Why hasn't Beretta been booted out?

W

Will Beararms

New member
Now I'm just an Ole' Southern Country Boy what got educatin' at one ah them thar big city liberal arts colleges up North. I have taken more than one wooden nickle in my life while on a whim in a Gun Shop. That much is for sure.

What I just can't figure out is why Uncle Sam keeps ah buyin' them thar EYE-talion Berettas unless there's sumthin' to em'. Don't give me that lowest bidder malarky. I am well familiar with what LEO's pay for the major brands and there is no Pistol Maker who would not have met,nay, beaten the price bid Beretta tendered if they had been granted half a chance.

It just don't add up. Wouldn't Uncle Sam use a Glock, Sig or HK as a standard side arm if he wanted to? After all, ain't we the biguns on the block? While we are at it, I heard a rumblin' that the Army will order no more of the M 11's (P228 Sig) in favor of a smaller M9 variant.

Well, I know I done whooped up a heap of a commotion so I'll make tracks before them flames start a comin'!

Have ah goodun----WB

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


[This message has been edited by Will Beararms (edited November 19, 1999).]
 
Well, believe it or not, the lowest bidder AND reliability/ accuracy requirments combined, plus plenty of political pressure, I'm sure, had alot to do with the Army's choice. At least I think so. From what I've heard, Glock beat the price, but didnt quite pass muster on reliability ( believe it, glocksters. I heard it from a sgt who was on the qualification team). It seems that the army didnt like the fact that the mags wouldnt drop free, the front sight flew off during testing(I've also had that experience, by the way)and their extractors kept breaking. Berretta and Sig were really the only other 2 competitors that were close, I believe, and Berretta beat their price and promised to build a plant in America. If you've noticed, however, the US military does use Sig and I know quite a few Navy pilots who favor the glock. Heck, there are some units that still favor the 1911.I do know aloy of guys, guys who've "been there", who dont care too much for the M9. Cant say that I blame them. For civilian use and police use, they probably will serve wonderfully, but they just dont seem to hold up to EXTENSIVE shooting, shooting when filthy, or the rigors of the field. Just my experiences and the experiences of others I know of, FWIW.

------------------
"To die as a warrior means to have crossed swords and either won or lost without any consideration for winning or loosing. There is just not enough time and generally not enough strength in the resolve of any man to do otherwise"-Miyamoto Musashi
 
Could be the Army doesn't like to admit it was wrong. (Chances are if you have served in the military, you have first hand experience--for all others, read Catch 22.)
 
they did right when they bought the beretta 92 9mm. when they went to the 40 cal they had it all wrong. now they look for alternatives. The 92 beretta was/is a great gun. but the 96 is a jammer. Im glad they took up sigs and HK's. I like all 3. but my choice is the sig.
JMO.


------------------
TIM : )
 
Soooo.... why should Beretta be booted out? Oh yeah, the slides come flying off on 9 out of every 10 issued. Don't Glock barrels blow up every 50 rounds or so? Don't HK's rust themselves to pieces within 30 days of purchase? Sorry to sound like a jerk but this is getting old :(.
 
Whoa nah, hold up there just a cotton pickin' minute Mista Jerky! Has this Man's Army done gone off and taken up with the .40 S&W? Is "they" Uncle Sam or Beretta?

Much abliged for the enlightenment.



------------------
"When guns are outlawed;I will be an outlaw."
 
Glock wasn't invited to the Army trials party for the M9 contract because their safe action trigger didn't fit the volumous specs book. something about double-action first shot.

Remember, it's the Army/Navy/Air Force involved here, who all unavoidably wind up taking on a work force with a large number of (despite low percentate of) goons who are unfamiliar with firearms.

I've heard that the jar, oops Jarheads have far less of that problem...

Anyway, the political pressure was for the Army to re-run the trials and give Smith and Wesson another chance. Failed again. The H&K used (forgot the model--P7M13? Squeeze cocker counts as double-action?) rusted too easily.

Everything else except the Beretta and SIG jammed too much.

I thought the M9 slide problem was never replicated outside the Navy SEAL teams who were seriously abusing them. The replacement protocol was overly precautious...?
 
one thing to keep in mind is that, for the military, handguns are a very minor item. the primary characteristics for general military use are; shoots a NATO round, designed to prevent an AD. not too challenging.

I believe that, if the performance spec had been "interesting," we would have seen some prototype guns. my claim is that we have not yet fully explored conventional handgun design. there have been a few innovations in the last 20 years, but every gun on the market can be improved. sooner or later someone is going to "raise the bar" on handgun design.
 
