I think that the fact about the trigger module rather than the frame being serialised is kind of irrelevant in this case, as the M17 and M18 will use the same frame anyway with the slide being changed. As for the different designations, I imagine that individual pistols will never actually change between being full size or compacts. I suspect that the modularity of the frames and internal chassis is more of a manufacturing and maintenance benefit rather than being something that individual soldiers will ever do anything with. If in the long term it was decided that fewer M17s were needed and they wanted more M18s, I doubt it would be much of a problem for them to do the conversion and just redesignate them as M18s (guns have changed designation before when they have been upgraded, and they have also converted existing weapons into different weapons with a different designation). Also, if they didn't have a different designation it would be pretty confusing from a logistics standpoint as nobody would actually know what pistol was being referred to without qualifying it.

Glock has released photos of their MHS entries, for anyone interested.

https://kitup.military.com/2017/06/glock-inc.html

It seems Glock just won't accept that they were passed over.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...kly+Newsletter

65% of the global law enforcement market just isn't enough for them?

SIG is no slouch, though. SEALs have been using the 226 with zero complaints for over 20 years now. And besides, what did Glock expect when their bid was effectively double what SIG's was? That they'd get picked just for being Glock? This isn't a contract to outfit a few thousand police officers, it's all four main branches of the armed forces, meaning probably over a million individual units easily.

Actually, NSW switched over to the Glock 19.

I like SIGs, but the P320 is not one of my favorite SIG pistols, and I think the Army's requirements were misguided. Personally, I would have gone with Glock, given existing customer base in SOF units, and the fact that it is now a more mature design than the P320 family.

It's a lot of hot air, but I don't blame them for being frustrated.

What is the 95th Rule of Acquisition? "Expand or die."

By the way, the lawsuit between Helga Glock and Gaston Glock was settled in Gaston's favour in early 2017. I have a feeling some highly-placed people in the company want some increased market share so as to help pay the legal fees.

From what I've read, the SIG and Glock both met specs with the performance differences between them trivial at best, so picking the cheaper option makes obvious sense. The Beretta 92 is widely believed to be inferior to the SIG 226 (an opinion I share), but can anyone say it hasn't proven to still be an excellent pistol over the years?

Glock is pushing for the MHS program to be restarted, but if it is, I suspect it will end up backfiring on them and get the program cancelled altogether.

The whole underbidding of contacts is always a staple. We wish the best money can buy should be afforded to the guys in uniform but politics and costs will always put it down

Like I said, the performance differences between the SIG and Glock were trivial at best and both passed specs. If both pistols will do the job satisfactorily, what exactly makes the cheaper option bad? This is where that whole "lowest bidder" adage falls short; if two products offer equal capability, it makes no economic sense to get the more expensive one.