US Army handgun

[strambo]

I'm with GEN Milley (too bad he was just makeing a point and can't actually do it)

G19 (good enough for SOCOM, and every other LE agency, good enough for a grunt), 124g Gold Dot, Golden Saber or 127g Ranger HPs for combat, current 9mm ball for training. Sell Berettas to/through CMP, done.

 

[Barry the Bear]

Im still a huge proponent of letting soldiers bring their own personal handguns , back in the army anyone issued an M9 was given 50 rounds of ammunition thats a standard box of ammo, no reason not to let them carry it.

 

[BSA1]

Hickock45 has a new video on youtube testing the new Ruger American pistol in 9mm. It kind of cooled my interest in it although I still want to check out the 45 model.

 

[tarosean]

the new Ruger American pistol in 9mm.

Ruger stated last year they were not going to enter. Not that they are a small company, but they said it was too cost prohibited. So that will likely ring true for a number of companies that dont already have MIL contracts

 

[FL-NC]

Barry- too many logistical, safety, and legal reasons that personal firearms will never be authorized for duty use. Not only US laws, international laws and the laws of other countries.

 

[FL-NC]

On the Ruger American- even if its a suitable handgun, Ruger probably wouldn't be capable of supporting a contract of this size with such non-negotiable terms regarding things like delivery of the weapons, spare parts, etc.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

On the Ruger American- even if its a suitable handgun, Ruger probably wouldn't be capable of supporting a contract of this size with such non-negotiable terms regarding things like delivery of the weapons, spare parts, etc.

I think you underestimate Ruger's ability to produce product. They already have their supply links established -- and they'd just have to ramp them up.

It can't have been easy for Beretta, either -- and they had to build a factory here in the states and get suppliers, etc., before they could deliver any substantial quantities.

That said, Ruger has already said they aren't competing -- that they would have to give away TOO much (including control of the design), and the profit potential wasn't that great.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Hickock45 has a new video on youtube testing the new Ruger American pistol in 9mm. It kind of cooled my interest in it although I still want to check out the 45 model.

I thought he was pretty impressed with the American. (He's a dyed-in-the-wool Glock lover, so any good review is a really "good" review.)

He also liked the FNS-9, which he compared to the Glock 19 (with the FNS maybe having a little longer barrel). He may have actually liked the FNS-9 a little better than the Glock 19 -- but it was hard for him to say it! (As I said, he's a dyed-in-the-wool Glock lover...)

I wish I could shoot like he does. Maybe I could if I had as much access to guns and ammo, and a great "range" out back of the house.

 

[FL-NC]

I'm not familiar with the FNS or the HK pistols that came out after the USP/MK-23 type guns. All I can go off is "what I've heard", which to me isn't informed enough to even have an intelligent conversation on the matter. I do know that FN, Ruger, and for the most part, HK all have a reputation for making fine products,- with the caveat that Ruger products are primarily used in the sporting/LE arena- often vastly different from the demands of a combat environment.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I do know that FN, Ruger, and for the most part, HK all have a reputation for making fine products,- with the caveat that Ruger products are primarily used in the sporting/LE arena- often vastly different from the demands of a combat environment.

While I'll agree the environments are different, but don't think the handguns in question are that different. I suspect that most Ruger pistols would prove just as serviceable and robust as most military handguns.

It just wouldn't make business sense for a gunmaker to build two fundamentally different pistols (i.e., a very robust Beretta M9 and a very robust P229) one for military use, and one for LEO/Civilian use. The Glocks used by other militaries are pretty much standard Glocks, and the Beretta M9s or the SIG P229s, aren't really different from guns sold on the civilian market or used by LEOs around the world. While there may be differences, the differences are relatively trivial -- and some of those civilian guns end up getting used more frequently and more abusively than some of their military counterparts.

(I know the SIG P226 used by the SEALs was slightly different than most P226 models. But, nearly all of the SIG handguns (as well as Glocks and Berettas) started out as weapons intended for military contract. They are all, in the final analysis, service pistols.)

 

[tarosean]

The Glocks used by other militaries are pretty much standard Glocks,

Our military will require an External Safety...

 

[FL-NC]

The only difference I've seen in Glocks for military or other contracts had been serial number ranges and other specific markings. Functionally identical to the equivalent you could buy in any gun shop. Regarding the manual safety (or lack thereof) supposedly Glock has done this in the past for specific contracts. I have never seen one. I know people have done various DIY mods of this type, but that is irrelevant. This may or may not be a "dealbreaker" regarding the "big army" (and/or other service branches) regarding adoption of the Glock or another pistol. As previously stated, an accident can happen with ANY firearm- all it takes is someone to violate one or more basic safety rules. The amount of accidents in the military and elsewhere that occur with existing weapons of all types, with manual safeties and without, attests to this.

