ARMY rejects M9A3 proposal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. The Army must have a design that they like already. There is no other logical reason that they wouldn't stick with an improved and existing weapons system.
 
Nope - they are going to hold open trials for a Modular system.

Again.

This crops up every year. Wasting millions of our dollars for certain.

The M9 served it's purpose but as the article notes it's no longer up for the task or competitive with newer designs. Having both owned and carried in Iraq that pistol (92FS and M9), I can say I'm less than impressed with it and the design versus size and weight. We can and should do better.

Pistols don't win wars. Here's the fix. Won't even charge for the advice.

1. Abandon the silly ban on HP ammo. That notion was based on flawed medical science and flawed battlefield tactics. HPs stop threats faster, which decrease suffering. HPs offer less over penetration too.
2. Stick with 9x19 (cost, availability, weight/size/capacity, recoil).
3. Pick an off-the-shelf tried and true weapon and go with it - Glock, Sig, CZ, SW MP, XD, whatever. ZERO need for testing. None. Nada. They work. They are rugged and reliable. Good enough. Extra credit if it's a polymer gun for 1 pound weight savings.
4. Negotiate or open bidding for the best 20 year contract per piece and servicing/warranty/replacement contract.

Done.
 
I figured they wouldn't accept the M9A3. Put a dress on a pig, it is still a pig. In this case the dress is a rail and brown frame. Beretta should have known better to release a firearm before the Army released the specifications for the project. Now the real question is...what is the fate of the M9A3? Scrap it and work on something else or see if their is a civilian market for it.

If the SIG P250 was a cheaper design, something Sig could easily do for a bulk contract order, that would be ideal. Changing caliber would not be as important as size since there is plenty of 124gr 9mm NATO to go around.
 
herrwalther said:
I figured they wouldn't accept the M9A3. Put a dress on a pig, it is still a pig. In this case the dress is a rail and brown frame. Beretta should have known better to release a firearm before the Army released the specifications for the project. Now the real question is...what is the fate of the M9A3? Scrap it and work on something else or see if their is a civilian market for it.

If the SIG P250 was a cheaper design, something Sig could easily do for a bulk contract order, that would be ideal. Changing caliber would not be as important as size since there is plenty of 124gr 9mm NATO to go around.
Click to expand...
Hmm, not sure I get you there. Based on the street price of a P250 vs. Beretta 92, it would certainly seem like the 250 is the cheaper option. If going with a Sig, my vote would be for the P320, basically a P290 on steroids.

http://www.sigevolution.com/p320
 
There is no money for a new service-wide handgun. There is no desire at the levels that count for a new service-wide handgun. The M9 is considered in those circles to be adequate.
There are many whole units that deploy overseas and return without anyone ever drawing their M9, much less shooting one. Often they don't even get issued.Why upgrade the M9 in such scenarios? Why spend the $$? Heard of the sequester?

People who need something smaller, more powerful, more special, and have a more immediate need, are funded differently and typically get what they want as the numbers are relatively so small.
 
Like they should.

There are cheaper pistols that already have M9A3 features that Beretta is boasting as improvements.

Also, people who advocate keeping the same model ignore the fact that there is a cost involved with keeping it which is in no way guaranteed that it would be lower than buying a pistol with more simple design.
 
They should do what Ive been saying for years.

If individual soldiers want to have a sidearm , let them bring their own, they would have to supply their own ammunition and ba able to qualify with the weapon.


They then would eliminate cost for new ammo and more guns that will just get placed in about 20 years.
 
Sounds like a 100s of million dollar pipe dream to me.

They want:
"more modern" Without stating which antiquating aspect of the M-9 can't be addressed on the current chassis.

"more powerful" Than what... a NATO 9mm round? Then fess-up now about dumping it and state the desired replacement cartridge.

"state of the art" Well - that certainly is "defining" now.

"(additional) sub-compact versions" We want it big enough to be a valid primary weapon for some but a concealable version for others... "Hey Daddy, I want an oompa loompa... I want you to get me an oompa loompa RIGHT AWAY!"

Lord I wish someone would reign these wastes of money in and track down the individuals directly responsible for initiating costly "fixes" on the unbroken. I want their professional heads on a professional pike. Clearly not a call for violence but rather an immediate and professionally painful removal from their posts.

Remember too, this isn't just about particular firearms - it's hundreds of millions more for testing, holsters, mags, training manuals and equipment, training itself for individual users and armorers, armorer's tools... A nearly endless list of expenses ignored by those poking holes in one-on-one pistol cost comparisons. HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OUTSIDE OF THE COST OF THE FIREARMS. I can't even imagine the costs incurred in the implied change of caliber.

Oh, and also - thanks for the link LEFTY.

Todd.
 
Last edited:
Barry the Bear said:
They should do what Ive been saying for years.

If individual soldiers want to have a sidearm , let them bring their own, they would have to supply their own ammunition and ba able to qualify with the weapon.


