negotiated. This of course, AFTER the guns are thoroughly tested and approved for purchase. Like back in the 80's when the Sig P226 and Beretta 92 both passed with flying colors, and Beretta won on price.
There are all kinds of laws that dictate how they choose. They have to follow the law.
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: das_peikko
Why didn't they go with a proven model like the P220 or the P226 ?
Because they are not modular in nature (allowing the guns to be ergonomically adapted for different shooters).
!
Blimey!'"ergonomically adapted for different shooters", eh? Pretty fancy talk applied to squaddies.
When I was in the (British, so lower budget) army, it was difficult to get an issue sleeping bag ergonomically adapted to me becase the issue scales were probably still based on undernourished wee Malkies driven out of the Gorbals by 1930's unemployment. You got the one, and the gun, you were given.
Tell that to kids today, and they'll not believe you.
You were issued a sleeping bag? I guess the British Army has to have some sense of comfort and civility. Cheerio!!
Dunno. I did get crabs though. Does that go some way to addressing the issues raised in your question?
Originally Posted By: Ducked
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: das_peikko
Why didn't they go with a proven model like the P220 or the P226 ?
Because they are not modular in nature (allowing the guns to be ergonomically adapted for different shooters).
!
Blimey!'"ergonomically adapted for different shooters", eh? Pretty fancy talk applied to squaddies.
When I was in the (British, so lower budget) army, it was difficult to get an issue sleeping bag ergonomically adapted to me becase the issue scales were probably still based on undernourished wee Malkies driven out of the Gorbals by 1930's unemployment. You got the one, and the gun, you were given.
Tell that to kids today, and they'll not believe you.
You were issued a sleeping bag? I guess the British Army has to have some sense of comfort and civility. Cheerio!!
Dunno. I did get crabs though. Does that go some way to addressing the issues raised in your question?
Originally Posted By: Astro14
I think it’s worth noting that the M1 Garand was widely, publicly, criticized as unreliable, overpriced, and not battle worthy. The USMC resisted being issued M1s and began the Pacific campaign largely equipped with 1903s.
By the end of the war, the M1 was praised as the “greatest battle implement ever devised” and today, we recognize its groundbreaking advantages over the K98 or Ariska in combat.
The rhetoric of 1937-1938 when the rifle was in early production, and troops were complaining about it, is remarkably similar to what’s being said about the new Sig.
Similar things were said about the M9 in 1985. Overpriced, over engineered, unreliable, it lacked performance in combat, etc...and as an M9 owner and user, I’ll come right out and say that it’s a great weapon.
“The new (insert weapon here) is garbage compared with the old (insert weapon here). Overpriced. A waste of taxpayer money. We shouldn’t be buying it. The procurement decision was rigged.”
It’s an old song. Heard it many times before. Sometimes it’s true. Often, it’s not.
Those are great examples where the platforms proved themselves. However, sometimes you end up with the /SA80/L85 like the poor Brits. That is pretty much a garbage rifle that replaced a great one (inch pattern FAL).
I think it’s worth noting that the M1 Garand was widely, publicly, criticized as unreliable, overpriced, and not battle worthy. The USMC resisted being issued M1s and began the Pacific campaign largely equipped with 1903s.
By the end of the war, the M1 was praised as the “greatest battle implement ever devised” and today, we recognize its groundbreaking advantages over the K98 or Ariska in combat.
The rhetoric of 1937-1938 when the rifle was in early production, and troops were complaining about it, is remarkably similar to what’s being said about the new Sig.
Similar things were said about the M9 in 1985. Overpriced, over engineered, unreliable, it lacked performance in combat, etc...and as an M9 owner and user, I’ll come right out and say that it’s a great weapon.
“The new (insert weapon here) is garbage compared with the old (insert weapon here). Overpriced. A waste of taxpayer money. We shouldn’t be buying it. The procurement decision was rigged.”
It’s an old song. Heard it many times before. Sometimes it’s true. Often, it’s not.
Those are great examples where the platforms proved themselves. However, sometimes you end up with the /SA80/L85 like the poor Brits. That is pretty much a garbage rifle that replaced a great one (inch pattern FAL).
