Posted on Dec 8, 2015
What are your thoughts on the Army deciding to get rid of the Beretta M9?
8.7K
19
23
4
4
0
http://m.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/09/army-rejects-m9a3-proposal-opts-for-new-pistol.html
According to the above article, the Army has decided not to include the new and improved Beretta M9A3 in its testing for a new sidearm. This means that the Beretta will no longer be used after the Army chooses a new sidearm. What are your thoughts on this?
U.S. Army weapons officials will not evaluate an improved version of the service's Cold War-era 9mm pistol, choosing instead to search for a more modern soldier sidearm.
In early December, Beretta USA, the maker of the U.S. military's M9 pistol for 30 years, submitted its modernized M9A3 as a possible alternative to the Army's Modular Handgun System program -- an effort to replace the M9 with a more powerful, state-of-the-art pistol.
The improved M9 features new sights, a rail for mounting lights and accessories, better ergonomics and improved reliability, Beretta USA officials said.
But by late December, it was all over for Beretta's engineering change proposal for the M9. The Army's Configuration Control Board decided not to evaluate the M9A3, according to a source familiar with the decision.
The move clears the way for the Army to release a pending request for proposal that will launch the MHS competition.
Program Executive Office Soldier would not comment for this story until Army Public Affairs has approved a statement, PEO Soldier spokesman Doug Graham said Thursday night.
The Army began working with the small arms industry on MHS in early 2013, but the joint effort has been in the works for more than five years. If successful, it would result in the Defense Department buying nearly 500,000 new pistols during a period of significant defense-spending reductions.
Current plans call for the Army to purchase more than 280,000 handguns from a single vendor, with delivery of the first new handgun systems scheduled for 2017, according to PEO Soldier officials. The Army also plans to buy approximately 7,000 sub-compact versions of the handgun.
The other military services participating in the MHS program may order an additional 212,000 systems above the Army quantity.
The effort is set to cost at least $350 million and potentially millions more if it results in the selection of a new pistol caliber.
Beretta USA officials said they have not received official notification of the Army's decision.
"Obviously, they didn't take a whole lot of time on this," said Gabriele De Plano, vice president of military marketing and sales for Beretta USA, reacting to the news of the Army's pre-Christmas decision after the M9A3's December 10 unveiling.
Army officials "didn't ask a single question; didn't ask for a single sample" for evaluation, De Plano said.
The Army maintains that the M9 design does not meet the MHS requirement. Soldiers have complained of reliability issues with the M9. One problem has to do with the M9's slide-mounted safety. During malfunction drills, the shooter often engages the lever-style safety by accident, Army weapons officials say.
The M9A3's "over-center safety lever" can be configured to act as a de-cocker, a change that eliminates the accidental safety activation, De Plano said.
As part of the joint requirement process for MHS, Army weapons officials did a "very thorough cost-benefit analysis" that supported the effort, Army weapons officials said. The old fleet of M9s is costing the Army more to replace and repair than to buy a new service pistol, officials said.
The M9A3 is not a perfect pistol, De Plano says, but the Army should at least evaluate it.
The M9 pistol can be "improved for hundreds of millions less than a new MHS pistol," De Plano said. "We can sell them this new pistol for less than the M9 pistol."
Beretta currently has an open contract for M9s that the Army awarded in September 2012 for up to 100,000 pistols. Deliveries of about 20,000 have been scheduled, leaving 80,000 that could be ordered in the M9A3 configuration for less than the cost of the current M9, De Plano said.
"Why not do a dual-path like they have done in other cases," De Plano said.
The Army was determined to do just that when it set out to search for a replacement for the M4 carbine. The service launched a competition to evaluate commercially available carbines while, at the same time, it evaluated improvements to the M4.
In the end, the service scrapped the competition and ended up adopting the M4A1 version used by special operations forces.
"They could explore this," said De Plano, by ordering 10 M9A3s. "What's the downside?"
According to the above article, the Army has decided not to include the new and improved Beretta M9A3 in its testing for a new sidearm. This means that the Beretta will no longer be used after the Army chooses a new sidearm. What are your thoughts on this?
U.S. Army weapons officials will not evaluate an improved version of the service's Cold War-era 9mm pistol, choosing instead to search for a more modern soldier sidearm.
In early December, Beretta USA, the maker of the U.S. military's M9 pistol for 30 years, submitted its modernized M9A3 as a possible alternative to the Army's Modular Handgun System program -- an effort to replace the M9 with a more powerful, state-of-the-art pistol.
The improved M9 features new sights, a rail for mounting lights and accessories, better ergonomics and improved reliability, Beretta USA officials said.
But by late December, it was all over for Beretta's engineering change proposal for the M9. The Army's Configuration Control Board decided not to evaluate the M9A3, according to a source familiar with the decision.
The move clears the way for the Army to release a pending request for proposal that will launch the MHS competition.
Program Executive Office Soldier would not comment for this story until Army Public Affairs has approved a statement, PEO Soldier spokesman Doug Graham said Thursday night.
The Army began working with the small arms industry on MHS in early 2013, but the joint effort has been in the works for more than five years. If successful, it would result in the Defense Department buying nearly 500,000 new pistols during a period of significant defense-spending reductions.
Current plans call for the Army to purchase more than 280,000 handguns from a single vendor, with delivery of the first new handgun systems scheduled for 2017, according to PEO Soldier officials. The Army also plans to buy approximately 7,000 sub-compact versions of the handgun.
The other military services participating in the MHS program may order an additional 212,000 systems above the Army quantity.
The effort is set to cost at least $350 million and potentially millions more if it results in the selection of a new pistol caliber.
