View Full Version : Beretta's mammoth new service pistol contract
OK, I'm sure everyone else has heard about this, but in the edition of American Rifleman (p. 24) that arrived today, they have an article about Beretta's new service pistol contract with the US Army, which was revealed during the SHOT show. The contract is to provide up to 450,000 (yes, 450 THOUSAND) new 92FS pistols to US military customers worldwide. The article claims "it is the biggest handgun contract from the US government since the one awarded to Colt during WW II." Apparently the first customer is the Iraqi military, which will get 20,000 units.
I have a few comments and questions about the implications of this contract.
* Obviously, this locks in Beretta's position pretty well as a major pistol manufacturer for years to come.
* More interesting, is the fact that this also means we can assume that the 9mm pistol--and of course the 9mm caliber--are going to remain in use with the US military for many years to come. Which means we'll not be going back to the .45, the .40, or anything else in the foreseeable future. I guess that isn't really a new point, but this pistol contract has REALLY solidified this point. Beretta fans should be delighted, and so should 9mm fans.
* Question: Why do you think the military just locked in Beretta, without even having any updated trials with other brands, nor did they check out other calibers? I know about the aborted JCP trials, but I'm surprised how they went about this. I have nothing against the M9, but just am curious why they wouldn't have checked out some alternatives.
* Question: Why do you think they stuck with 9mm, even though there are lots of complaints among the troops (see the 2006 survey (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003515.html) of the troops) about the ineffectiveness of 9mm FMJ ammo (which is pretty much what they are going to be stuck using)? I personally love 9mm, but am surprised that, since they are limited to using ball ammo, they didn't want to listen to the troops and consider going with a larger caliber.
woodandsteel
03-17-09, 21:55
I wonder what this will do to the price of magazines?
I have a Beretta that I never shoot. Yet, I keep finding myself wanting to buy more mags for it. It was the first gun that I ever bought, so I can't even think of selling it.
The Dumb Gun Collector
03-17-09, 22:04
While I personally think there are slightly better 9mm combat handguns available, I think the Beretta is an excellent handgun. However, if we are stuck with FMJ, we should go to .45, IMHO. The real solution is adopt JHP 9mm and ignore whatever stupid agreement that supposedly says we can't used hollow-points. Hell, we ignored the ABM treaty, why not this?
Jack_Stroker
03-17-09, 22:17
I wonder what this will do to the price of magazines?
I have a Beretta that I never shoot. Yet, I keep finding myself wanting to buy more mags for it. It was the first gun that I ever bought, so I can't even think of selling it.
I shoot mine from time to time. It was also my first gun. I've had about 7,500 rounds through it (it was my only handgun for the longest time.) I can count on one hand all the issues I've had with it. All were ammunition related. In any case Beretta magazines aren't getting any cheaper. Stores seem to be jacking the prices up on them. Beretta's site has the best prices on them, but they are rarely available. I've been trying to find new mags as of late because I was refreshing mine. Most of mine are very old at this point. All of my Beretta 92FS factory 15 round mags were purchased used during the AWB and all have served me well. Being that they are used I have no clue how many rounds they've all got through them. Back in the day I bought after market mags which was a mistake. They never really gave me any issues but I never fully trusted them. A couple years ago the springs basically turned to shit even though I used them less than the factory mags.
Since my Beretta was purchased during the AWB it came with two 10 round magazines and I just used those mags at the range. Well after the spring broke in one of my Beretta brand 15 rounders I put the spring and follower from the 10 rounder in it so I had 3 15 rounders and 1 10 rounder. I've also got off brand 20 and 30 round mags but I rarely use them. They were cheap gun show purchases from about a decade ago. I just use them at the range. They never gave me issues either. At any rate I went looking for 92FS magazines and I couldn't find any, anywhere.Finally I stumbled on two a pair of PVD coated sand resistant 92FS/M9A1 magazines which I've also seen included in later model Vertec pistols. I grabbed them but they were expensive as hell. Come to find out that the 90-Two magazines work in the 92FS and as a result I've been buying those since they hold 17 rounds instead of 15 rounds. I also prefer the slightly thicker base pad on them. The finish also makes for a more "slick" reloading experience. You can also now get Beretta 90-Two sand resistant PVD magazines which cost only about $2.00 more than the standard mags.
The pricing of Beretta brand magazines is actually typically the lowest from Beretta directly. (Not always, but usually. ) Basically the pricing of mags according to Beretta works out like this:
92FS 15 round magazine (https://www.berettausa.com/e2wItemMain.aspx?parentID=IT00000327&parentLink=2100000084:3100001318:3100001336:3100001452)=$30.95
Beretta 92/M9A1 Sand Resistant PVD voated magazines (https://www.berettausa.com/e2wItemMain.aspx?parentID=IT00002417&parentLink=2100000084:3100001318:3100001336:3100001452)=$44.95
Beretta 90-Two 17 round magazines (https://www.berettausa.com/e2wProductGroupDetailDropDown.aspx?parentid=4100000311&parentLink=2100000084:3100001318:3100001336:3100001452:4100000311)=$34.95
Beretta 90-Two PVD coated sand resistant magazine (https://www.berettausa.com/e2wProductGroupDetailDropDown.aspx?parentid=4100000312&parentLink=2100000084:3100001318:3100001336:3100001452:4100000312)=$36.95
Or at gun shows I've seen the USGI Checkmate magazines for $10 each. They are out right crap, which is probably part of the main reason why many in the military feel the Beretta is a terrible weapon. The US Military doesn't want to spend the money on Beretta brand mags, so they buy aftermarket mags. Previously they used Mec-Gar mags, then switched to Checkmate which was worse. Now they are using another supplier. Anyway many of the Checkmate mags were never issued and the military sold them off. So USGI Checkmate M9 mags are easy to come by. Probably ok for range use but not much else.