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: CT8
Sigs aren't what they used to be since the CEO that ruined Kimber and moved to Sig.
True. While the materials are still good, the finished product seems to have less consistency in terms of reliability. I should have picked up the old P225 German trade in guns when they were cheap and plentiful.
One on my friends has a couple and they are choice to say the least. Probably the nicest pistols I have ever handled. This said by a 1911 lover and that is because I like the 1911s trigger feel .
Choice is a weird description. The examples I handled made in NH that didn't run sure felt like solid guns, but compared to earlier German/ West German ones they did not have the "to Hades and back reliability". This is probably because these guns are slapped together and assembled more than built like previous earlier Sigs of old (Sort of like S&W wheelguns made today). Are they still decent guns? Yep. Are they living up to their reputation earned decades ago? I would have to say the jury is still out on that. In my experience...no.
Personally I don't have a dog in the fight as I am not a brand fanboy of any brand.
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: CT8
Sigs aren't what they used to be since the CEO that ruined Kimber and moved to Sig.
True. While the materials are still good, the finished product seems to have less consistency in terms of reliability. I should have picked up the old P225 German trade in guns when they were cheap and plentiful.
One on my friends has a couple and they are choice to say the least. Probably the nicest pistols I have ever handled. This said by a 1911 lover and that is because I like the 1911s trigger feel .
Choice is a weird description. The examples I handled made in NH that didn't run sure felt like solid guns, but compared to earlier German/ West German ones they did not have the "to Hades and back reliability". This is probably because these guns are slapped together and assembled more than built like previous earlier Sigs of old (Sort of like S&W wheelguns made today). Are they still decent guns? Yep. Are they living up to their reputation earned decades ago? I would have to say the jury is still out on that. In my experience...no.
Personally I don't have a dog in the fight as I am not a brand fanboy of any brand.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
There are all kinds of laws that dictate how they choose. They have to follow the law.
And therein lies the problem. The whole process is too complicated, with too many rules that have to be followed. And far too many people involved. It's what happens to most everything in the government, and why we end up with $10,000.00 toilet seats. No one buys things like that in civilian life or private business. We'd all be broke, and end up with junk in the process. Then again, we don't own the printing presses and the ink.
There are all kinds of laws that dictate how they choose. They have to follow the law.
And therein lies the problem. The whole process is too complicated, with too many rules that have to be followed. And far too many people involved. It's what happens to most everything in the government, and why we end up with $10,000.00 toilet seats. No one buys things like that in civilian life or private business. We'd all be broke, and end up with junk in the process. Then again, we don't own the printing presses and the ink.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
There are all kinds of laws that dictate how they choose. They have to follow the law.
And therein lies the problem. The whole process is too complicated, with too many rules that have to be followed. And far too many people involved. It's what happens to most everything in the government, and why we end up with $10,000.00 toilet seats. No one buys things like that in civilian life or private business. We'd all be broke, and end up with junk in the process. Then again, we don't own the printing presses and the ink.
Very few people in personal life or industry spend $500M on a single item acquisition. And look at how much junk is produced that is sold to you and I? How many items are recalled due to flaws? How many guns have been viewed as inferior to the prior one, to ultimately be viewed as a success? Astro mentioned the M1, but perhaps the Armalite system is an even better case - wasn't it attributed by many to be the cause of many deaths when initially rolled out in Vietnam? And now the AR culture is HUGE?
You're also assuming that if the process was simpler, that (1) companies wouldn't protest/complain/etc. much of the reason for some of these cumbersome processes is that "efficient" private industry protests and creates lawsuits when they don't get their way. IIRC, Glock has done that as an example. Many of these processes are due to the government being seen as a cash cow, and business wanting their share by hook or by crook. (2) that Glock might have won if the process was different. You say therein lies the problem. What problem? That sig won and Glock lost, or insert the next two companies for the next source selection. (3) that the (granted it's ridiculous) situation of negligent discharges on Glocks wouldn't have showed up and created its own debaucle. I know it's silly - keep your finger off the trigger. But it seems to happen all the time.
I really couldn't care less who won this. I like both companies and own products by both. I might have desired to have a more intrinsically American Company's offering in the final mix, but it's not my call.
