what pistols did the 1911 and beretta 92 compete against?

griffin12aaa

New member
As the title says what pistols did the 1911 and beretta 92 go up against to get the contracts as a us military sidearms??

I know the beretta and sig had a close fight. But what other firearms participated?

Just for fun what do YOU think should be the next military sidearm??

Me personally i think it should be a g19, g23 or maybe a g32 perfect size for most good firepower and reliability.
 
Wars aren't fought with handguns. its a non issue. There is also a BILLION threads about this topic. I think we've named every possible alternative
 
Well the 'next handgun for the U.S. Army' really has been done to death here and recently too.

Although some folk don't like Wikipedia I find it very interesting. There's information about how the Army chose the Beretta here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_M9

It includes information about the other guns in the test. (And there was more than one test.)

The 'Notes' at the end (if somebody hasn't changed them---and that's possible) will point you to some 'real' government documents that are interesting too-specifically one that responds to the charge that the tests were 'wired' so that Beretta got the contract.
 
To answer part of the OP's question about the 1911, the competition involved several manufacturers but the final competition came down to a John Browning designed pistol from Colt and a pistol of different design from Savage. There's a summary here. You might also look at Wikipedia. Over the years, other companies were also licensed to manufacture the pistol and variants for the military.

I do take issue with a couple of answers.
Wars aren't fought with handguns. its a non issue.
I'm sorry, but I didn't see the part where the OP said he was going to go fight a war with a pistol. A HUGE number of people are interested in the history of firearms on this forum.

The 1911 isn't a brand at all. Colt, primarily John Browning, designed and built a gun meeting certain military specs. It was adopted by the Army and is commonly known as the M1911. It was modified in 1924 and is commonly known as the M1911A1. Neither is the official designation. As noted above, other companies also manufactured the pistol due to wartime demands.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its my understanding that the 1911 was used as a baseline in the competition, and that Colt came up with a double action pistol which was one of the requirements for the competition, along with being 9MM. The SIG entry was judged superior to the Beretta who won the competition because it was close to the SIG but was less expensive. I believe Ruger tried to enter a pistol but it didn't make it very far, neither did the S&W entry.
 
The Colt pistol that became the M1911 defeated a pistol made by Savage in a head-to-head shoot-off. The U.S. government was testing pistols and revolvers throughout the early part of the 20th Century, and those two were the last standing.
The Beretta 92 beat out pistols from Colt, S&W, and sort of tied with the offering from SIG, as both pistols fulfilled the requirements, but as noted, the Beretta was cheaper.
S&W called foul after the first test, there was another round of testing, and Beretta won again.
Reading the transcript of the Congressional hearings is pretty interesting.
Someone made the observation that "wars are not won with handguns, but they save the lives of the people who do".
 
I'm sorry, but I didn't see the part where the OP said he was going to go fight a war with a pistol. A HUGE number of people are interested in the history of firearms on this forum.

he asked
Just for fun what do YOU think should be the next military sidearm??
Which is what I responded too. my friends deployed don't even have sidearms. Further the Beretta doesn't really need to be replaced. There isn't a sidearm that has a huge advantage over the other and logistics of replacing guns, mags, holsters and parts wouldn't make any sense. I'm sure our troops would love a brand new ma deuce over a new sidearm
 
I have deleted a post that was rude. You do not take it on yourself to insult someone for asking a question. You may point out a thread that has the info but keep the editorial comments to yourself.

I then deleted some responses to the rude comment as we don't have to see the argument. If you think someone is out of line, report it.

I note the OP thanks folks for the info but that post is gone as it replies in part to the rude post.

Only penalties for the first rude post.
 
The only pistol that made it to the finals with what became the Colt M1911 was the Savage M1907.

The SIG Sauer P226 tied with the Beretta 92 on technical merit.

The Detonics STX may have inroads to becoming the next US military sidearm: http://bearingarms.com/detonics-siddle-stx-interview/. The company execs have key contacts, speak the language, and have clearly listened to the gripes about the M9 and have addressed all issues well from what I can tell.
 
The 1911 and the M-9/92fs are both fine weapons, as are the Sigs and Rugers that competed.The Glock offering was not allowed for specific reasons which also applied to the S&W and Taurus guns. As for what the next one should be, I believe that it should be a gun with a closed slide, more powerful than the 9x19mm, and not made of plastic. I think the Marines had a good idea. Going back to the 1911 would be a wise decision, especially with so many manufacturers building them now, repair parts would be plentiful.
 