* Question: Why do you think the military just locked in Beretta, without even having any updated trials with other brands, nor did they check out other calibers? I know about the aborted JCP trials, but I'm surprised how they went about this. I have nothing against the M9, but just am curious why they wouldn't have checked out some alternatives.
The survey of the troops is what seems to be the most important to me. If their experience leads them to think that there is a better option then they should have it. Why let politicians decide what handgun they can use?
Jack_Stroker
03-17-09, 22:30
While I personally think there are slightly better 9mm combat handguns available, I think the Beretta is an excellent handgun. However, if we are stuck with FMJ, we should go to .45, IMHO. The real solution is adopt JHP 9mm and ignore whatever stupid agreement that supposedly says we can't used hollow-points. Hell, we ignored the ABM treaty, why not this?
Without a doubt there are better handguns out there in 9mm. As always though it comes down to cost and a variety of other factors. The military probably doesn't want to spend the money to do what they believe is required testing to adopt a new handgun feeling the M9 is good enough for now. As for being stuck with FMJ, we aren't. The military makes that decision. For whatever reason they just refuse to issue JHP ammunition. Cost, feeding issues in some weapons, or whatever may factor into it. JHP ammunition is only restricted by the Hague convention which the US never signed. There are no restrictions on JHP ammunition in any agreement the US has signed with anyone. (If I am wrong on this, feel free to correct me.)
woodandsteel
03-17-09, 22:34
snip.
That was a heck of a response. Thanks for the information. I've been looking everywhere, but on Beretta's own site for the mags. An order is forthcoming, before there is a rush. As a purist, I think I'll go with the standard 15 round mags.
I appreciate the time you took to write all that up.
Jack_Stroker
03-17-09, 22:43
That was a heck of a response. Thanks for the information. I've been looking everywhere, but on Beretta's own site for the mags. An order is forthcoming, before there is a rush. As a purist, I think I'll go with the standard 15 round mags.
I appreciate the time you took to write all that up.
No problem, glad I could help. Just so you know, the 17 round 90-Two magazines do work in the 92FS. I've tried them. They are real Beretta magazines and not aftermarket junk. They just have a new follower design and a different base plate design which gives them their added capacity. (I personally have found the 90-Two mags to be superior. They don't scratch as easily as the standard 15 round 92FS mags do.)
I've had good luck over the last couple years with the MDS mags.
http://www.cdnninvestments.com/be92f9mm15it.html
$18.99
I usually stick to factory mags aside from a few Mec-Gar's and the MDS mags for the 92.
If im not mistaken they're the OEM for Beretta mags.
Jack_Stroker
03-17-09, 23:16
I've had good luck over the last couple years with the MDS mags.
http://www.cdnninvestments.com/be92f9mm15it.html
$18.99
I usually stick to factory mags aside from a few Mec-Gar's and the MDS mags for the 92.
If im not mistaken they're the OEM for Beretta mags.
They are rumored to be the OEM for Beretta's magazines but the design of Mec-Gar branded magazines is very different than the OEM Beretta mags. The quality is like night and day. The follower is different as is the mag body. The springs on the Mec-Gar's are also spongy and soft. (Comparatively.) Beretta actually endorses MDS magazines (even selling them on their web page) and they seem to be the best low cost alternative but for my money I'd rather have Beretta brand mags.
Mec-Gar and MDS are two different manufacturers no?
The only Mec-Gar i own are for a P95.I only bought it as a favor to a friend needing cash.I wasnt about to spend the money on the factory Ruger mags for a pistol i dont have much interest in.So i havent used them much at all.
I havent really noticed a difference between the MDS mags and my factory Beretta mags...although i havent inspected them closely side by side.
I've yet to have an issue of any kind with my 92 MDS mags though.
The DOD on behalf of the U.S. military or other foreign militaries/governments can now purchase up to 450,000 M9s. There is no guarantee they'll buy that many. If the Pentagon decides to switch to .45 next year, purchase of M9's (at least for US end-users) will dry up instantly.
But there's no question that this is a very good thing for Beretta.
Mec-Gar and MDS are two different manufacturers no?
Correct. MDS is owned by Beretta. They make Beretta marked mags and MDS marked mags. They are the same except markings and the MDS mags still use the older metal baseplates.
John_Wayne777
03-18-09, 07:56
OK, I'm sure everyone else has heard about this, but in the edition of American Rifleman (p. 24) that arrived today, they have an article about Beretta's new service pistol contract with the US Army, which was revealed during the SHOT show. The contract is to provide up to 450,000 (yes, 450 THOUSAND) new 92FS pistols to US military customers worldwide. The article claims "it is the biggest handgun contract from the US government since the one awarded to Colt during WW II." Apparently the first customer is the Iraqi military, which will get 20,000 units.
