I wonder why "civilian clone" and not simply M9? Is there a difference between this pistol and what is issued? Why not simply take that production and sell it also to the public as Colt once did? At one time, Colt, S&W, and others (Remington, Webley, lots of them), did not sell military arms to the public only because the military stuff had a much lower grade of finish, and these companies did not want the public to get the idea that a lower standard of finish was the norm.
Now, the military gear is the same finish as commercial stuff (sometimes military gear is better than commercial, my how times change). There is nothing about military side arms like the Beretta that make them illegal for civilians to own. Indeed, aside from a very small number, proportional to the total production, of handguns would ever fit outside the realm of ownership. That the US Government since Clinton determined that the military could no longer surplus its handguns to mere peons who work, pay taxes, and vote for their regimes does not change the fact that Beretta could easily take an M9 straight from the box, stamp a civilian serial number on it (in the event the government has set aside its own block of numbers, I don't know) and sell it, holster and all, to CDNN who could then sell it to me or another person.
Remington could sell complete US Sniper Rifles (in the same way Barret does) if they wanted to.
So, my question is this: Is there any difference at all, beyond perhaps serial number, between the Beretta M9 and the US Military's M9?
