The GAO decided to reject Glock's challenge to the US Army's decision to procure a P320 variant known as the M17 for general issue. From a linked Army Times article, it appears Glock thought it should've gotten one of three possible contracts and that its proposal was evaluated improperly. The GAO determined that the Army had the authority to sign one contract instead of all three. No details were made available about assessment of the evaluation process. From the same article, Glock filed its protest after the official deadline anyway.

All parties have 10 days from June 5th to appeal the decision, so if we don't hear anything by the 15th then that should be it.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/...dgun-system-protest/

Has anyone heard anything about the Steyr 'chassis' patent lawsuit recently?

So used to undercutting all comers, Glock was so aghast and indignant that they had been out-Glocked by a rival that they thought time stood still and consequently lost all track of the calendar. All of this procedural protest filing stuff is such an alien process for them. It was always someone else who did that kind of thingy.

Speaking with my local range guys, and I realize many times gun shop and range guys are less than informed; they were saying the arrogance of Glock is troubling.

According to the conversation, Glock has in the past been very unwilling to move on pricing, and unwilling to help with promotional events.

They went on to say that while most of them like Glock pistols they fear Glock seems to be in a Colt mentality of "We're Glock, we don't need to change."

Being from GA and having owned too many Glocks over the years I hope this loss serves as motivation to take the competition seriously. Definitely want Glock to continue to be a successful company.

I don't know if there's an appeals process for this decision but like most everything else, maybe they need only find a "friendly" judge to reverse the GAO (?).

On a side note, I went into a well stock local gun shop this week to find some common 1911 parts. Everything was GLOCK. Nothing for 1911 except cheap ass holsters and aftermarket magazine base plate bumpers. So my comment was "Apparently, the world revolves around GLOCK." The silence from shop staff and a couple of customers was deafening. The manager came out and said that's because we have a GLOCK armorer. Later I suggested that a more well rounded armorer might yield them more business.

Everyone who loses a contract contests it. It's just matter of course. Doubt it does any good but you can't blame a company for trying. It's like Boeing and Lockheed Martin contesting contracts they lose to each other.

Glock needs to just hurry up and release Glocks without the fingergrooves and Beretta needs to drop the price of the M9A3 and release it in black.

quote:

I don't know if there's an appeals process for this decision but like most everything else, maybe they need only find a "friendly" judge to reverse the GAO (?).

I don't think that's the case. Courts can rule on law, courts can rule on what is legally established or not as a fact, but their expertise only goes so far. I don't think a judge is going to second-guess the Army on what the appropriate criteria for a service pistol is and what the most attractive combination of features and cost for that service people will be. Judges just usually don't try to stand in as technical experts.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

I don't know if there's an appeals process for this decision but like most everything else, maybe they need only find a "friendly" judge to reverse the GAO (?).

I don't think that's the case. Courts can rule on law, courts can rule on what is legally established or not as a fact, but their expertise only goes so far. I don't think a judge is going to second-guess the Army on what the appropriate criteria for a service pistol is and what the most attractive combination of features and cost for that service people will be. Judges just usually don't try to stand in as technical experts.

I was thinking along the lines of sports commissioners decisions. Hasn't there been a few of those in recent years?

Sports commissioners decisions?

The gap is slowly closing on the Glock saga.

Its a $500 million contract. Of course you protest if you lose as a finalist.

IIRC, SIG sued when the P226 lost to the Beretta 92FS during the M9 competition.

It's par for the course.

As predicted: https://sigforum.com/eve/forums...440044024#1440044024

quote:

Originally posted by az4783054:

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

I don't know if there's an appeals process for this decision but like most everything else, maybe they need only find a "friendly" judge to reverse the GAO (?).

I don't think that's the case. Courts can rule on law, courts can rule on what is legally established or not as a fact, but their expertise only goes so far. I don't think a judge is going to second-guess the Army on what the appropriate criteria for a service pistol is and what the most attractive combination of features and cost for that service people will be. Judges just usually don't try to stand in as technical experts.

I was thinking along the lines of sports commissioners decisions. Hasn't there been a few of those in recent years?

WTFO? We're talking about judges in courts of law, not sports commissions.

quote:

Originally posted by evolution:
. . . mentality of "We're Glock, we don't need to change."

As I've said before, Glock (like other companies) should not simply rest on their laurels. If they don't innovate, or are slow to adapt to innovations, in the market, they risk losing out on significant contracts, and the free marketing that comes along with winning those contracts.

IMO, this is what happened with SIG. They enjoyed large share in the LE market, with guns being purchased by many agencies. However, they did not keep up with the changes in the market. As a result they began losing out on those big contracts, often to Glock.