I'm not an industry insider or an expert on the inner workings of the DOD procurement process...but here's my 2 cents:
It seems to me like the DOD is moving to stick with the status quo in small arms for the next 5-10 years or longer. Development and adoption of new weapon systems is expensive and laborious, and there's no sex appeal for going through that for small arms. Nobody has ever gotten a star for work on a pistol program...
* More interesting, is the fact that this also means we can assume that the 9mm pistol--and of course the 9mm caliber--are going to remain in use with the US military for many years to come. Which means we'll not be going back to the .45, the .40, or anything else in the foreseeable future. I guess that isn't really a new point, but this pistol contract has REALLY solidified this point. Beretta fans should be delighted, and so should 9mm fans.
Frankly I never expected the military to adopt any other caliber. It's the same with 5.56.
* Question: Why do you think the military just locked in Beretta, without even having any updated trials with other brands, nor did they check out other calibers?
Because a new pistol would mean a new RFTS, a new trial process, a new batch of lawsuits where X company complains that the testing process wasn't fair because their gun didn't do well in the tests, the announcement of a winner, a bunch more lawsuits from makers alleging that the testing was rigged or done improperly because their gun didn't win, going through the gauntlet of congressional pressure to re-evaluate the product from x company that is located in their district, the final adoption of the pistol, crafting the details of the contract and of the production of the weapon, working through all the teething problems that will result from changes to the original design mandated by the military bureaucracy, creating a new training program for armorers and for troops who will be issued the new weapon.......
You know....all that jazz.
OR the military could just call up Beretta and order more M9's. It's much less expensive in terms of money and man power to buy more of the same than to adopt a new weapon. That doesn't mean it's the BEST decision...but sometimes it's the best you can do.
I know about the aborted JCP trials, but I'm surprised how they went about this. I have nothing against the M9, but just am curious why they wouldn't have checked out some alternatives.
My personal belief is that there is absolutely zero appetite for the replacement of major small arms systems (M16 family, M9 family) in the higher echelons of the DOD.
Again, I'm not military and I'm not an expert on the inner workings of the legendary DOD bureaucracy, but that's my hypothesis.
* Question: Why do you think they stuck with 9mm, even though there are lots of complaints among the troops (see the 2006 survey (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003515.html) of the troops) about the ineffectiveness of 9mm FMJ ammo (which is pretty much what they are going to be stuck using)? I personally love 9mm, but am surprised that, since they are limited to using ball ammo, they didn't want to listen to the troops and consider going with a larger caliber.
9mm is the NATO standard, it's been the NATO standard for years and will probably be the NATO standard until we are all dead and buried. The military as a whole won't be moving away from the 9mm for the foreseeable future because of many factors, including cost, logistics, and the fact that the pistol isn't really a weapon of primary importance in much of the military. 9mm is "good enough".
To a smaller extent, Beretta is also selling the M9A1 to the Marines. There don't appear to be huge numbers involved, though.
Jack_Stroker
03-18-09, 09:36
Correct. MDS is owned by Beretta. They make Beretta marked mags and MDS marked mags. They are the same except markings and the MDS mags still use the older metal baseplates.
I hadn't heard this before, but good to know. I've always heard the OEM mags were Mec-Gar, but never saw any proof of it or any real sources stating this was the case.
Couple of thoughts...
Why stick with the Beretta and 9mm? probably the same reason we stuck with the '06, and the M1 into the 50's....we had them.
Signatory or not, we have continued to abide by the Hague accords, or whatever they are, not for reliability reasons, monetary reasons, etc. Its not the military decision, its law/political/ whatever..
Troop surveys, while much can be gleaned from them, they have to be put in perspective. Who is actually answering the questions, and how much experience do they really have? etc. How many of them are just repeating old wives tails, myths, and other war stories? As one squad leader I know said, "I've got troops that wish they could take 2 gold plated Desert Eagles to combat, doesn't mean it right"
Also remember, we tend to latch onto that witch supports out point. Many surveys have found that "Joe" is quite happy with the M4 and 5.56, but that gets conveniently ignored.
Checkmate mags, get a bum rap...they produced a magazine as they were told to, and from my understanding it only gave any trouble in the sand. When the problem was discovered, it was corrected, and the new ones are fine. I bought a couple of the old style ones for 10 bucks, and may buy a few more, I can always smooth the inside of the tube and put a new spring in it. Remember they are OEM for a few gun companies, and GI M14 mags.
The govt doesn't buy cheapest, it buys best value, or cheapest that meets the standard.
A very good friend of mine, who hopefully will chime in here, was a Co. 1Sgt when a private company, comprised mainly of former SOF types, was brought into to do weapons training, including the M9. his description of the M9 demonstration, and how it changed many minds about the gun, is comical and classic.
In the end, are better weapons and calibres available, for sure, but its what we got, and a little bit of training goes along way.
As Rumsfeld said, and he got unfairly hammered for it, you go to war with the Army you have, not the one you wish you had.
Bob
I hadn't heard this before, but good to know. I've always heard the OEM mags were Mec-Gar, but never saw any proof of it or any real sources stating this was the case.
I also believe MecGar used to be OEM for Beretta, but they haven't been for years. They still make good mags but Beretta and MDS are the best.
Jack_Stroker
03-18-09, 09:52
I also believe MecGar used to be OEM for Beretta, but they haven't been for years. They still make good mags but Beretta and MDS are the best.
