View Full Version : Beretta USA's next Army contender.
Don't know if you guys saw this yet, also sorry I'm posting mobile so I couldn't format.
http://www.beretta.com/en-us/beretta-usa-presents-next-generation-handgun-to-the-department-of-defense/
available q2 of 2015 = win
JBecker 72
12-17-14, 17:28
It is an interesting gun. I dig it.
9mm_shooter
12-17-14, 17:31
Hooked trigger guard? Seriously?
Interesting. I like the removable sites. Color, less so, but then again I have never been a FDE kind of guy. Not sure if I am on base for the factory threaded barrel since I am not currently running a suppressor, but am sure it will be a plus for some.
I guess this is the time of the Beretta renaissance.
I can't believe they're still using that dumb slide mounted safety. They have built frame mounted safety M-9's in the past.
JBecker 72
12-17-14, 17:46
I can't believe they're still using that dumb slide mounted safety. They have built frame mounted safety M-9's in the past.
It should just be a G model that only decocks. Why do you need a safety on a DA/SA gun?
I have no standardized handgun platform in my safe. I will seriously consider standardizing on this as my full size gun if they make a G model.
It should just be a G model that only decocks. Why do you need a safety on a DA/SA gun?
THIS! I think the G model would be a no brainer for most here. I mean, if we carry a Glock with a 5.5 factory trigger and no real safety as far as I am concerned why not something with a standard DA trigger of 8 pounds when you drop in a D spring? And with the absolute giddyness some members showed, myself, included with Beretta re-releasing G models, what the **** you italian mother****ers! Get with the program and stop listening to H&Ks advice! That said, I personally have never had much issue with the factory Beretta safety though. Personally find it pretty easy to disengage and manipulate. Of course I am comparing the Beretta's ergos to that of a Ruger P89, which was not designed for your average human's hands.
I wish it were a "G" as well, but I like that they are pulling their head out of their arse and dovetailing the front sight!:)
I wish it were a "G" as well, but I like that they are pulling their head out of their arse and dovetailing the front sight!:)
True. Baby steps I suppose. We'll get them trained eventually. Meanwhile christmas money just went towards more Beretta mags, on top of more AR mags, 1911 mags, and Glock mags. Lol.
The biggest downfall for the Berettas has been their enormous size. My dwarf like fingers can barely reach the DA trigger.
The biggest downfall for the Berettas has been their enormous size. My dwarf like fingers can barely reach the DA trigger.
What size glove do you wear brother? I generally fit into a medium nice and tight and find a 92 to fit the hand very well. Not so much with Hogue grips however, but factory... like a glove.
The biggest downfall for the Berettas has been their enormous size. My dwarf like fingers can barely reach the DA trigger.
As long as they produce it the same as the picture, it should be much better with for people with small hands, being a vertec frame.
I'm kind of underwhelmed, honestly. The FDE frame is cool at least.
If they could make that with an HK LEM like system with no safety (or a frame mounted safety), I'd be game.
Need a frame mounted, SAO version...
It should just be a G model that only decocks. Why do you need a safety on a DA/SA gun?
Agreed. But since the pics I've seen of the Sig 320 for this program appear to show a frame mounted safety, I'm guessing it's a requirement. I haven't looked at the RFP.
Eddiesketti
12-17-14, 19:36
This will be worthless if the Army wants a caliber change.
MountainRaven
12-17-14, 19:55
This will be worthless if the Army wants a caliber change.
The Army isn't going to change calibers.
And frankly, this M9A3 has only a slightly higher chance of being adopted as anything else... assuming the Army doesn't just order another half-million M9s.
I'd like to see a non-vertec version, too.
Add a Brigadier slide and a "G" decocker only set up and it's sold.
Eddiesketti
12-17-14, 20:36
The Army isn't going to change calibers.
And frankly, this M9A3 has only a slightly higher chance of being adopted as anything else... assuming the Army doesn't just order another half-million M9s.
I'd like to see a non-vertec version, too.
Do you have insider info? I haven't seen the requirement spec sheet as to what the Army wants.
sinlessorrow
12-17-14, 20:38
Mosy important part, and the part that probably dooms the handgun competition
http://www.beretta.com/en-us/beretta-usa-presents-next-generation-handgun-to-the-department-of-defense/
The improvements include design and material enhancements resulting in increased modularity, reliability, durability, and ergonomics. They are being submitted via an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) in accordance with the terms of the current M9 contract.
If they can get the M9A3 under the terms of the current M9 contracts, do you really think they will do anything else?
Eddiesketti
12-17-14, 20:49
Mosy important part, and the part that probably dooms the handgun competition
http://www.beretta.com/en-us/beretta-usa-presents-next-generation-handgun-to-the-department-of-defense/
The improvements include design and material enhancements resulting in increased modularity, reliability, durability, and ergonomics. They are being submitted via an Engineering Change Proposal (ECP) in accordance with the terms of the current M9 contract.
If they can get the M9A3 under the terms of the current M9 contracts, do you really think they will do anything else?
Why didn't Beretta do this a few years ago when the Army contemplated a new weapon?
MountainRaven
12-17-14, 21:05
Do you have insider info? I haven't seen the requirement spec sheet as to what the Army wants.
What the Army wants is a weapon that takes five minutes to train an individual soldier to operate with full competency and capability, is completely safe under all circumstances, can strike a pinpoint target at 50 meters, holds ten thousand rounds of ammunition, can neutralize a 300 kilogram individual wearing plates, has zero recoil, and weighs less than a pound fully loaded.
In other words, what the Army wants is irrelevant. What they will get is almost guaranteed to be what they have.
Insider info? No. But the Army has spent fifty years trying to replace the M16/M4 FOW only to settle on buying ever more while it took them six decades to drop the 1911. And even then, it was piggybacked on an Air Force project. And have tried to replace it every six or seven years since. It took the Army until the late-1950s/early-1960s to bring the M1 Garand into the 1940s, the M3 'Grease Gun' remained in active service until the early 1990s.... &c., &c., &c.
I have read it will have convertible safety/de-cock only like their PX-4 [?] so one can have it as you want it.
RAM Engineer
12-18-14, 07:39
I have read it will have convertible safety/de-cock only like their PX-4 [?] so one can have it as you want it.
Source?
It should just be a G model that only decocks. Why do you need a safety on a DA/SA gun?
I assume that the military prefers safety's on their guns if they can help it. I don't like safety's on my handguns at all but purity much every military handgun has had one.
Looks good to me! I too am kind of a FDE fan. Maybe it's the fact that I grew up watching the Leathal Weapon series of movies but I find the 92 to be nostalgically appealing to me.
It's too bad however that bureaucrats will be deciding what kind of combat pistol our military will be using. Doubtful that any of them have even fired a handgun before.
Did I miss the M9A2?
Marines have the A1 version, what happened to the A2?
Personally I'd rather see them buying upgraded M9's for now. Support system is already in-place and we really can not afford another "Pistol Competition".
sinlessorrow
12-18-14, 09:43
Did I miss the M9A2?
Marines have the A1 version, what happened to the A2?
Personally I'd rather see them buying upgraded M9's for now. Support system is already in-place and we really can not afford another "Pistol Competition".
