PDA

View Full Version : US Army calls for new sidearm, Beretta wants to provide more of the same?



Wounded Ronin
12/31/2014 7:08pm,
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/29/news/companies/beretta-army-gun-m9a3/index.html?cid=ob_articlesidebarall&iid=obnetwork



Beretta has been supplying the Army with its M9 handgun for the last 30 years.

But the Army is now looking for a new gun and is holding a contest of sorts for gun makers.

However, Beretta is not going to step aside without a fight. It is entering the competition with a new design -- the M9A3.

The new gun can hold two more rounds than the M9, and has more modular features for adding accessories, like scopes and lights, according to Gabriele de Plano, vice president of military marketing and sales at Beretta, a gunmaker with a long history that has been around since 1526.


I thought the M9 was sort of over-engineered and not a terribly good choice for a general military sidearm? It looks like all they did was add rails, tan color, and a slightly bigger magazine. Does this mean it is now "modular"?

If the idea is to get something with all the bells and whistles, why wouldn't you just go with a USP? Or if the idea is to get something cheap, simple, and reliable, why not just go with a glock?

Also, isn't 9mm ball from a handgun widely panned as being an inadequate round? You'd think the new firearm would go back to .45 ACP, or else given Geneva Convention restriction on using JHP to something else basically with lots of mass and kinetic energy.

BKR
12/31/2014 7:43pm,
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/29/news/companies/beretta-army-gun-m9a3/index.html?cid=ob_articlesidebarall&iid=obnetwork
I thought the M9 was sort of over-engineered and not a terribly good choice for a general military sidearm? It looks like all they did was add rails, tan color, and a slightly bigger magazine. Does this mean it is now "modular"?

If the idea is to get something with all the bells and whistles, why wouldn't you just go with a USP? Or if the idea is to get something cheap, simple, and reliable, why not just go with a glock?

Also, isn't 9mm ball from a handgun widely panned as being an inadequate round? You'd think the new firearm would go back to .45 ACP, or else given Geneva Convention restriction on using JHP to something else basically with lots of mass and kinetic energy.

Try to imagine all the 9mm ball ammo they have stocked up...damn, if they switched rounds maybe it would go to surplus for pennies on the dollar...

I'd say .40 S&W would be a good compromise.

But see above remark...

Dork Angel
12/31/2014 9:02pm,
I think I read that in trials the Sig P226 was better but the Beretta was either cheaper or they offered to build them in America hence the M9 "won".

DARPAChief
1/04/2015 9:06pm,
Try to imagine all the 9mm ball ammo they have stocked up...damn, if they switched rounds maybe it would go to surplus for pennies on the dollar...

I'd say .40 S&W would be a good compromise.

But see above remark...

I see a waffle-strewn floor and overturned table at the next NATO meeting. Just figuring out the metric alone...

Wounded Ronin
1/16/2015 4:58am,
TROLOLOL. REJECTED!

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/09/army-rejects-m9a3-proposal-opts-for-new-pistol.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS

The article actually has a Beretta USA guy whining about how the military didn't take his product seriously.