Some History on the miliary adopting the 92

[Underdog 1,593]

I was quite intrigued on how the military adopted the M9. After all of the testing, the Beretta was chosen, and it beat out its rival Sig. Properly lubricated and serviced with new springs periodically, the Beretta holds up and is quite accurate. Besides, arguably, what pistol has a more attractive shape and finish?

 

There has been some talk of just how political it really was in it being chosen by the armed forces. The US was pressured to adopt a 9mm handgun to comply with NATO. The US wanted a missile base in Italy, so the contract was offered to Beretta for the M9 to secure that. The US was concerned with the cost associated with procurring each firearm.

 

But that is not the whole story. As of late, I have been told by someone intimate with the testing that in durability tests, the Beretta actually held up better than the other considerations, including the Sig, after thousands of rounds were fired through it!

 

Then there is that issue about the slides breaking. The 92, with its high accuracy was built to tight tolerances and it needs to be lubricated and properly maintained. The issue of the slides coming off was a direct result of ammunution loaded to extremely high pressure. And, the interesting thing is that it appears that American ammunition was purposefully loaded to that higher pressure! And there are even boxes of this high pressure ammunition to prove this.

 

I wonder if Colt and other American gun and ammuntion manufacturers would have liked to have gotten that military contract themselves? For example, would Colt, who had secured the contract for the 1911 and who was working on a scaled down 1911 in 9mm for the new contract, would Colt have had any interest in the 92s "durability" as it produced ammuntion for the military?

 

What do you think?

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

I think that a combat arm shouldnt need to be properly cleaned and lubricated to be able to endure extreme fouling/dirty conditions. Just sayin'

[Babaganoosh 192]

I think that a combat arm shouldnt need to be properly cleaned and lubricated to be able to endure extreme fouling/dirty conditions. Just sayin'

 

 

Well there goes pretty much any military firearm ever. Go ahead and say it, except for the AK... ha

[Underdog 1,593]

That is why I like the "AK" of the pistol world!

[DevsAdvocate 112]

I was quite intrigued on how the military adopted the M9. After all of the testing, the Beretta was chosen, and it beat out its rival Sig. Properly lubricated and serviced with new springs periodically, the Beretta holds up and is quite accurate. Besides, arguably, what pistol has a more attractive shape and finish?

 

There has been some talk of just how political it really was in it being chosen by the armed forces. The US was pressured to adopt a 9mm handgun to comply with NATO. The US wanted a missile base in Italy, so the contract was offered to Beretta for the M9 to secure that. The US was concerned with the cost associated with procurring each firearm.

 

But that is not the whole story. As of late, I have been told by someone intimate with the testing that in durability tests, the Beretta actually held up better than the other considerations, including the Sig, after thousands of rounds were fired through it!

 

Then there is that issue about the slides breaking. The 92, with its high accuracy was built to tight tolerances and it needs to be lubricated and properly maintained. The issue of the slides coming off was a direct result of ammunution loaded to extremely high pressure. And, the interesting thing is that it appears that American ammunition was purposefully loaded to that higher pressure! And there are even boxes of this high pressure ammunition to prove this.

 

I wonder if Colt and other American gun and ammuntion manufacturers would have liked to have gotten that military contract themselves? For example, would Colt, who had secured the contract for the 1911 and who was working on a scaled down 1911 in 9mm for the new contract, would Colt have had any interest in the 92s "durability" as it produced ammuntion for the military?

 

What do you think?

 

And Glock was probably rejected because it didn't have 50,000 safeties on it.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

Well there goes pretty much any military firearm ever. Go ahead and say it, except for the AK... ha

 

My mosins dont need to be properly cleaned and lubed, neither do mausers, FALs, AKs, SKSs, glocks, etc etc.

 

AK isnt the only gun out there that doesnt need TLC, which makes it even less excusable to use weapons like the M16 series/ M9s.

 

the M9s in military use are notorious for being crappy

[DevsAdvocate 112]

My mosins dont need to be properly cleaned and lubed, neither do mausers, FALs, AKs, SKSs, glocks, etc etc.

 

AK isnt the only gun out there that doesnt need TLC, which makes it even less excusable to use weapons like the M16 series/ M9s.

 

the M9s in military use are notorious for being crappy

 

Even the M-16 platform can be abused to a great extent... hell, BCM's "Filthy-14" rifle (Article) has over 40,000 rounds through it, the vast majority of them which never involved a cleaning. Some parts were replaced when they failed (as expected).

