what pistols did the 1911 and beretta 92 compete against?

[James K]

"The only pistol that made it to the finals with what became the Colt M1911 was the Savage M1907."

The Savage model 1907 was the pocket pistol in .32 and (later) .380. AFAIK, the .45 pistol submitted for the Army tests had no company model designation. It has been written that the Savage M1907 was "scaled up" to .45 caliber for those tests, but the reverse is the case. Savage submitted the .45 Searle pistol to the 1907 tests, in which it did quite well. After those tests were over, with no decision made, Savage decided to scale the pistol down to compete on the commercial market with Colt's highly successful Pocket Model .32.

Savage did not, however, give up on the idea of a military contract and continued to submit improved models until the Colt pistol was finally chosen.

Jim

[griffin12aaa]

I didn't know savage made handguns

I saw a video called" tales of the gun-automatic pistols" on YouTube and there was a luger in 45 made for testing but didnt make. Sadly only two were ever made.

[Will-j]

GRIF:
Ruger threw their hat in the ring with a version of the P85/89, I believe, But the whole thing was political and already decided upon before all the facts and final testing results were in.
The 9MM decision was for aligning with NATO (European) ammo sources and arms chamberings.

I think the DA version of the .45 with a FP or TFP bullet 200-230gr would have been a sufficient, if not ideal, combo with which to contend.... But for the [9MM]/NATO BS.
But...Whom am I to question the [infinite?] wisdom of those in charge?

WILL.
D@MN, I hate it when I'm off my meds.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Savage did not, however, give up on the idea of a military contract and continued to submit improved models until the Colt pistol was finally chosen.

I was watching the NRA antique gun show with Supica and they did on the competition and said that Savage didn't listen to Army suggestions for modifications.

I guess the truth is lost in the depths of history. If they had chosen the Luger or Savage half the content of Internet gun forums would have disappeared.

[Guv]

As the proud owner of several Beretta's I have always wondered why they didn't go with a 1911 in 9mm. The armorers, training and spare parts would have been almost the same and the problem with shooters with smaller hands would have been a non issue. You would have been giving up 5/6 rounds capacity?

[tipoc]

As the proud owner of several Beretta's I have always wondered why they didn't go with a 1911 in 9mm.

Because they wanted a gun that carried more rounds than a 1911 and they wanted a da/sa pistol with a decocker and one that was lighter than a 1911, among other things.

The decision to leave the 1911 was a long time in the coming.

tipoc

[Arizona Fusilier]

Despite its size, I distinctly remember reading how some shooters......including women.......liked the "feel" or "heft" of it during the original trials.

I dunno, sometimes the government screws up, and sometimes we are so used to the government screwing up that we have to assume they did so again. Its what makes us Americans.

By the way, Happy Independence Day!

[JohnKSa]

The Beretta and SIG tied. The Beretta won based on price.

http://gao.gov/assets/210/208564.pdf

Per the GAO report, the SIG failed the performance tests (specifically the dry mud test) but was allowed to continue to the bid phase because it was considered to be a good pistol in spite of the failure, because the evaluators weren't sure that the dry mud test was a truly practical, real-world test, and, more importantly, so there would be a competitive bid (at least two companies bidding against each other) to help keep the final price down.

Given that the SIG entry did fail part of the test, it's probably not entirely accurate to state that the two entries were tied going into the bid.

Beretta won the bid, however their pistols were actually MORE expensive than the SIG entries. Beretta won the bid based on cheaper mags & spare parts.

Ironically, the government initially chose to go with a third party magazine supplier rather than buying them from Beretta. If you look at the cost of what the government actually did buy (Beretta guns & spare parts) vs. the cost of the SIG guns & spare parts it turns out that they paid more than they would have had they gone with the SIG bid.

[roman3]

This was the list of guns from the XM9 Trials of 1984/85

Beretta 92 SB-F
Colt SPP (never a production gun)
FN Double Action
HK P7M13
Sig P226
SW 459
Steyr GB
Walther P88

The Steyr failed first, (did not meet the minimum mandatory reliability test)
Then FN voluntarily withdrew their pistol from the competition.
Then Colt did the same for the SPP.
Both the HK and Walther failed the salt water corrosion test. Walther also failed the wet/dry mud test.
SW failed the endurance test (somewhat bogus test really) and firing pin test.


Slide breakages on some 92's and Smith and Wesson made a big fuss that eventually ended in another pistol competition in 1987/88 called the XM-10 trials.

Ruger's P-85
CZ 85
SW 459
Beretta 92 F

Sig declined to take part in the re-test and Glock was not allowed to test as it did not meet the Army's definition of a double-action pistol, that allowed a second strike on a defective primer.

Beretta won the retest as well.

