The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Handguns: General Handgun Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 11, 2000, 05:20 PM   #1
PeterGunn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Location: Millington, TN
Posts: 735
Some of the info I've seen on some threads is absolutly bogus...some people really need to do some research before posting. You are really embaracing yourselves and others. Here's the true account and the information is all researched. E-mail me for citations...or look it up for yourselves!!!

In 1979, the United States Air Force was assigned to testing 9mm pistol designs for the Joint Services Small Arms Program (JSSAP) with an eye to replace all .38 Special revolvers and all M1911A1 pistols in the entire military inventory. For this test, Beretta submitted a modified 92S to compete against many other designs: Colt SSP; Smith & Wesson Model 459; Fabrique Nationale DA, FA and High Power; Star M28; and the Heckler and Koch P95 and VP70. At the end of testing in 1980, the USAF declared the Beretta Model 92S-1 the winner, but in 1981, the U.S. Army challenged the Air Force’s test results. The Army said the Air Force had used "the wrong kind of mud" in its testing and generally favored the Beretta in its tests, so the Department of Defense voided all previous tests and ordered the Army to start from scratch. In 1982, the Army began testing once again, but by May, declared all the submitted pistols had failed and testing was halted again.

In 1983, the U.S. Congress urged the Army to start tests again. The testing was now given the designation of the XM9 Service Pistol Trial. In the meantime, Beretta revised the 92SB again, with a matte black Bruniton protective finish, chrome-plated barrel and chamber, recurved triggerguard and a new grip shape and grips, calling the result the Model 92SB-F, later shortened to the Model 92F.

In early 1984, Beretta submitted the 92F to compete against a new group of designs: Smith & Wesson Model 459A, Sig-Sauer P226, Heckler & Koch P7M8 and P7M13, Walther P88, Steyr GB and Fabrique Nationale ADA. Testing lasted until September, but the announcement of the winner was delayed by legal action on behalf of both Smith & Wesson and Heckler & Koch, whose designs were eliminated early in the testing.

On 14 January 1985, the U.S. Army adopted the Beretta Model 92F as the United States Pistol, Caliber 9mm, M9. Beretta received a five-year contract worth $75 million for 315,930 pistols. It should be noted the 92F won based solely on a lower price per unit basis because the Sig-Sauer P226 also completed all the tests satisfactorily. With this announcement, the M9 became the first handgun to be adopted by all branches of the military. The contract also had provisions for domestic production, so Beretta USA Corporation would take over full production of the M9 by the start of the contract’s third year.

This did not sit well with Smith & Wesson, who convinced Congress to reopen the tests as the XM10 trials. With the new trials set to begin, a major problem occurred with service use of the M9. Several pistols used by Navy SEALs suffered catastrophic slide failures, where the slide split in two after firing and the back half of the slide struck the shooter in the face. (The SEAL sense of humor was quite apparent after this incident with the catch phrase "You’re not a Navy SEAL until you’ve tasted Italian steel" coined rather quickly afterward...) Supply of the M9 to the military was halted until the cause of these accidents was determined. The investigation took a few months before the cause was determined to be the ammunition used in the SEALs’ pistols. Normal firing pressures for the 9mm Parabellum round are in the order of between 31,000 to 35,000 PSI. The ammunition used by the SEALs was found to be of an extremely high pressure, in excess of 70,000 PSI. But this failure caused Beretta designers to develop a slide over-travel stop for the pistol. While the stop cannot prevent a failure due to faulty ammunition, it prevents a damaged slide from striking a shooter in the face in the event of failure. The revised pistol was named the 92FS.

In early 1989, the XM10 trials began. Ruger submitted its P85 pistol, Smith & Wesson submitted another modified Model 459 and the Army randomly selected 30 M9s for the trials. Testing began and was quickly concluded as the M9 won yet again. On 22 May 1989, Beretta received another contract for 57,000 M9s worth $9.9 million.

It is an interesting note that some SEALS are using the Sig 226.

