In 2009 the US Army bought 450,000 Beretta Model 92FS's....

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wacki

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2006
Messages
1,703
Location
Reminiscing the Rockies
In 2009 the US Army bought 450,000 Beretta Model 92FS's....


Why not Glock? Why not Smith? Or Springfield??

I can understand the 9mm caliber but the 92FS is an old platform and I would of thought they would of gone with something a little newer.... If they picked Italian production over made in the USA there's gotta be a reason.
 
Yep, that was about 2 years ago. Wacki, are you upset that they did not get your opinion first? Or is it something else?

tipoc
 
2 years ago none of the "new" S&W M&Ps, the XD's and many of the newer autos were not in major use, the US military bought thru the existing supply lines. If you really look at it, most of the Autoloaders are fairly old, at least 30 years old.
 
I've never liked the 9mm. I wish the armed forces would get rid of all the 92's and replace them with .45 HK USP's. Now THAT's a much better pistol.
 
The purchase of additional Beretta M-9s and M-9A1s was due to Congress "killing off" (no money in budget for a new sidearm, but enough money to continue getting what the .Mil has been using for last 25 years) the US SOCOM/US Army Joint Combat Pistol program, which was looking to replace the 9x19mm Beretta M-9 with a .45ACP sidearm.

Sidearms that were made to compete for the Joint Combat Pistol program were:
Beretta PX-4 Tactical
FN FNP-45 Tactical
Glock 21SF
H&K HK-45 and HK-45C
HS Metal (Springfield Armory) HS-45 (XD-45)
ParaUSA 1911-LDA
Ruger P-345
S&W M&P-45
SIG P-220R Combat
Taurus PT-24/7 OSS
 
US military has bought other handguns. A few SIGs, a few Glocks, a few Rugers. Maybe a few others. But the Beretta is the official sidearm, therefore, they buy more of them.

Nine millimeter actually works well for the modern military. It's a standard caliber throughout the globe, the NATO standard caliber for sidearms and, logistically, you can pack a heap of ammo into the weapons and ammo boxes. Sidearms are not primary weapons in the field but the military still wants as much firepower as they can get.
 
I think it was a wise decision to stay with the Beretta. Its not my favorite, but it works.

I am glad that Congress decided to kill the Army's never-ending search for a replacement sidearm. Honestly, how much tax payer money has been dumped in the toilet researching guns that do exactly the same thing as the current M9?

A sidearm is a last-chance, last-resort weapon. They (the Army) doesnt need to agonize over which caliber to go with every three years. Sure the 9mm isnt ideal in some ways, but I challenge you to find three examples of shots that would be fatal with a bigger caliber (like .40S&W or .45ACP) that will not be fatal with a 9mm.

I have a real problem with the way that the Army selects sidearms and rifles. Talk about your inefficient bloated government bureaucracies....The Army might be the worst. Witness the OICW rifle program (which grew out of the ACR program from the 80's) that swallowed more than a hundred million dollars (into the pockets of H&K and other companies, never to be seen again) and resulted in the US keeping the current M16 / M4 rifles.

Since the 1980's there have been at least three Rifle programs: ACR, OICW and XM8 that have all resulted in ZERO benefit to the average soldier. There is/has been a similar process ongoing with regards to sidearms.

Idiocy.
 
If I were going to buy gun for myself the Beretta would not be the one I'd pick. But if it were issued to me I'd use it with confidence. It has proven to be a good gun.

When you are needing nearly 1/2 million new guns, you cannot just replace the guns. Remember you have to also buy all new magazines, holsters and then you have to re-train everyone. That also adds up to a lot more money.

Since the new guns are just like the old ones spare parts and magazines can be salvaged from older guns that have worn out saving even more money. Our government is $14 Trillion in the red. The Beretta wouldn't be my personal pick, but it is just fine when you look at the price tag to change.
 
Old model? It's been used for 25 years.
The 1911 was used for how long by our military?
Oh yeah, 100.

It's not old yet.
 
In 2009 the US Army bought 450,000 Beretta Model 92FS's....


Why not Glock? Why not Smith? Or Springfield??

I can understand the 9mm caliber but the 92FS is an old platform and I would of thought they would of gone with something a little newer.... If they picked Italian production over made in the USA there's gotta be a reason
Click to expand...

DoD went through a very visible and expensive down select process which determined the SIG and M92 were satisfactory for issue. Expensive spare parts outpriced the SIG.

If you have a SIG you know parts are too darn expensive.

S&W was upset its pistol did not win and took it to Congress and the courts. The courts said they were full of it, Congress was embrassed in the popular press and let the tests and selection stand.

No one wants to go through that again :evil:

Until DoD decides it needs a new pistol, through this process, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Capabilities_Integration_Development_System, the M92 is the pistol.

The PM of the program is to be congratulated as he required the winner to build a factory in the US.
 
