Sig Sauer rejected by ATF

[KFP]

I will admit I have no experience what so ever with the polymer frame Sigs.

I think that Sig doesn't either.

I was surprised by this as well, but I guess that I'm basing my opinion on the metal framed guns that I've fired. I am curious why polymer was a requirement as well - but with all things government, I suspect politics are at play.

[tacticool]

I was surprised by this as well, but I guess that I'm basing my opinion on the metal framed guns that I've fired. I am curious why polymer was a requirement as well - but with all things government, I suspect politics are at play.

Like when the FBI went to 10mm for the power and then required manufacturers to load less powerful ammo.

[WildBill]

I was surprised by this as well, but I guess that I'm basing my opinion on the metal framed guns that I've fired. I am curious why polymer was a requirement as well - but with all things government, I suspect politics are at play.

Like when the FBI went to 10mm for the power and then required manufacturers to load less powerful ammo.

I didn't want to hijack the thread, but since you brought it up ... The FBI wants a more powerful round and when they get it, it's too powerful for some agents to handle so they change their requirements.

[ELB]

..."Sig Sauer also contends that ATF placed too great an emphasis upon reliability in determining which offers should continue to phase III. In this regard, Sig Sauer argues that reliability was only one of a number of elements to be considered in the live-fire assessment, and notes that reliability was not identified as having any more importance than the other elements."

Sig seems to contend that reliability is not important.

Not exactly.
Sig is NOT contending that reiliability is not important. It is contending that THE GOVERNMENT originally said that reliability was not important -- that it was just one factor among many -- but when the results came in, THEN they decided that reiliability was more important.

Government source selections get in trouble, and get slapped down by the GAO or other reviewers, when they tell the competing manufacturers that here's the source selection criteria, and the individual factors and subfactors are weighted thusly, but when the time comes to choose, the Government ignores its own rules and uses some other criteria, or changes the weightings of them.

And it is not right when the government does that. If factor X is numero uno, then they should state that upfront.

According to the GAO report, reliability was no more important than about five or six other subfactors. And the "accuracy" factor was as important as all those sub factors put together. So I think Sig was correct in saying that reliability was just one among many, and not more important than everything else.

However, Sig's actual reliability performance was pretty bad, and the Government said that it was bad enough to drag Sig down. Basically the GAO said this kind of determination was well within the Government's discretions. The Goverment SS criteria did NOT apparenty tie itself to adding up the firing test results, but used them as information to the Source Selection Authority inmaking his decision. Sig loses, and gets kicked out for no longer being competitive (the "Competitive Range Determination.")

I note that Sig also complained the Government executed the test improperly, but that got kicked out also.

Based on the test results in the GAO report, S&W looks ahead, but it is not much ahead of Glock and other factors could certainly sway the decision - as long as they were stated in the RFP's source selection criteria.