PeterGunn is offline  
Old January 11, 2000, 05:29 PM   #2
Joseph
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 1999
Location: Cornelius, NC
Posts: 695
Peter,

With all due respect, where did you get your data? All of the stories sound plausible.
Joseph is offline  
Old January 11, 2000, 07:20 PM   #3
The Silver Bullet 1719
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 1999
Location: Southern Pines, NC
Posts: 227
No Joeseph, Peter is right about all this EXCEPT for the Beretta being chosen PURELY on cost alone, the other reason besides meeting all the requirements it jammed the least.

------------------
Trespassers Will Be Shot
Survivors Will Be Shot Again
The Silver Bullet 1719 is offline  
Old January 11, 2000, 07:27 PM   #4
DesertRat
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 10, 1999
Posts: 118
Joseph,

I'll second the accuracy of Peter's synopsis. However, the sources from which I read Peter's claims include both Sig's own quarterly magazine and tidbits from numerous gun rags.

The Sig P226 was (still is?) the Navy SEALS issue side arm. It is a superb weapon; however, I'm curious why SEALs never selected the Glock 17 with it's durable polymer/tenefer as it would seem to work out great due to the maritime environment they work in.

I do recall posting a similar explaination (though considerably less detailed) concerning Beretta's selection as the M9 service weapon right here at The Firingline some time ago.
DesertRat is offline  
Old January 11, 2000, 09:14 PM   #5
innocent bystander
Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 25
In the early 90s I sold several SEALS Glock 19s. They said they could carry personal handguns and the Glocks were the overwhelming choice.
innocent bystander is offline  
Old January 11, 2000, 09:41 PM   #6
PeterGunn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Location: Millington, TN
Posts: 735
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Peter is right about all this EXCEPT for the Beretta being chosen PURELY on cost alone, the other reason besides meeting all the requirements it jammed the least.[/quote]

Every report I have read and individuals that I have spoken to leads me to believe that both the Sig and Beretta exceeded the minimum standards of the trials. So to say the Beretta jammed the least and the Sig jammed a little more often is simply cannot be substantiated.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>In the early 90s I sold several SEALS Glock 19s. They said they could carry personal handguns and the Glocks were the overwhelming choice.[/quote]

If I had a nickle for everybody who said they had friends who were SEALs or sold XXX to SEALs I think I would be a very wealthy man. The OFFICIAL reports state that the majority of individuals in the teams carry Sig 226's. That's not ME saying it, It is the official Navy report on the subject. So, if you want to flame somebody, FLAME THE NAVY. By the way, I didn't think there were many Naval stations capable of supporting the SEALs in Arizona, but you MAY have moved since the early 90s.

------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."

PeterGunn


[This message has been edited by PeterGunn (edited January 11, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by PeterGunn (edited January 11, 2000).]
PeterGunn is offline  
Old January 11, 2000, 10:39 PM   #7
Joey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 1999
Posts: 437
In 1984 I I had a friend who was selected to partake in the testing. He was a SrA (E-4) USAF Security Policeman.

Upon his return he told me that the Beretta was his pick and he thought it was a better pistol. It performed the best in all the tests to him and shot to point of aim the best. From what I was told the Beretta was the favorite pistol hands down of all tested.

In 1986 we got our first shippement of M9's and I've been shooting them ever since. I've never even seen one jam or break any parts.
Joey is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 12:00 AM   #8
Ice Man
Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 1999
Posts: 46
PeterGunn-
You make many good points, but remember to keep an open mind. Many service members maintain their residencies in their home states, even though they are stationed elsewhere (mosty for State Income tax withhoding reasons)--ie if I am in the military, claim residency in nevada or any of the 14 states with no state income taxes, but am stationed in Taxachusettts, I woud pay no state taxes on my miitary pay. Since you have to buy your handguns in the state in which you have residency (I think most states require this, if not all?), it is not impausibe at all to imagine that a navy spec war individual home on leave pruchased a pistol. I have done it and now i am stationed 6000 miles away.
On the other hand, to the best of my knowedge and inquiries, it is indeed bogus that SEALs are permitted to carry personal sidearms. From what I have seen, their knives are personal and varied, but not their armories.
Semper Gumby

[This message has been edited by Ice Man (edited January 12, 2000).]
Ice Man is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 12:11 AM   #9
Destructo6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: Nogales, AZ USA
Posts: 3,817
If you have a green military ID, at least in CA in the early 90's, you could buy firearms out of state. Also, you don't have to re-register your automobiles when stationed out of the state that is your home of record.