Yep, I will also be buying one to add to my Beretta handgun collection come Q2 2015.
Source?
Ernest Langdon posted this on Pistol-Forum (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?14342-Beretta-M9A3-Is-this-modular-enough&p=278417&viewfull=1#post278417):
So I have been involved in this project for quite some time. A couple of key points that you all should know.
1. It will come with a convertible safety lever. Meaning you will be able to convert it to a G. Think PX4 or 90-Two.
2. As of now it will not have the internal frame buffer like the 92A1.
3. It will have an over mold type back strap that will mimic the standard Beretta frame size.
4. It will have checkering on the frame and beveled mag well like the M9A1.
5. Extended Mag button.
There are some other details but I think this is the important stuff that you guys wanted to know.
Cheers,
Ernest
So... essentially, they're reviving the Vertec.
http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq169/bbossman1/92FS_Vertec_zps77278548.jpg
http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq169/bbossman1/a6fff7c8-3d9f-4df0-ac28-bcfaee32ec2f_zps34ca08d9.jpg
sinlessorrow
12-18-14, 09:57
So... essentially, they're reviving the Vertec.
With non disclosed internal mods.
Nothing wrong with that, I liked the Vertecs I've handled. I'm pretty sure I'll grab the commercial version when it drops.
With non disclosed internal mods.
Why the **** did they keep the safety on the slide? If they just put it on the frame like any half way sane manufacturer, added the rail they did already, and reduced the grip size just a little, it would be perfect as is.
Well not perfect, but worlds better.
In the AF, we kept the safety OFF at all times. We only used it as a decocking lever.
It's terrible.
If this uses standard M9 mags that are already in the supply system, that's another logistics point in Beretta's favor.
It uses existing mags. But they state that the 17 rounders will be standard I think.
The frame safety is largely a training issue IMO. If your used to it you can always ride your thumb along it in the draw, ensuring it's flipped off. Even less of a problem when you consider it has a decocker only option.
sinlessorrow
12-18-14, 12:07
If this uses standard M9 mags that are already in the supply system, that's another logistics point in Beretta's favor.
It uses a modified vertec frame so it works fine with all M9/92 mags, though they do say 17rnds will come standard.
brickboy240
12-18-14, 14:06
So the big innovation for Beretta is....a 92 Vertec with a rail?
ZZZZZZZZZ
With non disclosed internal mods.
Supposedly can be converted to a decocker only G setup, and a couple of external ergonomic enhancements.
sinlessorrow
12-18-14, 14:50
So the big innovation for Beretta is....a 92 Vertec with a rail?
ZZZZZZZZZ
With non disclosed internal design and material changes to enhance reliability and durability. Probably have to wait till SHOT to see those, if not commercial release.
Also given this is an ECP and that it will be cheaper than the current M9 it is good design. Also easy to get into service since according to Beretta their contract allows them to make such mods without having to do anything with the contract.
Supposedly can be converted to a decocker only G setup, and a couple of external ergonomic enhancements.
Which is what I will do to mine when they release.
wildcard600
12-18-14, 15:08
So the big innovation for Beretta is....a 92 Vertec with 2 extra slots on the rail and a paint job ?
ZZZZZZZZZ
fixed it for ya.
BUT DAT INTERNAL MODS BRAH !!!!
If they sell a non-vertec commercial model i might be tempeted to pick one up, but otherwise it dosent seem like anything earth shatterering since the M9A1 also had "internal mods" for reliababilitai.
Echoing an earlier comment...what happened to the M9A2?
So the big innovation for Beretta is....a 92 Vertec with a rail?
ZZZZZZZZZ
Who said anything about "big innovation"?
Something that can slot reasonably well into the current M9 inventory makes more sense than some big revolutionary shift to another platform that people on gun forums get so tumescent fantasizing about. It's not like there's anything fundamentally wrong with the M9 if you don't take the "stolen lawnmower" approach to maintenance.
wildcard600
12-18-14, 16:13
Who said anything about "big innovation"?
Something that can slot reasonably well into the current M9 inventory makes more sense than some big revolutionary shift to another platform that people on gun forums get so tumescent fantasizing about. It's not like there's anything fundamentally wrong with the M9 if you don't take the "stolen lawnmower" approach to maintenance.
i think he was being facetious.
JBecker 72
12-18-14, 16:37
Ernest Langdon posted this on Pistol-Forum (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?14342-Beretta-M9A3-Is-this-modular-enough&p=278417&viewfull=1#post278417):
Oh yes. I'll be getting one then since it can have the same grip shape as a 92 and can be converted to a G easily like the PX4.
This is outstanding news IMO.
Oh yes. I'll be getting one then since it can have the same grip shape as a 92 and can be converted to a G easily like the PX4.
This is outstanding news IMO.
I agree. I must have one!
It should be a long, light DAO like a DAK/LEM. With no safety or decocker.
Why didn't Beretta do this a few years ago when the Army contemplated a new weapon?
They were pushing their 'Px4 Storm SD Type F' in .45ACP during that competition.
Maybe Beretta is finally realizing that people want more 92 variants and not Px4s.
Serious Account
12-19-14, 02:26
It's a shame that they aren't going to include the recoil buffer...
I wonder why, though? It seems to be a neat feature in the 92A1 that reduce recoil felt by shooters and on parts, and therefore increase the pistol's lifespan... Odd that they left this part out in a military pistol..
It's a shame that they aren't going to include the recoil buffer...
I wonder why, though? It seems to be a neat feature in the 92A1 that reduce recoil felt by shooters and on parts, and therefore increase the pistol's lifespan... Odd that they left this part out in a military pistol..
Is it similar to the Shok Buff used by Wilson in 1911's? If so it will come apart and lock up the weapon if not replaced at appropriate intervals. Since most of the military doesn't do preventative maintenance on small arms and they shoot the weapons until something breaks, I could see leaving that part out.
Alpha Sierra
12-19-14, 06:07
I fail to get the fascination with this pistol
DreadPirateMoyer
12-19-14, 07:06
Is it similar to the Shok Buff used by Wilson in 1911's? If so it will come apart and lock up the weapon if not replaced at appropriate intervals. Since most of the military doesn't do preventative maintenance on small arms and they shoot the weapons until something breaks, I could see leaving that part out.
No. It's a piece of aluminum that distributes the force across more surface area to decrease wear on parts. It's a good addition. Wish it were included on this one.
I fail to get the fascination with this pistol
k
No. It's a piece of aluminum that distributes the force across more surface area to decrease wear on parts. It's a good addition. Wish it were included on this one.
k
The recoil buffer makes the firearm incompatible with any other modern 90 series Beretta. Because the 90Two, 92A1, and 96A1 use the captured recoil assembly and the frame buffer, their slides are not able to be swapped on M9s, 92FS, 92G, etc. It would make sense to not use the buffer to maintain that compatibility, although it isn't used in the military like that.
Additionally, a frame buffer is not necessary for the 9mm Berettas. You rarely ever hear about frames failing on the 9mm. I've never heard of one, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Breaking locking blocks and slides at the thinnest point are more common than a frame failure. The buffer was created for the .40 S&W, but Beretta kept it for their 9mm variants of the 90Two and for the 92A1.
