P320 thoughts?

[Det-Sog]

In the durability/reliability departments, are the P320 and P226 roughly comparable?

No way to compare something that finished beta testing barely a year ago with a tried and true design thats been running flawlessly for over 30 years. Come back and ask this question in another five years or so. There just aren't enough data points yet. If you forced me to choose today if I could only have one, I'd get a P226.

[LibertyTactical]

No way to compare something that finished beta testing barely a year ago with a tried and true design thats been running flawlessly for over 30 years. Come back and ask this question in another five years or so. There just aren't enough data points yet. If you forced me to choose today if I could only have one, I'd get a P226.

Why didn’t the military choose the 226 then?

[LMT Shooter]

Why didn’t the military choose the 226 then?

The Sig P226 & the Beretta 92 both passed all testing to meet the standard for acceptance, and the Beretta was cheaper.

[Slater]

Liberty Tactical, if you're referring to the original XM9 trials, that topic has been pretty much beaten to a pulp. If you have some time on your hands, this is the original GAO report:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/210/208564.pdf

[Det-Sog]

The Sig P226 & the Beretta 92 both passed all testing to meet the standard for acceptance, and the Beretta was cheaper.

That. Ahhhh, the memories. Word on the street at the time was that someone tipped off Beretta on what Sig's bid was going to be. Beretta then made their bid at one dollar per firearm less than Sig. That made Beretta's bid come in around 350K less than Sig's. Game over.

Either way, it was a win-win. The M-9 is a solid piece.

Edited: In case LibertyTactical was referring to the "current" run, the neither P226 or Beretta 92 were what the Army was looking for this time around. They wanted a more modern "Glock like" design. I believe being modular was a requirement also.

[LMT Shooter]

That. Ahhhh, the memories. Word on the street at the time was that someone tipped off Beretta on what Sig's bid was going to be. Beretta then made their bid at one dollar per firearm less than Sig. That made Beretta's bid come in around 350K less than Sig's. Game over.

Either way, it was a win-win. The M-9 is a solid piece.

I recall that Beretta actually removed some spare parts from their proposed package, and adjusted their $ bid accordingly, and nobody told SIG until after Beretta had been awarded the contract.

[Det-Sog]

^^^ Could be. I don't think we'll ever know.

[Slater]

From the GAO report:

"Beretta’s and SACO’s price quotes for each magazine were $9.30 and $11.95, respectively, and for each spare parts set were $209.42 and $221.79, respectively. The cost evaluator simply multiplied each contractor’s magazine unit price by 400 percent of the number of pistols and each contractor’s spare parts set price by 10 percent of the number of pistols. Because of the 400-percent factor used to evaluate magazines, Beretta’s lower magazine price more than any other factor resulted in its having the lowest overall evaluated price."

[Slater]

FWIW, adjusted for inflation Beretta's and SIG's mag prices would be $21.38 and $27.48 respectively in today's dollars (using the .gov's inflation calculator). Seems a little bit pricey for a bulk buy.

[Business_Casual]

.Gov contracting is its own animal. Things don’t make sense out context.