Will,

I want to concentrate on your question: "Why Uncle Sam KEEPS buying …..?".

Please forget about the entire issue of comparative testing with Glock and Sig, the NATO commonality stuff, and the fact most us can name several manufactures and models we justifiably prefer.

The real answer really is simple and it's all about Congressionally appropriated funding. DoD has made a major investment in thousands of Beretta 92s and in all the logistics elements - spare parts, depot tooling and facilities, organizational and intermediate maintenance personnel plus their training and equipment, technical publications, training infrastructure, and so forth - required to support them. If they were to switch now to a better 9mm, most of this investment would be lost and the services would be required to procure a complete new "set" of automatic pistols in addition to the logistics resources tailored to support the new weapon. This would doubtless cost doubtless cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

So - if you were the Secretary of Defense and convinced that the Beretta is marginally worse than a Sig, Glock, H&K, Kimber, S&W, etc. - would you make that reinvestment or would you use the $500+ million to fund a truly critical need?

I have decades of experience in this exact type of Washington- and DoD-oriented issue, and I can assure you this is the fundamental reason the services will continue to procure Berettas.


[This message has been edited by RWK (edited November 20, 1999).]
 
Cheapo got it correct. All of what he said was on the money.

Handgun aficianados need to remember that a handgun is a very minor concern in the overall military spectrum of weapons concerns. We also need to remember that the super duper high speed low drag guys that have more of a focus on handguns are an extreme minority of military personell.

I know at the range we all envision ourselves as some SEAL team 6 operator taking out a room full of hostiles. Fact is that's not the reality of military's handgun role.

For it's intended purpose, the Beretta M9 is as good as any on the market.

As for the elites, they pick their weapons to suit thier mission profiles. SEALS like P-226's and to a smaller extent the MK 23, the USMC Force Recons use the MEU SOC 1911 .45 (a reliability tuned 1911 w/ambi safety, Hogue grips and Bar Sto barrel). The Army? I don't know. And does the Air Force even know which end of the barrel a bullet comes out of?

Just kidding :)

Bottom line, it's a tool. Fill the box, do the job. It's a tool.

------------------
Dan

Si vis pacem para bellum!

Check me out at:
<A HREF="http://www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm" TARGET=_blank>

www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm</A>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm
 
I heard that the Army's Delta Force operators use the P-226, as well as anything
else that would best fit their mission profile.
 
It is not a bad gun.

Not a great gun. Definietly not the best gun. It gets the job done. And is a lot cheaper than the BEST DA/SA SIG SAUER models...

------------------
SURE SHOT
 
The Beretta M9 makes a lot of sense for the Army -- I am speaking about the needs of the conventional soldier -- Bradley infantry, M1 tanker, etc. For example: I deployed with Task Force 1-64 to Somalia in 1993. Believe it or not, I got on the airplane having never fired my issue M9 Beretta. As soon as I got off the airplane and into the bush I emptied a magazine into the nearest sand dune. The Beretta went Bang! every time. Wonderful confidence builder. It was rather dry, too, I might add. I cleaned it up afterwards and gave it a good lube. On top of reliability you have GI Joe packing almost 50 rounds of ammo between the mag in the weapon and two mags on the web belt. On top of that, you have a manual safety. A manual safety is a BIG DEAL in the Army. I saw enough ADs in Somalia to turn my hair white. No ADs with the M9, but I saw plenty with M16s and M60 MGs and HMMWV mounted grenade launchers. I would have worn body armor to the latrine if soldiers were packing Glocks. And yes, ADs are a training issue. And of course the M9 fires the 9mm NATO round which is a big deal for compatability with our allies. And yes, all our armorers are trained on Berettas and the supply system is full of Beretta parts so it makes sense to stay with Beretta. Just my 2 cents. Personally, I think we should have stayed with the M1911 but that is another story...
 
Cheapo, I was reading in the Glock Annual Magazine (1995) that Glock WAS invited to the XM-9 Personal Defense Pistol Tryouts, but Gaston Glock did not have time to build 35 test models to meet the DOD criteria. Just wanted to share this info :)

------------------
Trespassers Will Be Shot
Survivors Will Be Shot Again
 
Rant:
Saying that you don't understand why Beretta was picked for the military sidearm, is like saying that you don't know why your kid picks purple pixie sticks, instead of the PINK ones you like.
Why?
It's not because the purple ones break open sometimes
Or because they don't open every time
Or because you can barry them in the sand and they will still empty into your mouth straight
It is because it is what suits their taste best. It's what they like, or what works for them.
Here is my honest opinion... What it boils down to is this: (Generally Speaking)
Guns that are built tighter, with higher tolerances, are more accurate, but are more LIKELY to jam when they get dirty
Guns that are looser and have lower tolerances, are less accurate, but will be less LIKELY to jam.