It should be a long, light DAO like a DAK/LEM. With no safety or decocker.
I qual'ed on a 92d vertec at FLETC, they are very nice guns. It took me a while to adjust to DAOs, but I'd rather have a consistent trigger than a da/sa.
DreadPirateMoyer
12-19-14, 08:10
The recoil buffer makes the firearm incompatible with any other modern 90 series Beretta. Because the 90Two, 92A1, and 96A1 use the captured recoil assembly and the frame buffer, their slides are not able to be swapped on M9s, 92FS, 92G, etc. It would make sense to not use the buffer to maintain that compatibility, although it isn't used in the military like that.
Additionally, a frame buffer is not necessary for the 9mm Berettas. You rarely ever hear about frames failing on the 9mm. I've never heard of one, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Breaking locking blocks and slides at the thinnest point are more common than a frame failure. The buffer was created for the .40 S&W, but Beretta kept it for their 9mm variants of the 90Two and for the 92A1.
Yes. Your lecture is correct if they just did a straight buffer import from a 92A1. They didn't/don't have to use the one from the 92A1 series, though. They could've engineered something to maintain compatibility with standard 92s while including this feature. Would have been helpful.
And it is necessary on a suppressed 92. They take a beating from the suppressor pistons since the pistons are tuned for Browning locking mechanisms, which require more force to unlock than the Beretta. Considering this comes with a threaded barrel, it's an important feature to have.
It's also helpful in general. Less wear is less wear, especially on military firearms that are poorly maintained. Frame cracks happen a lot more on 9mm 92s than you think, especially when the RSA/spring isn't replaced regularly.
How this feature always creates weird outrage is beyond me.
brickboy240
12-19-14, 11:31
Too bad our military won't just adopt the Glock 17 and call it good.
That fat butt Beretta with its awkward slide mounted safety and 3 yard long trigger needs to go away....sorry.
Alpha Sierra
12-19-14, 11:58
CZ SP-01 Tactical or CZ P-09 > Beretta M9
Nothing wrong with that, I liked the Vertecs I've handled. I'm pretty sure I'll grab the commercial version when it drops.
what is the grip size like? compare to say a g17.
Yes. Your lecture is correct if they just did a straight buffer import from a 92A1. They didn't/don't have to use the one from the 92A1 series, though. They could've engineered something to maintain compatibility with standard 92s while including this feature. Would have been helpful.
And it is necessary on a suppressed 92. They take a beating from the suppressor pistons since the pistons are tuned for Browning locking mechanisms, which require more force to unlock than the Beretta. Considering this comes with a threaded barrel, it's an important feature to have.
It's also helpful in general. Less wear is less wear, especially on military firearms that are poorly maintained. Frame cracks happen a lot more on 9mm 92s than you think, especially when the RSA/spring isn't replaced regularly.
How this feature always creates weird outrage is beyond me.
why is suppressing the general issue sidearm important?
the specialized units that need quiet side arms don't use the beretta much do they?
There isn't going to be any new military sidearm. They run such tests virtually every year, and nothing comes out of it other than a waste of tax-payer money and time.
I can't believe that pistol manufacturers even bother sending anything in for evaluation.
Alpha Sierra
12-19-14, 13:55
the specialized units that need quiet side arms don't use the beretta much do they?
Not now, but if the std issue pistol is suppressor compatible then that should be looked at and re-evaluated.
BuzzinSATX
12-19-14, 15:30
Who said anything about "big innovation"?
Something that can slot reasonably well into the current M9 inventory makes more sense than some big revolutionary shift to another platform that people on gun forums get so tumescent fantasizing about. It's not like there's anything fundamentally wrong with the M9 if you don't take the "stolen lawnmower" approach to maintenance.
Financially, it will be a big deal to replace all those M92's, and as they really have no reliability or capacity issues, it does seem like a waste of tax dollars to go replace the entire platform, but replacing perfectly functional stuff is much of government's typical procedure.
My only issue ever with the M92 is the grip size. I've simply seen too many USAF security forces females who stood 5'0" and couldn't have weighed over a "buck-ten" soaking wet, with a big ass M92 strapped onto a drop leg rig and I've wondered if she'd really be able to effectively wield it to take out a threat like Fort Hood's "Major Jihad".
My daughter is 23 years old, 5'2", and weighs 120. She cannot comfortably grip and shoot a G19 G4 in it's smallest configuration, so I ended up buying her a 3.8 Compact XDm
Guess I'd like to see a smaller framed/better ergonomic option for some of our more "petit" soldiers, airmen, marines, and sailors...
When the UK decided to replace their worn-out Browning Hi-Powers with a new pistol, it wasn't such a political issue as it's going to be here. They tested the HK P30, SIG P-226, Glock 17 Gen 4, Beretta PX4, and the Smith & Wesson M&P9. Testing locations were the UK, Brunei, Norway, and Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. According to the Requirements Officer (a Royal Marines Warrant Officer) "Glock was the clear winner". And that was that.
I doubt that our process is going to be so cut-and-dried.
attrapereves
12-19-14, 21:58
I really wish Beretta would heavily modify, or just ditch the 92/M9 platform all together. This pistol is nothing more than an M9A1 with a new paint job and a thinner grip.
From BerettaUSA.com, the arched grip....
http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee515/cathellsk/54b9c31266577515598adcdd27a55126.jpg
sinlessorrow
12-20-14, 10:32
When the UK decided to replace their worn-out Browning Hi-Powers with a new pistol, it wasn't such a political issue as it's going to be here. They tested the HK P30, SIG P-226, Glock 17 Gen 4, Beretta PX4, and the Smith & Wesson M&P9. Testing locations were the UK, Brunei, Norway, and Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. According to the Requirements Officer (a Royal Marines Warrant Officer) "Glock was the clear winner". And that was that.
I doubt that our process is going to be so cut-and-dried.
They also only had to buy 25,000. We will need a whole lot more than 500,000.
Looks good. The GRIP is the major issue, and maybe this solves that. I recently had a thread comparing the 226 to the 92G. In the end I went with the 226 (a used CPO gun) instead because of the 'end of baseball bat' feel of the 92. Especially with gloves, the 92 doesn't feel as good as the SIG, and the trigger is harder to use from the DA. Maybe the vertec gets it done.
The other thing I don't prefer the 92 for is the exposed muzzle. The thing is hanging out there waiting to get battered, and provides no advantage unless threaded. A threaded barrel for the average troop is useless.
For those wondering about the decocker: I would want a G model for sure, or better yet a manual safety model (frame mounted) with a very positive safety. BUT, for the average troop in the field, the safety advantages for a pistol carried and rarely used, the addition of a safety is an advantage. Ever been awake for 3 days? Ever get about 4 hours sleep avg for 2-3 weeks. You don't function 100%. For even a tanker, you take the safety off before exiting the hatch, (or a driver bailing a truck, or even an infantryman prior to LD, etc.). The pistol is completely secondary. The employment of a pistol for a soldier is different than for a Cop, or special operator. For the average soldier the pistol will be carried much and almost never used.
