Is this the Beretta pistol

The pistol the army rejected was the M9A3, an upgraded/modified version of the Beretta 92. The upgrades/modifications were not really drastic--most folks would look at the M9A3 and just see a Beretta 92 with an accessory rail added.
 
The grip changes to the M9A3 may make it worth getting over other models if they release it to the civilian market. As I still need to get one sometime.

This new pistol looks a little odd to me, but I am sure it will function well. We will see haw it does if they submit it to the MHS.
 
Interesting the timing of it ! Seems they want to enter it ( a variant) into the Army MHS :

Beretta intends to submit a variant of the APX shown at IDEX to the upcoming US Army Modular Handgun System. “Of course we will continue to develop the APX to take into consideration the final specifications of the MHS as they become known,” stated Gabriele De Plano, Vice President of Beretta Defense Technologies (BDT) USA Marketing and Operations.
Click to expand...
From:http://www.beretta.com/en-us/berett...triker-fired-pistol-the-beretta-apx-at-idex-/
 
Look at that - it's a Glock with "Beretta" stamped on it! I wonder why no other gun companies have thought of doing this???:confused:
 
I don't know why the military would choose a brand new striker fired pistol from a company with relatively limited experience making them when Glock or even Smith and Wesson have designs and manufacturing experience that has been torture tested for years or decades.
 
AFAIK, the Army has not put out any Request for Proposal or Request for Information on a new general service pistol. They could decide to simply order more M9's or M9A1's under the current contract, order a limited number of the M9A3, which they could do under the current contract, or start over.

But a military contract for a new pistol is not like dropping into the local gun shop and picking up a couple. The military has to always consider budgetary constraints; Congressional questions ("What is wrong with the M9 that you now require millions of dollars...."); questions again about U.S.-made products; new manuals; new instructor training; new user training; new armorer training; a new spare parts system; etc. All that costs a lot of money.

Besides, with the current cuts that will reduce the size of the Army to pre-1940 levels, it seems reasonable to wonder why more small arms are needed when hundreds of thousands of M4's, M16's, and M9's are in storage because there are no troops to use them.

Jim
 
I don't know why the military would choose a brand new striker fired pistol from a company with relatively limited experience making them when Glock or even Smith and Wesson have designs and manufacturing experience that has been torture tested for years or decades.
Click to expand...
Striker fire design is not complicated by any means and the only reason I believe (the reason I posted the statement by Beretta) Beretta even makes such a public statement like that (IE "they would like to enter a striker fired variant of a new pistol design") is that they gained something on the inside while in discussions with the military about the proposed replacement of the MHS. IOW they may be letting out some details without saying a word such as the military considering a striker fired polymer design for what ever reason.

However it was only a tease to get the brain thinking about what is going on within the discussions, and in all reality I would wager that James K's statement here:
But a military contract for a new pistol is not like dropping into the local gun shop and picking up a couple. The military has to always consider budgetary constraints; Congressional questions ("What is wrong with the M9 that you now require millions of dollars...."); questions again about U.S.-made products; new manuals; new instructor training; new user training; new armorer training; a new spare parts system; etc. All that costs a lot of money.
Click to expand...
and finishing here:
Besides, with the current cuts that will reduce the size of the Army to pre-1940 levels, it seems reasonable to wonder why more small arms are needed when hundreds of thousands of M4's, M16's, and M9's are in storage because there are no troops to use them.
Click to expand...
will in all likelihood be the final outcome in lieu of a new MHS ever being adopted.

Sometimes people will call up a business and get a quote on a new furnace or repaving their parking lot. sometimes it is someone with a lot of money. Sometimes they just do it to compare prices, get a lower price, a better product and/or service, or just considering a sale of the property...the list goes on. In the end it is just browsing/window shopping/ preparing for a move that most of the time never happens and a deal is never struck. Sometimes really is most of the time FME, especially when cash is in short supply.

