[JohnKSa]

Ruger did compete in 89 in the XM10 trials.

The 1984 trials were the basis for the selection of the current service pistol. 1989 trials obviously couldn't have affected a decision made in 1986.

The American Rifleman quote is a good one. Even at the time it was clear to everyone that Beretta went all out to get the contract. They put a lot of effort and time into the competition and it showed in the results. Yes, there were a lot of complaints, but none of the official complaints or protests were supported with actual evidence sufficient to verify them.

...there were other viable options aside from the Beretta...

Of the 8 pistols submitted for testing by their respective companies, only the Beretta conclusively passed all of the performance trials in the 1984 testing.

Are you stating as fact that the Beretta M-9 contract was awarded 100% on the pistols superior design, preformance and cost, and that politics had NO role in the process?

First of all, your entire quote was that an earlier poster had it right when he said that the reason Beretta won had to do with missile basing in Italy AND that politics had more to do with it than most people realized, not JUST that politics had more to do with it than most people realized.

What I'm saying is that performance trials eliminated 6 of the 8 competitors and of the remaining 2, one actually failed one aspect of the performance trial but was allowed to continue to the pricing portion of the competition anyway.

The remaining two companies bid and Beretta won that portion of the competition as well.

Did I state that the trials were faked??? No, I didn't and didn't imply that either. I'm not sure where you got that from...?

I don't see a lot of room for politics in that process unless you're claiming that the results were faked or manipulated.

I'm not saying that there were absolutely no "politics" involved because when humans are involved, it's hard to strictly exclude other issues, but the claim that politics played "a huge part" in the outcome, is identical to saying that the testing results were falsified/manipulated to insure that the outcome was consistent with the political motivation. There's not a lot of room for politics to play any significant part in the outcome unless the results were faked or manipulated.

There are really only two options. The tests weren't faked/manipulated and test results determined the outcome of the trials, or the tests were faked/manipulated and politics played "a huge part" in the outcome.

Wasn't there an appeal from Sig, and various legal challenges from S&W, pertaining to the trial results and overall cost factors, or process used to arrive at the listed cost?

There were protests/complaints and, as a result, an independent investigation was performed by the United States General Accounting Office.

The independent investigation evaluated the complaints and after the investigation was completed, they concluded that performance trials eliminated 6 of the 8 competitors and of the remaining 2, one actually failed one aspect of the performance trial but was allowed to continue to the pricing portion of the competition anyway. It further noted that the remaining two companies bid and Beretta won the pricing competition.

S&W's complaints were voiced in two different court appeals and found to be without basis in both cases. That's in addition to the conclusion of the independent investigation.

SACO's complaints about the pricing were evaluated, the pricing was analyzed, and no irregularities were discovered.

The 50-60 page report by the GAO is quite thorough and worth the read for anyone who's interested in this topic. I posted a link to it back on page 3 of this thread.

...the Berettta, as good as it is, had issues of its own. It was not, and is not perfect.

Of course it's not perfect. There are no perfect guns, in fact, nothing made by humans is perfect. If imperfection in the selected product were sufficient evidence of some sort of foul play in the selection process, then every selection process ever performed is similarly tainted given that all products made by humans are imperfect.

...,Politics did play a huge part

Ok, let's cut to the chase.

1. What specific aspect(s) of the performance trials was/were affected by politics?

2. How were the performance trial results affected by politics?

3. How was the pricing competition affected by politics?

4. How were all the persons involved in altering/manipulating/changing/biasing the results to conform to political motivations convinced to remain silent for going on 30 years?

5. How was the independent investigation prevented from uncovering any evidence that the results were altered/manipulated/changed/biased to conform to political motivations?

6. What verifiable evidence supports the answers provided?