|
Post by CXM on Jul 21, 2017 9:33:13 GMT -5
Thanks for the compliment... but as my wife likes to remind me, "I'm a repository for useless information" though she does concede I have a lot of it... MW4570 has a great deal more such information than I do... Anyway, It always seemed to me that using on hand 1911A1 pistols from Army stocks for the pistol selection tests was hardly fair... Given that newest 1911A1 in Army inventory at the time was made in 1945 and were largely worn out by the time of the tests...But then it wasn't supposed to be a fair or objective test... I think new GI 1911A1s (and magazines) would have done very well in the tests... all you need to do is look at the performance of the 1911 in the final 1910 Army tests to see the expected results... When desert storm started up I was offered a Beretta for carry... I turned it down and managed to finagle an old 1911A1 made by Union Switch and Signal, though not many parts were original to the gun. Some judicious parts swapping resulted in a very serviceable 1911A1... which I then locked in my safe where it stayed for the entire war other than an occasional oiling... Anyway, While I think the SIG 320 is a fine pistol (I have one) the Army's determination to continue with 9x19mm is sort of par for the course... While the 9x19 is a satisfactory military round it does not confidence on the part of the troops the .45ACP does... While some of the things troops believe about the 45acp are wrong, it does give them confidence in their side arm... Plus... built to original specs the 1911A1 is extremely reliable. FWIW CHuck Thanks CXM! I would like to see you upgraded to Outstanding Subject Matter Expert and Administrator. I think the Beretta has proven itself as an excellent secondary weapon in the peace time environment prior to the sandbox exercises.
|
|
|
Post by trooper on Jul 21, 2017 10:34:51 GMT -5
Chuck, You know as well as I do that troops want what they don't have ie., they just like to bitch. A .45 would serve them no better because they can't shoot and if they can shoot, a 9mm is just as good as anything else and I'm talking as someone who's had experience in both military and law enforcement context. The complaints about the Beretta in military service are the same complaints we heard about the 1911 at the tail end of it's service: it was big, heavy, hard to shoot and unreliable. These are the same complaints we'll hear about the P320 ten or fifteen years down the road, except perhaps that it's too heavy. Why? Because the military has the absolute worst track record in training and maintenance when it comes to their pistols. They don't train people in their use nor do they maintenance them at all. When those Sigs aren't properly maintained they'll start to fall apart and suddenly the crappy handgun the military uses will again be a controversy. It's easy to feel the 1911 is still a superior choice when all one does with it is stick it in the safe, or ride around in a staff vehicle looking cool with John Wayne in a tanker holster, but that doesn't jive with the reality. As for any lack of performance on the part of the Beretta in the "sandbox exercises" Exactly what do you expect when you supply troops with crappy magazines from a second tier manufacturer to use in their pistols, that have never so much as had a recoil spring replaced? As well as never giving those troops any proper training in the use of a pistol. Come on folks, is that really the fault of weapons design? Since 1913 most Beretta pistols have had an open slide design and they've been used in desert environments all over the world by more countries than we can count, no one had much of a problem until the Big Green Machine went into the "sandbox". Who's fault is that, Berettas or our military's pathetic attitude when it comes to handguns? Over the last three years I've fired around 50K rounds through several examples of the Beretta 92 without a single malfunction of any kind............any kind. I've never experienced that kind of performance from any other handgun, including our beloved 1911, the Glock or you name it. All that has simply been accomplished by changing springs and other wear parts as per manufacturers recommendation and not using crappy magazines, not hard to accomplish. I don't baby the things either, my training gun gets cleaned once in a blue moon, yet it keeps chugging along with nothing more than a little lube on occasion. Complain about pistol procurement in the 80's? Take a look at the program that chose the P320, it's far, far worse in its borderline incompetence. In the grand scheme no real testing was really done. Neither of the finalists were put through any kind of real endurance testing and a certain variation of the Sig only had 500 rounds fired through it before it was deemed good to go. I'm currently on the evaluation team for my agency in selecting a new duty weapon. It will either be the P320 or the Glock 17M/Gen 5. I love the way the Sig performs, I find it far superior to the Glock in many catagories: ergonomics, control layout, trigger, etc. My only concern is its new design. We just really don't know if it will hold up over the long term and no testing has been done to determine its failure points, etc. For that very reason I feel the Glock is probably the more logical choice for us, in spite of my preference for the Sig. Regarding the topic of this thread: I really have no dog in the fight as I think both are fine weapons. I only take issue when people start making definitive pronouncements based only on personal bias and nostalgia. I've used the Beretta 92 for the last three years and the 1911 for three decades before that. However, both of them, as well as any future replacement, will be found lacking in military service, due entirely to the military's attitude regarding handguns. Complaints about military procurement or bore size are straw man arguments at this point in history. A bunch of fat old men on the internet arguing about it won't change that.
