Army's new Beretta requirements

[ToddG]

The current civilian 90-series guns have a plastic trigger, plastic safety, and plastic lanyard loop. Are current .mil guns adopting these changes? That would be huge-mongous!

[ralph]

The guide rods on current production M9's both civilian and military are plastic, this was a spec the military wanted for the M9. The grooves in the plastic rod give sand, dirt etc, some place to go, and the material used to make the guide rods is self lubericating. From reading over at the Beretta forum it appears that the M9 will get the same polymer parts that the commerical version has..

[HK45]

The Marines at least improved the pistol somewhat with the M9A1 but we are only still buying Beretta's because the military doesn't want to go through the expense and time to select something else that may be in a different caliber. I say they should start buying Glock 17's or 19's and call it done. Or my personal favorite the HK P30. ;-)

[ToddG]

The military can't just start buying another pistol in huge quantities, it would be illegal. There has to be a fair and open procurement selection process. All one need do is read this forum and it will quickly become apparent that (a) there are widely varying opinions from experienced people on what constitutes the "best" pistol, and (b) there are a whole lot of folks who think they know what's best who don't have a clue.

And the M9A1 wasn't improved by the Marines, it was sold to them. The M9A1 came about as a dumbed-down offshoot of an earlier project aimed at certain units within the US Army Special Forces community. There was a commercial version of that gun, the 92G-SD, and the M9A1 modifications were spawned by that.

[HK45]

Yes I am aware of that as I have a lengthy military background. I am also aware that you have had some involvement with Beretta in the past. I am saying that the military is not buying more Beretta's because they are in love with them but they need to replace existing worn out stock and do not have the option of going through the lengthy, costly and time consuming process of selecting new pistols, providing training, spare parts, and possibly another caliber round when we are in the middle of conflict around the world. I was under the impression the improvements in the M9A1 were a direct result of improvements requested by the Marine Corps and I think that I saw that come from Beretta. If not OK, I'm not exactly concerned about it. I am curious to know why the Army is not buying M9A1's though. I imagine you know why?

For the curious here is Beretta's doc on the M9a1. It's got some interesting improvements.
http://www.berettausa.com/communitie...heets/M9A1.pdf

[Alaskapopo]

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

Give up 5 rounds for a round that is only marginally more effective, and also gain more reliability problems in the process. NO THANKS.
Pat

[ToddG]

HK45 -- I agree 100% with your statement that the military is buying M9/M9A1 pistols because it's the only pistol they can, not because they want to. The logistic system is set up for the Beretta (mags, parts, holsters, etc) and until the Pentagon is ready to make a wholesale leap to a new system in a new caliber, they're going to keep buying Berettas.

USMC may have requested a rail, for example, but it was designed and implemented beforehand. The M9A1 concept existed well in advance of the first USMC purchase. How Beretta chooses to explain and market it may be another matter altogether.

[229DAK]

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.

It's probably a one year contract with four option years. The Government is not obligated to buy in the option years.

[HK45]

There is a good article on the Beretta in the latest issue of SWAT magazine. The gist is that military Beretta's are generally not properly maintained by armorers (replacing springs etc.) or users (poor training and lack of lubing etc). He also says the M9A1 mags were requested by the Marine Corps. I assume that to mean their specific design was not necessarily requested but simply a more robust mag that could better handle sandy conditions.

[Slater]

Not to take the thread off on too much of a tangent, but I was at a gun store yesterday and examined the (relatively) new and somewhat confusingly named 90-Two in 9mm.

As far as I can tell, it's basically a product improved 92. Has a recontoured frame, interchangeable grips, and some sort of integral "recoil buffer", which I was told was to help extend frame life in the .40 versions. Hell, the 9mm variants should last forever

It seems to be a well made, quality firearm but with all the new polymer-framed guns out there nowadays I hope it's not just an "also ran" for Beretta. At $629 I'm not sure if it's $129 better than a standard 92/M9. I like the M9 (I realize I'm probably in the minority in that respect) and may just pick up the 90 Two as well.

Now if they'd only change the damn name to something less easily confused.