Logistics vs. tactics - in 'Big Army' logistics wins. We are not maneuverists at heart. While we have progressed immeasurably in small unit tactics for COIN in the past 15 years, we will not get past logistics on a huge scale in the end, and the pistol choice is not important on that level. The need for a new caliber, a manual safety or striker fire for immediate employment, or a new firearm platform is minimal at best.
I really wish Beretta would heavily modify, or just ditch the 92/M9 platform all together. This pistol is nothing more than an M9A1 with a new paint job and a thinner grip.
Heavily modify it to do what?
What benefits would ditching the 92 platform bring?
What features should the military be looking for in a handgun that isn't being met with this variation?
When the UK decided to replace their worn-out Browning Hi-Powers with a new pistol, it wasn't such a political issue as it's going to be here. They tested the HK P30, SIG P-226, Glock 17 Gen 4, Beretta PX4, and the Smith & Wesson M&P9. Testing locations were the UK, Brunei, Norway, and Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. According to the Requirements Officer (a Royal Marines Warrant Officer) "Glock was the clear winner". And that was that.
Quite a logical conclusion...
Everyone in here saying the army should buy a Glock and be done with it is drastically overestimating the ability of the average soldier with minimal handgun training to be safe with safe action pistols.
Everyone in here saying the army should buy a Glock and be done with it is drastically overestimating the ability of the average soldier with minimal handgun training to be safe with safe action pistols.
Agreed. I can't think of anyone in the military that would think otherwise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well few in the military are issued pistols.
It's also simpler. Again, the AF doesn't use the safety on the M9. The only thing externally preventing a discharge is the double action.
A striker pistol would work fine.
Just train people to keep their finger off the trigger. Every thing else about the gun is simpler to use and learn about.
All that being said, the m9 works well enough and isn't used often enough that I think any replacement program needs to have cost savings as a priority or it isn't worth it.
Everyone in here saying the army should buy a Glock and be done with it is drastically overestimating the ability of the average soldier with minimal handgun training to be safe with safe action pistols.
Can't really dispute that point. So does that mean that the average British soldier is better trained than the average US soldier, or do they take safety perhaps more seriously than we do?
"Just train them to keep their finger off the trigger"
Sounds simple, and if you spend plenty of time training with proper stress it bears out.
The problem is that for MOST soldiers, pistol training time is minimal. The US Army will err on the side logistic simplicity and safety.
IZinterrogator
12-20-14, 18:57
Echoing an earlier comment...what happened to the M9A2?
Friend of mine at Beretta says that was a service level upgrade proposal that was never put into service.
"Just train them to keep their finger off the trigger"
Sounds simple, and if you spend plenty of time training with proper stress it bears out.
The problem is that for MOST soldiers, pistol training time is minimal. The US Army will err on the side logistic simplicity and safety.
Most soldiers don't even get a pistol though.
ramairthree
12-21-14, 10:17
We got issued the Berettas and traded in our 1911s for them around 1987. I bought my first one in 1991.
I was never a fan of the Vertec frame. I thought the radiused back strap they have on the standard 92s now was plenty of a reduction in grip.
I also thought the EII frame and M9A1 frame were perfect for a railed a non-railed platform.
I have watched a few very small men and young women handle a Vertec now and have to say, the decreased grip size is significant compared to the standard Beretta.
I was a fan of the Brigadier slide for a while. I still like it.
This version of a Beretta seems to address:
a full length barrel on a Vertec slide- allows for threading/can vs. the standard Vertec or Elite barrel
Slide can be converted to FS or G- brilliant overdue update to this series
Vertec slide- the benefits of a standard changeable front sight, holster compatibility with regular slides (the weak point of Brigs)
kept M9 trigger guard- sure, nobody puts their finger there, but holster compatibility unlike the 92A1 or Wilson
grip to mimic classic M9 shape- keeps familiarity for those that want it, smaller grip for those that need it when off
no 90-two/92A1 recoil system- Good. Parts compatibility no issue.
Beveled magwell/checkering
My guess is that the M9A2 is the M9A1 frame with this upper. I would prefer one of those to this,
but maybe should rethink it.
I used to think Langdon was 99% awesome, and 1% crazy for preferring the Vertec upper over the Elite/Brig upper. But the genius in holster and equipment capability is something I would like know. By the way, when the hell did he go to Ranger school? There was a Recon guy in my class (yes, like over 27 years ago) I remember talking about handguns with.
I think Beretta really did a good job on this pistol. Off the shelf parts with minor mods addressing all issues with the M9. There is a decent amount of homework in this pistol.
It is not the "WTF were they thinking" I usually associate with one of their offerings.
About 4 years ago it was rare to see another Beretta (or big metal 9mm) in Production around where I am.
Since then there have been way more shooters and increasing numbers of Berettas and all metal guns.
An M9A1 framed G model with Vertec upper, FO front sight, etc. I think would have been, especially in a nice case with a bladetec holster/magpouch, stealing some of the XD/MP/Glock sales from some of the new shooters and a great option to replace older Berettas.
As for mags,
the standard Beretta made 15s have been good in my experience. Even the Checkmates are fine to abuse here.
I am not a huge fan of the 17 round factory mags. Too light to drop free empty all the time for me. Also the only mags I have broken a follower on when dropping.
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu220/ramairfour/Range/DSC00198.jpg (http://s649.photobucket.com/user/ramairfour/media/Range/DSC00198.jpg.html)
I prefer the Mec-Gar 18 and 20 round mags to those. (the factory 20s are just too long)
However, they are thin like the 17 round mag bodies and bulge a little. Sometimes a half full mag will not drop free on these type of bodies.
The best mags to me are when I take a new sand resistant mag. They are so smooth. I put a NDZ metal baseplate on them and they are perfect weight for everything. I was going to put in old metal followers but the stock ones have done fine.
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu220/ramairfour/2014-11/3555E606-041D-429B-B966-F730EEACE832_zpslzqltlmk.jpg (http://s649.photobucket.com/user/ramairfour/media/2014-11/3555E606-041D-429B-B966-F730EEACE832_zpslzqltlmk.jpg.html)
I can't pass a good deal on a used Beretta. I do not think the platform is perfect. But accurate, reliable, and works. I have some grip strength and recoil sensitive issues I did not used to have and this platform has really worked out great for me as double stack .45s and Glocks get far less use from me now.
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu220/ramairfour/2014-11/A804AD47-F93A-4746-92A8-CC670B26CC02_zps6ejotiga.jpg (http://s649.photobucket.com/user/ramairfour/media/2014-11/A804AD47-F93A-4746-92A8-CC670B26CC02_zps6ejotiga.jpg.html)
As much as I love my new Wilson, and love the Elites and Brigs,
I am seriously contemplating consolidating into just regular slides for compatibility (standard or Vertec). I also could stand to standardized to one light.
Edit:
G vs FS vs D
I carried an M9 secondary for years and years and also as a primary for some stuff.
They are not a great concealable gun in my opinion say, compared to a G19 for similar firepower.
http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu220/ramairfour/DSCN1232_zpsa15aed04.jpg (http://s649.photobucket.com/user/ramairfour/media/DSCN1232_zpsa15aed04.jpg.html)
of course, the military M9 was FS.