I've never tried the MDS magazines, only Beretta factory mags and Pro Mags. The Pro Mags are junk and the factory Beretta mags are excellent. They've all lasted for thousands of rounds and several years.
Checkmate mags, get a bum rap...they produced a magazine as they were told to, and from my understanding it only gave any trouble in the sand. When the problem was discovered, it was corrected, and the new ones are fine. I bought a couple of the old style ones for 10 bucks, and may buy a few more, I can always smooth the inside of the tube and put a new spring in it. Remember they are OEM for a few gun companies, and GI M14 mags.
The govt doesn't buy cheapest, it buys best value, or cheapest that meets the standard.
A very good friend of mine, who hopefully will chime in here, was a Co. 1Sgt when a private company, comprised mainly of former SOF types, was brought into to do weapons training, including the M9. his description of the M9 demonstration, and how it changed many minds about the gun, is comical and classic.
Bob
I've used CheckMates in the past both in the ARMY and as a civi and never had a problem. Doesn't mean they suck in desert conditions though. The newer ones with the greenish/grey teflon finish were MUCH nicer. They came with a stronger spring and follower made of different material I was told. The new Airtronics (?) mags seem to work fine too.
I think I remember seeing a post by your 1Sgt. friend. That was a good read on the M9....if its the one I'm remembering correctly.
Wayne Dobbs
03-18-09, 10:06
While the M9 is not my first choice, it's a decent platform once you learn how to use it well and that's the sticking point: inadequate training of the troops.
When your troops know how to use their tools/weapons efficiently, it's amazing how effective those tools become in actual use.
rodinal220
03-18-09, 10:23
* Question:" Why do you think the military just locked in Beretta, without even having any updated trials with other brands, nor did they check out other calibers? I know about the aborted JCP trials, but I'm surprised how they went about this. I have nothing against the M9, but just am curious why they wouldn't have checked out some alternatives."
You have to give to get.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1623937220070116
* Question:" Why do you think the military just locked in Beretta, without even having any updated trials with other brands, nor did they check out other calibers? I know about the aborted JCP trials, but I'm surprised how they went about this. I have nothing against the M9, but just am curious why they wouldn't have checked out some alternatives."
You have to give to get.
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL1623937220070116
I think you nailed it brother! This reciprocal type of thing, combined with the commonsense explanations above about it being simpler to just keep what you have, probably explains the decision to keep the M9 without looking at alternatives.
I think I remember seeing a post by your 1Sgt. friend. That was a good read on the M9....if its the one I'm remembering correctly.
Do you have a link to this post?
This is kinda crazy to read. My department used to issue beretta 92's and was recently told by beretta that they were not making that gun anymore and if we wanted parts we could find them on ebay. Shortly thereafter we dropped berettas and started using glocks. Its crazy that they alienated our department and now are continuing to make that pistol
Jack_Stroker
03-18-09, 16:05
This is kinda crazy to read. My department used to issue beretta 92's and was recently told by beretta that they were not making that gun anymore and if we wanted parts we could find them on ebay. Shortly thereafter we dropped berettas and started using glocks. Its crazy that they alienated our department and now are continuing to make that pistol
I just ordered parts from Beretta for my 92FS. I still see plenty of new ones hitting the store shelves as well. I'm also seeing more Italian made Beretta's hitting gun stores as well.
GLOCKMASTER
03-18-09, 16:35
This is kinda crazy to read. My department used to issue beretta 92's and was recently told by beretta that they were not making that gun anymore and if we wanted parts we could find them on ebay. Shortly thereafter we dropped berettas and started using glocks. Its crazy that they alienated our department and now are continuing to make that pistol
Beretta has a history of doing this to law enforcement agencies. We were a prime example of that with the Cougar and 1200 series shotguns. After the way they treated us I have no use for them at all.
Do you have a link to this post?
Sorry, no. I'm going to do a search for it later. I'm pretty sure it was on here or Lightfighter. If its the same one alluded to by R Moran the poster told of how they were amazed at what an M9 was capable of doing in the hands of someone who bothered to learn how to use it and took the time to make sure it was properly taken care of. Alot of people in the military bitch and moan about the M9, mostly about its size and caliber. When I was in the ARMY it was amazing the lack of care some people gave their weapons. You try to show them the right way but they only sometimes listen.
Jack_Stroker
03-18-09, 17:45
Sorry, no. I'm going to do a search for it later. I'm pretty sure it was on here or Lightfighter. If its the same one alluded to by R Moran the poster told of how they were amazed at what an M9 was capable of doing in the hands of someone who bothered to learn how to use it and took the time to make sure it was properly taken care of. Alot of people in the military bitch and moan about the M9, mostly about its size and caliber. When I was in the ARMY it was amazing the lack of care some people gave their weapons. You try to show them the right way but they only sometimes listen.
The Beretta can be a good gun. Like the M4, it just needs to be well taken care of.
ICANHITHIMMAN
03-18-09, 19:26
I didnt like the Beretta when I first came into the Military and would still chose my 1911 over it any day but it is a good pistol.
It is accurate and reliable provided you buy you own MAGS.
The real issue is the round not the 9mm but the bullet ist self FMJ and I know there is going to be someone who says ough the GENEA convention says. Well thats all open to interpatation just like anything else. Infact the USSOC JAG said a round that cause unreasonable suffering what is that when you are tying to kill some one.
