Re: why no beretta love?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have never carried a pistol profesionally or as a ccw my question is would a slide mounted safety ie 92fs engage/disengage any more often that a frame mounted safety ie 1911 ?</div></div>
As far as the slide mounted safety one of the bigger problems is its ambidextrious. If the safety is exposed while in the holster and you bump into something the right way (more often than not) it will flip. Could this have been more of an issue with my issued weapon than others? Possibly. Next time I get a chance I will play with the safeties on some and see how they feel. On my EDC its a frame mounted safety and it rest against a piece of the holster. That and it takes more than an accidental nudge to disengage.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Something that hasn’t been mentioned is how well the pistol has performed over the past 10 years in IRQ/AFG. Currently in the military there are more pistols issued per unit than ever before and the percentage of active combatants with real trigger time is also at an all time high. With those numbers taken into account and the overall positive opinion of the gun it’s hard to dispute that it really is a respectable choice. Of the problems that have occurred, the overwhelming majority can be traced directly back to the (check-mate and Airtronic) magazines. The soldier knows this and it’s reflected in a recent satisfaction survey conducted by the Army concerning issued equipment. Overall the Beretta scored very well while the magazines were singled out as a problem. The Army has responded by requiring modified magazines to be developed and delivered (how this was cheaper than buying real Beretta mags I don’t know). Are there still parts breakages? Of course, if it can be broken a soldier will but is it epidemic? Far from. Many if not most of the M9’s I’ve seen, while looking all the worse for wear, are in sound mechanical condition and many are still using factory original parts from the 80’s. I’n my opinion this speaks very well to the design.</div></div>
Although the M9 has performed reliably in OIF/OEF and the general service member is happy with it I don't believe that should be a guage for slapping a gold star on it and going our merry way. There are better pistols out there now and after 25 years it might be time to find a new one.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are there better pistols out there for the job? Probably. Were they available in 1983? No. All of the guns that were tested against it failed to match its performance save the SIG 226 (which was relatively equal) and none could match price and support. For those not aware, some of the guns tested in the M9/M10 trial were submitted by the following: Beretta, Colt, Styer, S&W, HK, and Walther. They were repeatedly tested under identical conditions with the same or similar results; this is what scientists call proof. At this stage in the game some 25 years on the simple fact of the matter is, just like the M4/M16, it performs too well and would cost too much to replace to justify the expense.</div></div>
The XM9 trials, like many other iterations of military testing, can be shown as flawed to say the least. Although the Air Force origianlly aproved the M9 the Army took over and retested everything upon which all subjects failed. Congress was furious, withheld funding for more .45 ammo, and everything was retested with less stringent standards. The M9 and the Sig passed the test, Sig was contraversially under bid, and Beretta was awarded the contract.
After the quality issues arose XM10 was started and more contraqversy insued. Need more proof of the outstanding capabilites and possible politicking in military trials check out the Army ACU's.
This is where I got my information on the XM9 trials. I'm sure there is more supporting evidence out there but I'm too lazy to look for it now.
http://www.coolgunsite.com/comm_pistols/beretta92.htm
Being a self proclaimed HK Fanboy I feel I must add that the HK P7M13 only failed the saltwater testing. I could go on and on about the merits and brilliance of the P7 series but I honestly feel its a pistol thats not for everyone. Being in a non combat unit I know the type of idiots that get issued pistols.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Schlafftablett</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok I just realized that I babbled for a hell of a long time. Bottom line is that the Beretta is a good gun and always has been. There have been bumps in the road but for now and the foreseeable future it’s what we’ve got.</div></div>
Does it work? Yes, I won't deny that. But there are better pistols out now and its time to find a new one. But if that happens, in 20 years people will be back here arguing about that gun also. You can't please everyone. (God don't let it be a Glock
).