Regardless of if you carried on safe or fire, you have to train to put on fire on the draw. Many times it would not be on the position it was left on when you check it.
Some say on the FS model it may be on safe and you will mind fart and not put it on fire when you go to shoot under stress. Training addresses this. Some also say carrying on safe has saved some cops lives when a bag guy got their gun.
The D model also addressed this. It is a great DA pull, compared to say a third gen Smith. But I prefer the G.
Some say the G is perfect because you will never mind fart and it will never be on safe, get knocked on safe, etc.
Some say the G is bad because a bad guy will get your gun and it is not on safe.
Everyone in here saying the army should buy a Glock and be done with it is drastically overestimating the ability of the average soldier with minimal handgun training to be safe with safe action pistols.
Perhaps the army could attemp to raise the training to the stratospheric level of the average US cop, or even the brits... :)
I don't know if logistics will win over pistol qualities, but IMO (and I like the beretta) the glock is a better design.
This thread is really making me want to a buy a Beretta. But which one..... I ponder....
ramairthree
12-21-14, 19:14
Perhaps the army could attemp to raise the training to the stratospheric level of the average US cop, or even the brits... :)
I don't know if logistics will win over pistol qualities, but IMO (and I like the beretta) the glock is a better design.
I don't think that makes sense at this point in time.
Updated pistols with parts/service compatibility with the hundreds of thousands already in service seems to make more sense.
sinlessorrow
12-21-14, 22:29
This thread is really making me want to a buy a Beretta. But which one..... I ponder....
Wait till Q2 2015 and get the 92A3.
Wait till Q2 2015 and get the 92A3.
Point well noted
sidewaysil80
12-22-14, 02:15
My only gripe with the M9 is grip thickness. Does the new one share the same dimensions as the older variants?
RAM Engineer
12-23-14, 15:59
My wishlist:
1. A version in black, without the threaded barrel.
2. Dawson Precision and/or Wilson Combat making some good fiber optic fronts, to pair with Wilson's rear sight.
3. An updated 92 Compact based on this gun as opposed to the M9A1...with updated 15 round magazines vs current 13 rounds.
4. Factory slides/kits available to commercial market to update older guns to "M9A2" spec.
With non disclosed internal design and material changes to enhance reliability and durability.
Does that mean that locking blocks will last 2k rounds, and barrels and frames and slides will last 3k? I'll believe it when I see it. Vertec brought up to 2006, what an advancement. Awesome.
The awesome-retta is great for people whole get one box of ammo per annum to practice for their semi-annual qual, but for people who actually use a gun for a living they are so much of a pain. They are quite accurate and easy to shoot, but here's to hoping this turd gets flushed and the DoD buys a proper pistol.
Heck, even Jack Bauer would use the M9A3 :p
brushy bill
12-23-14, 17:16
Does that mean that locking blocks will last 2k rounds, and barrels and frames and slides will last 3k? I'll believe it when I see it. Vertec brought up to 2006, what an advancement. Awesome.
The awesome-retta is great for people whole get one box of ammo per annum to practice for their semi-annual qual, but for people who actually use a gun for a living they are so much of a pain. They are quite accurate and easy to shoot, but here's to hoping this turd gets flushed and the DoD buys a proper pistol.
Not being a wise guy, but did you mean 2K and 3K or 20K and 30K? I can see a locking block going giving out prematurely, but a barrel at 3K seemed pretty extreme?
You would think that the M9's chrome-lined barrel would have somewhat more life than a non-chromed barrel.
ramairthree
12-23-14, 18:03
I have seen first gen locking blocks give out in the 5 to 10 range with poor maintained/lubed M9s.
Only frame or slide damage seen from broken locking blocks.
Seen plenty of barrels and frames in the 50K range shooting away.
I am assuming sarcasm, but bashing Berettas like that was very cool when griping about the whole Army going to black berets, real units having .45s, and stone washed jeans were current.
sinlessorrow
12-23-14, 19:06
Does that mean that locking blocks will last 2k rounds, and barrels and frames and slides will last 3k? I'll believe it when I see it. Vertec brought up to 2006, what an advancement. Awesome.
The awesome-retta is great for people whole get one box of ammo per annum to practice for their semi-annual qual, but for people who actually use a gun for a living they are so much of a pain. They are quite accurate and easy to shoot, but here's to hoping this turd gets flushed and the DoD buys a proper pistol.
I know you're a SME and all that but are you serious about the 2,000 round life of the M9?
Hopefully it is sarcasm, because you cannot honestly expect amyone to believe what you wrote.
brushy bill
12-25-14, 19:43
Is there a difference in the Vertec and M9 / 92FS slides other than the dovetail for sights? I've read on a gun broker advertisement that the Vertec slide is beefed up...I know the Brigadier is, but thought the Vertec was same dimensions as the M9 / 92FS...anyone know?
I don't know mm vs mm details, but my Verteced 92FS fits perfectly into a 92 holster.
turnburglar
12-30-14, 22:41
The military doesn't use the pistol for shooting people. Anyone that is a designated hitter will use a rifle at the minimum. Maximum up to and including a guided missile. The pistol is used more of a hand to hand combat suppliment. That said, the glock 19 is clearly better suited than the m9.
What the military needs out of a handgun is easier maintenance, lighter weight, and increased reliability. The glock 19 addresses all of these issues, while being cheaper to buy in the first place.
ramairthree
12-30-14, 23:06
The military doesn't use the pistol for shooting people. Anyone that is a designated hitter will use a rifle at the minimum. Maximum up to and including a guided missile. The pistol is used more of a hand to hand combat suppliment. That said, the glock 19 is clearly better suited than the m9.
What the military needs out of a handgun is easier maintenance, lighter weight, and increased reliability. The glock 19 addresses all of these issues, while being cheaper to buy in the first place.
Yeah,
because the new off the shelf Gen 4 Glock 19s had how much more reliability than M9/92s?
The military doesn't use the pistol for shooting people. Anyone that is a designated hitter will use a rifle at the minimum. Maximum up to and including a guided missile. The pistol is used more of a hand to hand combat suppliment. That said, the glock 19 is clearly better suited than the m9.
What the military needs out of a handgun is easier maintenance, lighter weight, and increased reliability. The glock 19 addresses all of these issues, while being cheaper to buy in the first place.
why not 17?
Does Glock have a US production facility?
I had thought there was a search for a new mil side arm with various manufacturers submitting their pistols for assessment? Did Berretta "win" the contract? I'm always confused about what the status is with US mil side arms. This this Big Green Only?
Does Glock have a US production facility?
A number of models built in GA I had thought.
BUOPtimus Prime
01-03-15, 15:11
I had thought there was a search for a new mil side arm with various manufacturers submitting their pistols for assessment? Did Berretta "win" the contract? I'm always confused about what the status is with US mil side arms. This this Big Green Only?
From what I understand there is the MHS program, which is what you are referring to. Beretta is trying to circumvent competing with other manufacturers and retain the contract by submitting the ECP, which would update the M9 to the M9A3. If accepted it may also preclude the need for the MHS program. I believe the MHS is a US Army and US Air Force program.
MountainRaven
01-03-15, 15:35
Does Glock have a US production facility?
Yes.