[mcbethr 42]

This could always be a case of money.

 

If Beretta made a pistol that underbid SIG by $0.13 per magazine, odds are the military will go with the cheaper gun.

 

I also wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of deal going on. If you buy two of our C-130s we'll buy 300,000 of your pistols... that sort of thing.

[notmetoo 41]

Part of the reason Beretta won out is because they already had a plant in the U.S. The P226 was very close to winning otherwise.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

I think that a combat arm shouldnt need to be properly cleaned and lubricated to be able to endure extreme fouling/dirty conditions. Just sayin'

 

Glenn I'm with you 100% on this one! Go back in time to a B+W movie featuring the trials of the M-1 Garand for the "War Department". It was laid-down in a trough of muddy water, sloshed around, picked-up and then tilted muzzle-down to clear itself, and then loaded & fired with a en-block clip (yes a CLIP) of ammo for the Army Generals present at the Trials.

 

This is for all of the peashooter guys, not you Glenn: When the INFERIOR M-9 was adopted I cried. And then the FBI murders happened! Bad Guys took too long to bleed-out & DIE from their "lethal" wounds with the 9mm round!

 

To this day, serious men with serious jobs reach for the .45 ACP when the SHTF! Seals, Rangers, HRT's, SWAT, as well as anyone allowed to carry what they want all reach for the .45! I wonder why that is????????

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Glenn I'm with you 100% on this one! Go back in time to a B+W movie featuring the trials of the M-1 Garand for the "War Department". It was laid-down in a trough of muddy water, sloshed around, picked-up and then tilted muzzle-down to clear itself, and then loaded & fired with a en-block clip (yes a CLIP) of ammo for the Army Generals present at the Trials.

 

However, when the USMC tested it, they didn't seem to think the M1 Garand was as durable as their M1903 Springfield rifles... In fact, they complained about it's inability to perform in sand and saltwater, etc.

 

Those B+W movies produced by the Gov't? Propaganda.

 

Does this mean the M1 Garand was crap? Nope. But it goes to show how unfair it is to compare a new weapons system to one that has already been established and had all the bugs worked out of it. The M1 itself has seen a minor evolution in it's design over it's service life as well.

 

Even the AK-47 saw a lot of reliability improvements to the point where it just became an AKM.

 

This is for all of the peashooter guys, not you Glenn: When the INFERIOR M-9 was adopted I cried. And then the FBI murders happened! Bad Guys took too long to bleed-out & DIE from their "lethal" wounds with the 9mm round!

 

The biggest problem with the US Military adopting the M9 was the caliber, not the gun. Because of the retarded Hague agreement, they were restricted to FMJ only. Those FBI guys? They didn't probably didn't even use HPs. Today, with the technical advancements in JHPs, I'd gladly take a 9mm and not be worried about it's capabilities.

 

That being said: my favorite goto pistol is my Glock 21SF...

 

To this day, serious men with serious jobs reach for the .45 ACP when the SHTF! Seals, Rangers, HRT's, SWAT, as well as anyone allowed to carry what they want all reach for the .45! I wonder why that is????????

 

Because they want to maximize stopping power with the best guns and ammunition that taxpayer dollars can buy. They are also trained, have the physical strength to shoot the .45acp, and have no considerations for concealed carry.

 

Just because they pass up the 9mm to use the .45acp doesn't automatically make the 9mm inferior at everything, it just means their roles are a bit different. The 9mm has a place in police firearms, concealed carry, smaller frame shooters, and those who want more ammo with less recoil and a flatter trajectory.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

Even the AK-47 saw a lot of reliability improvements to the point where it just became an AKM.

 

Well, not really. Its biggest improvements from T1-AKM was just reciever construction methods. The T1 was stamped and they couldnt make it well with the current technology so they went milled with T2 & T3 and then when they perfected the stamped it went to AKM. But thats just construction methods, not reliability. Yes, other things changed as well but mostly petty stuff such as bayonet lug style, method of attaching furniture, gas tube vent hole pattern etc

[DevsAdvocate 112]

Well, not really. Its biggest improvements from T1-AKM was just reciever construction methods. The T1 was stamped and they couldnt make it well with the current technology so they went milled with T2 & T3 and then when they perfected the stamped it went to AKM. But thats just construction methods, not reliability. Yes, other things changed as well but mostly petty stuff such as bayonet lug style, method of attaching furniture, gas tube vent hole pattern etc