 

[golden]

A couple of points

FL-NC

I concur on the locking block problem that BERETTA has. My agency was the initial customer for the BERETTA 96D Brigadier .40 S&W model. In our testing, with the high velocity load we wanted, THEY ALL FAILED, ALL OF THEM!
BERETTA developed the Brigadier with the heavier, reinforced slide and SIG upgraded its gun which was the 229. They both passed the second round of testing and BERETTA won the contract on price.
We used the BERETTA for about 10 years and the last one I was issued developed a weird problem. The slide began to slow down during shooting. This appeared to be a consequence of the wear we put on the guns with the slides being peened at the locking lugs slots. They still worked, but I could watch the slide run back and forth during shooting.

We overcame the problem of size with the BERETTA by slightly modifying the gun. They came up with 4 combinations as far as I know and measured our hands before we were issued guns.

I found the BERETTA to be very reliable, non of the other guns were any better, but I worked in the sub tropics and the northern plains area, not a desert.
We overcame the DA/SA transition by using the "D" double action only model. I was fine with it and was coming off a GLOCK 17, 19 and SIG 226 previously.

I would have been perfectly happy if I could have continued to carry my GLOCK 19, my favorite carry gun at the time.


Walt,

I disagree with you about not making special guns. The 96D Brigadier was tailor made for my agency with different sights (replaceable night sights), a heavier slide and a lighter double action trigger. It really depends on the size of the buy. We ordered over 16,000 of them plus a personal purchase program.

Also, when the .40 S&W was adopted by my agency, I inquired about having my SIG 226 changed over to the .40 S&W. I was told it could not be done. The .40 caliber SIG 226 and the .357 SIG models use different slides and the same thing was done when SIG introduced the model 229, which has a non welded slide instead of the 2 piece, welded one on the SIG 228.

From what I understand, even now, the slides on the 9 m.m. SIG pistols are different from the .40 S&W and .357 SIG models. If someone knows differently, let me know.

Jim

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I disagree with you about not making special guns. The 96D Brigadier was tailor made for my agency with different sights (replaceable night sights), a heavier slide and a lighter double action trigger. It really depends on the size of the buy. We ordered over 16,000 of them plus a personal purchase program.

Tailor made, but not tailor-designed. Different sights, lighter hammer springs do not make it a different gun. Only the heavier slide is unusual, possibly requiring a special production run. Otherwise, Beretta probably took a lot of different parts from the parts bins and tweaked them to fit your organization's needs.

I'll bet nearly all of the changes incorporated into your organization's "custom-fit" gun can be obtained directly from Beretta or by using after-market parts that will drop right in -- except for the slide. But even that is probably now available to other organizations, if needed. The Beretta used by your organization is the same basic gun as other Berettas of the same caliber, with some relatively minor changes made. It wasn't a special gun developed just for your organization -- it was a standard gun with the tweaks needed to suit your requirements. You'll see the same sort of changes made using aftermarket parts on civilian 10mm guns -- which are seldom used by LEO or Military units. Or when you buy a car...

RE: the heavier slide. You'll find that when the caliber goes up in most guns, the slides become heavier, too. If you want to use much hotter ammo (and in your case, hotter than the gun was designed for) something else has to be done. That extra slide weight is needed to help control slide velocity. (Note: most Glocks from a given generation and barrel length, use the same recoil spring assembly regardless of caliber -- the slide is just heavier for the larger caliber guns.) Anyone who buys your organizations guns after they're retired may have to go to lighter recoil springs if they start shooting anemic ammo.

You mentioned Glocks with safeties. If I remember correctly, that was an Israeli military requirement. Just as was the case with your organization's Berettas, they took the basic gun and tweaked it. The Berettas, SIGs, S&Ws and CZ that are DAO don't have a safety, but I'd argue that doesn't really make them a different gun.​

The original Glock was developed for a military contract for the Austrian military and the design has changed a little over the years, but someone who can detail strip the earliest models will have no problems with the newest ones. Some of the parts (in the same caliber, and even some NOT in the same caliber) will still interchange. US police and European militaries jumped on the band wagon, as did countless US civilians. The environments in which those guns are used are greatly different, but the guns themselves aren't.

Product development for many guns continues long after they're introduced (and sometimes long after they're sold). It sometimes takes that long to get them right!