Look at that - it's a Glock with "Beretta" stamped on it! I wonder why no other gun companies have thought of doing this???
Click to expand...
^ I hope that was sarcasm because tons of pistols have ripped off glock designs in the past decade or so.
Click to expand...
What is so proprietary about the design and what profits have been gained by the ventures you speak of? Simple answer nothing and none. The answer to their secret was obvious from the beginning and that was it's simplicity by design and by cost of manufacture. Being reliable and cheap first gets you a brand and breathing room to work with and in this case (as with others throughout history) the first one to the punch bowl got drunk before anyone realized it was spiked. Even though it was not the first Polymer pistol, it was the first reliable inexpensive polymer pistol with great marketing. I akin it to the rise of one of the biggest leaders in the US economy at the time that revolutionized a process. Taking a nation with vast natural resources and combining it with his (Henry Ford's) production line and flooding the US and abroad with a quality affordable automobile. They set the bar high. However there was nothing there that could not be repeated because there was nothing exponentially proprietary in the design, just the process.
 
Along with what Jim posted, there is also the entire logistics package. You have to have spare parts, distribution of pistols and spares and training from the top level of repair capability on down to the users familiarization. Then there is the various manuals. Accountability from turn-in of pistols to issuing new pistols. Just think of all the magazines in case a new pistol is not compatible with what it is replacing.

Then there is the assumption it will be a 9mm. The list could go on and on to include the disposition of replaced pistols. This does not occur overnight. There would be a transition period where there might be two pistols in the system requiring support for a period of time. :rolleyes:
 
What is so proprietary about the design
Click to expand...

I don't know. I haven't disassembled one yet. But, from the pictures and description, it's striker fired, has a polymer frame, as the same trigger dingus, has essentially the same flat slide release, it has the same slide end-plate that Glock has, same barrel-slide lock-up as Glock's, similar extractor as Glock, and similar blocky slide as Glock.

All that, and I haven't even taken the gun apart! Yes, just another Glock rip-off. Hey, I can't blame Beretta trying to run away from their locking-block pistols. I'd bet that the new Glock-a-like is cheaper to produce and more rugged than the Beretta 92 style guns. However, probably not more accurate.

Let's see, would I rather have my Austrian-made Glock (yes, mine's Austrian) or an Italian made rip-off. Not that all Italian made rip-offs are bad; I prefer Tanfoglio's high-end CZ copies over the original.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why the military would choose a brand new striker fired pistol from a company with relatively limited experience making them when Glock or even Smith and Wesson have designs and manufacturing experience that has been torture tested for years or decades
Click to expand...

Well, at one time, the Glock was a pistol from a company that had never made a firearm period.
 
I don't know. I haven't disassembled one yet. But, from the pictures and description, it's striker fired, has a polymer frame, as the same trigger dingus, has essentially the same flat slide release,
Click to expand...
Sorry for the confusion Skans I was trying to refer to Mardanlin's statement about Glock being copied.

Well, at one time, the Glock was a pistol from a company that had never made a firearm period.
Click to expand...
Good point. They were very successful and still are.
 
Last edited:
There is this prevailing attitude that striker fired pistols are "new" and hammer fired pistols "old". The Borchardt pistol was striker fired. Glock merely added polymer and a design with limited parts.
 
looks interesting. as with any new model I would wait to make sure that they got it right from the start and not have issues like Remington and Ruger normally do. I have always liked beretta but hated their slide mounted safeties so this model should really be an interesting concept. however they went with a lot of new variables. they could have taken their already proven PX4 line and changed it to a striker gun with out a safety and accomplished the same goals, without the wonky new looks and resorting to the glock-esque grip style.
 
They could decide to simply order more M9's or M9A1's under the current contract, order a limited number of the M9A3, which they could do under the current contract, or start over.
Click to expand...
My understanding was Beretta doesn't want to continue selling M9s ans M9A1s to the military. They want to phase out production. This seems extremely odd from a business standpoint, but it seems I read Beretta was trying to force DOD to accept the M9A3. Maybe the contract is no longer profitable for them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top