Beretta USA Presents Next Generation Handgun to the Department of Defense

Torian said:

Wow. In other words, it is an M9 with a rail, and a few other cosmetic changes. Contrary to what many may think, a rail on an M9 doesn't necessarily provided added value for those of us in the military.

That rail just increases the tendency for the weapon to catch on the holster or any other rigging on my kit. I'd prefer a standard 1911 or Sig 220 without any of the tactical "accoutrements". We aren't getting fancy weapon lights issued for our sidearms, so the rail is useless anyways.

Click to expand...

Amen, brother.

It's just more weight... not everyone in the military is a ranger or seal, we won't be hanging anything off our pistols most likely. I do like that this gun has a smaller grip, the standard M9 feels fat in my hands and I don't have all that small of hands... I also like the tritium sights.

I would buy one

-Matt S.

A) That is a dead sexy pistol. I wonder if Wilson has played
B) I wonder if Wilson has played any part in the development and changes here.

C)

material and design changes.

Click to expand...

+

will likely cost less than the current M9

Click to expand...

is that a nice way to say it uses more MIM parts than the existing M9?

Does it still take the same magazines? I bet if it does that would be impetus to go with this gun as mags are going to not be an issue for the .mil

So they Cerakote the current gun and present it as something improved??

Perfect.....we'll take 500,000 units.

Its a cerakoted M9A1 with a "Vertec" grip and front dovetail sight?

I bet the DoD will declare none of entries in the competition as good enough to warrant replacing the M9 / M9A1.

Torian said:

Wow. In other words, it is an M9 with a rail, and a few other cosmetic changes. Contrary to what many may think, a rail on an M9 doesn't necessarily provide added value for those of us in the military.

That rail just increases the tendency for the weapon to catch on the holster or any other rigging on my kit. I'd prefer a standard 1911 or Sig 220 without any of the tactical "accoutrements". We aren't getting fancy weapon lights issued for our sidearms, so the rail is useless anyways.

Click to expand...

So you just want a .45ACP. 9mm and 45ACP are about equal in energy, plus you can carry a LOT more rounds of 9mm than .45ACP.

You do realize the original M9 didn't have a rail? The rail was added later on when the military requested it.

If they would get rid of the stupid safety on the M9 and have a de-cocker only it would be a FAR better pistol. A safety is not needed on a DA/SA pistol.

If they would get rid of the stupid safety on the M9 and have a de-cocker only it would be a FAR better pistol. A safety is not needed on a DA/SA pistol.

Click to expand...

The following borrowed from a knowledgeable poster on another forum…

It will come with a convertible safety lever. Meaning you will be able to convert it to a G. Think PX4 or 90-Two.

Click to expand...

They need to make a .40S&W variation.

If this is the M9A3, what was the M9A2?

Click to expand...

M9A1 guns that are modded to M9A3 standards.

Kleanbore said:

Posted by AustinTX:

That's for the warfighter, and only the warfighter, to decide.

If they thought the M9 "did the job just fine", they wouldn't be looking to replace it.

The DoD spends money every year replacing and refurbishing M9 pistols. A new one may cost less.

And the introduction of the M9A3 cannot "prevent" an expenditure.

Click to expand...

So by your logic the 1911 was inferior to the Beretta? That is not the sentiment of the pro-1911 crowd.

Devonai said:

After 12,000 rounds through my personal 92FS, and nine years of pistol qual with the Army/Air Guard (at least four different M9s), I experienced two malfunctions, both FTE with Blazer Aluminum-cased ammo. I don't have a problem with the design, all other limitations notwithstanding.

However, I'm also scratching my head as to why they didn't offer some variant of the PX4. Also, I predict a lot of "Hey Sergeant, I lost my thread protector" from Private Snuffy.

Click to expand...

LOL Certainly the loss rate will be less than M16 bolt carrier cotter pins...

What is the U.S. military doing with "deadlined" M9's anyway.

They can't possibly still have in service every M9 procured for the last 30 years.

Still larger and heavier than really needed, though, compared to the pending competition.

Click to expand...

This. I have respect for the m9 in its own right, but like it or not, it is a 40 year old design. There are much more modern designs (m&p, XDm, vp9, etc) out there that can fulfill the same role, perhaps with even greater reliability, without the weight or bulk. Probably at reduced cost too. This update does nothing to address those principle drawbacks.

stchman said:

So you just want a .45ACP. 9mm and 45ACP are about equal in energy, plus you can carry a LOT more rounds of 9mm than .45ACP.

You do realize the original M9 didn't have a rail? The rail was added later on when the military requested it.

Click to expand...

Stchman, keep in mind that when you can only shoot FMJ, the .45 ACP becomes far more appealing than the 9mm.

I've carried and trained with the M9 on multiple deployments, carrying both the rail and not rail versions. I was never impressed by either, and the rail just proved to be a hassle since it tended to catch on holsters and gear.

Soldiers did not request a rail on their M9s...some good idea fairy sitting behind a desk at the Pentagon did.

A couple of points to note on this new Beretta M9A3:

This is not (at least not at this time) Beretta's entrant into the proposed new Army pistol trials. The M9A3 is being submitted as an Engineering Change Proposal under the current M9 contract. In other words, they are offering to fill the remaining M9 contract with the M9A3 if the military would prefer it. I'm sure part of the idea here is the military will like it enough that finding a replacement is not necessary at this time.

Also, one of the changes on the M9A3 is the slide mounted decocker/safety can be quickly and easily converted to decocker only.

Thank you for that clarification, if the new design really is cheaper then they very well may say "why not?"

As far as the Air Force side of things, current regulations authorize 30 rounds on post. It would be nice if they changed that to 30 or 34 if the 17-round mags are available.

When I was in the Army 50 years ago, the average recruit could not shoot and qualify with the then 1911 45 Pistol. The Beretta M9 is a vast improvement in that regard as it is more accurate and much easier to shoot. A handgun is not much use if you can't hit with it. The M9 is a superb weapon and will continue to serve for many more years to come. My 2 cents

The reduced grip size is the best change.

If they would get rid of the stupid safety on the M9 and have a de-cocker only it would be a FAR better pistol. A safety is not needed on a DA/SA pistol.
__________________

Click to expand...

I agree, but it is the DOD that requires this, never gonna go away. If it is convertible, that is great for civilians at least. I'd bet $ soldiers won't be able to under penalty of UCMJ if they do.

I know that its personal preferance

But I have shot the Beretta's and will take the CZ 75 SP01 Tactical over them ANY time. Would have made a much better military weapon, 18+1 capacity, flawless operation , tactical rail, excellent grip, night sights and MOST important..MUCH LESS felt recoil...very important as the military shooting handguns has not been exceptional and an issue they have tried to address

Oh well...maybe because they don't come in desert sand...LOL

If the complaints about the M9 can be addressed by improving that package, the Army would much prefer to stick with the basic M9. That way, there would be few changes in the manual of arms, the documentation, training, parts supply, and all the other factors the military needs to consider where the civilian buying a gun doesn't.

And how much better (in reality, not someone's fevered mind) would any of the competition be? Most modern auto pistols share most characteristics: DA/SA trigger, high capacity magazine, decent accuracy, good reliability. And if you are a general and prefer some other gun, how would you explain to a Congressional committee just why you want to buy a whole new logistics tail at huge cost in order to get your favorite handgun?

It is easy for a civilian, buying one gun, to decide that his choice is the best and the military simply must adopt it immediately. I have seen many guns proposed for service use, many of them totally unsuitable except in the mind of one person. (The Desert Eagle? The Coonan? The Dardick? A new Luger? Come on, now, folks!)

Jim