<I didn't get that low/high tolerance thing backwards did I? ... you get the idea>

Anyway, I think that MOST of these stories about Berettas are made up, or embellished. As they are about every other gun too. Now I'm sure every single one of you that told a story is thinking right now about how reliable your source was, or how sure you are that you are right, but it DOESN'T MATTER. I'm sure all those gun companies have made their lemons, or had their problem, but... come on!
The reason is this: We all want to beleive that the gun we bought is better! We don't want to think that we wasted our hard earned cash on anything less than the best. Fact is, if these guns were as unreliable as we all make them out to be, then these companies would have WAY more lawsuits then they do, and they would be going bankrupt.
Now, I own a Beretta. So I am now going to defend the blasphomy, that some of you have dealt on my gun...
Beretta 92... slide (or barrel depending on the story you get) is breaking for the Seals... yeah, well they are also shooting a bastardly big friggin round out of it, as I understand it! So why wouldn't it break... it's made to shoot the run of the mill 9mm rounds you and I shoot at the range. If they made it strong enough to shoot a round that most people don't use, it would be more expensive. And then we would all bitch about how expensive they are... and probably that they are "too bulky" or too "heavy" and it would be because of the beefed up frame!!!
This is not to mention the fact that the other day I saw someone talking about an 1800 dollar H&K being better than the 92FS.. IT DARN WELL BETTER BE! it's THREE times as much! Think people, think
I could go on forever. But in my opinion, some guns may be SLIGHTLY better in different areas then others. But for the most part, it's all about what works best for you... purple or pink
If the Beretta was THAT BAD, they would get rid of it
But they use it because they feel it is what suits them best.
Please, tell me that I am wrong!

------------------
"...you're thinkin was that 5 shots or was it 6? Well, you've gotta ask yourself one question: Do you feel lucky??? ...Well, do ya PUNK!?!?
 
I couldnt agree more. Beretta's rock !

They are fantastic guns and i would bank my life or anything i own on 1. I love the feel,look,function and everything else about beretta. I dont like the way beretta made the 92 a 96 and compromising functionality but they fixed that soon after complaints. (border marshall,brigadier) Anyone who says a beretta is something they wouldnt go to a gunfight with is plain crazy. As Will Beararms might put it...

Ya'll done went plain crazy not bettin' ya'll life on one of dem dere brettas . I'd go over yonder to the eminy line any ole' day wif one of dem bretta's on mah side. Dem bretta's are more reliable than my ole' dog blue !

Nuff said.

------------------
TIM : )
 
DA on the first pull for a Glock? I think not, SIG - OK. C'mon, I know of a LE agency in SoCal that has dis allowed Glocks from the roster because of a "Dumb" gun handling error
on the part of an officer. Be serious, if you negligently discharge a Glock, that is YOURE problem.
 
In the original XM9 trials the entries were SIG, Berretta, S & W, Styer, and I believe Colt. There were a second series of trials in which I think HK was included, but I could be wrong. Glock was never included. Whether or not they have done further testing to evaluate Glock is another matter.

From the research I have done, the berretta and SIG entries were the only one's to complete the trials satisfactorily. Berreta was awarded the contract because of cost and production concerns. This notion of being a first place and second place in the trials is hogwash. Both SIG and Berretta performed well enough to get to the negotiating table.

I have had the opportunity to shoot new Berrettas, and old Berrettas and even some Tauri. I ahve found these guns to be excellent performers in all respects. Now the fact that I own a SIG 226 in 9mm may say which I like a little better, but that is not to discount the quality of the berreta.

I find the constant discussion of failures with the Berretta, a little silly. There were plenty of failures with the old 1911s, but even so individuals are buying them up as if they were a new design. People are even spending $600.00+ on a new 1911, have problems with them, and still be willing to invest into the brand new gun to make the darn thing work right.

If you are not a fan of the Berretta, or any of the newer designs for that matter and are of the 1911 persuasion, GREAT!!! They are great guns with alot of history and performance. But 1911ers saying the Berretta should be dropped because of failures is like the pot calling the kettle black. With the millions of berrettas running around in the US military inventory and fact that NATO ammo is on the hot side, I would suspect that failures are fairly commonplace.

If I had to choose between a brand new berreta and a brand new 1911 in .45 (not from Colt)...it would be a tough choice, but I would probably choose the berretta, IMHO.



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

PeterGunn
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top