The Beretta is a good safe gun. With a round chambered and decocked, safety off, it is safe to carry ready to go. It has a nice crisp trigger too when fired single action. 9mm works for the purpose and makes the heavy handgun easy to shoot. I bet the military likes an exposed hammer handgun for holstering.
 
glock would obviously be a better option cost wise. much cheaper to maintain, more durable, etc.

however, the logistics involved with training every member of the US military not to shoot themselves in the leg with a short trigger pull striker fired pistol is probably a concern.
 
wacki said:
In 2009 the US Army bought 450,000 Beretta Model 92FS's....


Why not Glock? Why not Smith? Or Springfield??

I can understand the 9mm caliber but the 92FS is an old platform and I would of thought they would of gone with something a little newer.... If they picked Italian production over made in the USA there's gotta be a reason.
Click to expand...
The Walterish 38 Beretta must be a great pistol. It is standard sidearm of the French Military.
 
glock would obviously be a better option cost wise. much cheaper to maintain, more durable, etc.
Click to expand...

"Obviously"? Based on what standard?

Initial cost? The Gov't buys M9s for about $250 each. What is Glock's offer?

Do you have some long term data that shows replacement cost over the long term, part-for-part, factoring in both wear rates and replacement part costs?

There's a lot more to this debate than "which is the better/cheaper pistol".
 
I have to agree with Sargents1 post above. Why is the U.S. military blowing millions to research and develop a new sidearm? Thank God the funding for this epic waste of taxpayer money was axed. (Ditto for the project to reinvent the combat rifle.) It's a pistol for crying out loud. It's a weapon of last resort and 90% of all front-line combat troops don't even carry one anyway. It's a toy for officers and personnel in the rear. Yeah 9mm sucks but we're in NATO so that's what we have to deal with. There's no need to pay H&K, or whoever, millions of dollars to reinvent the wheel. I'm surprised they actually have a genuine need to order 450,000 new Beretta's (most likely they don't, just blowing whatever excess money is in the budget)
 
cacoltguy:.....Yeah 9mm sucks but we're in NATO so that's what we have to deal with....
Click to expand...

I've read this for years but I don't think it is entirely accurate.

The US military began researching the 9mm as a replacement for the .45 immeduately after WWII.........several years before NATO was formed and DECADES before the US adopted the Beretta 92 and the 9mm.

It's doubtful that being in NATO had much bearing on adoption of the 9mm. It certainly was not a priority.....since it took forty odd years.:rolleyes:


Whether the 1911 was outdated, ineffective or inferior to the Beretta 92 was never an issue.....neither was it a ,45 vs 9mm issued. It WAS a spending issue.......as with many military/government projects it was all about spending tax $$$$. The trials to determine the "best" 9mm handgun were laughable and rife with political interference and outright fraud.

Here's an old thread from THR:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=76863

While blaming it on NATO is a seeming plausible explanation it really wasn't.
 
The trials to determine the "best" 9mm handgun were laughable and rife with political interference and outright fraud.
Click to expand...

There is so much "misremembering" and lies and bias when reflections on the military trials that brought us the M9 is discussed.

Here is an interesting link - GOA investigation INTO those very tests:

http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf
 
I've read this for years but I don't think it is entirely accurate.

The US military began researching the 9mm as a replacement for the .45 immeduately after WWII.........several years before NATO was formed and DECADES before the US adopted the Beretta 92 and the 9mm.

It's doubtful that being in NATO had much bearing on adoption of the 9mm. It certainly was not a priority.....since it took forty odd years.
Click to expand...

Dogtown is right here. The U.S. was never forced to adopt the 9mm by NATO, neither did it adopt the 9mm to appease NATO. They did it because they thought it was the best thing for them given what they wanted.

The original early 1980s testing and evaluation were about as objective as such contracts usually are, meaning that they had problems, but no one could prove rigging despite efforts to do so from some powerful players.

The M9 for now and the conceivable future is the standard issue sidearm. Others are used and purchased in large quantities. But the M9 met and continues to meet the criteria. The Glock and other striker fired guns do not, at present, meet those guidelines so they are not now and have never been in the running.

tipoc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Older(Blue)Beretta 92FS VS. S&W Model 659?
Replies
6
Views
2K
GroovedG19
G
O
  • Locked
Beretta 92FS Advice Wanted + Some Questions
Replies
24
Views
2K
Pimpstar00
P
S
  • Locked
Go in to put a Beretta 92FS on layaway, walk out with something else on layaway
Replies
5
Views
743
sfmittels
S
R
  • Locked
New US armed forces/DoD XM9 contract; CNN.....
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Replies
280
Views
16K
herrwalther
H
S
  • Locked
Made a stupid mistake.....got a Beretta 92F instead of 92FS...what to do??
2
Replies
48
Views
9K
Sicari
S
Back
Top