JohnKSA; You are correct that Ruger wasn't in that 1st trial (XM9). I bought one of the first Ruger P-85's off the line, but it was in 88 or 89, long after the M-9 had started being issued to the troops. However, Ruger DID in fact compete in 1989 at the XM10 trials. My statements were from memory, not google or Wiki.
My point was, and is, that there were other viable options aside from the Beretta and although the M9 is a great gun, Politics did play a
huge part in its selection. I do recall (I think...
), reading numerous news articles in Time, Newsweek, various Gun magazines, etc. in the mid 80's on the trials, the M-9 and the protests about the US troops using Berettas instead of Colts, and 9MM instead on .45ACP, and the relationship between the US and Itl. Govts. Can I quote you specific articles or information sources 27 years later.... no. But to say that the topic was well covered by the media at the time is an understatement. I'll have to dig through my old gun magazines.
The common belief (and I'll go out on a limb and say "fact"), was that politics DID play a signifigant part in the M-9 contract.
From
The American Rifleman website; "
When the House Appropriations Committee gave the nod for a new U.S. military service handgun that would comply with NATO specs, the Beretta 92 was in the right place at the right time. Beretta unstintingly sent engineers back and forth across the Atlantic to ensure that the family gunmaker’s entry would absolutely conform with what the Joint Services Small Arms Project (JSSAP) mandated. The safety lever was moved to the slide to double as a de-cocker, an M1911-style magazine release button was placed in the “American position” behind the trigger guard, and an internal firing pin lock was incorporated. The original 92 morphed into what we now know as the 92F, which the U.S. military adopted as the M9. That adoption in the mid-1980s created a firestorm of complaints from M1911 fans, .45-cal. fans and, especially, rival gun manufacturers and their congressional delegations."
Pertaining to my statement in a previous post that politics played more of a role in the M-9 Contract that most people realize, you responded...
"For that to be true, the entire pistol trials would have had to have been faked"(JOHNKSA).
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...? There were lots of questions and protests when the contract was awarded to Beretta. 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? Hence the XM10 Trials in 1989???
From the
Armed Forces History Museum website;
"At the end of the trial period, the Beretta 92F and the SIG P226 were the only two in contention for the M9 contract. After cost analysis, the contract was awarded to Beretta. Though the P226 had a lower cost per pistol, its magazine and spare parts package price was higher than that of the Beretta."
It is difficult to remove politics from any contract process, Local, State or Fed, be the item in question handguns, hammers or construction projects. Kind of ironic how Beretta's magazine and spare parts cost came in slightly lower than Sig's... isn't it?
JohnKSA; Please clarify for me... Are you stating as "fact" that the Beretta M-9 contract was awarded based 100% on the pistols superior design, preformance and cost, and that politics / For. policy had NO role in the process? None what so ever?
I find that hard to agree with, despite the Beretta's stellar showing in both the XM9 and XM10 trials. Not that I can disprove your statement or change your mind, however the Berettta, as good as it is, had issues of its own. It was not, and is not perfect. The Sig 226 is a top notch gun, and was / is the choice of the Navy Seals over the Beretta, after some "slide issues" and facial injuries with early M9's.