Originally Posted By: bigj_16
There are all kinds of laws that dictate how they choose. They have to follow the law.
And therein lies the problem. The whole process is too complicated, with too many rules that have to be followed. And far too many people involved. It's what happens to most everything in the government, and why we end up with $10,000.00 toilet seats. No one buys things like that in civilian life or private business. We'd all be broke, and end up with junk in the process. Then again, we don't own the printing presses and the ink.
Very few people in personal life or industry spend $500M on a single item acquisition. And look at how much junk is produced that is sold to you and I? How many items are recalled due to flaws? How many guns have been viewed as inferior to the prior one, to ultimately be viewed as a success? Astro mentioned the M1, but perhaps the Armalite system is an even better case - wasn't it attributed by many to be the cause of many deaths when initially rolled out in Vietnam? And now the AR culture is HUGE?
You're also assuming that if the process was simpler, that (1) companies wouldn't protest/complain/etc. much of the reason for some of these cumbersome processes is that "efficient" private industry protests and creates lawsuits when they don't get their way. IIRC, Glock has done that as an example. Many of these processes are due to the government being seen as a cash cow, and business wanting their share by hook or by crook. (2) that Glock might have won if the process was different. You say therein lies the problem. What problem? That sig won and Glock lost, or insert the next two companies for the next source selection. (3) that the (granted it's ridiculous) situation of negligent discharges on Glocks wouldn't have showed up and created its own debaucle. I know it's silly - keep your finger off the trigger. But it seems to happen all the time.
I really couldn't care less who won this. I like both companies and own products by both. I might have desired to have a more intrinsically American Company's offering in the final mix, but it's not my call.
Originally Posted By: bubbatime
The Army screws things up on a daily basis. Choosing this pistol, was one of those screw ups........
These sealed bid processes are dumb, dumb, dumb. Whats wrong with going to Glock and saying, "Sig bid $500 million on the contract. You bid $600 million. If you can bid less than Sig, we will consider your offer. Then back and forth, back and forth, until the best price is negotiated.
^^^^^^^^^ This right here. It's simply common sense. Something that is void in government. Especially when it comes to spending money and actually getting something for it.
The Army screws things up on a daily basis. Choosing this pistol, was one of those screw ups........
These sealed bid processes are dumb, dumb, dumb. Whats wrong with going to Glock and saying, "Sig bid $500 million on the contract. You bid $600 million. If you can bid less than Sig, we will consider your offer. Then back and forth, back and forth, until the best price is negotiated.
^^^^^^^^^ This right here. It's simply common sense. Something that is void in government. Especially when it comes to spending money and actually getting something for it.
Look at how Trump got the price drastically lowered on both the new Air Force One, as well as the F-35 Fighter, with a single phone call, by simply asking. If they would have come back to Trump and said, "Mr. President we're sorry, but at it's current cost we are barely making money. And we would be happy to come to the White House and show you our figures and explain".... But they didn't. In less than an hour, with a single phone call, they dropped the price by hundreds of millions of dollars.
That proves the way the military purchases things is horribly broken, and the taxpayer is being raped financially. They not only over spend, but they're not getting what they are paying for. This kind of thing is happening far too often. The way these contracts are set up for bidding is largely the reason why. It's no wonder this whole M-17 deal is turning into a total disaster.
That proves the way the military purchases things is horribly broken, and the taxpayer is being raped financially. They not only over spend, but they're not getting what they are paying for. This kind of thing is happening far too often. The way these contracts are set up for bidding is largely the reason why. It's no wonder this whole M-17 deal is turning into a total disaster.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: billt460
Look at how Trump got the price drastically lowered on both the new Air Force One, as well as the F-35 Fighter, with a single phone call, by simply asking. If they would have come back to Trump and said, "Mr. President we're sorry, but at it's current cost we are barely making money. And we would be happy to come to the White House and show you our figures and explain".... But they didn't. In less than an hour, with a single phone call, they dropped the price by hundreds of millions of dollars.
That proves the way the military purchases things is horribly broken, and the taxpayer is being raped financially. They not only over spend, but they're not getting what they are paying for. This kind of thing is happening far too often. The way these contracts are set up for bidding is largely the reason why. It's no wonder this whole M-17 deal is turning into a total disaster.
