Much of the articles are the same kind of journalism which has surrounded the M16 and M4 for decades.
First, the drop safety issues related in the first article are about the SIG P320s - not the M17 which is equipped with a different trigger and which is the one being retrofitted on customer P320's under a VOLUNTARY recall. Lets not forget it won't happen if you don't fumble the gun and drop it, much less it has to hit the exact orientation to do it. The M17 wasn't reported to have that problem and still isn't - go check - you are reading very poor journalism which is pretending to be "factual." If anything most of it is old news reported before the contract started shipping.
If Glock wanted the contract they could have bid it and got it. They didn't. Get over it. They deliberately bid it too high. Why? The contract was not just for guns, it involves spare parts, training, holsters, and ammunition as a package, and SIG didn't win it, the larger bidder did using SIG's gun. That contractor is supply it all per the mandatory terms. Apparently Glock couldn't negotiate competitive terms for all the gear, training, and ammo to compete. Thing about that - they failed to underbid in a market where they rarely failed before.
One feature required of the contract was different sized grips - and the Glock method of molding the interior metal frame prohibits doing it. Gun design is a moving target, and the removable serial numbered trigger is where they were found to be deficient. They can't do different sized frames when every frame they make is another serial numbered gun. That is a major complication.
And despite the general consensus among new shooters who have only recently arrived on the firearms scene, Glocks have their issues, too. "They always go bang" is popular misconception. If it were true, the thousands of Glock armorers would have nothing to do, ever. In reality, if you push them as a fleet you discover various generations with retrofit parts needed to survive service as the originals were found deficient. Run them 100,000 rounds a year the way some rental ranges in Vegas operate and certain models will crack under the ejection port.
It's not that Glock is a poor pistol but assuming it's invincible and proof to anything is just as ignorant as stating the 1911A1 is perfect and no substitution will do. We have arrived with the Glock generation displacing the 1911 gunners - the aftermarket shows much the same developement - but that doesn't mean they are leading edge designs for the future. What it means is they have been on the market since the 1980's and there's a lot of folks who have depended on them. That alone does not make them perfect, but arguing the point is like arguing with 1911 fans.
The reality is all this has been done in the past - in 1954 - when the Army took a long look at the 1911 and found it as a design to be deficient. It was too big, heavy, and had too much recoil for the average user. They released a specification for a 4" barreled DA/SA in 9mm similar to the Walther P38, which was held in high regard at that time. Having over 3.2 million 1911's and living in a post war political environment, they decided to kick the can down the road.
When they finally had to replace an aging fleet of ancient rebuilt pistols what did they choose? The M9 - a Walther derivative which was McArmyized into a large frame doublestack 9mm. The reality of that contract award had the Meditterean refueling and airborne brigade stationed in Italy as one of the background cards played. Open fact in military circles, but, not reported in the gun press or MSM at the time. Glock didn't even attempt to compete as it came too soon for them - they simply weren't big enough with no plant in the USA.
Now Glock is still can't compete and like the era where the M9 came into issue the fans are all wondering why something other than their favorite was chosen. Then it was all about the 1911 in .45ACP being the hands down superior choice - yet, it wasn't. Today it's all about the Glock being the hands down superior choice - yet they didn't bid the contract to win it. Much like S&W coming into the post war competition late to the game with their M39, the rules were right out there. Nobody got a contract in 1954, no 1911 got a contract in 1984, no Glock got the contract last year.
Sorry your gun lost.
BTW, I own a S&W 4566TSW. That is one of the guns that pushed the revolver out of the holsters of American LEO's and paved the way for Glock to exploit the market. It wasn't Glock that did it, it was S&W with their 1954 Army Trials design that did it. The public is just slow to accept things, and Glock has missed it too early and too late. We never really adopted the Browning Hipower, either, a much heralded and better gun than the 1911, Browning's hereditary successor. So goes life.