During the last scare, it was not uncommon to find USA-roll marked Glocks on shelves. I haven't seen many of them of late, though.
My understanding is that they're chiefly for contracts that specify American-made guns. Like, say, a contract for Glocks from Israel (or any other country enjoying US support) where Israel (or whoever) wants to spend some of the money donated by the US government that is required to be spent on US-made products.
From what I understand there is the MHS program, which is what you are referring to. Beretta is trying to circumvent competing with other manufacturers and retain the contract by submitting the ECP, which would update the M9 to the M9A3. If accepted it may also preclude the need for the MHS program. I believe the MHS is a US Army and US Air Force program.
As the Army ordered 100K of them, it appears the strategy is working. I think the US mil should have a US designed and built side arm personally. It offends my senses we don't, but it's not like side arms are the bread and butter of the Army.
sinlessorrow
01-03-15, 18:33
As the Army ordered 100K of them, it appears the strategy is working. I think the US mil should have a US designed and built side arm personally. It offends my senses we don't, but it's not like side arms are the bread and butter of the Army.
At least they are made in the USA by American workers. Country of deisng doesn't matter much to me.
At least they are made in the USA by American workers. Country of deisng doesn't matter much to me.
Agreed. Look at the metric $hit ton of small arms FNH produces for the US Armed forces. At least they employ lots of American Workers, like Beretta does (and I'm sure Glock would if they won a contract).
I've read numerous articles, posts, etc about soldiers having issues with the M9 series from dust, dirt, etc.
All second hand to me, obviously, but if true, wouldn't it at least be worth a look at what else is available?
I understand the logistics of sticking with the same, and all of the potential cost savings on mags, holsters, etc. But still.
Just a thought from a non-soldier with no "field" experiences with the M9 outside of the range.
I've read numerous articles, posts, etc about soldiers having issues with the M9 series from dust, dirt, etc.
All second hand to me, obviously, but if true, wouldn't it at least be worth a look at what else is available?
I understand the logistics of sticking with the same, and all of the potential cost savings on mags, holsters, etc. But still.
Just a thought from a non-soldier with no "field" experiences with the M9 outside of the range.
Regardless of that, I think adoption of a pistol that the average joe could be trained to completely takedown and replace parts in a couple hours would be a plus.
Add that to the fact that for most striker fired pistols you could carry the critical parts (absent barrel and trigger bar - assuming you modify the .mil version to use a non-captured recoil spring) in two Skoal cans and you have a more militarily suited sidearm than either the M9 series or the 1911's.
Regardless of that, I think adoption of a pistol that the average joe could be trained to completely takedown and replace parts in a couple hours would be a plus.
Add that to the fact that for most striker fired pistols you could carry the critical parts (absent barrel and trigger bar - assuming you modify the .mil version to use a non-captured recoil spring) in two Skoal cans and you have a more militarily suited sidearm than either the M9 series or the 1911's.
The military doesn't even spend enough time or money on actually training people to shoot handguns. There is no way this would happen. There is also no need for everyone issued a sidearm to be able to disassemble it completely either.
Most importantly, even if the military spent eleventy billion dollars to train everyone - and factoring in the simplicity of completely disassembling a Glock - there are still idiots who would mess it up. That's what an armorer is for. The military should use the money to actually teach people BASIC safety principles and how to effectively employ a sidearm.
The M9A3 is an improvement in many ways over the stock M9 though. If it is cheaper than the M9, like Beretta says it is, then it would be a good choice.
I've read numerous articles, posts, etc about soldiers having issues with the M9 series from dust, dirt, etc.
I think it's been pretty well documented by now that the M9's bad rap fron early in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts stemmed from the cheap US made checkmate magazines that were purchased en mass by the US mil. The majority of those have been phased out (I never ran across one in 6 years, 3 of those as a USMC combat marksmanship trainer) and replaced by higher quality Italian OEM mags.
It's also my belief that 99% (hyperbole, but you get the picture) of service members never get enough time behind an M9 to have a truly informed opinion on the gun, and most of the bitching about it is just recycled gripes that from the guy before him, who heard it from the guy before him, ad nauseam. Not saying the M9 is the perfect pistol - it's far from my first choice - but IME it's every bit as reliable and accurate as my personal glocks or issued sig. And honestly the A3 version addresses two of my 3 largest gripes with the gun - grip size and sight options. Now if the .mil would just move to a rebounding decocker (and stop using ball ammo, but that's not the gun's fault) it would be as viable as any other quality DA/SA duty pistol IMO.
I think it's been pretty well documented by now that the M9's bad rap fron early in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts stemmed from the cheap US made checkmate magazines that were purchased en mass by the US mil. The majority of those have been phased out (I never ran across one in 6 years, 3 of those as a USMC combat marksmanship trainer) and replaced by higher quality Italian OEM mags.
It's also my belief that 99% (hyperbole, but you get the picture) of service members never get enough time behind an M9 to have a truly informed opinion on the gun, and most of the bitching about it is just recycled gripes that from the guy before him, who heard it from the guy before him, ad nauseam. Not saying the M9 is the perfect pistol - it's far from my first choice - but IME it's every bit as reliable and accurate as my personal glocks or issued sig. And honestly the A3 version addresses two of my 3 largest gripes with the gun - grip size and sight options. Now if the .mil would just move to a rebounding decocker (and stop using ball ammo, but that's not the gun's fault) it would be as viable as any other quality DA/SA duty pistol IMO.
I've read that the M9A3 will have a safety that can be switched between the standard safety/decocker and a G style decocker only.
ETA: It's earlier in this thread. See post 32.
I've read that the M9A3 will have a safety that can be switched between the standard safety/decocker and a G style decocker only.
That would be great news. Now in the "big" Corps at least, all those sexy 'G' conversion parts will probably sit in the armory collecting dust thanks to the folks-with-the-shiny-things-on-their-collars' aversion to "removing a safety device"
[...]the cheap US made checkmate magazines [...] replaced by higher quality Italian OEM mags.
This just sounds plain wrong. When I grow up (in commie Poland), we knew, just knew, that everything "Made in USA" is the best stuff around there (OK, "Made in Japan" and "Made in W. Germany" was good as well). And "Made in Italy" was ... looking nice and then just breaks apart instantly. I know it is (big) off-topic, but this struck me like "hell, what went wrong?".
While at this topic. This is funny thing, that US military being most "cutting edge", loaded full of most advanced technologies, it actually one of slowest and most conservative when it comes to small arms. It not always was the case, but looks like it is for past 40 or 50 years. M9 was a very nice gun, for it it's time. But pistols advanced very much since then in terms of ergonomy, reliability, durability, ease of service, etc. Does really smoothing out wrinkles by injecting botox here and there is all that US military needs to go on with this pistol for next 10, 20, 30 years? I realize that pistol is not most important part of soldiers equipment, but (like rifle) it is far from being dead, as modern kind of asymmetric and hybrid warfare proves.
Montral,
Totally off topic but I love reading your posts given your competency with the english language. It must be even more interesting in person. Rock on sir.
