12/31/2014 7:08pm, #1
US Army calls for new sidearm, Beretta wants to provide more of the same?
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.
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.
12/31/2014 7:43pm, #2Falling for Judo since 1980
"You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS
12/31/2014 9:02pm, #3
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Norn Iron
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".
1/04/2015 9:06pm, #4
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
1/16/2015 4:58am, #5
The article actually has a Beretta USA guy whining about how the military didn't take his product seriously.