|
|
|
Post by CXM on Jul 21, 2017 13:16:39 GMT -5
Though troops do like to complain, you can't attribute the widespread dis-satisfaction with the Beretta entirely to troops griping. That troops are not well trained on their sidearm is a command short coming... has nothing at all to do with weapons... most who carry a sidearm only receive familiarization with their pistol... not actual serious instruction. None of that however, is a good reason not to provide a weapon to the troops that is of high quality and in which they have confidence... If you take the time to review the entire procurement process that resulted in the Beretta you will find Smith & Wesson and SIG offered better pistols than Beretta... The fact the Army chose Beretta for political reasons does not make the Beretta a better pistol... I can't agree with your observation that Beretta's open slide has not caused problems in previous pistols... because it has... I got a Beretta M34 a few years ago that was so gunked up with fine talcum powder type sand (and you find in North Africa and the mid east) the firing pin would not function... The fact the open slide is less satisfactory is further illustrated by the fact when FN contracted Beretta to make a 380auto (Browning BDA 380/FN140) they specified a fully enclosed slide even at extra cost. There are of course environments in which the open slide is probably ok, but in general it is a less reliable system. I won't go into the quality woes we encountered with the Beretta such as broken locking lugs... It is of course far too large for a 9x19 pistol (one of the reasons we like our HPs)and feels like a brick in the hand... the magazine release is in an awkward position... The interesting thing to consider is the failure of the Beretta in the civilian market... though a few police agencies bought Berettas about the time the Army did, most have since dropped the Beretta in favor of something else... Problems with the 1911A1 toward the end of it's service life were mostly due to the fact the old guns were worn out... You can be sure troops will not be happy with or like worn out equipment of any type. I again refer you to the tests run in the initial selection for an auto pistol in 1909/10 (in which new 1911s were used.) The procurement process that resulted in the selection of the SIG 320 was indeed insane... and it was not conducted IAW the FAR... it used one of the crazy exceptions that came in in the past eight years or so... A well written solicitation conducted by a competent contracting officer following the FAR almost always results in the selection of a quality product that conforms to the user's specifications. The only thing I can say about the process used was the offerors were faced with the simple fact the Army (as executive agent for small arms procurement) was going to buy whatever it wanted. It seems the Army absolutely wanted a thumb safety (which was no surprise to anyone who is familiar with the Army) though they didn't really say so in the solicitation. The potential contractors were also allowed to offer pistols in the calibers of their choice... another red herring because I don't think anyone seriously thought the Army was going to select anything other than the 9x19mm. Now here is the bad part... Whilst the SIG 320 is a fine pistol (I have one I really like) it will have the same handicap as the Beretta in that it is a 9x19mm... American soldiers want something bigger... like in the rifles... Though it is not really germane to the discussion, I too like the SIG320 a lot... I don't think we have much to worry about in terms of it not being a reliable gun... and while it may have some teething problems (most systems do) they should not be anything like the magnitude of those experienced with the Beretta.) Another plus is we should see lots and lots of magazines for the 320 hit the market. Anyway, despite the SIG 320 being a fine pistol I think it will experience some of the acceptance problems as did the Beretta based on being 9x19mm... though I also expect it will be welcomed as a replacement for the Beretta. At this point we will have to see how the upcoming lawsuits play out... FWIW Chuck Chuck, You know as well as I do that troops want what they don't have ie., they just like to bitch. A .45 would serve them no better because they can't shoot and if they can shoot, a 9mm is just as good as anything else and I'm talking as someone who's had experience in both military and law enforcement context. The complaints about the Beretta in military service are the same complaints we heard about the 1911 at the tail end of it's service: it was big, heavy, hard to shoot and unreliable. These are the same complaints we'll hear about the P320 ten or fifteen years down the road, except perhaps that it's too heavy. Why? Because the military has the absolute worst track record in training and maintenance when it comes to their pistols. They don't train people in their use nor do they maintenance them at all. When those Sigs aren't properly maintained they'll start to fall apart and suddenly the crappy handgun the military uses will again be a controversy. It's easy to feel the 1911 is still a superior choice when all one does with it is stick it in the safe, or ride around in a staff vehicle looking cool with John Wayne in a tanker holster, but that doesn't jive with the reality. As for any lack of performance on the part of the Beretta in the "sandbox exercises" Exactly what do you