Beretta also won the earlier 1979-80 Air Force trials (the one where the Army pitched a fit and forced later competitions)
Beretta 92S-1
Colt SPP
Star 28
SW 459A
FN High Power (three different versions including a DA/SA version)
HK P9s
HK VP 70 (the original polymer)

[roman3]

As the proud owner of several Beretta's I have always wondered why they didn't go with a 1911 in 9mm. The armorers, training and spare parts would have been almost the same and the problem with shooters with smaller hands would have been a non issue. You would have been giving up 5/6 rounds capacity?

In fact the GAO did offer a compromise before the XM9 trials showing that existing 1911's could be converted to 9mm, a simple substituting a 9mm barrel, magazine and recoil spring, took 10 minutes and cost less than $100 per gun.

GAO Report March 8, 1982

Congress did not budge and basically ordered the Army by cutting some funds to pick a 9mm pistol. XM9 followed.

Remember the context of the early 80's, the cold war was in full swing, President Reagan was building up the armed forces which had been allowed to lag after Vietnam and under President Carter, the arms race was in full swing, from MX and Trident Nuclear missiles to a new high capacity 9mm pistol.

[roman3]

One more test did occur the original XM9 tests of 1981

The Army made the requirements so tough that no pistol won or was deemed acceptable.

Only 4 guns tested

Beretta 92SB
HK P7M13
SW 459A
Sig P226

Congress was furious with the Army for unrealistic testing and spending a lot of money (nearly 2 million) to do nothing. They even noted that the USAF had at least picked a winner in 1979.

[Guv]

Awesome information roman, very interesting.

[roman3]

Also remember that Beretta had one big advantage over Sig in the final bidding as well.

Beretta had a fully functional factory producing guns at Accokeek Maryland. To get around the 1968 gun control act they acquired the factory in 1978 to produce their Model 950 and Model 21 which they could no longer import.

Sig had no such facility at that time. And did not for many years.

The terms of the Contract required that the guns, by year 3, be made totally in the US.

Year 1 of the contract all were Italian made 92's (M9) (I got one of these issued to me in 1986)

Year 2 all were made in Italy but assembled in the US and finally the next year Beretta USA was fully up and producing all US made M9.

Sig would have had to build or acquire a factory in the US and that cost had to be factored in. Sig declined to enter the XM10 tests as it knew it would not be competitive in price and still had no factory in the US.

[45_auto]

Originally Posted by roman3

In fact the GAO did offer a compromise before the XM9 trials showing that existing 1911's could be converted to 9mm, a simple substituting a 9mm barrel, magazine and recoil spring, took 10 minutes and cost less than $100 per gun.

Congress did not budge and basically ordered the Army by cutting some funds to pick a 9mm pistol. XM9 followed.

Maybe Congress turned it down because they realized that by GAO claiming to be able to convert a .45 to 9mm without changing the extractor and ejector, and remachining the slide to clear the 9mm ejector, GAO was blowing smoke up their nether regions!

[roman3]

Not sure I would give congress, even in the early 80's that much credit.

Or the GAO for that matter.

I just know the GAO submitted that report and they found a willing accomplice in the Army, whose heart was never into the 9mm pistol. Congress, with the power of the purse, got the Army to comply.

[DanTSX]

I love how the XM9 trial story changes and grows more plot twists and gotchas each time it is told. Muh NATO! Muh Geneva conventions!


At the end of the day, the average Joe doesn't like what is issued to him. What the other guy is issued or what could had been issued is always "better". And it is always best to complain about current issue, as we are all experts on what is best, and 45 ACP will blow a guys head clean off.


Most of the folks still breathing enough to type here, and were active when the 1911 was in service had about a 50% chance of being issued a revolver, so I think that part of the nostalgia for the M1911 is artificial. Most of the folks who would had been issued a M9, were not issued any handguns by the time it was in widespread use. The point here is that first hand user experiences are poorly understood and often limited to beat up pistols on qualification day. Once you replace the M9 with whatever Glock, S&W, Sig, etc wins the next competition, Everyone will look back longingly at the M9, and immediately set about complaining about the replacement gun.





I think the M9 is fine. I hope the US Military replaces it with a Glock in a caliber foreign to NATO.

[roman3]

Well I was in the service during the transition. I was also an armor crewman (tanks) and was issued a handgun as my main PDW.

My 1911 was a rattle trap which went bang, finish was mostly gone and it would be a cheap beater on the market today.

When we received our shipment of M9's the armorers had us take them straight from the box and clean them and then we turned them in for our new weapons card.

Ours were one of the early shipments of all Italian made guns, which were tight, new, and had really nice finishes.

Everyone's pistols scores rose going to the 9.

The M9 worked for me then but it would not be my choice now.

[raimius]

The M9 is an acceptable gun. It does what it is designed to do pretty well. That said, I dislike the safety design and locking block wear can be a real pain. I never understood why people think you should put the safety way up on the slide or that up should be fire. To me, a thumb safety should be easy to place on "fire" while assuming a firing grip (e.g. on the slide, and down being "fire").
The DoD could do worse, but it could also do better.