In Afghanistan in 03-04 all SF had the M9 but they wernt using the FMJ and they were loading 10 rounds in the 15 round mags. In Iraq in 07-08 they all had the glock 19 wich is a much better pistol but still a 9mm.
The bottom line is if you can shoot the M9 is a fine pistol but most guys and girls cant shoot! I think its a comfort leval more than anything else. But a bullet with more terminal performance can bridge up the gap for thouse that cant shoot when they score margnal hits.
JMO
Jack_Stroker
03-18-09, 23:26
I didnt like the Beretta when I first came into the Military and would still chose my 1911 over it any day but it is a good pistol.
It is accurate and reliable provided you buy you own MAGS.
The real issue is the round not the 9mm but the bullet ist self FMJ and I know there is going to be someone who says ough the GENEA convention says. Well thats all open to interpatation just like anything else. Infact the USSOC JAG said a round that cause unreasonable suffering what is that when you are tying to kill some one.
In Afghanistan in 03-04 all SF had the M9 but they wernt using the FMJ and they were loading 10 rounds in the 15 round mags. In Iraq in 07-08 they all had the glock 19 wich is a much better pistol but still a 9mm.
The bottom line is if you can shoot the M9 is a fine pistol but most guys and girls cant shoot! I think its a comfort leval more than anything else. But a bullet with more terminal performance can bridge up the gap for thouse that cant shoot when they score margnal hits.
JMO
The banning of JHP ammunition is part of the Hague Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_(1899_and_1907)), not the Geneva Convention (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions). The United States isn't bound by the Hague Convention. As stated before it is most likely partly a political decision and a financial decision that the US Military issue only FMJ ammunition. The Checkmate and Mec-Gar mags aren't very good which is part of the problem. Even if they were the equal of the Beretta, it is more than likely the fact that many soldiers do not know how to properly care for their weapons that creates an issue with them. Additionally the military may or may not be retiring and replacing pistols when they are worn out which if this is the case, then that would certainly add to the perception that the pistol sucks.
Sure there are better guns, but the Beretta's bad reputation isn't deserved in my opinion.
sigmundsauer
03-19-09, 07:14
If the Army can learn to accept, teach and enforce proper maintenance, the M9 can serve plenty well.
Tim
I didnt like the Beretta when I first came into the Military and would still chose my 1911 over it any day but it is a good pistol.
It is accurate and reliable provided you buy you own MAGS.
The real issue is the round not the 9mm but the bullet ist self FMJ and I know there is going to be someone who says ough the GENEA convention says. Well thats all open to interpatation just like anything else. Infact the USSOC JAG said a round that cause unreasonable suffering what is that when you are tying to kill some one.
In Afghanistan in 03-04 all SF had the M9 but they wernt using the FMJ and they were loading 10 rounds in the 15 round mags. In Iraq in 07-08 they all had the glock 19 wich is a much better pistol but still a 9mm.
The bottom line is if you can shoot the M9 is a fine pistol but most guys and girls cant shoot! I think its a comfort leval more than anything else. But a bullet with more terminal performance can bridge up the gap for thouse that cant shoot when they score margnal hits.
JMO
The problem with all 9mm pistols is the use of straight walled magazines. The tapered case of the 9mm may allow the pistol to have better chamber support and a larger chamber hole for feeding, but that tapered case requires it to have a curved magazine for optimized magazine reliability. H&K made the transition from straight magazines to curved magazines in the MP-5 after extensive feeding problems once the magazines were broken in. The IDF stopped using UZI magazines over 25rds because of this problem, and they changed the magazine specs to use much stronger springs. Basically, on higher capacity SMG magazines, the spring tension isn't strong enough once half or more of the ammunition is depleted to keep the cartridges from nose diving. In a straight magazine, the 9mm cartridges are lined up with only the rear of the case touching one another. The front of the cases do not touch one another resulting spaces between the cartridges and play. When 9mm magazines get weak, the play is more evident and nose dives can be more common. Also, if you drop the pistol or a loaded magazine that isn't completely full, you can cause a jumble drop and the cartridges will nose dive in the magazine making the magazine useless unless you reload it.
It doesn't seem to be as much of a problem as long as you have really strong, high quality magazine springs. Glock uses really strong springs which keep Glocks running more reliably after a long service life. Someone mentioned earlier than the Mec-Gar magazines were the problem. Mec-Gar actually uses better magazine springs than Beretta did and in DOD Berettas that use them they are getting a longer service life out of them. Sig Sauer also made the transition to Mec-Gar and have had longer service lives with them in 9mm.
In my opinion, the 9mm for a service pistol is fine as long as magazines are taken care of and the springs are swapped out on a strict maintenance schedule. Straight cased cartridges seem to not be as effected by weak magazine springs as the 9mm since there is full contact from the back of the case to the front resulting in no nose dives. In DOI we have had more problems with old Sig 9mm magazines than we did with old Sig .40S&W magazines.
The problem isn't with the M9, or the magazine design. The problem is than the 9mm needs strong magazine springs with straight walled magazines to keep it running reliably.
