Army rejects Beretta proposal
Beretta made a bunch of changes to their handgun. But the Army is still looking:
U.S. Army weapons officials will not evaluate an improved version of the service’s Cold War-era 9mm pistol, choosing instead to search for a more modern soldier sidearm.
In early December, Beretta USA, the maker of the U.S. military’s M9 pistol for 30 years, submitted its modernized M9A3 as a possible alternative to the Army’s Modular Handgun System program — an effort to replace the M9 with a more powerful, state-of-the-art pistol.
The improved M9 features new sights, a rail for mounting lights and accessories, better ergonomics and improved reliability, Beretta USA officials said.
January 10th, 2015 at 4:36 pm
Beretta currently has an open contract for M9s that the Army awarded in September 2012 for up to 100,000 pistols. Deliveries of about 20,000 have been scheduled, leaving 80,000 that could be ordered in the M9A3 configuration for less than the cost of the current M9, De Plano said.
So are you gouging the buyer (we taxpayers) now or is your ‘improved’ version so much cheaper?
And just how is it cheaper after adding the rail, night sights and new grip?? FO Beretta.
January 10th, 2015 at 5:36 pm
We had the finest close quarter combat weapons system known to man — the M1911A1. What the .45 needed in 1980 was a tune/rebuild. The ones we were using were over 30 years old, used up, and poorly maintained.
Screw Beretta! Go with a new Colt!!!
January 10th, 2015 at 7:20 pm
Colt hell, they can’t pay their bills. We could multi-source the 1911. There are a lot of manufacturers that make credible ones (Remington, Kimber etc) and could make them to military specs. We could even go to a double stack (Para, Sig, etc) and do away with that silly argument about capacity. The whole concept of “double tap” came in with the M9; you have to shoot the bad guy twice with a 9×19 but just once with a .45. I’ll stay with once.
January 10th, 2015 at 11:24 pm
Face it, any handgun that has to have parts like the locking blocks and slide replaced very 25 or so thousand rounds is a poor piece.
What is more, the M9 is to large for the cartridge it uses. If they MUST keep the 9mm, they can get a Glock 17 with a slide mounted safety and have a gun with less parts, less prone to breakage, lighter, and made for +p+ ammo.
January 11th, 2015 at 1:05 am
Lol at 1911 fallacy.
If only the 1911-actual was 1/10th as good as the 1911-myth. We would have a viable service handgun well into 2111.
January 11th, 2015 at 1:50 am
I think the service pistol falls somewhere below can opener and slightly above shoe polish applicator as vital equipment. It’s really a badge of rank for the infantry; vehicle crews are better off with short-barreled 5.56s; and the zanies have their own specialized ones for special ops, anyway, and we can do the same for pilots.
January 11th, 2015 at 8:56 am
Google “Beretta leaves Maryland”, and you’ll see why Beretta losing that sweet government sugar. They bit the hands that fed them – made Govenor O’Malley look bad, made two sitting Maryland democratic senators look like tools.
The winner of the next big government gun contract will be some company with a proven commitment to the current Administration’s political party.
January 11th, 2015 at 4:35 pm
Nerf Guns?
January 11th, 2015 at 7:13 pm
“made Govenor O’Malley look bad, made two sitting Maryland democratic senators look like tools.”
FYI pard; Those clowns don’t need help from anyone to look bad. They’re doing a great job on their own.
January 12th, 2015 at 8:46 am
I liked the M9 back in my military days. As NK said – the pistol is basically an ornament in the military. Hated the 1911 the few times I had to carry – just too damn heavy – and still wouldn’t do anything against body armor.
January 12th, 2015 at 8:56 am
Five will get you ten the Army doesn’t do anything and keeps plugging along with the M9. Just like all the lip service to replacing the M4 for the last decade.
January 12th, 2015 at 2:17 pm
Agree with Les – the “need” for a new pistol is pretty close to zero.