Pistol training has to be fairly intensive to really bring out the capability of the pistol. I don't think the "line" troops would get sufficient training to really make the most of any pistol they were issued. It is prohibitively expensive to train a hundred thousand or more people with several hundred rounds a week on a weapon that will generally be a back-up or issued to those who are not likely to use it in combat.

Some people in the DoD are never required to carry, and as such are unlikely to even qualify on a pistol. The only time I've fired a government owned M9 was for an EIC match.

[DanTSX]

Raimius, were you trained to actually use the safety while carrying the M9?


My understanding is that with slide mounted safeties on a traditional Double Action (DA/SA) gun, is that the safety is usually treated as an "administrative" safety for handling the gun. For example, a LEO securing the gun in the vault in a Police Station's Sally Port before moving the prisoner from the cruiser to the intake / booking cell.

When the gun is to be carried in it's holster, the safety stays "off" and the long, heavier Double Action first trigger pull serves as the "safety" and is as safe as a holstered DA revolver.


The issue with the M9 / 92FS is if you clear a malfunction, or perform an overhand slide release on a fresh mag, you may accidentally engage the safety and leave you exposed when you should be shooting. If this was a pure decocker, the worst that would happen is that you would go from your SA pull to your DA pull, but you wouldn't have a dead gun.


I cannot imagine any need to employ a manual safety on a de-cocked Traditional Double Action pistol carried in an acceptable holster, but I've seen it done. I won't comment on what I thought about their weapons familiarity or confidence.

[tipoc]

In the XM10 trials the Army held the Tanfoglio TZ-75 (the Italian clone of the CZ75) was considered and tested initially in late 1987 early 1988. The decision to exempt the M9 from being re-tested in those trials was challenged by S&W and a hold was put on further testing, meanwhile the Italian TZ-75 fell by the wayside.

Shortly thereafter the CZ85 was tested and did well in the Aberdeen testing grounds. But as it had no decocker or firing pin safety block (at that time) it was not acceptable. It was also ipso-facto out of the running because it was manufactured behind the still existing "iron curtain".

tipoc

[Rob228]

Having carried a MEUSOC 1911 for work I'm going to put out a few observations (I still am not an M9 fan BTW, and I'd take the MEUSOC over an M9 any day)

Whoever the gentleman was that was working in the armory at Quantico when they built my particular MEUSOC 1911 decided that blending the grip frame to meet the grip safety was not an efficient use of his time, so I had two large lumps of metal that would eat into my hand. A 6 week CWB package that typically included 4-600 rounds of pistol shooting a day left me soaking my bleeding right hand in ice water for extended periods of time. These pistols did not really work so well dirty, 300 rounds was about the max before we'd start to see failure to feed malfunctions and failure to go into battery. We swam some places to get to work. I'd have rather had a Glock on my thigh than the 1911 for those jobs. It was all sorts of accurate, as long as you did your part. I'd take it over an M9, but trade it for a Glock 19 in a heartbeat.

[DanTSX]

What? Can you cite where the Tangfolio was in the XM10 test?


This story is growing legs again. Maybe the next time it is told Glock will be there too, but Chuck Norris sabotaged it so we could have Rocky's match with Ivan Drago without angering the Austrians.

[Old_Dog]

Sig P226 which was the semi finalist with the 92.

[tipoc]

What? Can you cite where the Tangfolio was in the XM10 test?

See "Modern Beretta Firearms" by Gene Gangarosa page 140. Like a few others it was there for a hot minute, but there.

tipoc

[JDBerg]

[QUOTE]Just for fun what do YOU think should be the next military sidearm??[/QUOTE

The M9 is basically a BUG for the U.S. Military combat warfighter. Top priority should always be to provide the best combat long guns in the best possible condition for our troops. The M9 is marginalized by its backup role, and the fact that 9mm NATO ammo is the only authorized ammo choice. The British MoD evaluation of alternatives for the aging Browning Hi-Powers in their inventory resulted in the selection of the Gen4 Glock 17 as the best replacement. Is an M9 in top mechanical condition a better choice than the Glock, considering the fact that the U.S. Military will probably continue the use of 9mm NATO ammo? I say probably not. Is a brand new Gen4 Glock 17 a better alternative than an aged, worn M9? I say absolutely yes.

I can't see the point of spending billions of taxpayer $ for another service pistol trials, when we can study the results of the British Ministry of Defense trials from three years ago and then make the determination that we are replacing the aged & worn out M9's with the Glocks on a gradual basis. I know there are political implications with U.S. manufacturers on the next military service pistols, but I would argue that the results of the British MoD from their recent pistol trials, is sufficient to justify the same choice for the U.S. Military, saving the expense of another pistol trials.