Jack_Stroker
03-19-09, 10:29
The problem with all 9mm pistols is the use of straight walled magazines. The tapered case of the 9mm may allow the pistol to have better chamber support and a larger chamber hole for feeding, but that tapered case requires it to have a curved magazine for optimized magazine reliability. H&K made the transition from straight magazines to curved magazines in the MP-5 after extensive feeding problems once the magazines were broken in. The IDF stopped using UZI magazines over 25rds because of this problem, and they changed the magazine specs to use much stronger springs. Basically, on higher capacity SMG magazines, the spring tension isn't strong enough once half or more of the ammunition is depleted to keep the cartridges from nose diving. In a straight magazine, the 9mm cartridges are lined up with only the rear of the case touching one another. The front of the cases do not touch one another resulting spaces between the cartridges and play. When 9mm magazines get weak, the play is more evident and nose dives can be more common. Also, if you drop the pistol or a loaded magazine that isn't completely full, you can cause a jumble drop and the cartridges will nose dive in the magazine making the magazine useless unless you reload it.
It doesn't seem to be as much of a problem as long as you have really strong, high quality magazine springs. Glock uses really strong springs which keep Glocks running more reliably after a long service life. Someone mentioned earlier than the Mec-Gar magazines were the problem. Mec-Gar actually uses better magazine springs than Beretta did and in DOD Berettas that use them they are getting a longer service life out of them. Sig Sauer also made the transition to Mec-Gar and have had longer service lives with them in 9mm.
In my opinion, the 9mm for a service pistol is fine as long as magazines are taken care of and the springs are swapped out on a strict maintenance schedule. Straight cased cartridges seem to not be as effected by weak magazine springs as the 9mm since there is full contact from the back of the case to the front resulting in no nose dives. In DOI we have had more problems with old Sig 9mm magazines than we did with old Sig .40S&W magazines.
The problem isn't with the M9, or the magazine design. The problem is than the 9mm needs strong magazine springs with straight walled magazines to keep it running reliably.
Well the newer Beretta brand magazines seem to have much stiffer springs than the older ones did. The military will never purchase them so it doesn't really make any difference in that context.
Well the newer Beretta brand magazines seem to have much stiffer springs than the older ones did. The military will never purchase them so it doesn't really make any difference in that context.
Why do you say that? This continued proclamation that the military only buys from teh lowest/cheapest bidder is getting old.
If Beretta were to give a competive bid on their mags, they would be purchased. The one the military buys, still meet the standard.
Bob
Jack_Stroker
03-19-09, 12:00
Why do you say that? This continued proclamation that the military only buys from teh lowest/cheapest bidder is getting old.
If Beretta were to give a competive bid on their mags, they would be purchased. The one the military buys, still meet the standard.
Bob
The military doesn't buy Beretta magazines. That is all that I said. The Beretta magazines are indeed vastly superior to the magazines the military has been buying and is buying now. I have no doubt that if Beretta would match the price of the Checkmate or the Airtronics magazines, the Military would buy them. Since Beretta won't sell them so cheaply, the US Armed forces aren't going to buy from them.
Jack, we are probably talking past each other, and I may be misunderstanding you, not an uncommon thing on the net, especially lately.
When you said the Military will never buy a Beretta made mag, I assumed you meant they will never buy a quality mag, and only by the cheapest, etc etc.
As we know this is not the case. They set a standard or spec, and generally whoever meets that spec with the best bid, will get the contract. Sometimes other politics may play a role, IE: small business owner, vet or female owned etc, but it will still have to meet the spec.
Other then the bad run of checkmates, I not sure I would say the OEM mags are vastly superior. I've little experience with the checkmates, but from what I get from my contacts, from what I've read, etc the new one are working just fine.
Awhile back it was common to disparage GI mags for the M16fow, it was just common knowledge that GI issue is junk right? Then some very well known trainers, started to say the GI mags were some of the best out there. Then tunes started to change.
Bob
Jack_Stroker
03-19-09, 14:32
Jack, we are probably talking past each other, and I may be misunderstanding you, not an uncommon thing on the net, especially lately.
So true.
When you said the Military will never buy a Beretta made mag, I assumed you meant they will never buy a quality mag, and only by the cheapest, etc etc.
No, this is not what I meant. That wouldn't make sense. The Beretta mags are generally accepted as being better quality than the aftermarket magazines or USGI magazines by those experienced with the 92FS and the M9. Why wouldn't the military want the better mag if the price was the same? So I naturally concluded that the military probably doesn't buy Beretta magazines because they cost more than they want to pay for them. They'd only buy from other vendors when they deem them acceptable. I know they don't want to put soldiers in harms way with equipment that is absolute garbage.
As we know this is not the case. They set a standard or spec, and generally whoever meets that spec with the best bid, will get the contract. Sometimes other politics may play a role, IE: small business owner, vet or female owned etc, but it will still have to meet the spec.
Other then the bad run of checkmates, I not sure I would say the OEM mags are vastly superior. I've little experience with the checkmates, but from what I get from my contacts, from what I've read, etc the new one are working just fine.
It is my understanding that after the terrible Checkmate magazine experiences that the military discontinued ordering these magazines and instead signed a contract with Airtronics to manufacture the M9 magazines. So newer magazines should certainly come from Airtronics, and not Checkmate. Perhaps the magazines your contacts are using or have some knowledge of several experiences are Airtronics instead? They could just as easily be a different run of Checkmates still in service as well. There are also likely still some Mec-Gar magazines that are in service which are said to be "not great" but still better than the Checkmate magazines. It is difficult to pin that down without talking to a lot of soldiers and knowing what magazines they are using currently and taking a census of all their experiences.