And yes, Team guys can pack, pretty much, any pistol they desire and many desire the Glock. Come on, everyone knows how bad non K-Kote SIGs rust out of salt water, just imagine what they'd look like a few hours/days after infiltrating by sea. Currently though, I'd imagine that almost all carry the SOCOM. I know I would.
Destructo6 is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 01:35 AM   #10
RikWriter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 1999
Posts: 2,104
I don't know about SEALs firsthand, but I do know several SF guys, both current and ex and many of them could choose their own sidearm, depending on the mission.
RikWriter is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 02:29 AM   #11
PeterGunn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 28, 1999
Location: Millington, TN
Posts: 735
The newer SOCCOM pistol was not designed nor was it ever intended to be a standard issue sidearm. This modified H&K Mk23 in .45 is designed to serve as a tactical "offensive" weapon. It will never ride on everybodies hip, but only on a few. It was never designed to replace the standard issue sidearm.

I never said SFs guys couldn't pick their sidearms. In fact i believe they can within certain limitations. That's why the point the SIG 226 is the chosen weapon is so interesting.

Any of you who can sight a publicized report that SEALs or any other SF group is allowed to carry GLocks on a regular basis, please post it here. It is my information they cannot, but i could be wrong. Thanks for the info in advance!!!




------------------
"By His stripes we are healed..."

PeterGunn
PeterGunn is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 03:40 AM   #12
Edmund Rowe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 18, 1998
Location: Warner Robins, GA USA
Posts: 351
Regarding personal sidearms by military personnel:

I'm going to say right now that half of what I will say is heresay and half is my opinion. I haven't been on the sharp end of combat ops so I don't know for sure. Anyway, FWIW:

The grunts who go out on the real ops often seem to carry, appropriate, tote, or otherwise bring a lot of very unofficial stuff. So the "official" story can differ widely from what's really going on.

Picture the detachment of SEALs going on deployment to (hush-hush) where they are going to be doing the Real Thing. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think they give one hoot about official regs on what they carry. The CO of Team Two isn't going to be there, so who's going to know?

One of my friends flew AC-130 gunships in the Panama invasion (was that "Just Cause"?). I can tell you right now what the official USAF policy is: if it isn't issued it isn't carried. However, when the crew of 12-13 or so boarded the AC-130, all of them were carrying personal sidearms. Sidearms, nuts...some brought cut down long arms. This was the Real Thing and suddenly every crewman wanted something "just in case" they went down in enemy territory. This attitude seems consistent with every veteran's description of what really happens on the front line.

OK I'm not trying to flame anyone. Just stating my opinion.

Edmund
Edmund Rowe is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 08:39 AM   #13
innocent bystander
Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 25
The SEALS I mentioned above were home on leave and lived in AZ. I was suprised to hear that they were able to carry personal firearms. They bought fanny packs as well, for concealed carry.
innocent bystander is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 09:21 AM   #14
BB
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 17, 1999
Posts: 812
Ok, 1991, operation desert storm. I was an operations specialist onboard the USS McInerney (FFG8) serving as AAW picket for the USS Missouri in the NAG. Consequently, we were the furthest ship north (with the exception of minesweepers) since we were the first with GPS and side-scanning sonar (FFG8 is a test platform) and able to navigate mine swept channels off the coast of Iraq. Also consequently, since we had a flight deck with 3 helos (1-SH60B/2-OH58Ds), we had SEAL team 1 operating onboard, as well as several EOD teams. The SEALs carried Glock 17s. As a matter of fact, it was because they carried G17's that I bought one when I got back stateside. Also, all the helo pilots onboard could carry whatever they wanted, I saw .357s, HKs, Berattas, etc...On top of that, my cousin just got out of the Nav, and YES, he was a gunnersmate SEAL. Sniper, Team 1 F platoon. He said they were issued SIGs and the HKs, and that Glocks werent carried in his unit, but that he's seen them in other units. Of course this is just what I've seen, I dont have any proof (so to speak, I'd have taken pictures if I knew it was going to be such a big deal), so feel free to believe or not.