 

 

Wiki-AKM:

Compared to the AK-47' date=' the AKM features detail improvements and enhancements that optimized the rifle for mass production; some parts and assemblies were conceived using simplified manufacturing methods. Notably, the AK-47's milled steel receiver was replaced by a U-shaped steel stamping. As a result of these modifications, the AKM’s weight was reduced by approx. 1 kg (2.2 lb), the accuracy during automatic fire was increased [b']and several reliability issues were addressed.[/b] The AK-47's chrome-lined barrel was retained, a common feature of Soviet weapons which resists wear and corrosion, particularly under harsh field and ammunition conditions.

 

One major issue addressed (that I recall) that was discussed in The Gun by CJ Chivers was the addition of a hammer delay device to ensure the rifle did not fire out of battery. As well as minor functional improvements.

 

Does it mean that the original AK-47 was fraught with reliability issues? Nope. But there was room for improvement.

[notmetoo 41]

Glenn I'm with you 100% on this one! Go back in time to a B+W movie featuring the trials of the M-1 Garand for the "War Department". It was laid-down in a trough of muddy water, sloshed around, picked-up and then tilted muzzle-down to clear itself, and then loaded & fired with a en-block clip (yes a CLIP) of ammo for the Army Generals present at the Trials.

 

This is for all of the peashooter guys, not you Glenn: When the INFERIOR M-9 was adopted I cried. And then the FBI murders happened! Bad Guys took too long to bleed-out & DIE from their "lethal" wounds with the 9mm round!

 

To this day, serious men with serious jobs reach for the .45 ACP when the SHTF! Seals, Rangers, HRT's, SWAT, as well as anyone allowed to carry what they want all reach for the .45! I wonder why that is????????

 

Rangers carry the M9. SEALs the P226. SWATs and HRTs are all over the place. So that blanket statement is a bit, well, blanket.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Maintenance is and always will be center stage of firearms. I mean every one would love a gun that never jams up no matter how dirty. But the fact is, and always will be, anything mechanical needs proper maintenance. i would love a car that never needed its oil changed, and so fourth, but its fundamental to the proper functioning of the engine. That said, every gun needs some form of maintenance, and the idea behind the M9 is that you can field strip and clean it with the push of one button and a tooth brush. The question is not if a gun will jam or have issues, but rather what makes up for it. Accuracy? load count? ergonomics? Personally i think it is good practice to keep anything mechanical well maintained no matter what.

 

I also believe the cracking of slide was a design fault since fixed. They wound up relieving stress points on the slide allowing it to flex in certain areas, this is why the firing pin hole by the hammer has a cut in it.

[EchoMirage 137]

Glenn I'm with you 100% on this one! Go back in time to a B+W movie featuring the trials of the M-1 Garand for the "War Department". It was laid-down in a trough of muddy water, sloshed around, picked-up and then tilted muzzle-down to clear itself, and then loaded & fired with a en-block clip (yes a CLIP) of ammo for the Army Generals present at the Trials.

 

This is for all of the peashooter guys, not you Glenn: When the INFERIOR M-9 was adopted I cried. And then the FBI murders happened! Bad Guys took too long to bleed-out & DIE from their "lethal" wounds with the 9mm round!

 

To this day, serious men with serious jobs reach for the .45 ACP when the SHTF! Seals, Rangers, HRT's, SWAT, as well as anyone allowed to carry what they want all reach for the .45! I wonder why that is????????

 

 

uh huh. ive also heard that just from the shockwave of a 45 passing 3 feet to your right is enough to rip your arm off. so the 45 is just so amazing, you dont even have to hit the target.

[GRIZ 3,369]

I was quite intrigued on how the military adopted the M9. After all of the testing, the Beretta was chosen, and it beat out its rival Sig.

 

I have some other input having been around "way back when" when the testing was going on. IIRC the first set of tests were thrown out and SIG actually beat the Beretta the 2nd time around although not by much. If you look at old gun magazines from 84-85 you'll see SIG ads with the 226 backed by the US Flag and the caption "choice of the finest military forces in the world". These ads were run before verything was finalized. The Beretta was chosen as they offered a lower unit cost and already had a factory in the US where they could be made. There were also political considerations which we shall discuss.

 

Please keep in mind I am not a fan of SIGs and prefer the Beretta myself.