expect when you supply troops with crappy magazines from a second tier manufacturer to use in their pistols, that have never so much as had a recoil spring replaced? As well as never giving those troops any proper training in the use of a pistol. Come on folks, is that really the fault of weapons design? Since 1913 most Beretta pistols have had an open slide design and they've been used in desert environments all over the world by more countries than we can count, no one had much of a problem until the Big Green Machine went into the "sandbox". Who's fault is that, Berettas or our military's pathetic attitude when it comes to handguns? Over the last three years I've fired around 50K rounds through several examples of the Beretta 92 without a single malfunction of any kind............any kind. I've never experienced that kind of performance from any other handgun, including our beloved 1911, the Glock or you name it. All that has simply been accomplished by changing springs and other wear parts as per manufacturers recommendation and not using crappy magazines, not hard to accomplish. I don't baby the things either, my training gun gets cleaned once in a blue moon, yet it keeps chugging along with nothing more than a little lube on occasion. Complain about pistol procurement in the 80's? Take a look at the program that chose the P320, it's far, far worse in its borderline incompetence. In the grand scheme no real testing was really done. Neither of the finalists were put through any kind of real endurance testing and a certain variation of the Sig only had 500 rounds fired through it before it was deemed good to go. I'm currently on the evaluation team for my agency in selecting a new duty weapon. It will either be the P320 or the Glock 17M/Gen 5. I love the way the Sig performs, I find it far superior to the Glock in many catagories: ergonomics, control layout, trigger, etc. My only concern is its new design. We just really don't know if it will hold up over the long term and no testing has been done to determine its failure points, etc. For that very reason I feel the Glock is probably the more logical choice for us, in spite of my preference for the Sig. Regarding the topic of this thread: I really have no dog in the fight as I think both are fine weapons. I only take issue when people start making definitive pronouncements based only on personal bias and nostalgia. I've used the Beretta 92 for the last three years and the 1911 for three decades before that. However, both of them, as well as any future replacement, will be found lacking in military service, due entirely to the military's attitude regarding handguns. Complaints about military procurement or bore size are straw man arguments at this point in history. A bunch of fat old men on the internet arguing about it won't change that.
|
|
|
Post by noglock on Jul 21, 2017 15:15:51 GMT -5
CXM:
You are correct in that the less than fully enclosed slide of the Beretta is the desert shortcoming. If anyone believes a 500 round recoil spring replacement interval would change things; they are in denial or have acquired their Beretta experience in some other environment.
The Browning recognition of the less than intelligent use of the less than fully enclosed slide in their offering of the Beretta .380 exemplifies the point precisely. That particular piece of firearms history pre-dates 1985. My calculations indicate it also exceeds the imposition of a thirty year window. It does not even contemplate a 9 x 19 or .45 auto question.
|
|
|
Post by CXM on Jul 21, 2017 17:38:52 GMT -5
You seem to be right on target IMHO... If anyone is interested in what desert powder sand does to a pistol, they only need put automotive valve grinding compound on the bearing surfaces and shoot it a while... I don't suppose many people shoot the various Beretta 380 pistols enough for the open slide to be a problem, particularly when used in Europe or North America etc, Some years ago I bought a Beretta 92 for use in doing 'familiarization' for people who were about to deploy to various garden spots in the mid east... The pistol has not had a huge volume of ammo through it and it is already in pretty worn condition... the retaining pin has dropped out of the ambi safety for example... I'm left with the impression it is not designed for very heavy use... though I admit in the 92 I only have one example though a couple of my friends have expressed similar views... I loaned my 92 to a friend who was taking a Rangemaster course and who was about to deploy to the mid east... he had to endure some 'rawhiding' from Tom Givens over his choice of the 92 for the course until the reason for using the 92 was explained... Anyway, I can think of a long list of 9mm pistols I'd rather have than the Beretta 92... starting of course with the High Power. FWIW Chuck CXM: You are correct in that the less than fully enclosed slide of the Beretta is the desert shortcoming. If anyone believes a 500 round recoil spring replacement interval would change things; they are in denial or have acquired their Beretta experience in some other environment. The Browning recognition of the less than intelligent use of the less than fully enclosed slide in their offering of the Beretta .380 exemplifies the point precisely. That particular piece of firearms history pre-dates 1985. My calculations indicate it also exceeds the imposition of a thirty year window. It does not even contemplate a 9 x 19 or .45 auto question.
|
|