I take it SIG Sauer was closest to win the contract second to the Beretta 92 which eventually became the M9. Guess it was the P226 or some familiar design...
 
venom1956 said:
Which is what I responded too. my friends deployed don't even have sidearms. Further the Beretta doesn't really need to be replaced. There isn't a sidearm that has a huge advantage over the other and logistics of replacing guns, mags, holsters and parts wouldn't make any sense. I'm sure our troops would love a brand new ma deuce over a new sidearm
The M1911A1 didn't need to be replaced, either. The government could have just bid out a contract to build a few hundred thousand more of them. But -- the government wanted to go 9mm and double action, the former for NATO compatibility and the latter to help prevent soldiers from screwing up and shooting themselves or their buddies.

Times, circumstances, and attitudes change. Reports from the sandbox are widespread regarding the inability of both the 5.56x45 (out of an M4 barrel, especially) and 9mm rounds to get the job done. Many spec ops units are using some version or other of the M1911 -- as well as some SIGs and a few other handguns. I'm sure the government would like to find a single firearm that would fulfill all those roles, because it would make logistics so much simpler.
 
I remember reading a very detailed and impartial report in Soldier of Fortune magazine on those trials (the ones to replace the 1911). The Beretta was a very convincing, reliable candidate. Believe it or not, the perception at the time was that the relieved or cutout slide design enhanced reliability.....and I personally have not been convinced to the contrary.
 
On the initial testing and development of the 1911...

By the turn of the century it was known that the U.S. military was looking for a semi-automatic pistol. So a whole number of companies and inventors, foreign and domestic, submitted guns and prototypes for testing and trials. The earliest guns were not in 45 acp because the military didn't settle on that till a bit after they began a search.

The guns were submitted from:

Mr. Lafe Pence Jr. from San Francisco, ca. Pence submitted a blow forward design. Didn't last long.

Mr. C. Ceston submitted a prototype pistol. It went in and out the door. Not much is known about it, it seems.

Savage Arms Co., They first submitted a gun in 1904. It went through trials and they kept improving it. It went head to head with the 1911 till the latter won in 1911. It went on to be sold commercially for awhile. A sleek looking gun.

Mr. W.B. Knoble of Tacoma, Washington. Entered his pistol (the Knoble Automatic pistol in 45 acp) in 1906 in the trials. It was a toggle action. It washed out in less than a year as being too crudely made.

The White-Merrill Pistol, designed by Joseph C. White and Samuel Merrill of Mass. Loaded via a clip from the top. Didn't last long.

The Pierce-Hawkins Pistol Developed by Major W.S. Pierce and Lt. Wilford J. Hawkins of the U.S. Army Ordnance Dept. and built at Springfield Armory. Submitted in 1907. It was out within a few months.

Mr. Arthur T. Ward of Pennsylvania submitted submitted a drawing with notes in 1907. The Army asked him to submit a working model but he didn't get it done.

Mr. Henry H. Talbot of St. Louis submitted drawings in 1907 and nothing else. Aw well...

Same thing with a few others...drawings but no gun or working prototype.

Capt. W.A. Philips of U.S. Army Ordnance, submitted a gas operated pistol designed by himself and built at Franklin Armory. It did not last in the trials.

Trabue Pistol by the Trabue Firearms Co. of New York City. It was designed and built but did not do well in experimental firing and not submitted by the co. It had a frame shaped like a revolver.

The Reifgraber Pistol built by a machinist from St. Louis, Joseph Reifgraber. It featured a stationary barrel and a locked breech. Looked very much like a Ruger .22 caliber pistol but in 45 acp. In writing about his gun Reifgraber wrote:

"The more or less manually operated so called "safeties" are more dangerous than protective, for more than one reason...The gun must be a one-hand arm in the fullest sense of the word, and such a one hand arm, to really be "safe", must be so without attention of the user to any kind of manually operated "safety"; it must aim naturally without the use of sights if needs be, (in the dark for instance), and it must function properly and without fail no matter what position it may be held in."

He built a few prototypes but by the time he was ready to submit guns to the trials the Colt had been adopted.

