Why did the Military select the Beretta 92F?

A

anand

New member
I have a question for the more knowledgeable among the TFL members(which would be almost all of you..;-))
I understand that the Military tested several handguns before deciding on the Beretta as the issue sidearm. One obvious factor would be capacity(compared to the 1911A1) another being double action.
I know that they tested the Ruger, Browning BDM,Sig and others. I dont know if the Glock, or CZ75 were tested.
So why the 92F? I have always felt that the CZ75 was a better design(but then thats my opinion)
Somehow I am not convinced that only the Beretta 92F sucessfully satisfied the military's requirement.I know for a fact that the Ruger(P85??)did the same.Also Ruger was being manufactured in America, why give away business to a forigner?
I hope you can enlighten me on this one.
anand
 
My theory? As NATO member we were trying to get our forces to standardize weapon systems to be used in European Theatre. We had to show our allies that we could use one of their weapon systems in the bargain. The Beretta is a good gun, don't get me wrong. But there was a certain amount of politics involved. You have to think NATO and war. We could not have weapons system manufactured by Czechoslovakia or Swiss. You would want one of your allies to control production. Or permit them to set up a factory assembly in your country. Such as Beretta USA in Accokeek, Maryland. Which just so happens to be on Americas EAST coast facing Europe.

[This message has been edited by Ned Roundtree (edited January 09, 2000).]
 
There are several threads on this subject. A search will generate lots or reading. :)

Couple of quick notes - the CZ75 did not meet the requirements nor did the Glock. Not 100 % sure on the timing (of the last JSSP tests) but I don't think the Ruger or the BDM was off the drawing boards then.

Giz
 
Please don't ignore cost: The initial cost of many thousands of semiautomatics plus the continuing operating, logistics support and training costs.

It's my understanding that Sig Sauer competed with essentially equal success to Beretta, but was somewhat more expensive (you get what you pay for, I suspect).
 
The reason that the CZ75 did not make it was the fact that Czechoslovakia was a communist country then!!! Other than that,POLITICS,AND MONEY!!

------------------
Just as there is no such thing as too much fun,
there is no such thing as owning just one gun!!!

Now, go do the right thing, and buy that Walther!!
 
How 'bout the fact that we really wanted to keep our Italian bases? Regardless, the 92F is a great piece. I just wouldn't select it as a military sidearm....and the quality has suffered as a result of the mass production.
Rich
 
"Couple of quick notes - the CZ75 did not meet the requirements nor did the Glock."

Like a previous source said the CZ75 wasn't considered because of country of origin. Glock didn't enter because Gaston Glock was unwilling to abide by DOD requierments that the winning design be relased to lowest bidder for manufacture. Gene Gangrossa's books on the history of the auto pistol and on the history of Beretta pistols will confirm the CZ information. Confirmation for Glock's participation can be found at http://www.remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/17/index.htm

As for the Beretta being selected to guarantee cruise missles in Italy, well that's myth too. The treaty had already been worked out and was already in in its initiaion before the trials began. The choices as is well known came down to the SIG Sauer P226 and the Beretta 92FS. Depending on who you read the latter offered as much as $15 savings per unit over the former.

------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
 
As I recall, the final contenders were SIG & Beretta. Colt showed a half-assed DA entry which was dropped early. Believe S&W and Ruger had candidates which also failed the early trials. CZ would have been a wonderful choice except for being manufactured by a Warsaw Pact Member (then our proposed enemies for WWIII). Glock was interested but would have had to "dumb down" their design and relenquish certain production rights. They wisely realized that they could sell all the Glocks they could make to other buyers...Interestingly, the secons place winner (SIG) was adopted anyway (as the M11). Kind of like the F-16/F18 fighter trials (F-16 won, but both were adopted). BTW, except for the hi-cap and DA requirement, the M1911A1 (used as the control gun during testing) outperformed most other candidates...it was embarassing.
In the end, SIG & Beretta had no serious difference in performance except price...Beretta won.
 
***Manual Safety

***Passed all tests

***Well capitalized company with plant already in USA

***All contenders played politics. HK and S&W sued Uncle Sam during the trial. If you think all of them were'nt lobbying congress, I have some things for sale.

***Believe me, all of the players would have met or even Beretta's initial offer if they could have to get the business. They could have paid the light bills with the M9 contract and made their profits in civillian sales as all of them do anyway. If we knew what the manufacturers margins were, we would be furious I assure you.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."


[This message has been edited by Will Beararms (edited January 10, 2000).]
 
"Glock action simply was unacceptable. Extractor failures during Military testing as well." Read my post above, the Glock wasn't even tested. I'm no Glock fanatic but facts are facts.

------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
 
Glocks in fact were not tested for the M9 contract as Tecolote has correctly pointed out. The Glock ignition system is also out of the question for a Mil Spec sidearm.

James Montes is also accurate in identifying cost as the determining factor. Again, I stand by the premise that Glock or Sig would jump at the chance to sell 75 million dollars worth of handguns at roughly $250.00 a pop. Make no mistake about it, the manufacturing cost of a Glock or Sig is lower than a Beretta due to the fact that no stamped or cast parts are used on the 92FS.

Beretta is the oldest company in the world and as such, they realize economies of scale that others do not translating to lower fixed costs. Beretta low-balled the contract to attain the enormous volume. Keep in mind that Beretta is very diversified owning Sako,a large share of Benelli, and clothing operations among other things.

To imply that Beretta got the contract so that we could keep military bases in Italy is ludicrous.

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."


[This message has been edited by Will Beararms (edited January 10, 2000).]
 
Willbeararms,

Thanks for the information. I didn't know Glocks had been etsted by the US government. Does this have anything to do with the SOCOM pistol trials?

You're right that Beretta played a better hand in the trials. I think SIG Sauer would've been smart to lower their prices. I don't think they had the foresight to realize that lower cost US labor wouldd've made them come out ahead in the long run.

------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
 
There were rumors at the time that adoption of the Beretta was a tradeoff for the U.S. being allowed to place Pershing missiles in Italy. AFAIK, there has never been any confirmation. Nevertheless, the Beretta passed some tough tests which other good pistols failed.

Jim
 
Okay the Beretta was selected because during the testing of the pistols it jammed the lest (the Sig P228 was the 2nd best). The only reason the Sig was not picked as the main sidearm (even though it is used by the Army) is the big M word MONEY. Glock did'nt have time to make 35 test models for the tryouts so they declined (Remember Glock was just starting to make the Model 17 also) So thats the tale folks so Come on back soon Ya' hear!

------------------
Trespassers Will Be Shot
Survivors Will Be Shot Again
 
Yes, the Federal Government has tested the Glock. After the tests, the FBI adopted it as their issue sidearm :) I'd like to see Willbeararms' information about "extractor failures".
 
As well the DEA used Glocks for a while. They decided not to follow the FBI's lead and go with the 22/23, however. Instead they are issueing the SIG Pro and Secret Service the P229 in 357SIG. I'm not sure what Treasury has decided.

BTW the P226 and not the P228 was tested by the US military. The P228 came out after the tests. And once again Glock declined because Gaston Glock had no intention of releasing his design. The Glock 17 was already in service by the time of the second trials so getting together 35 pistols wouldn't have been any problem.

------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
 
BB & Telecote:

I thought I had saved my file on the Glock reliability issues during testing. I did not and therefore, I apologize to both of you and all others reading this string.

In the future, I will make sure I have the proverbial ducks in a row.

That having been said, please disregard all references to Glock. I also took the liberty of editing all my posts in this string.

As I chew on the crow I am eating, I will say goodbye-----WB

------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top