Sigs are better than Glocks !

Status
Not open for further replies.
How did Beretta win the M9 contract. They did not win because they had superior gun to Sig. They won because they had a cheaper gun that meet the min spec.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The Beretta beat the SIG fair and square in both of the U.S. military trials.
Click to expand...

Both wrong.

The U.S. military trials were not a sports contest in which the high score won. Both the Beretta and Sig met the qualification requirements to enter the bidding phase. As a matter of trivia, Beretta was not initially the cheaper gun; Sig actually had a slightly lower bid on its guns, but Beretta had a much lower bid on its parts package (in a second round of bidding), making the total Beretta bid lower than the total Sig bid. (see pages 4 and 5 of this article)
 
Last edited:
didnt glock bid on that US military trial thing??
Click to expand...
No.
The Joint Service Small Arms Program, abbreviated JSSAP, was created to coordinate weapon standardization between the various U.S. armed service branches.

Their first major program involved the search for a new 9x19mm Parabellum pistol to replace existing M1911A1 and a variety of .38 Special revolvers.[citation needed] Starting in the late 1970s and going into the next decade, the U.S. Air Force was originally selected to lead the selection process. Entrants included the Beretta 92S-1, Colt SSP, Smith & Wesson 459, FN DA, FN FA, FN High Power, Star M28, Heckler & Koch P9S and H&K VP70.[citation needed] The Beretta would be declared the winner, but the U.S. Army contested the results. The Department of Defense and JSSAP gave the task to the Army starting in 1981.[citation needed]

The first Army test resulted in all pistols failing. The standards were lessened and a retest was done, but again, none passed.[citation needed]

By 1983, a new program was started, now under the XM9 name. These service pistol trials would result in adoption of the Beretta 92F as the M9 Pistol.[citation needed] Note that these later trials did not have all of the same pistols competing.

Controversy over these trials lead to the XM10 trials, but these were boycotted by some makes and resulted in the Beretta M9 winning again.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Service_Small_Arms_Program
 
The Beretta Model 92FS is the Italian gunmaker's flagship pistol. In the early 1970s, Carlo Beretta, Giuseppe Mazzetti, and the prolific Vittorio Valle began work on a successor to the Model 951 pistol. The Model 92, as it was dubbed in 1976, corrected many of the perceived faults of its forerunner. Foremost were the 951's awkward cross bolt safety and limited 8 round magazine capacity. The Model 92 also introduced a double-action trigger mechanism and an alloy frame. However, it retained the tilting-block locking mechanism and distinctive open-top slide.

The new design quickly gained a 40,000 unit contract from the Brazilian military; however, Italian police agencies wished a redesign of the manual safety. The original 92 had a frame-mounted sear-blocking safety (much like the Colt 1911), and Europeans preferred a firing-pin locking safety and decocker like Walther designs. So later in 1976, the pistol was redesigned to incorporate the desired safety, creating the 92S. Italian police and military orders quickly followed as promised, as did an order from the Indonesian military.

Another boast arrived when the US military's Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP) began a search for a NATO-standard handgun to replace the venerable Colt Model 1911. The lead agency for this program was the US Air Force. While perhaps an odd choice at first glance, the USAF was particularly interested in replacing their hodgepodge of service handguns, which included a large number of .38 Special revolvers. The issue had been forced by the US Congress' refusal to fund acquisition of additional .38 special ammunition.

Beretta made a special version of the 92S (92S-1) for the JSSAP tests which included a repositioned magazine release, an ambidextrous safety, serrated front and back straps, and enlarged sights with white inlaid markings. After a year of testing, the USAF announced that the Beretta had beaten out its competitors and recommended its adoption. The competitors included the Colt SSP, the Star Model 28, the Smith & Wesson 459A, the FN GP35, the FN 'Fast Action' Hi-Power, the FN Double Action Hi-Power, the HK P9S, and the HK VP70.

However, the US Army was still peeved over having the M16 rifle forced on it because of the USAF in the early 1960s. They seized upon the poor performance of the control M1911A1 pistols to suggest that the USAF tests were unscientific and flawed (to be fair, the specific M1911A1 pistols used were at least 35 years old at the time of the test). The US Army went as far to even disagree with the consistency of the mud used in the environmental tests! With the assistance of the General Accounting Office, the US Army was able to convince Congress to prevent procurement.

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.

However, in spite of the military controversy the Beretta 92F has an excellent reputation in US law enforcement agencies, including the Los Angeles PD (the largest vocal exception is the NYPD's Emergency Service Unit). No slide separations have been reported, and the only part known for excessive wear has been the locking block. This was recently redesigned with radiused corners to prevent breakage. The 92FS has a stellar reputation for accuracy and reliability, and as long as the user has large enough hands it is an excellent choice in a 9x19mm pistol.

- Courtesy Daniel E. Watters
Click to expand...

Lower cost of the pistol & parts kits were the determining factor= Beretta was the cheaper gun according to the contract requirements.
 
Both the Beretta and Sig met the qualification requirements to enter the bidding phase. As a matter of trivia, Beretta was not initially the cheaper gun; Sig actually had a slightly lower bid on its guns, but Beretta had a much lower bid on its parts package (in a second round of bidding), making the total Beretta bid lower than the total Sig bid.
Click to expand...
Correct. SIG $176.33 per pistol. Beretta $178.50 per pistol.
 
