Army passes on Beretta M9A3 evaluation

GunsDotCom ^ | 9 Jan 2015 | Max Slowik

[shove_it]

The U.S. Army has declined to evaluate the Beretta M9A3, an updated, heavily-modified variant of the M9 and M9A1, as a part of the ongoing contract for service pistols. Officials may continue to order M9A1 pistols until they select a new design.

The Army has been using the Beretta M9 since 1985, but the guns are showing their age, so officials are looking for a new standard-issue sidearm. While the Army adopted the M9A1, an updated variant of the M9 introduced in 2006, maintenance costs are pushing the Army to look for something more modern and more affordable.

In cooperation with the Air Force, the Army started the Modular Handgun System project in 2013 to evaluate possible replacements for the M9 series and select a new service pistol that has more features and addresses the shortcomings identified with the basic M9 design.

In the meanwhile the Army has an open contract with Beretta for M9A1s to stock armories as necessary. In a bid to extend that contract, Beretta developed the M9A3, which sports many of the features the Army is looking for at a lower price per unit than their current M9A1 contract is set at.

Despite the listed improvements and lower price, the Army will not be looking at the M9A3 to finish out the current contract with Beretta, the Military Times reports...

...The Modular Handgun System calls for a pistol with a closed slide design and a modular grip system that can accommodate all hand sizes. The MHS is also evaluating handguns chambered for calibers other than 9mm NATO, including .40 S&W and .45 ACP.

[556x45]

He said hopefully... LOL, you’re a hoot. I doubt they have that foresight though. I suspect it’ll be 9mm as most (all?) of our current/potential allies use it. A better platform would nice though. The Glock or SIG DAO/DAK would be my choice but then again the military still lives back in the early 1900s where small arms are concerned. Im sure it’ll have to have a manual safety, be all metal and be hard and expensive to maintain. :(

I certainly understand youre tendency toward 357SIg. I like it myself very much with 40 S&W as a second choice then 9mm. I prefer a SIG DAK or Glock.

[muir_redwoods]

A Glock in.45acp would be a better choice than any 9mm I can think of. A return to the 1911 is politically impossible.

[VanShuyten]

The only problem with the Glocks is that I’m sure the military will require some sort of manual safety.

[LambSlave]

I agree with the need to re-evaluate, but I think it’s time to question the need at all —how many times a sidearm has even been used by a soldier in the last forty years and the circumstances, and re-evaluate if we even need them. My guess is such instances are astronomically rare, and even in those rare instances it was used only because for that duty position/billet it was the only weapon issued/available and a carbine or shotgun would be much more effective.

[Billthedrill]

...which brings me to another topic - I think we should consider expanding ammunition for military pistols. The U.S. isn’t a signatory to the first Hague Convention that prohibited it for reasons that seemed sound a century ago but are now a little questionable. The second Hague Convention, which the U.S. did sign, doesn’t prohibit it IIRC. Anyone who knows more about that, I’d be delighted to learn.

[Jeff Chandler]

I certainly understand youre tendency toward 357SIg.

It's a wonderful caliber. It's high velocity, high energy, relatively small and light weight, and the bottle necked design makes for more reliable chambering (in theory).

It reminds me of the Tokarev round.

[neocon1984]

I am not a vet, so this may sound like a stupid question. How often are sidearms used in modern warfare? At what range are they effective?

[Lurker]

In a combat situation handguns are your “Oh **** I’m going to die!” weapon. And most engagements are within feet.

L

[spetznaz]

When Delta started moving away from its customized 1911s to Glocks in .40 and 9mm, that made it just a little more harder for 1911s to be adopted by all and sundry. Rangers (real Army Rangers in the 75th and not those with a tab) have been using 9mm Glocks, as are some Army Special Forces members. SEALs in the numbered teams (1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10) obviously use Sigs, while those in the colored teams (DEVGRU Red, Blue, Gold, Silver and Black) can use almost anything they want, but primarily use Sigs and HKs.

Now, the only units using 1911s used to be the USMC special operations units - the Force Recon Marines, who used Colt 1911s to great effect. However, when the Corps realize they were missing out on missions because Force Recon was not a part of SOCCOM, they decided to create a new Special Operations group ...and MARSOC was born. Now, this meant that there were still Force Recon (totally under the Corps), and MARSOC that could be tasked by SOCCOM. This also meant that there were a lot of people who required those Colt 1911s, and usage of that sidearm by MARSOC has been going down.

The 1911 works great and is an amazing firearm (better than my $2,941 Glock 19 ....weird story on that), but chances of them ever being adopted widely are next to zero. Same goes for adoption of the .45.

[captain_dave]

If you want a new cheap pistol, there's always the ugly Hi-Point in .45

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/7-G34512

[Mr Rogers]

Given the amount of use pistols see in combat, they could go to a Bond without significant harm:

[Talisker]

...my $2,941 Glock 19 ....weird story on that...

C'mon, give.

[Organic Panic]

I once tried to get a product through the military approval system. By the time it was ready every general had to have their say and sprinkle pee all over the design. It was useless and I stopped wasting my time.

Now, with Obama’s all gay all the time military, it will need to approve the all tranny general staff. Who knows what they come up wit.

[spetznaz]

Getting a license in my country (and a license is required to legally own a firearm) is a long and difficult process, and once (if) someone gets it then one has to purchase the firearm from one of a smattering of legalised shops. This means the pricing power is strongly in the hands of the dealers, and that is how 550 Dollar Glocks end up costing just under three grand. As for rounds, getting quality rounds is next to impossible and most licensed people have to do with S&B and Fiocchi JHPs from Europe. Not bad rounds (and I believe Trayvon Martin was done in with a 115gr S&B), but nowhere near the likes of a Federal HST, Winchester Ranger T or Speed Gold Dot. I was fortunate enough to (somehow ...) come across some Ranger Bonded, but that’s another story I would be foolish to get into. Anyways, the price of those S&Bs ...even the FMJ for practice ...is over a Dollar per round!

[spetznaz]

Speed Gold Dot = Speer Gold Dot.

Anyways, getting my license was one of the happiest days of my life, and even with the prices of ammo (and everything else) I am happy to be able to protect myself and my fellow citizens.

[Barkeep99]

Shame about the politics of the 1911. First pistol I was allowed to use. Father required me to know the weapon. When I could field strip and reassemble it blindfold on the kitchen table, we finally went to the range. That chunk of steel will always have a special place in my heart.

[Mariner]

I'm astounded they declined to even evaluate the platform.

This pistol in .40cal (Model 96)would be a jewel.

[USAF80]

All those calibers won’t go thru body armor. 9mm is a common round found all over the world. They should go with Glocks.

[USAF80]

Loads of females in uniforms that won’t be able to handle .40 cal. I’ve shot .40s and they are too hot for me and I’m a big guy.

The FN 57 would be controllable, has a high capacity mag and has good penetrating power but there is the issue about special ammo and costs.