 

There has been some talk of just how political it really was in it being chosen by the armed forces. The US was pressured to adopt a 9mm handgun to comply with NATO. The US wanted a missile base in Italy, so the contract was offered to Beretta for the M9 to secure that.

 

The US "pressure' to adopt the 9mm was generated here. There was no President that scared the Russians more than Reagan. This was the main reason Communism bankrupted itself building more tanks, planes, and missiles. That tactic is a topic for another discussion. It kind of made sense to adopt a 9mm as that was what every other NATO country used. The US had always mandated the NATO rifle rd, most of the parts interchangabilty (M1 Abrams track pads also fit the Brit's Challenger and German Leopard tanks for example), and set the standards for most Nato Standardized Agreements (STANAGS).

 

The US missiles in Italy were another very important issue. The Russians gave major concessions in SALT for us to take the Pershing missiles systems out of Germany. They really worried the Russians as they were mobile the Russians couldn't target them because they couldn't be sure of where they were going to be. A base in Italy was not one of the issues and would still enable us to hit targets in the Soviet Union. Establishing another military base in a foreign country is great for their job market and economy. This and the other factors I mentioned were the reasons the Beretta was chosen.

 

For example, would Colt, who had secured the contract for the 1911 and who was working on a scaled down 1911 in 9mm for the new contract, would Colt have had any interest in the 92s "durability" as it produced ammuntion for the military?

 

Colt was really stumbling in the gun business in the 80s. They had made no real attempt to modernize their line of guns and figured they were set making M16s. There was one private proposal to convert the 1911 inventory to 9mm which was actually the cheapest proposal of them all at about $125 a gun. new slide, barrel, magazines and some frame mods were all that was required. This was turned down as the newest 1911s were made in 1945 and were approaching 40 years old. I've seen 1911s (no A1) made in 1916 in Army inventories that already had been through a couple of rebuilds.

 

And Glock was probably rejected because it didn't have 50,000 safeties on it.

 

The Glock wasn't even being imported when the tests started. First Glock I saw was a 17 in 1985. Had it been around that would have been my pick.

 

And then the FBI murders happened! Bad Guys took too long to bleed-out & DIE from their "lethal" wounds with the 9mm round!

 

If you're talking about the Miami shootout the FBI was using the 115 gr WW Silvertip. This happened in April 1986 so the M9 was alreday adopted. I saw the complete after action report. The ammo performed as it was supposed to and took out several inches of the BGs brachial artery stopping just short of his heart. Even if it had gone through his heart it still would have taken him a bit to die.

 

But it goes to show how unfair it is to compare a new weapons system to one that has already been established and had all the bugs worked out of it.

 

Very true. When the 03 Springfield was adopted Army brass insisted it have a magazine cutoff because troops would waste ammo. This feature was dropped on the 03A3 in WWII as a cost saving measure.

 

Those FBI guys? They didn't probably didn't even use HPs.

 

See my comment above.

 

Because of the retarded Hague agreement, they were restricted to FMJ only

 

I agree to an extent. Its okay if you kill soldiers with jagged pieces of metal from fragmentation from artillery rounds but not hollowpoints. I don't think its retarded concerning the treatment of POWs if I am one and the enemy country follows the rules.

 

Just because they pass up the 9mm to use the .45acp doesn't automatically make the 9mm inferior at everything,

 

Correct once again. The 9mm seems to have worked for Eurpoean nations for years. If the 45 is better than the 9 in FMJ configuration its only marginally so (and I like my 45s).

 

There is an article in the current Army Times regarding the announcement of trials for a new US military standard handgun. I'll dig it out and start a new post.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

uh huh. ive also heard that just from the shockwave of a 45 passing 3 feet to your right is enough to rip your arm off. so the 45 is just so amazing, you dont even have to hit the target.

Schmuck? No, it would have to be only two feet away!

[EchoMirage 137]

douche? funny........out of all the 45 sheeple ive met, non of them ever wanted me to shoot them with my 9mm beretta

[mipafox 438]

My mosins dont need to be properly cleaned and lubed, neither do mausers, FALs, AKs, SKSs, glocks, etc etc.

 

AK isnt the only gun out there that doesnt need TLC, which makes it even less excusable to use weapons like the M16 series/ M9s.

 

If your AR jammed on you then it is broken or you bought a POS build. It's not something that just happens with quality weapons.