Army's new Beretta requirements

[Slater]

Another 5 year solicitation. Looks like the Beretta is here at least for the short term:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...=core&_cview=0

Curious that the pistol is referred to as the 92FS and not the M9?

[ToddG]

1. A 5-year contract gives the government the ability to purchase over the next five years without going through all the procurement hoops each time.
2. A 5-year contract does not necessarily obligate the government to purchase in the future. Or, more commonly, a minimum number (often 50) is listed as an annual purchase requirement.
3. Years back when I was still at Beretta, we were trying like mad to get the USGOV to accept commercial 92FS pistols because it was difficult and expensive to keep an open supply of mil-only parts (metal triggers, etc.). While some of the new parts might be seen in less favorable light by enthusiasts, there have been any number of genuine improvements to the 92FS since the late 80's, few of which could be incorporated into the M9 without the hassle of a complete ECP.

[Slater]

Doesn't the current issue M9 share many (if not most or all) of the polymer components of it's civilian 92FS/M9 counterparts?

[Saginaw79]

Doesn't the current issue M9 share many (if not most or all) of the polymer components of it's civilian 92FS/M9 counterparts?

My understanding is they are the same gun just marked differently

[Slater]

https://aais.ria.army.mil/AAIS/award...42_attach4.pdf

Looking at the above document (which is about 5 years old), apparently commercial Beretta parts are/can be used in military M9's.

[telecustom]

I know this may not be the place but the continual use of the M9 is not doing us any good. The primary reason is the location of the safety. It's location on the slide makes the cycling of the weapon interesting at best and life threatening when you really need it. My M9 almost always goes to safe when it is the most unoportune time. If I could just remove the safety I would. The only thing my unit uses it for is a decocker.

[a308garand]

Doesn't the current issue M9 share many (if not most or all) of the polymer components of it's civilian 92FS/M9 counterparts?

I had a tour of the factory a couple years ago, both military and commercial pistols share many of the same parts. The military pistols have a large amount of documentation done for their contract in regards to quality control and testing. A government inspector gets involved often at various stages. I don't know the exact things done, but the military pistols are pumped out to fill a contract and then a group of commercial pistols are run out.
Looking at an M9 vs. 92FS, it is almost the same pistol. Just a bit more inspections/testing/added markings.
Either one works very well.

[ralph]

The main difference between the two is the frame.....The M9(both commerical and military) has a straight dustcover, and the M92 has a slightly tapered dustcover, and commerical and military M9's don't have idiot warnings stamped into the right side of the frame. The rear sights are also painted differently. Other than these minor differences, they are the same...

[RogerinTPA]

If only the military would change to the .40 and get the mags from the manufacturer!

[NoBody]

Deleted.