Thanks, but even if you could survive my poor grammar and limited vocabulary, my pronunciation and accent would kill you anyway ;)
I think it's been pretty well documented by now that the M9's bad rap fron early in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts stemmed from the cheap US made checkmate magazines that were purchased en mass by the US mil. The majority of those have been phased out (I never ran across one in 6 years, 3 of those as a USMC combat marksmanship trainer) and replaced by higher quality Italian OEM mags.
It's also my belief that 99% (hyperbole, but you get the picture) of service members never get enough time behind an M9 to have a truly informed opinion on the gun, and most of the bitching about it is just recycled gripes that from the guy before him, who heard it from the guy before him, ad nauseam. Not saying the M9 is the perfect pistol - it's far from my first choice - but IME it's every bit as reliable and accurate as my personal glocks or issued sig. And honestly the A3 version addresses two of my 3 largest gripes with the gun - grip size and sight options. Now if the .mil would just move to a rebounding decocker (and stop using ball ammo, but that's not the gun's fault) it would be as viable as any other quality DA/SA duty pistol IMO.
Interesting perspective. I haven't seen much published on that. But honestly, I didn't really research it fully.
BUOPtimus Prime
01-05-15, 09:19
Interesting perspective. I haven't seen much published on that. But honestly, I didn't really research it fully.
I think it's been pretty well documented by now that the M9's bad rap fron early in the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts stemmed from the cheap US made checkmate magazines that were purchased en mass by the US mil. The majority of those have been phased out (I never ran across one in 6 years, 3 of those as a USMC combat marksmanship trainer) and replaced by higher quality Italian OEM mags.
It's also my belief that 99% (hyperbole, but you get the picture) of service members never get enough time behind an M9 to have a truly informed opinion on the gun, and most of the bitching about it is just recycled gripes that from the guy before him, who heard it from the guy before him, ad nauseam. Not saying the M9 is the perfect pistol - it's far from my first choice - but IME it's every bit as reliable and accurate as my personal glocks or issued sig. And honestly the A3 version addresses two of my 3 largest gripes with the gun - grip size and sight options. Now if the .mil would just move to a rebounding decocker (and stop using ball ammo, but that's not the gun's fault) it would be as viable as any other quality DA/SA duty pistol IMO.
I was just in a class with LAV a few weeks ago, and he said as much regarding the M9. More specifically, he mentioned the importance of maintenance intervals. Given this was a 1911 class, the importance of regularly changing recoil springs, for example, was the perfect context.
Psalms144.1
01-05-15, 11:26
My thoughts on the project, writ large:
1. I've heard from folks I trust that one of the largest impetus' for this program in total was to increase "handgun lethality" - and that the program managers were looking for something chambered in .4X caliber. If that's the case, I think the M9A3 may have trouble, as the RUMORS of the M9's durability with 9mm are rife
2. IF the powers that be decided to stick with a 9mm pistol, the M9A3 doesn't offer enough improvement over current issued M9 to make "the juice worth the squeeze." I was at USSOCOM when the Mk16 (SCAR-L) program was scrapped, because, during wartime USSOCOM-level budgets, there wasn't enough "gain" from the Mk16 over the M4 to make it worth adopting - and the Mk16 offered numerous improvements and enhanced flexibility over the Mk18/M4, but in the end, it came down to cost.
3. While "made in the USA" is a major argument to overcome, all of the contenders (including Beretta) have manufacturing in the US. Who's congressional district has more pull is VERY likely to be a major determinant in what pistol (if any) gets the MHS contract.
WRT the M9 as a fighting pistol, I carried one for 10.5 of my 12 years in the Army, and, for open carry, I had very few issues with it. Accurate, reliable, decent trigger, capacity on par with competitors. We RARELY shot our often enough to break anything, or to really find out what long term reliability was. When I joined civilian LE, we had M9s as well, and, in one year, my 12-agent team broke 8 out of 12 assigned M9s with fairly rigorous training. Locking blocks failed, NUMEROUS safety levers broke off, one slide cracked. The M11 (P228s) that replaced them were much more robust, and much better suited to concealed carry.
When all is said and done, I don't know how anyone will come up with a more "Modular" handgun than the P320...
Army Rejects M9A3 Proposal, Opts for New Pistol
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/09/army-rejects-m9a3-proposal-opts-for-new-pistol.html
sinlessorrow
01-09-15, 14:29
Army Rejects M9A3 Proposal, Opts for New Pistol
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/09/army-rejects-m9a3-proposal-opts-for-new-pistol.html
This could either be good or really really bad.
If they select a MHP then good, if they do not select anything then they just turned down an upgraded M9 and then they are stuck with the basic M9 forever.
The Dumb Gun Collector
01-09-15, 16:06
I would really like to see them move back to .45. FN,HK, and Smith make suitable candidates right now. Glock could conjure up a safety for their G21 and be in the running too.
RAM Engineer
01-09-15, 16:17
If they do not select anything then they just turned down an upgraded M9 and then they are stuck with the basic M9 forever.
No, they're not. The ECP process is independent of the Selection of a new handgun. They could implement this ECP any time they want to, provided they have the funding to do so, which they would presumably have if they don't spend money on MHS. I would even venture to guess that a few other colors of money than their MHS acquisition dollars could be used for an ECP that would sustain the current fleet.
Well, even if the Army isn't interested, there's probably legions of Beretta fans who would plunk down cash for one.
I would really like to see them move back to .45. FN,HK, and Smith make suitable candidates right now. Glock could conjure up a safety for their G21 and be in the running too.
And still to this day, why is a safety such a big deal when many law enforcement and militaries around the world use Glock pistols with out a problem??
Deja-vu all over again...
If "handgun lethality" is really what they seek then they need stop using FMJ ammo and start using some of the better modern hollow point ammo. We really need to start ignoring the outdated Article IV, Section 3 of the 1899 Hague Convention...
My thoughts on the project, writ large:
1. I've heard from folks I trust that one of the largest impetus' for this program in total was to increase "handgun lethality" - and that the program managers were looking for something chambered in .4X caliber. If that's the case, I think the M9A3 may have trouble, as the RUMORS of the M9's durability with 9mm are rife
2. IF the powers that be decided to stick with a 9mm pistol, the M9A3 doesn't offer enough improvement over current issued M9 to make "the juice worth the squeeze." I was at USSOCOM when the Mk16 (SCAR-L) program was scrapped, because, during wartime USSOCOM-level budgets, there wasn't enough "gain" from the Mk16 over the M4 to make it worth adopting - and the Mk16 offered numerous improvements and enhanced flexibility over the Mk18/M4, but in the end, it came down to cost.
3. While "made in the USA" is a major argument to overcome, all of the contenders (including Beretta) have manufacturing in the US. Who's congressional district has more pull is VERY likely to be a major determinant in what pistol (if any) gets the MHS contract.
WRT the M9 as a fighting pistol, I carried one for 10.5 of my 12 years in the Army, and, for open carry, I had very few issues with it. Accurate, reliable, decent trigger, capacity on par with competitors. We RARELY shot our often enough to break anything, or to really find out what long term reliability was. When I joined civilian LE, we had M9s as well, and, in one year, my 12-agent team broke 8 out of 12 assigned M9s with fairly rigorous training. Locking blocks failed, NUMEROUS safety levers broke off, one slide cracked. The M11 (P228s) that replaced them were much more robust, and much better suited to concealed carry.