Beretta USA officials said they have not received official notification of the Army's decision.
"Obviously, they didn't take a whole lot of time on this," said Gabriele De Plano, vice president of military marketing and sales for Beretta USA, reacting to the news of the Army's pre-Christmas decision after the M9A3's December 10 unveiling.
Army officials "didn't ask a single question; didn't ask for a single sample" for evaluation, De Plano said.
The Army maintains that the M9 design does not meet the MHS requirement. Soldiers have complained of reliability issues with the M9. One problem has to do with the M9's slide-mounted safety. During malfunction drills, the shooter often engages the lever-style safety by accident, Army weapons officials say.
The M9A3's "over-center safety lever" can be configured to act as a de-cocker, a change that eliminates the accidental safety activation, De Plano said.
As part of the joint requirement process for MHS, Army weapons officials did a "very thorough cost-benefit analysis" that supported the effort, Army weapons officials said. The old fleet of M9s is costing the Army more to replace and repair than to buy a new service pistol, officials said.
The M9A3 is not a perfect pistol, De Plano says, but the Army should at least evaluate it.
The M9 pistol can be "improved for hundreds of millions less than a new MHS pistol," De Plano said. "We can sell them this new pistol for less than the M9 pistol."
Beretta currently has an open contract for M9s that the Army awarded in September 2012 for up to 100,000 pistols. Deliveries of about 20,000 have been scheduled, leaving 80,000 that could be ordered in the M9A3 configuration for less than the cost of the current M9, De Plano said.
"Why not do a dual-path like they have done in other cases," De Plano said.
The Army was determined to do just that when it set out to search for a replacement for the M4 carbine. The service launched a competition to evaluate commercially available carbines while, at the same time, it evaluated improvements to the M4.
In the end, the service scrapped the competition and ended up adopting the M4A1 version used by special operations forces.
"They could explore this," said De Plano, by ordering 10 M9A3s. "What's the downside?"
Posted in these groups: 
Handguns and Pistols
Equipment
Handguns and Pistols Equipment
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 11
3
3
0
I'm not a huge fan of the beretta, but I think the more interesting question is about moving away from a 9mm. I know when we got the 7.62 SCAR everyone was fighting over carrying the new rifle. Then reality set in. The gun was bigger, the mags were bigger, the bullets were bigger and it was all heavier! In addition to more bulk and weight, the team members carrying the SCAR were carrying 2/3 the basic load of the guys carrying a M4 because they couldn't fit 9 accessible mags on their kit. Everyone gets excited about more powerful rounds, but they have their drawbacks. Interesting debate.
(3)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
People who always clamor for the return to 7.62mm haven't done their history homework as to why we changed to 5.56mm in the first place. And yes, there are always tradeoffs.
(1)
(0)
Point and pull. As long as the weapon is effective.........and people can learn to use it properly and easily.........point and pull.
(3)
(0)
PO3 Brad Phlipot
I personally think it is the best thing they have done for you guys in a long time. I qualified on the 1911 yet I carried a SIG226 for the duration. I now carry the SIG229 in my opinion they are the best handgun ever made, you just cannot kill them or (GLOCK= Accidentally shoot yourself). So to me the change across the services is an empowering move to the folks that depend on them.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Pistols, by their very nature because of the shortness of their barrels, are not point and pull weapons. Every minuscule deviation from the perfect shot has drastic consequences even at ranges less than 5 meters. The Beretta was designed to be a pistol for use by people who did not know how to shoot a pistol. The last 15 years of combat have drastically changed how the services view pistols and they have changed their approach to pistol marksmanship.
To the kid who said a Glock=shooting yourself...all I have to say is know your gun and know that Glock is the most popular pistol among SOF units.
To the kid who said a Glock=shooting yourself...all I have to say is know your gun and know that Glock is the most popular pistol among SOF units.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
There are better pistols out there. There are worse pistols out there. My personal preference is that I am not a big fan of the M9s. I find they too big for the caliber of gun that it is. I prefer smaller, more compact pistols with a low bore axis. Glock 23 (or similar) is my preferred archtype.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Is m-9 having problem? or there is an expect change in the battle environment? if not, why waste all the money?
Some company will make huge profit out of this. :)
Some company will make huge profit out of this. :)
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
M9 is nearing the end of it's service life. So it is a opportune time to reassess whether we want to continue to purchase these weapons or move on to something else.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
No matter what we have people always want something else. I started with the M1911 in the military and then went through .357 Magnum revolvers, 9mm, .40 cal and then back to 9mm in other jobs. About 20 years ago I finally bought a Glock Model 17 and stayed with it when others changed to other things. Now the 9mm seems to be coming back. I have been reading all of the arguements about stopping power for decades but if you use the right ammo a 9mm works just great, is easy to shoot, reliable and you can carry a lot of ammo.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
They need to reevaluate the hollow point argument before a 9mm is a viable cartridge. 9mm FMJ isn't "right ammo."
(0)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
Well , you also need to use the right gun in the right situation. 9mm has put a lot of people in their graves. But you need to understand it's capabilities and limitations.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
It is what it is. I would be good with giving the M9A3 a shot. Saves the Army a shit ton of money and it gets rid of the de-cocker (it's not a safety). Not to mention 9MM ammo is cheep so again seems more cost effective and the old equipment gets a face lift at the same time.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Didn't like them when they first came in as I grew up on the M1911. The got dirtier easier, hated the slide safety, and it always felt underpowered. But then again, I mourned the 82mm taken away from us for the 60mm. Yes it was what the Marines used and it helped out the supply chain. But the Marines loved us when we had them.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google