And I'm sure we can all agree that not everyone serving on active duty is a gun enthusiast and many of them are poorly educated about weapons and are only qualified to use them in the most basic sense required by their standard training. As a result, some of what those soldiers would say, should probably be discarded, though it is difficult sometimes to separate fact from general BS in serveys.
Awhile back it was common to disparage GI mags for the M16fow, it was just common knowledge that GI issue is junk right? Then some very well known trainers, started to say the GI mags were some of the best out there. Then tunes started to change.
Bob
Well initially the Vietnam era magazines weren't all that spectacular. The followers for them sucked and really they allow for too much shifting of the rounds forward which causes loading issues when placing the mag into the well to seat it. Once in the gun they are usually fine though. The USGI mag, like all equipment that has been around for so long has had time to evolve and as a result the newer USGI mags of today are pretty decent. Are they good? Yes, I'd say so. I've never had issues with them. Are they as good as some other choices? No. Probably better than some but not as good as others. The USGI magazines are cost effective and of course they are good enough to meet the Military's specifications. Magazines like the PMag are vastly superior and exceed the specification in every way, but aren't cheap enough for the Military to use.
The DOD on behalf of the U.S. military or other foreign militaries/governments can now purchase up to 450,000 M9s. There is no guarantee they'll buy that many. If the Pentagon decides to switch to .45 next year, purchase of M9's (at least for US end-users) will dry up instantly.
But there's no question that this is a very good thing for Beretta.
He is correct.
The 20,000 pistols to Iraq are not USGI weapons.
This is similar to bushmaster suppling Iraq with M16s.
Jack,
As I understand it, the CheckMate mags met the spec, which was for park on the inside, so they did what was wanted, but it became a problem in the baby powder sand, not really anywhere else.
The spec got revised, and a run of CheckMates were issued, that are said to be GTG, as the Airtronics.
OEM being vastly superior, maybe maybe not, how much of that is just the same "anything is better then issue" type of stuff. I know some guys prefered teh flat steel base of the Checkmate to the oem base.
I know there was a thread about this, maybe here, 10-8 or LightFighter.
Ref the M16 mags, I was actually referencing recent mags, but prior to the pmag and HK rage. Not early pre green follower mags.
Bob
Jack_Stroker
03-19-09, 15:52
Jack,
As I understand it, the CheckMate mags met the spec, which was for park on the inside, so they did what was wanted, but it became a problem in the baby powder sand, not really anywhere else.
The spec got revised, and a run of CheckMates were issued, that are said to be GTG, as the Airtronics.
OEM being vastly superior, maybe maybe not, how much of that is just the same "anything is better then issue" type of stuff. I know some guys prefered teh flat steel base of the Checkmate to the oem base.
I know there was a thread about this, maybe here, 10-8 or LightFighter.
Ref the M16 mags, I was actually referencing recent mags, but prior to the pmag and HK rage. Not early pre green follower mags.
Bob
That may be. I don't know what the deal was on the Checkmate mags. I know that they are considered to be less reliable, but like all things there is probably some truth to it and quite a bit of the negative opinions about them are probably blown out of proportion. I keep going back and fourth on this, but I may pick some up at the gun show for my 92FS as they are cheap as hell. They should be good enough for range use I'd imagine. Not sure how long they'll last. However, I do have a few brand new unused Beretta factory mags, so it might be interesting to use them all equally and keep a log of the round count and see which ones last longer. Since my 92FS was my first handgun, I'll probably never get rid of it. I am way too fond of it.
On the M16 mags, your point is taken.
I don't have enough experience with the Checkmate mags to comment. I know that Beretta's official position is that they sucked fetid dingo kidneys, but then Beretta would have liked to win the multi-million dollar mag contract so they aren't exactly unbiased.
However, without knowing the spec & testing for the Checkmate mags, it's hard to assess whether they were really good enough for issue. "Good enough for issue" isn't the same as "good enough for the procurement officer."
Example: DHS/ICE fired millions of rounds testing pistols before choosing the SIG DAK and H&K LEM as contract winners. Despite repeated warnings during the procurement process, DHS/ICE insisted on contracting for one magazine with each gun. Then the contracts were awarded and DHS/ICE realized, "Crap, we need more mags." They immediately asked the winning pistol manufacturers if warranties would be valid using aftermarket magazines.
What is wrong with this picture? Millions of rounds testing the guns ... then just buy magazines which are "compatible." I believe the common internet sobriquet is FAIL.
You'd think a bunch of 1911-carrying, M4-shooting folks would understand that little variations in magazine design & construction can be the difference between long term reliability and surprise failure ...
John_Wayne777
03-19-09, 16:53
You're forgetting the committee principle.
"None of us is as stupid as all of us put together!"
Matt Edwards
03-19-09, 20:41
I think we all agree that the "gen 1" check mate mags blow goats. We can put that behind us.
Before my last deployment in another life (2005) we received CM mags with smooth finish both inside and out. The finish was shiny and green in hue. I do not know how they came to be or the complete story, I only know that then seemed to work just fine. Because of our Bn XO's drug connections, we shot a lot for an Infantry Company.
The only real issues I know of with the M9 are with friends that are in units that shoot more then the gun was designed to shoot. These guys do have issues, and there is no doubt about this. However, these same guys don't complain about the gun being unreliable. They complain about breakages. For mere mortals, this isn't a problem. The M9 is more then an acceptable service pistol. It has done far better then many give it credit for.