Regards-
BB
BB is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 09:51 AM   #15
RikWriter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 1999
Posts: 2,104
Peter, I know it is just hearsay, but I got it firsthand from a friend with whom I went to college that he carried a Glock 21 at times when he was in SF. The reason he brought it up was he had once had an AD with it while preparing to clean it back on base...
RikWriter is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 11:54 AM   #16
Dan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 1998
Location: Hiram, Ga
Posts: 283
FWIW when I was in the USMC I was flight crew on both CH-53 helicopters and KC-130's. I had the opportunity on many, many occasions to work with the various elites, esp. in Central America. (This was in the mid to late 80s). The USAF SOW wasn't the only ones to do that type of work BTW. I was into handguns then and was keenly interested in what the elites were using.

I saw quite a variety of weapons that were personally owned fielded on different ops. Some were training, some...well who really knows.

I saw Glocks. Lots of 'em. This was before they hit thier popularity boom. In fact this is what got interested in them to some degree. I understand that they were popular because they were really resistant to corrosion and they would eat anything they were fed. I also saw quite a few .357 Mag wheelguns of differing barrel lengths. They were stainless steel for the most part. I saw a few other makes and models, but Glocks and .357s pretty much ruled.

This was in mostly SEAL teams, USMC Force Recons didn't favor handguns much, they seemed to prefer carrying extra canteens vs. the wieght of a pistol. I saw a few Army Special Forces guys with 1911s but we really didn't transport them too often.

Now, whenever we would go down to Honduras, Panama or Columbia the enlisted flight crews always had something for the "just in case" scenario stashed away. Even when they issued us weapons. I don't know if the pilots ever stashed anything for "just in case" but it wouldn't surprise me if they had. There are many places to stash a handgun on a KC-130.

In fact I didn't ever leave home base w/out my Delta Elite 10mm. Wish I still had that gun...

------------------
Dan

Si vis pacem para bellum!

Check me out at:
<A HREF="http://www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm" TARGET=_blank>

www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm</A>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm

Dan is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 12:00 PM   #17
Dan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 1998
Location: Hiram, Ga
Posts: 283
Also... I was a pistol range coach during the transition to the Berettas. This was mid 86 to early 87 when we transitioned on the east coast. From what I remember, PeterGunn's acount sounds about in line with what I remember the stories that I heard then.

I really wish I had taken a photo of Special Ops Elites with Glocks too. But hey, I'm probably just full of crap anyways.

------------------
Dan

Si vis pacem para bellum!

Check me out at:
<A HREF="http://www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm" TARGET=_blank>

www.mindspring.com/~susdan/interest.htm</A>
www.mindspring.com/~susdan/GlocksnGoodies.htm

Dan is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 03:15 PM   #18
Tecolote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 1999
Posts: 1,999
And yes, Team guys can pack, pretty much, any pistol they desire and many desire the Glock.

The US government is very strict on what people can pack in country or not. That's a fact.

Come on, everyone knows how bad non K-Kote SIGs rust out of salt water, just imagine what they'd look like a few hours/days after infiltrating by sea.

Huh? Weapons maintance is given top priority in special teams. No one is going to leave their weapons lying around filthy. Dirty weapons get clean ASAP.

Currently though, I'd imagine that almost all carry the SOCOM. I know I would.

What special teams carry is often conjecture. Remember, real operatives, not wannabes are bound by non-disclosure agreements. I always laugh when I hear guys saying they ran special ops in Peru, interdiction in Bolivia, etc. etc. Yeah right. If you did and you're running your mouth then you're simply showing how untrustworthy you are.