Correct. SIG $176.33 per pistol. Beretta $178.50 per pistol.
Click to expand...

Even adjusting for inflation (around $369 per the Consumer Price Index), Beretta and Sig appear to have a decent profit margin in the commercial market.
 
I am not arguing that. My point is that the lower total cost determined the winner. Both meet the requirements. Cheaper won the day.

IMHO too much hate is thrown at the M9. As my brother the Marine used to tell me a whole lot of bad **** has happened if you are relying on your M9 to save your life. The best course of action is to do everything in your power to avoid such a situation in combat.

I personally find the M9 too big but its not a bad gun.
 
Even adjusting for inflation (around $369 per the Consumer Price Index), Beretta and Sig appear to have a decent profit margin in the commercial market.
Click to expand...

Economy of scale is a wonderful thing.
 
Great.

Lowest bidder wins
Click to expand...

Remember what Alan Shepard said when they asked him what the last thing that went through his mind before his first trip into space. "I looked around the space capsule and realize that everything involved with this project went out to the lowest bidder."
 
Even adjusting for inflation (around $369 per the Consumer Price Index), Beretta and Sig appear to have a decent profit margin in the commercial market.
Click to expand...
Those prices were for a HUGE military contract.
 
When you have two items that meet all your criteria, shouldn't the cheapest win?

If the one you end up with for some reason isn't as good as the more expensive one, you wrote your criteria wrong.
 
The cause for M9 problems is lack of maintenance/lubrication and poor quality low bidder aftermarket magazines.
Click to expand...

When you have two items that meet all your criteria, shouldn't the cheapest win?

If the one you end up with for some reason isn't as good as the more expensive one, you wrote your criteria wrong.
Click to expand...

Agreed!
 
i read an article years ago that said the only reason the beretta was selected over the sig was a small price difference between the two.

plus the navy seals use the sig 226, so it must be a decent gun.
 
Sigs are nice gun but i've seen Sigs jamming and FTE's before. Seen a lot of Glocks and have not seen any failure yet. So maybe Sigs have better parts but Glocks with the price they are selling them, i think they are better but that's just me. I own HK's and 1911's. Have shoot Sig's, Glocks, S&W, Springfield of my friends and routinely test them in our shooting range.
 
hmm.

Very weird thread. kinda juvenile.

I can either have... as per the kinda inflated prices on Impactguns.com..

Sig 226 w/ night sights = $800 + 4 extra mags X $44 = 976

Glock 19 w night sights = $575 + 4 extra mags X $38 = 727

CZ-75 P01 w/ night sights = $628 + probably $80 for night sights + 4 extra mags x $35 = 848

The Sig setup is only $250 bucks more. Its not.. the end of the world. This is America, we all have good jobs, save the money if you like Sigs.

I have 4 CZs myself. I sure didnt pay no $628 dollars for my p01 tho heh and P01 mags can be had easily for $19 bucks each, but that would apply to all 3 pistols. So these are worst case costs.


I would agree with the fact that people who own glocks tend to shoot them more. Because you wouldnt buy a glock if you mostly just looked at your pistols. :) It doesnt have much going for it in the looks department.

I dont like Sigs much, I am warming up to Glocks and I love my CZs. But saying that sigs are far and away break them bank rediculous expensive is.. not really the case.
 
After spending over two years reading the posts on here i've come to a conclusion.
Sigs are more reliable than Glocks !
I read reports occassionaly about how Glocks have FTF and FTE problems.
But i have NEVER read any posts about ANY Sigs having these problems !

Sure Glocks are built like tanks and can take tons of abuse.
But i baby my firearms,they are my sweethearts !
Click to expand...

I just got rid of my NEW Sig P229 9mm because even after a trip back to the factory, it still wouldn't work reliably.

My Glock 17 hasn't malfunctioned in over 8000 rounds so far...

This of course doesn't mean Glocks are more reliable than Sigs (or the other way around). It only shows that all brands can put out a faulty product from time to time.
 
IF you actually are going to shoot the gun ammo is the most expensive part of any handgun purchase over its lifetime.

5000 rounds of 9mm = about $1100 at todays prices.
 
plus the navy seals use the sig 226, so it must be a decent gun.
Click to expand...

see now, to me that makes a statement. they are one of, if not THE most elite highly trained and functioning military units on the planet, and if they choose Sig it must be for a reason. I would think budget wouldnt come into play wiht the SEAL teams. I mean the SEAL unit isnt big so its not like the a few bucks a gun is a big deal in the grand scheme of military spending. I would bet that they get what they feel is the best gear available that they NEED to survive and accomplish their objectives. to me this just indicates there must be a reason they choose sig.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
trade my glock?!?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
dairycreek
D
G
  • Locked
GLOCK 357's vs. Springfield XD 357's !
Replies
4
Views
2K
possum
P
A
  • Locked
glock or h&k or sig or 1911?
Replies
13
Views
1K
photo_guy
P
omega5
  • Locked
Glock M33
Replies
3
Views
611
Capstone
C
4
  • Locked
Glock or Sig?
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
4K
USMCDK
U
Back
Top