 

[golden]

Maybe not

Walt,

To my knowledge, the Brigadier slide did not exist before BERETTA developed it for my agency's second round of trials.
Also, the sights were a new feature. The model 92 typically has the front sight a machined part of the slide, not a separate, fitted piece.

The SIG failed as well, but passed on the second run. The original SIG 220,225,226,228 design used a two piece stamped slide that was welded together. This worked for the 9m.m., but not the .40 S&W or .357 SIG. For the .40 S&W, they needed a one piece, machined slide.

I do not call either of these a "tweak'. They both needed new parts to be designed and developed. They constitute a different model as proven by the fact that the original model, the BERETA 96 and SIG 228 are still being produced.

I think that we perceive these facts differently.

Jim

 

[Zerodefect]

Ya'll sure about the manual safety?

Plenty of Glocks already in service. It's not hard to find a pic of a Marine with a Glock.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Ya'll sure about the manual safety?

Several sources mention the Danish Army, which first requested a manual safety (back in 1992?). I had heard that the Israeli Army got some, too, but that may be wrong. In any event, it's the Glock 17S, according to Wikipedia:

The Glock 17S is a variant with an external, frame-mounted, manual safety. Small numbers of this variant were made for the Tasmanian, Israeli, PakistanI, and perhaps several South American security forces. They are stamped "17", not "17S". They resemble, but are distinguishable from, standard Glock 17 pistols that have been fitted with the after-market Cominolli safety. An additional safety variant Glock 17 that was tested by the British Military included a frame safety similar to that found on the British service rifle, the SA-80.​

Other versions are mentioned on the FIREARMSBLOG: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/09/17/dsei-09-glock-17-with-thumb-safety/

 

[FL-NC]

Well, there you go- what Walt said. One of my former team mates works for Glock- I guess I could ask him next time I see him, but that may be only a special order product, or one of those not even offered in the US.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I do not call either of these a "tweak'. They both needed new parts to be designed and developed. They constitute a different model as proven by the fact that the original model, the BERETA 96 and SIG 228 are still being produced.

Tweaks=minor modification on the production line using existing parts or existing production practices.

Whether the heavier slide is considered a minor or major change IS open to question -- but, as noted below, SIG made major changes to slides, and still called the changed guns by the same model names.

I'd call the other changes tweaks, and some might consider the heavier slide upgrade a tweak, too. (We know that they could have just drilled an inserted a tritium element in the front sight, had they wanted to do so.)

The fact that the caliber wasn't changed suggests that Beretta still considered that gun a variant of the basic 96. Were your organization's specs changed to require SAO rather than DA/SA, I think they'd still call it a 96. A few parts changed here or there does not make the gun a new or fundamentally different model.

They don't seem to be selling the P228 any more, by the way: they offer the M11-A1 (used by flight crews and other specialized units in the US military), or the P229, which is almost identical (but about 10% heavier.) I suspect the "heavier" is due to a heavier slide -- need for the .40 and .357 SIG versions of the 229, but with the newer versions, the frame are apparently the same, as are the slides: SIG just uses a larger diameter 9mm barrel in the .40 slide.

I think all SIG models made for sale in the US now are made with a forged and machined stainless steel slides, while most of those made in Germany may still use the folded carbon steel slide. That's as big a change as the slide change for your organzation's Berettas, but they are all considered versions of the same models -- just made differently for different markets.

More tweaks, so to speak.

.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I do not call either of these a "tweak'. They both needed new parts to be designed and developed. They constitute a different model as proven by the fact that the original model, the BERETA 96 and SIG 228 are still being produced.

Tweaks = modification on the production line using different components from the parts bins or making slight changes to existing production practices.

Beretta could have drilled the front sight and inserted a tritium vial had they chosen to do so. That was what had to be done for Tanfoglio-made guns, too, many years ago, or the owner would have a dovetail cut up front. Not a big deal, either way.

Changing out springs, grips, sights, tweaking the trigger, using a different-shaped trigger, etc., are all very common modifications, nowadays. Distributors do it all the time with special marketing offers.

Whether your organization's use of a heavier Beretta slide is considered a major change or minor tweak IS open to question, and we'll just have to agree to disagree on just how special your organization's Bereettas really are.