------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
Tecolote is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 03:44 PM   #19
BB
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 17, 1999
Posts: 812
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The US government is very strict on what people can pack in country or not. That's a fact.[/quote]

So perhaps you can explain why all the pilots on my ship carried personal weapons? Why I carried my Browning on shipboard interdiction in the red sea and adriatic? All with the full knowledge of my CO? I am not lying, nor a "wannabe", I am telling you the way it is. Or at least it was, in 1991. I was not SPECOPS, just a lowly OS2 so I never signed a nondisclosure agreement (except for classified info and I've not divulged that).

BB

[This message has been edited by BB (edited January 12, 2000).]
BB is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 03:59 PM   #20
Tecolote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 1999
Posts: 1,999
I don't doubt you're telling the truth as I know nothing about you. I refer all readers to this thread: [Link to invalid post]

I wasn't in the military and I respect and thank all those who served or are serving. My only knowledge comes from conversing with friends that served in Bosnia and elsewhere. When I asked them if they intended to take along their own pistols they'd all answer no. They'd get into too much trouble. Admittedly this was the army and it might have been a policy specific to their units.

------------------
So many pistols, so little money.

[This message has been edited by Tecolote (edited January 12, 2000).]
Tecolote is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 04:08 PM   #21
RikWriter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 30, 1999
Posts: 2,104
Tecolote, you think that just because a SEAL or SF guy can't discuss what he did on ops, that he can't tell you what personal sidearm he chose or if he got to choose? If you think that, frankly, you're the one that's full of crap. SEALs and other SOF types are human too...hell, I know that for a fact, as the Professor of Military Science at my school's ROTC department was in SF in Panama and he was the biggest sack of crap I ever met.
RikWriter is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 04:13 PM   #22
Tecolote
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 1999
Posts: 1,999
Thanks for telling me I'm full of it without even knowing me. I hope you have a nice day too.

------------------
So many pistols, so little money.
Tecolote is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 04:15 PM   #23
BB
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 17, 1999
Posts: 812
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I can explain that as people violating policy, your CO's knowledge and acceptance doesn't make it right. Because there's a stop sign doesn't mean people will stop.[/quote]

OK, cite the regulation that makes what you say policy.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I was wholly unaware that onboard Naval warships individuals could choose to store their weapons and ammo. I imagine it must hell on earth trying to discipline someone when everybody is armed.[/quote]

Certainly they can. Especialy since many of us lived onboard. They are locked up in the armory along with all the other smallarms, and issued out when needed. One of my duties onboard was serving on the ships self defense force, and we were designated as boarding team as well to search shipping bound for the gulf and the balkan penninsula. For that reason we were issued weapons, and I choose to carry mine, and the CO had no problem with it, especialy since I used my personal weapon in competition.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>You reinforce my point, you aren't able to discuss special operations. Precisely why to me it's odd when I hear that so and so SEAL carried a Glock in country.[/quote]

What "special operations" have I discussed? I have stated that SEAL team 1 and EOD were embarked on my ship during Desert Storm. That, sir, is not classified information. Neither is the fact that my ship performed intradiction operations in the Adriatic and Red Seas.

BB
BB is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 04:50 PM   #24
Frank the Spank
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 1999
Location: Stockton, CA
Posts: 119
Oh yeah? Well... I have a "Seal" friend that carries a Jennings22 with pearl grips.

He's so tough he got a flu shot in the arm and only cried a little bit.

so THERE!

-Frank (the spank)
Frank the Spank is offline  
Old January 12, 2000, 05:12 PM   #25
Destructo6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 1999
Location: Nogales, AZ USA
Posts: 3,817
Tecolote: you don't really think that a guy's going to crawl out of the water, in a combat zone, and strip his weapon down to give it a nice coating of oil that will only attract more dirt?

Is an official memoradum, on team leterhead, the only thing that will convince you? Well, that will be next to impossible to find, one way or another.
Destructo6 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13751 seconds with 7 queries