Are there "better" pistols out there? Well...yeah. But we could do much worse. Our own Lav has stated that if the guns are lubed and recoil springs are changed when they should be, many issues would go away.
R. Moran brought up the "polls". I agree with his assessment. "Joe" states that he doesn't like the M9 and we are up in arms to give him a "better" pistol. However, the same "Joe" states that he likes the M4 (I still haven't met anyone with any base of experience who didn't) and we say he doesn't know what he is talking about. That rates with "things that make you go hmm."
Of interest, maybe...
Before I retired, I was able to observe an organization that came to my post to teach pistol and rifle combat shooting. All of the instructors were formerly from the same unit. All had a great deal of experience conducting combat operations. One instructor gave the class on the M9, I'll call him "Blaze!". He held up the M9 pistol, then asked the students, made up of different MOS's within the BDE, all NCO's and officers, what they thought of the M9. There was an almost universal explosion of cat calls, "It sucks", "we hate it", and other most unpleasant things. When the noise died down, he looked at me as the senior NCO present and asked me what I though. "The M9 is a good gun, just not my preference."
Blaze then nodded with an "OK" and then started to discuss very professionally, both the good and bad things about the M9. He showed the lads how to grip it, manipulate it and how to shoot it. When his shooting demo was complete, every student was surprised and amazed. Then it was their turn. Blaze went up and down the line until the Soldiers were GTG. To a man, they were surprised and amazed at both their and the guns performance, even under the timer. They shot less then 100 rds, but had an understanding of the pistol that far exceeds anything they had ever done.
When they were finished, Blaze got them all together, and with a slight smirk, he asked the same question he asked less then a hour ago. Again, it was universal..."It is a good pistol", "I'm getting one", "I told you it was GTG".
I only included that to show how little it takes to change guys minds forever. Soldiers who were brought up to believe the M9 was a POS, changed there mind once they really got to shoot it and use like it was intended. Training is the key. The pistol is GTG. After the class I walked over to talk to Blaze. He was still smiling. He said "By the way, the M9 is NOT my preference either. But I like it enough to own one and trust my life to one."
Of course, his preference will come as no surprise, but you get the point.
I don't own an M9. I don't carry one. Althogh I'd rather carry something else, I wouldn't loose any sleep over having to.
If we change our pistols in the near future, fine. If we don't...we'll be OK.
Jack_Stroker
03-20-09, 09:11
Snip..................
Excellent post.
Thats the 1sgt I'm talkin about.
As far as the mags, I just don't believe the military did the equivelent of walking down a gunshow isle looking for the cheapest mag that would fit a Beretta.
Much like all GI M16fow mags are the same, regardless of manufature, I think, minor differences, QC issues, and lot to lot variations, aside, the M9 mags are pretty much the same.
Bob
I guess, I'm asking what you base your opinion of the superiority of the Beretta mags on?
Other then the CheckMate interior finish issue, which has been corrected, and by many accounts was specified, are there any other tangibles that show the Beretta mag as superior?
Materials
Geometry
Construction
Spring strength
Spring material
Etc
Don't get me wrong, I generally stick with OEM mags also, and have quite a few of them for my centurion, but superior, or VASTLY superior to GI, may be a stretch.
As far as the M9, I carried a M92 Centurian on duty for 2 years, and never felt unarmed.
Bob
Jack_Stroker
03-20-09, 12:03
I guess, I'm asking what you base your opinion of the superiority of the Beretta mags on?
Other then the CheckMate interior finish issue, which has been corrected, and by many accounts was specified, are there any other tangibles that show the Beretta mag as superior?
Materials
Geometry
Construction
Spring strength
Spring material
Etc
Don't get me wrong, I generally stick with OEM mags also, and have quite a few of them for my centurion, but superior, or VASTLY superior to GI, may be a stretch.
As far as the M9, I carried a M92 Centurian on duty for 2 years, and never felt unarmed.
Bob
I base it on the fact that Mec-Gar and Promag magazines have always gave me issues and the Beretta mags never have. The springs were stiffer in the OEM Beretta magazines and lasted far longer. Even given the fact that my OEM mags have seen more use than the aftermarket mags i own have. Occasionally I've bullets nosedives in the Promags which aren't quite as good as Mec-Gar's mags. I have never used the Checkmate mags myself so anything I've heard about them is second hand at best. I have handled them and I've got serious doubts that they'd match up to the Beretta OEM magazines. I could be wrong though.
Not talking about mec-gar or Promag, talking about GI mags(checkmate and Airtronics) vs. Beretta OEM mags.
PM sent..
Bob
Jack_Stroker
03-20-09, 15:58
Not talking about mec-gar or Promag, talking about GI mags(checkmate and Airtronics) vs. Beretta OEM mags.
PM sent..
Bob
Right I understand that. Aside from personal preferences concerning the base plates and the holes in the back for counting the rounds, I don't have anything to tell you when it comes to the Checkmates outside of what I've read about them. I've looked at them at the gun shows and the fit and finish on them is sloppy, even when they are sealed and brand new but that doesn't mean they don't work. I've never seen an Airtronics mag, but I haven't heard anything about them either way.
I think I'm curious enough about them to test some for myself. Next time I'm at the gun show, I'll pick a couple up and see.
parishioner
03-21-09, 00:54
please delete
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.