When all is said and done, I don't know how anyone will come up with a more "Modular" handgun than the P320...
And still to this day, why is a safety such a big deal when many law enforcement and militaries around the world use Glock pistols with out a problem??
Because the US mil leadership is afraid of guns. Seriously.
Because the US mil leadership is afraid of guns. Seriously.
Might that be the sign that they should resign?
Doesn't sound good to hear that while other countries do not have this "fear" that the mighty USA leadership does???
It seems to me most senior leaders are concerned about risk management first and foremost, rather than lethality and mission accomplishment. The requirement of a safety on a pistol is just one small example. The US military has a zero defect culture amongst the top ranks right now, to our detriment IMO. Just look how quickly commanders are relieved and troops are punished for circumstances realistically beyond their control, and often with an insufficient, or biased investigation.
But I digress. Back to M9A3 talk - I've read on the various blog sites that the army flat turned the M9A3 down without even evaluating a sample. Anybody with more info?
Alaska3006
01-11-15, 14:48
I think there is only 4 contenders for the next Army pistol.
SW/gen Dyn........big DOD contractor
SIG................proven p226...........maybe the P227
HK small contractor with some SOF MP5 USP
FN big DOD contractor with M249 and M240 , M4/M16.
I believe it will be 45 ACP.
No one will win they will spend big bucks just to decide to stick with the beretta! Honestly giving people that can't hit squat with a 9mm a new 45 will not be a solution giving troops much better training will. During my past deployments pistol carriers were given a whole fifty rounds to shoot prior to deployment. Increasing ammo allocation and getting some good trainers will be much more useful. During our predeployment training in 2004 before Iraq the best training was the squad designated marksman course ( primarily by civilian distinguished riflemen ) with little intervention by bureaucrats in uniform was what worked
Alaska3006
01-11-15, 15:22
I concur been their done it
1993 Army Markmanship Team Ft Lewis course
OIF 2
Red Team 98
MountainRaven
01-11-15, 15:30
If I were a betting man - and I'm not - my money is on the Army spending millions of dollars over the next two years and ultimately concluding that no proposed replacement offers a significant increase in lethality, safety, or ease of use with the Army ultimately ordering another half-million or so Beretta M9s.
BigBuckeye
01-12-15, 03:42
If I were a betting man - and I'm not - my money is on the Army spending millions of dollars over the next two years and ultimately concluding that no proposed replacement offers a significant increase in lethality, safety, or ease of use with the Army ultimately ordering another half-million or so Beretta M9s.
Apparently not...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/daniel-zimmerman/army-ditches-beretta-m9a3-new-design/
RAM Engineer
01-12-15, 07:22
Apparently not...
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/01/daniel-zimmerman/army-ditches-beretta-m9a3-new-design/
Still very likely. The army has just announced (again) their intention to compete in a marathon. It's a LONG way from the finish line when you haven't even lined up at the starting line yet...
If I were a betting man - and I'm not - my money is on the Army spending millions of dollars over the next two years and ultimately concluding that no proposed replacement offers a significant increase in lethality, safety, or ease of use with the Army ultimately ordering another half-million or so Beretta M9s.
Still very likely. The army has just announced (again) their intention to compete in a marathon. It's a LONG way from the finish line when you haven't even lined up at the starting line yet...
Which is why I think the M9 will be around for a few more years.
It will be interesting to see if the Marines go with the A3, as they are (IIRC) the only user of the A1.
Which is why I think the M9 will be around for a few more years.
It will be interesting to see if the Marines go with the A3, as they are (IIRC) the only user of the A1.
I could see the USAF buying some A3's. They have always been a forward thinking organization in terms of small arms. We were not permitted to use the safety as anything but a decocker when I was on active duty.
I'm willing to bet the m9A3 will be adopted exactly as Beretta planned it to be. The U.S. Gov has these horse and pony shows for political reasons, they know full well it's cheaper to stick with the M9 and no-one actually uses their damn handgun in combat.
Fjallhrafn, you hit the nail on the head. Those blowing the millions already know the conclusion.
sinlessorrow
01-13-15, 20:34
Beretta reported today they have received no word of their ECP being turned down.
RAM Engineer
01-23-15, 13:13
Anyone at SHOT this past week get updated info on this gun? Dates or MSRP? Shooting/handling impressions?
The high MSRP of the OTHER Beretta introductions this week has me both anxious and skeptical about the M9A3. I want to believe there is a modernized Beretta in my future, but the Italians aren't giving me a warm fuzzy.
On the other hand, HK has been dropping prices...
BUOPtimus Prime
01-23-15, 14:17
I wasn't at SHOT, but watched a video with a Beretta Rep who said 3 months. He didn't mention an MSRP.
Fordtough25
02-27-15, 07:24
Nice write up on this in the new G&A magazine! Looks like a great addition to the Beretta lineup, I can't wait to hold one!
brickboy240
02-27-15, 10:33
So their big idea was a Vertec 92 with a different finish and a light rail?
Ugh....I'll wait and maybe their polymer striker pistol will be better.
That design and its fat wide slide and awkward safety is old and needs to be retired...sorry
I've got a feeling that Beretta is going to sell lots of them on the civilian market.
brickboy240
02-27-15, 11:44
There are tons of 15 shot 9mms that are thinner, lighter, smaller and have better triggers.
Why they think this will sell is beyond me, but hey...buy it if it rings your bell.
sinlessorrow
02-27-15, 14:14
There are tons of 15 shot 9mms that are thinner, lighter, smaller and have better triggers.
Why they think this will sell is beyond me, but hey...buy it if it rings your bell.
Technically the only thing keeping the M9 stuck at 15rnds is the magazine issued with it. Its also near identical to size of the G17.
DiabhailGadhar
03-01-15, 23:16
There's a link on beretta's web page so you can get updates...I signed up and the more that do the better. If they release this I've found my next handgun. Besides it matches my SCAR...;-)
http://www.beretta.com/en-us/m9a3/
There's a link on beretta's web page so you can get updates...I signed up and the more that do the better. If they release this I've found my next handgun. Besides it matches my SCAR...;-)
http://www.beretta.com/en-us/m9a3/
I wouldn't bother signing up for alerts. I've been signed up since they announced it and all they've managed to do is constantly spam me about deals on their hats and clothing and crappy accessories. Not a peep on new guns since.
DiabhailGadhar
03-02-15, 06:24
I wouldn't bother signing up for alerts. I've been signed up since they announced it and all they've managed to do is constantly spam me about deals on their hats and clothing and crappy accessories. Not a peep on new guns since.
I found out about this one literally yesterday. How long has the pistol been out for the public to see?
I found out about this one literally yesterday. How long has the pistol been out for the public to see?
I want to say I first started hearing about it a little before SHOT show.
Looks like the .gov will be not be reconsidering the M9A3.
With no gov contract i wonder if Beretta will be bringing this to the consumer market.
Yes, its coming no matter what as the ECP was a COTS upgrade, not a standalone model. Nearly everything they've put in the package has been available in other models at some time, save the grips (90-Two did something similar of course).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.