Why did the Military select the Beretta 92F?

Regarding bases for contract suggestion, I take it back.

Okay?
Okay?
Okay?
:) ;) :)
Lesson learned.
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited January 10, 2000).]
 
I had heard for YEARS that Ruger did not release the P85 because they had sued (along with other manufacturers to get a shot at the M-9 contract). A second round of testing ensued and Beretta was still the winner and everyone KNEW that beretta had low balled the bid and was using harder to produce parts and labor, the US plant is a reflection of low production in italy. Repeated tests by the us navy (read SEALS) gave rise to aftermarket (1 ounce heavier slides) being produced by PHROBIS (a diving knife maker) Coincidence of that contract going to a diving knife maker?? I think not. Failure of the M9 as an "offensive" pistol led th the SOCOM tests.

On SOCOM tests:

The so called "offensive pistol" was to be a double action .45 acp that carried 10 rounds, could easily accept a supressor and other accessories like lasers, tac lights etc. (FAR DIFFERENT requirements than the M9) HK was WAY ahead of everyone else on this one, but Colts' entry faired well in early testing (from what I read).

On the 10mm:

The FBI was the first to adopt the 10mm cartridge and the first ISSUE gun was a smith and wesson 1006, which was really large for a carry gun. Colt Delta Elites were also available but Colt soon found out its early deltas were NOT up to repeated firing and the frames started to crack. I haven't heard of a glock cracking under the strain but a 10mm glock is another BIG GUN when you are talking about concealed carry.

Remember that procurement is OFTEN a big political boondoggle of PORK, like FN winning the m-16 and Colt's president creating the M-4 which NEVER went through channels but no doubt was arranged by buddy Charles Schumer. Yes, it uses m-16 parts but its not an m-16, but its a modular weapons system etc.

Similar "contracts" are won in the back room all the time, whether its a police department or a large government contract.

Sometimes the "specs" are drawn up KNOWING who has the best design and mfg capabilty.. the same way you have to interview 10 people for a position, even when you already KNOW who is going to get the job.

my 2¢ and stuff,

Dr.Rob



[This message has been edited by Dr.Rob (edited January 11, 2000).]
 
a friend of mine in special forces said it was because of the design of the ejection port.

------------------
cyriaque
 
My understanding is that because of the D.O.D. requirement that Glock reveal their polymer formula, Glock withdrew from the second trials, not because of poor performance. It is also my understanding that SIG and Beretta came out even in testing. The cost per unit wasn't the ultimate decision maker, rather it was Beretta's willingness to build a factory in the U.S. for the production of government contract arms. SIG Sauer was never willing to move production of the P226 to the U.S., and still have not, giving Beretta the extra point to win the contract.

------------------
May your lead always hit center mass and your brass always land in your range bag.

~Blades~
 
Some of the info in this thread is absolutly bogus...some people really need to do some research before posting.

In 1979, the United States Air Force was assigned to testing 9mm pistol designs for the Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP) with an eye to replace all .38 Special revolvers and all M1911A1 pistols in the entire military inventory. For this test, Beretta submitted a modified 92S to compete against many other designs: Colt SSP; Smith & Wesson Model 459; Fabrique Nationale DA, FA and High Power; Star M28; and the Heckler and Koch P95 and VP70. At the end of testing in 1980, the USAF declared the Beretta Model 92S-1 the winner, but in 1981, the U.S. Army challenged the Air Force’s test results. The Army said the Air Force had used "the wrong kind of mud" in its testing and generally favored the Beretta in its tests, so the Department of Defense voided all previous tests and ordered the Army to start from scratch. In 1982, the Army began testing once again, but by May, declared all the submitted pistols had failed and testing was halted again.

In 1983, the U.S. Congress urged the Army to start tests again. The testing was now given the designation of the XM9 Service Pistol Trial. In the meantime, Beretta revised the 92SB again, with a matte black Bruniton protective finish, chrome-plated barrel and chamber, recurved triggerguard and a new grip shape and grips, calling the result the Model 92SB-F, later shortened to the Model 92F.

In early 1984, Beretta submitted the 92F to compete against a new group of designs: Smith & Wesson Model 459A, Sig-Sauer P226, Heckler & Koch P7M8 and P7M13, Walther P88, Steyr GB and Fabrique Nationale ADA. Testing lasted until September, but the announcement of the winner was delayed by legal action on behalf of both Smith & Wesson and Heckler & Koch, whose designs were eliminated early in the testing.

On 14 January 1985, the U.S. Army adopted the Beretta Model 92F as the United States Pistol, Caliber 9mm, M9. Beretta received a five-year contract worth $75 million for 315,930 pistols. It should be noted the 92F won based solely on a lower price per unit basis because the Sig-Sauer P226 also completed all the tests satisfactorily. With this announcement, the M9 became the first handgun to be adopted by all branches of the military. The contract also had provisions for domestic production, so Beretta USA Corporation would take over full production of the M9 by the start of the contract’s third year.