But this is highly irrelevant to this specific situation. And JSF is, by the way, a completely different acquisition animal.
Sig apparently bid $103M LESS than Glock, and is selling the M17 for $207/gun per various news articles. Assuming that is all true, what good basis is there that Glock would have ratcheted down? The intent of a sealed bid is to force best and final upfront. Especially for a pistol as well established and widely sold as the Glock, its hard to believe they didnt have a good grasp on their wholesale pricing and padded it that much to be able to undercut Sig from such a difference in bid and at such a low pistol cost already...
Look at how Trump got the price drastically lowered on both the new Air Force One, as well as the F-35 Fighter, with a single phone call, by simply asking. If they would have come back to Trump and said, "Mr. President we're sorry, but at it's current cost we are barely making money. And we would be happy to come to the White House and show you our figures and explain".... But they didn't. In less than an hour, with a single phone call, they dropped the price by hundreds of millions of dollars.
That proves the way the military purchases things is horribly broken, and the taxpayer is being raped financially. They not only over spend, but they're not getting what they are paying for. This kind of thing is happening far too often. The way these contracts are set up for bidding is largely the reason why. It's no wonder this whole M-17 deal is turning into a total disaster.
But this is highly irrelevant to this specific situation. And JSF is, by the way, a completely different acquisition animal.
Sig apparently bid $103M LESS than Glock, and is selling the M17 for $207/gun per various news articles. Assuming that is all true, what good basis is there that Glock would have ratcheted down? The intent of a sealed bid is to force best and final upfront. Especially for a pistol as well established and widely sold as the Glock, its hard to believe they didnt have a good grasp on their wholesale pricing and padded it that much to be able to undercut Sig from such a difference in bid and at such a low pistol cost already...
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The intent of a sealed bid is to force best and final upfront.
That never happens. These companies all know how to play this game. Especially Sig and Glock. The problem is as Bubba said. They don't allow back and forth negotiating. All of these so called "Sealed Bids" are B.S. No one knows what the other guy bid. They should, and be allowed to respond accordingly. (After the first round of bids are accepted). Prices would plummet as a result. Again, back to Trump and the phone call. There was so much profit involved with both of those aircraft from the get go, both parties panicked and dropped their prices by millions with just one phone call from the big guy at the top. That's one rigged parlay.
Glock makes an all but obscene profit on every gun they sell. I heard it cost them around $75.00 to produce a Glock 17. Even if it's double that, that's a ton of bargaining room to negotiate with. But with the present system they have in place, it doesn't happen. Glock could afford to under bid everybody. And they most likely would. And the military would have ended up with a dependable, well proven weapon. Instead they got this over priced "modular" abortion that doesn't run right. But without knowing what the other guy is bidding, Glock, (or anyone else for that matter), can't come back and undercut their first bid. It then becomes a game of, "how much can we get away with charging". Instead of, "How low can we go and still make money".
The intent of a sealed bid is to force best and final upfront.
That never happens. These companies all know how to play this game. Especially Sig and Glock. The problem is as Bubba said. They don't allow back and forth negotiating. All of these so called "Sealed Bids" are B.S. No one knows what the other guy bid. They should, and be allowed to respond accordingly. (After the first round of bids are accepted). Prices would plummet as a result. Again, back to Trump and the phone call. There was so much profit involved with both of those aircraft from the get go, both parties panicked and dropped their prices by millions with just one phone call from the big guy at the top. That's one rigged parlay.
Glock makes an all but obscene profit on every gun they sell. I heard it cost them around $75.00 to produce a Glock 17. Even if it's double that, that's a ton of bargaining room to negotiate with. But with the present system they have in place, it doesn't happen. Glock could afford to under bid everybody. And they most likely would. And the military would have ended up with a dependable, well proven weapon. Instead they got this over priced "modular" abortion that doesn't run right. But without knowing what the other guy is bidding, Glock, (or anyone else for that matter), can't come back and undercut their first bid. It then becomes a game of, "how much can we get away with charging". Instead of, "How low can we go and still make money".
- Status
