XM9/XM10 trials


PDA






Slater
August 19, 2006, 11:29 AM
From the M1911A1 site:

In 1981, the US Army was given control of the JSSAP pistol trials, and the search began again. 85 requirements were laid down for the winning XM9 pistol; 72 were mandatory while 13 were desirable. Only four pistols were entered this time: the Beretta 92SB (an improved 92S-1), the HK P7M13, the S&W 459A, and the SIG-Sauer P226. However, all four failed, and strangely, the Beretta now finished dead last, even behind the M1911A1.

Congress and the GAO were infuriated by the waste of money with no apparent results. Procurement funds for additional .45 ACP ammunition was withheld until the US Army could formulate a test series that a manufacturer could pass. The XM9 trials started again in January 1984. During the mean time, Beretta had improved the 92SB again, calling the resulting pistol the 92SB-F. The competitors included the Colt SSP, the FN Double Action Hi-Power, the HK P7M13, the SIG-Sauer P226, the S&W 459, the Steyr GB, and the Walther P88. In the end, only the P226 and 92SB-F were considered to have passed all of the tests.

After a series of bids in which SIG-Sauer was the low bidder, Beretta was finally given the contract due to a lower price quoted on its spare parts. Needless to say, SIG-Sauer was extremely annoyed, and there were allegations that Beretta was shown SIG-Sauer's final bid in order to under-cut it. Moreover, the other manufacturers were upset for a variety of reasons. Several had worked up bids before they were told that they were in fact not eligible. Moreover, S&W's pistols had failed due to a mathematical error while converting to English units from Metric in determining firing pin energy.

After a series of GAO and Congressional investigations, another series of tests similar to the XM9 trials were ordered for 1987. However, these started off with controversy as well. The US Army fought to keep the 92F (now the M9) from being retested since it had passed the XM9 trials. SIG-Sauer insisted that the P226 didn't need to retested either since it had passed XM9 as well. On the other hand, S&W noted that the Beretta M9s were no longer being built to the standards of the XM9 trials, having received relaxation of several requirements including accuracy.

Around the same time, reports of M9 slide separations were becoming rampant in both the US Navy and Army. The Navy SEALs were arguably abusing their pistols by firing over-pressure ammunition in suppressed examples, while the Army's separations were blamed on the use of recycled slides from a French contract which contained tellurium. Events were becoming so bad that a Safety-of-Use message recommended that slides be replaced after 3000 rounds had been fired; however, this recommendation was lowered to 1,000 rounds after a M9 suffered a slide separation with less than 3,000 rounds fired.

Beretta took a two-pronged response. First, they sued the Department of the Navy because the SEAL Teams had leaked info of the slide separations to Ruger. Second, they designed a hammer pin with an over-sized head to fit into a groove machined in the slide. Thus, if the slide separated, it would not strike the user in the face. Commercially, these pistols are known as the 92FS

The XM10 tests were finally rescheduled for 1988 after being canceled the year before for lack of participation. Beretta refused to submit samples, so the US Army used off-the-shelf M9s. Beretta protested this, but since they had already refused samples, this protest was rejected. SIG-Sauer also refused to submit samples, standing on principle that they had passed XM9 the first time. S&W submitted their 459 again, and Ruger submitted their new P85.

Again, there were allegations of impropriety. The Army refused to relax their requirement for a chrome-lined bore, even if the barrel was made from stainless steel. Moreover, the S&W failed tests that they had passed in XM9. They were the only pistols to pass the XM9 accuracy requirements, yet they failed the XM10. The S&W also failed the corrosion tests in spite of the fact that the affected parts which failed XM10 were made from stainless steel, while the same parts in the successful XM9 samples were made from carbon steel. Ruger wasn't provided any reasons as to why their samples failed.




Reading all of this (I kind of knew about these trials but didn't know all the details) , would these trials have been run differently today or pretty much the same?

If you enjoyed reading about "XM9/XM10 trials" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Blue Brick
September 11, 2013, 09:04 PM
http://www.americanrifleman.org/Webcontent/pdf/2009-11/2009111213533-beretta92.pdf

With the same standards
for testing as set out in the XM9 trials, the XM10
pistol trials resulted in the Beretta 92SB-F predictably
winning the competition again.

The P-85 did pass the test, but the overall cost for the P-85 included restocking parts supplies and additional training. That cost was not added to the 92F.

Owen
September 11, 2013, 11:58 PM
Hard to say. I'm fairly familiar with military procurement, and the competitive system is generally pretty ugly, and requirements don't always make a lot of sense.

If you enjoyed reading about "XM9/XM10 trials" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!