They rushed the P250 to market with disastrous results, I think driven by a too late realization they hadn't kept up with what the market wanted/demanded. However, it appears they may be on the right track with the P320, as indicated by the win of the new military contract.

quote:

Originally posted by evolution:
Speaking with my local range guys, and I realize many times gun shop and range guys are less than informed; they were saying the arrogance of Glock is troubling.

According to the conversation, Glock has in the past been very unwilling to move on pricing, and unwilling to help with promotional events.

They went on to say that while most of them like Glock pistols they fear Glock seems to be in a Colt mentality of "We're Glock, we don't need to change."

Being from GA and having owned too many Glocks over the years I hope this loss serves as motivation to take the competition seriously. Definitely want Glock to continue to be a successful company.

This may be how Gaston Glock's personal style ultimately manifests itself

I don't know how anyone familiar with the company, and it's evolution of their pistol from gen 1 to the current FBI "m" variant (gen 5) could remotely think glock doesn't change. Is the pistol the basic design? Sure

But just about everything has evolved based on consumer desire and real world experience

Want a heavier trigger pull? Here is the ny1 and ny2

Want a different locking block? Here are the three pin guns

Trouble with frame flex with weapon mounted lights in .40 guns? Here is the gen 4

The gen 4 9mm has anemic ejection? Here is a new ejector

Hell the M series has:

No finger grooves
Ambi slide release
A completely redesigned connector set up without a spring ala the 43

And that's just some off the the top of my head. I haven't mentioned the SF frames, or the ambi mag release, or the first guns to be RMR ready or the countless of other ways glock has adapted and changed heir design to meet user feedback and requirements.

As far as pricing, glock has always been front of the line competitive, which is why it's the most common used firearm by law enforcement pretty much in the world

quote:

Originally posted by HayesGreener:

quote:

Originally posted by evolution:
Speaking with my local range guys, and I realize many times gun shop and range guys are less than informed; they were saying the arrogance of Glock is troubling.

According to the conversation, Glock has in the past been very unwilling to move on pricing, and unwilling to help with promotional events.

They went on to say that while most of them like Glock pistols they fear Glock seems to be in a Colt mentality of "We're Glock, we don't need to change."

Being from GA and having owned too many Glocks over the years I hope this loss serves as motivation to take the competition seriously. Definitely want Glock to continue to be a successful company.

This may be how Gaston Glock's personal style ultimately manifests itself

quote:

Originally posted by evolution:
Speaking with my local range guys, and I realize many times gun shop and range guys are less than informed; they were saying the arrogance of Glock is troubling.

According to the conversation, Glock has in the past been very unwilling to move on pricing, and unwilling to help with promotional events.

They went on to say that while most of them like Glock pistols they fear Glock seems to be in a Colt mentality of "We're Glock, we don't need to change."

Being from GA and having owned too many Glocks over the years I hope this loss serves as motivation to take the competition seriously. Definitely want Glock to continue to be a successful company.

Your posting caught my eye.

For many years (roughtly 10), I helped coordinate one of the largest IDPA matches in the world. Glock was a 'major' sponsor once or twice. Glock had a program to heavily discount firearms purchased for a prize table. I assume that program still exists but it didn't help me because our match did not have a budget for give aways. We relied totally on no cost donations. Let's realize, large manufacturers get a HUGE number of sponsor requests - where matches like ours (and other events) are asking for firearms and promo items. Large firearms companies have budgets. Any event is extremely lucky if a particular company decides to sponsor the event by providing free stuff.

I'm wondering about their complaint that Glock was unwilling to move on pricing, did they mention the context? Is this a police supply store that was working on a bid to supply a large police department and another company was underbidding the Glock? If not, Glock has posted prices - posted pricing makes it fair to all of their retailers. This just seems like an odd complaint.

I think you nailed in in the first sentence - I'm thinking these guys are less than informed.

Context. Yes, that's important.

When you look at the context of the Gen5, FBI gun, whatever we wish to call it, the changes were forced by another manufacturer. That's important context. It is also important context to note that the gun still doesn't exist a year later.

Glock just didn't innovate on their own as a good idea. They also still blame all sorts of other factors in their short comings. When I asked our Glock rep about extraction/ejection issues, he blamed it on ammo. Glock denied that they were having problems with Gen3 and Gen4 guns with lights attached. They are all still "I am Glock, hear me roar."

Now, this doesn't exist in only the Glock sphere. Other manufacturers pull the same stunts. They do so by choice because the obvious of it is easier to downplay issues publicly. SIG is currently being sued by NJSP for the same thing. NJSP has went Glock. Smith and Wesson lost many, many contracts to other manufacturers because of issues like dead triggers. NCSHP ditched the M&P for SIGs. It happens when you are at that level.

I think we will see a lot of changes once old man Glock passes.