They then would eliminate cost for new ammo and more guns that will just get placed in about 20 years.
Click to expand...
Returning to civil war procurement tactics is the winning idea! :)
 
Owlnmole said:
Hmm, not sure I get you there. Based on the street price of a P250 vs. Beretta 92, it would certainly seem like the 250 is the cheaper option. If going with a Sig, my vote would be for the P320, basically a P290 on steroids.

http://www.sigevolution.com/p320
Click to expand...
Striker fired - check
plastic frame - check

I still think the military should use the P226 or P229 as standard issue.
 
1. Abandon the silly ban on HP ammo. That notion was based on flawed medical science and flawed battlefield tactics. HPs stop threats faster, which decrease suffering. HPs offer less over penetration too.
2. Stick with 9x19 (cost, availability, weight/size/capacity, recoil).
3. Pick an off-the-shelf tried and true weapon and go with it - Glock, Sig, CZ, SW MP, XD, whatever. ZERO need for testing. None. Nada. They work. They are rugged and reliable. Good enough. Extra credit if it's a polymer gun for 1 pound weight savings.
4. Negotiate or open bidding for the best 20 year contract per piece and servicing/warranty/replacement contract.
Click to expand...

Best advice I've seen on the topic. Won't happen because it makes too much sense.

9mm is just fine, there isn't anything major wrong with the Beretta, but there are better options.
 
I like the idea of using expanding ammunition. The government pretty much screwed themselves by pushing the whole NATO standardization thing. They are stuck with the 9mm, and I don't see another caliber that can improve on it without some considerable drawbacks. Expanding bullets would also solve the issues they are encountering with primary weapons and their stopping power. In my opinion, a lot more people are getting killed by their M4's not having enough stopping power, than their sidearm having too thick of a barrel or too long of a slide.

We need to lead the way and say, "We want to KILL the enemy until they can no longer continue fighting," not "We want to wound the enemy to the point that the fiscal burden on their group is such that they need to temporarily quit fighting so that they can raise funds to continue the war at a later date."
 
Paint the turd green and it's still a turd. No kidding, I mean *** Beretta c'mon bring out a decent striker modular design and you'll be in there, not this clunky, dated, POS!
 
Why do people wish to continually give high profile, high dollar stuff to the Europeans.

Why not select an AMERICAN company (Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Colt, etc.), no they want Sig Sauer, H&K, FN, Beretta, Glock.

An American company will make the pistol just as good as the Europeans, plus probably be more affordable.

Most European companies think VERY highly of their firearms and really stick it to the end consumer.

The best bet for the US Military is to stick with what they have and take Beretta's improvements if and only if the new stuff is backwards compatible with the old stuff.
 
Posted by moxie:
There is no money for a new service-wide handgun. There is no desire at the levels that count for a new service-wide handgun. The M9 is considered in those circles to be adequate.
Click to expand...

People on this board buy a pistol and use it until they tire of it. They may have to replace springs from time to time. At some point they can sell the gun.

That's not so with the Army. Every last handgun in the inventory will be refurbished more than once and replaced after it has worn out. Many, of not virtually all, of the M9 pistols delivered three decades ago is gone or is about to become unserviceable.

Replacing the M9 pistols costs money--real money, because the gun costs a lot to make; it is an old design, far from producible by today's standards, and with a shorter service life.

I don't know the break-even, but depending upon the planning horizon, it will certainly be more economical to replace the current issue postols with new, less expensive pistols than to continue refurbishing and replacing the M9.
 
Well, the Army should at least get the M9A3s for the pistols remaining on the contract, they are better and cost the same or less. Not surprised they aren't considering it for the replacement though.
 
Owlnmole said:
Hmm, not sure I get you there. Based on the street price of a P250 vs. Beretta 92, it would certainly seem like the 250 is the cheaper option. If going with a Sig, my vote would be for the P320, basically a P290 on steroids.
Click to expand...

Sigs are typically more expensive retail price compared to other brands. Minus HK, high end 1911s etc. It would be insane when discussing a bulk order to pay retail, but I use it as a starting point. I say the P250 because the military has a fascination with hammer fired pistols vs striker fire. It would not surprise me at all if hammer fired was one of the stipulations of the contract.
 
the military has a fascination with hammer fired pistols vs striker fire.
Click to expand...

I think it's because a hammer hits the firing pin with more force which decreases the chance of a soft primer strike. Another benefit is that if for some reason the pistol doesn't fire, you can pull the trigger for another chance to set off the primer where with a striker you have to rack the slide. Also the long, heavy DA pull decreases the chance of an accidental trigger pull.
 
This may actually have been a smart move by Beretta. Now that it has been rejected they first know where they stand and they know what the Army does not want in the new design.

When push comes to shove, I don't think they are going to do anything. The military is cutting back. Replacing a pistol is pretty much a waste of time and money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

JonEvans1990FL
  • Locked
U.S Army picks Sig.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
140
Views
11K
Shinbone
S
C
  • Locked
Rare Positive Gun Article
Replies
5
Views
541
ColinthePilot
C
F
  • Locked
Army wants a harder-hitting pistol
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
160
Views
10K
Sam1911
S
Maj Dad
  • Locked
101 Years Later... The New Marine Corps CQB Pistol
Replies
1
Views
681
CoRoMo
CoRoMo
RetiredUSNChief
  • Locked
Commanders Can Ask About Privately Owned Guns
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
RetiredUSNChief
RetiredUSNChief
Back
Top