Re: why no beretta love?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: frankythefly</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sandwarrior</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1shot2kill</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i have noticed that there is no love for beretta pistols on this site in fact a lot of bashing goes on and i was wondering why sure the military has had a fair share of problems with them due to the crap magazines but most guns i can think of have had rough patches so lets here some feedback </div></div>
Because they were just coming in when I was going out, back in '85. They were having a bunch of problems with the slide busting and coming flying back at the shooter. Killing I believe one and seriously injuring another four. <span style="color: #3333FF">{Edit: that was just during testing. A bunch more were broken during regular use. The problem was fixed, read further, in about 1989/1990}</span> The "stated issue with them"...I heard, was that a bunch of MP ammo accidentally got mixed in with the pistol ammo. I can tell you that was a white-wash. In fact they were built to inferior specs and were breaking. It wasn't until the U.S. Army went back to Berretta and said "BULLSHIT!" Make them right. It's bad enough we don't get to carry our .45's any longer but having pieces of shit that jam and break slide stops isn't worth it.
Not to mention we tried the 9mm (U.S. Revolver, cal, .38 1889, 1892,1894, 1895, 1896) before, back around the turn of the last century. It didn't work. The Moro's in the Philipines were drugged up and charging right through the pistol fire. The boys were writing home asking to have Schofields and Peacemakers sent so they had a real pistol to fight with. The Army evenutally got wise to this and went back to the .45 At first as a revolver then as the .45 ACP. Of course nowadays it's the fact that we couldn't shoot that comes to light....riiiiiight.
Lastly, it's the fact that we adopted it as the main pistol round because we needed to kiss everyone elses ass in NATO because they all had it. We felt differently they they did about what a pistol should, could, and can, do. </div></div>
The good old .45 vs 9mm debate which could go on forever, however this is about the Beretta not the caliber. When the military was looking for a new pistol it was to be chambered in 9mm nato not .45acp. More soldiers died of disease than from "high" Moro's in the Philippines. I have never heard of any of testers/soldiers/operators dieing of the slide coming back from shooting +p rounds in the M9 and a reference would be nice. I know perhaps 3 guys got injured but Beretta fixed that by putting a slide over travel system and strengthing or fixing the alloy of the frame.
A good read would be:
Popular Mechanics
M9 True Story
</div></div>
What do you want me to quote, Wikipedia?
Some other internet source that can get shot down too? Because I'm not standing at your doorstep with a court proclamation that Beretta is a POS company?
Plain and simple it was a known fact in 1984/5 that the M92 shed some slides and killed one and injured others. The point of that statement was it was 1984...not yesterday, not last year. The Army had a comeuppance (1989) with Beretta <span style="text-decoration: underline">and the problem got fixed</span>. You need references for that too??
I'm just saying I didn't like the round and I damn sure didn't like the manufacturer. They are a name that sells guns. Not the best guns, but guns. The entire reason we went to the 9mm was to appease NATO when we went forward with the M16A2 and the heavier rounds M855.
Sorry if you don't like it but I was in when all that "politickin" was going on. You might not have even been cognizant of it at the time. Most soldiers who were in at the time didn't even get the chance to say anything before the order came down, "You will now carry a 9mm."
I'm absolutely sure it was a tradeoff. You want a reference for that too? Maybe you need a reference as to why McNamara bought F-4's for all services? His 'statistics' showed it would be the best plane.
<span style="font-style: italic">Note to self: find big defense contractor executives and have them go on the record as to why they build what they build. Maybe get a golf course membership or two just for that...</span>
Bottom line: I haven't liked the Beretta 92/M9 since it's adoption by the U.S. I don't plan on liking it. Or, the 9mm. I like other models that perform the way I expect them to. With calibers that do what I expect them too. You can call me out all you want. I ain't gonna like the M9. Even if my last post says that I said what I saw on on an M9 was pretty cool.
So There! Nyeah, nyeah nyeah
</div></div>
The M16 was another fine example of 'politickin as well.