The list of foreign entrants was also long. Mauser, Borchardt, Mannlicher, Bergmann, Frommer, Krag, Ross-Styer, Campo-Giro and others were considered, tested. But of those only the Luger lasted. The Luger in 45acp almost had it. But in a final trial the wrong specs for the 45 acp were sent to Georg Luger. So when he brought his guns in from Germany they malfunctioned with the new 45acp. He was out of the running. Contracts in Europe called him and DWM.

tipoc
 
The M1911A1 didn't need to be replaced, either. The government could have just bid out a contract to build a few hundred thousand more of them. But -- the government wanted to go 9mm and double action, the former for NATO compatibility and the latter to help prevent soldiers from screwing up and shooting themselves or their buddies.

Times, circumstances, and attitudes change. Reports from the sandbox are widespread regarding the inability of both the 5.56x45 (out of an M4 barrel, especially) and 9mm rounds to get the job done. Many spec ops units are using some version or other of the M1911 -- as well as some SIGs and a few other handguns. I'm sure the government would like to find a single firearm that would fulfill all those roles, because it would make logistics so much simpler.

Exactly the 1911 didn't need to be replaced but it was due to the Nato agreement, unless I am mistaken (going of memory) caliber commonality and what not. There isn't a 9mm out there that does anything worlds better then the 92 that would make it worth the hassle of replacing. While I won't argue grumbles about the M4 or M9 at distance either that's another can of worms TFL argues over as well.

switching to another 9mm would be like the US dumping all the AR pattern rifles for something like the IMI Galil. Serves the same purpose fires the same round but all the parts mags and equipment we have for AR rifles wouldn't work. Whats the point? We got rid of a bunch of SCAR-Ls for that reason I believe.

Then there is the political aspect of military hardware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
What we really need is lasers, robot suits, Hover tanks, mini nuke launchers all the cool stuff.
 
Annecdotal reports from the sandbox crop up from time to time from unvettable and unverified sources, regarding the inability of both the M855 round (but not so much others like the Mk318) and all pistols to get the job done. A few spec ops units are using some version or other of the M1911, but most don't, instead opting for 9mm Sigs and 9mm Glocks just about anytime they get to make the decision thenselves. The 1911 continues to be a preferred platform for one-off missions, where it's a surgical in/out and then back to base, but not so much for field operations lasting days or weeks at a time. I'm sure the government would like to find a single firearm that would fulfill all those roles, because it would make logistics so much simpler.

Fixed it for you, in the interest of accuracy. ;)
 
Last edited:
KyJim wrote:

"... commonly known as the M1911. It was modified in 1924 and is commonly known as the M1911A1. Neither is the official designation."

Sorry, but those terms are the official designations. It has become common to refer to any pistol even vaguely resembling the Colt/Browning product as a "1911", but technically only those pistols purchased by the U.S. government merit the M1911 and M1911A1 designations. Colt, the original manufacturer, does not use those terms for its commercial products. Of course this post won't change anyone's habits. I have even seen a Glock (!) described as a 1911 because it uses a somewhat similar locking system and is "sort of square looking".

Jim
 
KyJim wrote:

"... commonly known as the M1911. It was modified in 1924 and is commonly known as the M1911A1. Neither is the official designation."

Sorry, but those terms are the official designations. It has become common to refer to any pistol even vaguely resembling the Colt/Browning product as a "1911", but technically only those pistols purchased by the U.S. government merit the M1911 and M1911A1 designations. Colt, the original manufacturer, does not use those terms for its commercial products. Of course this post won't change anyone's habits. I have even seen a Glock (!) described as a 1911 because it uses a somewhat similar locking system and is "sort of square looking".

Jim
Nope. The official terms were Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911 and the modified version was Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1 and later re-designated as Pistol, Caliber .45, Automatic, M1911A1. Those who distinguish the two variations usually say M1911 and M1911A1 but most of us commonly call all variations the 1911.
 
I take it SIG Sauer was closest to win the contract second to the Beretta 92 which eventually became the M9. Guess it was the P226 or some familiar design...

The Beretta and SIG tied. The Beretta won based on price.
 
Reports from the sandbox are widespread regarding the inability of both the 5.56x45 (out of an M4 barrel, especially) and 9mm rounds to get the job done.

The Army commissioned a survey of soldier perceptions of the four most common personal weapons used in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the M9, the M4, the M16, and the M249. Of the four, the dissatisfaction was by far the highest for the M9. In fact, it was the only of the four to rate a failing grade (ie, satisfaction < 60%). As I recall, the other three weapons scored above 80% -- solid B grades. I think the biggest gripe was the desire for a better round -- something that makes a bigger hole, either through expansion or a larger bullet.
 
Back
Top