This did not sit well with Smith & Wesson, who convinced Congress to reopen the tests as the XM10 trials. With the new trials set to begin, a major problem occurred with service use of the M9. Several pistols used by Navy SEALs suffered catastrophic slide failures, where the slide split in two after firing and the back half of the slide struck the shooter in the face. (The SEAL sense of humor was quite apparent after this incident with the catch phrase "You’re not a Navy SEAL until you’ve tasted Italian steel" coined rather quickly afterward...) Supply of the M9 to the military was halted until the cause of these accidents was determined. The investigation took a few months before the cause was determined to be the ammunition used in the SEALs’ pistols. Normal firing pressures for the 9mm Parabellum round are in the order of between 31,000 to 35,000 PSI. The ammunition used by the SEALs was found to be of an extremely high pressure, in excess of 70,000 PSI. But this failure caused Beretta designers to develop a slide over-travel stop for the pistol. While the stop cannot prevent a failure due to faulty ammunition, it prevents a damaged slide from striking a shooter in the face in the event of failure. The revised pistol was named the 92FS.

In early 1989, the XM10 trials began. Ruger submitted its P85 pistol, Smith & Wesson submitted another modified Model 459 and the Army randomly selected 30 M9s for the trials. Testing began and was quickly concluded as the M9 won yet again. On 22 May 1989, Beretta received another contract for 57,000 M9s worth $9.9 million.

It is an interesting note that some SEALS are using the Sig 226.

I certainly hope that this information clears up some of the misinformation offered by others on this thread.



------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."

PeterGunn
 
Other stuff mentioned in this thread that is wrong:

1. The F-16 and F-18 were never in competion with one another. The Air Farce and the Navy have different needs and no matter how much you try an F-16 will never survive the "carrier". In fact the F-16 replaced the F-5. The two fighters competing for the contract was the F-16 and the F-20 tigershark. The F-20 was test flown by Chuck Yeager.

2. the 228 was never tested for the XM9 trials. The 228 was tested and adopted as the M11.

3. The FBI never adopted the 1006 as a sidearm. The official 10mm was the S&W 1076. The 1076 was a special design specicificly made for the FBI. It had a decock lever similar to the Sig P-series.

------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."

PeterGunn


[This message has been edited by PeterGunn (edited January 11, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by PeterGunn (edited January 11, 2000).]
 
Forgive me Peter if I got the 10mm model # wrong.. I also recall it was never very popular with the troops.

is the 10mm STILL an option for FBI types??

Just curious,

Dr.Rob
 
f-16 and f-18 did compete. they later changed the f-18 a little for carrier landings.

also, some f-16's were retrofitted for carrier landsings. I had this conversation with a friend me "you dad couldn't have flown an f-16, he was in the navy"
a week later. she comes back "he said they made some f-16's capable of landing on a carrier"
 
f-16 and f-18 did compete. they later changed the f-18 a little for carrier landings.

also, some f-16's were retrofitted for carrier landsings. I had this conversation with a friend me "you dad couldn't have flown an f-16, he was in the navy"
a week later. she comes back "he said they made some f-16's capable of landing on a carrier"
 
Actually it was the YF-17, it was latter upgraded and turned into the F (later F/A)- 18. The Navy and the Corps never really liked single engine aircraft for open water ops. The Navy has a supply of F-16 (or they did) used for OpFor training.
 
Ah, thank you for the clarification STRLN. I do recall an YF-17, but am still sure about the F-20 being involved in the mix somewhere.

Whenever some branch of the service desires to add another plane to their inventory Lockheed, McDonald Douglas, Gruman and everybody show up with the latest version of their wonderbird retrofited to that branches individual needs. I never said an F-16 couldn't be made to land on a deck. Hell my grandma could be geared for carrier duty. I guess the F-16 could be altered but it would be more than just a gear change. The entire frame would have to be altered for sea duty and storage on the carrier.

By the way, heres the sight for the XM9 information. I basically copied it to the thread from one of my files.

shoga.wwa.com/~duelleux/berttam9.htm http://shoga.wwa.com/~dvelleux/berttam9.htm


[This message has been edited by PeterGunn (edited January 11, 2000).]
 
Following the thread here...of course the FBI's REAL shooters the Hostage Rescue Team as well as regional SWAT teams have come full circle and have gone back to the 1911 in 45 ACP...by their own admission 10mm was a political compromise between our Federal Govt's decision to opt for 9mm for various compatability issues with our allies,and their real desire to have a 45ACP.
 
Back
Top