 

[AnselHazen]

Ansel- that would never work. Who would the responsibility and logistics fall on to insure that multiple different privately owned weapons are safe and functional? Even if the bench stock of repair parts and Basic Issue Items for them is present, there is a legal issue with the gov't owned parts (in the course of normal maintenance) and ammunition going into personal firearms. Leaders at all levels would have to be educated in multiple platforms for safety reasons, range operations, etc. There would also be issues with serial numbers and approval of these weapons to leave the US, enter other countries, and be returned-"imported" -back into the US, and since they are "lethal implements" there would be additional issues with ITAR (International Trade in Arms Regulations), as well as the various laws and regulations of host countries. Penalties for ITAR violations are very steep. As a civilian, I am prohibited from even bringing items for my issue weapon like magazines and optics into Afg., regardless of where they came from or how I obtained them. A certain private military company that held numerous contracts world wide nearly went under just paying fines for violations, and some of their people narrowly escaped prison. Also, your friend who was issued the M9 for his tour of duty (thank him for his service for me)- how often did he train with his pistol, under what conditions, and how often did he use it (engage the enemy with it) in combat? I personally pulled my sidearm out more times than I could possibly remember, but I only fired it on 2 occasions. This is an gross exception to the "norm". But I also found out that while a handgun is rarely needed, when you do need one, you will realize you probably never needed anything so bad in your life.

Well we have a long ride to a work site coming up. I will ask, and rest assured, he has been thanked for his service.

 

[herrwalther]

I think the M9A3 would suit the military just fine. It would fix the issues most people have with the M9 without that Army having to drastically change too much such as holsters, parts, accessories etc. A rail isn't very useful on a military handgun, as standard issue holsters are pretty generic and won't fit your X and Y under the barrel. So if Private Snuffy wants to be high speed, he will need his own holster. The big advantage of the M9A3 is hand size and comfort. I have large hands and still found the M9 to be an uncomfortable and large grip. I personally don't like the FDE color so it won't win any beauty contests, just so long it works.

Another side note on personal military holsters. I hated on every level the standard issue Safariland ALS drop leg holster I was issued. I went so far as to try to turn my pistol in so I wouldn't need the holster at all. Unfortunately my job required me to be armed at all times so pistol it was. Thankfully I was friendly enough with my company commander who allowed me to get a Blackhawk SERPA kit for my sidearm. Worth the price tag and luckily the little PX had something in stock. Ordering a better holster to fit X/Y gizmo under the barrel would give commanders and NCOs more headaches.

 

[FL-NC]

herr walther- the M9A3 still retains the following features from the original: locking blocks that break (a feature that Beretta omitted from the storm series), exposed trigger bar/spring arrangement, shady magazines, transitional DA trigger, a safety/decock in a place that is less than optimum.

A rail isn't useful unless the user is in a situation where he/she needs to use the handgun to engage a target in darkness with a light that should be attached to the handgun. Darkness covers our planet about 50% of the time. Not all spaces are illuminated in the daylight, either. Remember that MPs who work stateside work 24/7, and their peace time mission is keeping our bases secure. They usually only carry a service pistol in the performance of their duties. While violent crime is less common on military bases due to the in-place security measures and the demographics of the residents, given today's threat, there is great potential for incidents of terrible violence and destruction to occur on a base. Most likely, the first responder(s) will be MP personnel on duty- just like most law enforcement scenarios.

I concur on the drop leg holsters- IMO those things should have stayed in the 1980s where they were invented. Did you know those safariland holsters are essentially the same holsters used by most police on a duty belt, except mounted on a leg harness? They can be switched to a standard belt hanger with an allen wrench and about 5 minutes of time. Those hangers run about $12, and were what most of us used. SO-TECH makes a modular light holster where the section of the holster where the light goes when mounted is removable kydex. These sections are cheap, and can be replaced when/if lights are updated to different designs, and there is a section for using the holster with no light, along with drop leg harnesses, different hangers, etc. My unit issued these, and they did well in hard-use (combat).

 

[amd6547]

The newer 3rd Gen locking block Beretta uses today is much improved and more durable than the earlier ones.

 

[Old Dog]

The OP again refers to:

the M9A3 still retains the following features from the original: locking blocks that break

Since you brought it up, would you be so kind as to provide some substantive documentation that this problem still exists, and specifically, again with the M9A3? And not just anecdotal snippets from some guy you know or used to work with ...

We get that you hate the M9 and adore the Glock. But have you any actual experience with the M9A3? Yes, it still has the exposed trigger bar and a DA/SA trigger along with the slide-mounted safety, which is normally used only as a decocker anyway. Don't know about the mags, since the factory mags in my experience work quite well, and the Mec-Gars, which most Beretta owners (and many who are issued) procure, are superb and GTG, always.

As for the rail ... geez, it's a fact of life now, and you don't need to use it if you don't desire to. It's just starting to seem as though the OP is on a crusade to convince everyone (and most us don't even have a dog in this fight, at least anymore) that it's in the Army's best interest to go strictly Glock and ditch the M9 completely. What's lost in all this is why is this even relevant to us?