Why are the XM9 Trials Continually Misconstrued?

[Gats Italian]

It's been over 25 years since the Beretta 92FS won the XM9 trials. Lawsuits were waged, Governmental investigations were launched. Reports were generated, and even today, people with an axe to grind purposely get the facts wrong. What is up with this phenomenon?

People contend that the SIG scored slightly higher than the Beretta. This is only possible if you contend that the SIG failing two mud tests and needing the charity of having those results thrown out don't count against "reliability."

It is contended that there was quid pro quo by the US in accepting the M92 in exchange for missile basing rights in Italy. The GAO debunked this and yet it still surfaces over and over. The pricing on the SIGs was also wholly unrealistic given that at the time SIG had yet to provide any of their adopters a similar unit price.

Today's SIG prices mock the notion that they would have ever delivered at their bid pricing back in the 80s. It doesn't cost SIG any more to machine steel and aluminum into a handgun than it does Beretta, yet the P226 is always about $150-$200 more per example on the market.

The "war" has been lost. The Beretta has been purchased in its hundreds of thousands since the contract was awarded. SIG even got their consolation prize in the form of the M11 and the the P226 Mk.25 used by Naval Special Warfare. Why does the misinformation campaign continue as if its propagators can somehow change history?

[ClydeFrog]

US gun owners & military experts can say what they want but Beretta USA won the DoD M sidearm contracts twice in the 1980s & were given a few new service contracts since then.

The "SF carrys Glock .40s" or "SIGs are better." is just hot air & war stories.
Beretta USA got the M9 because they had the tools, parts, US factories, support.
The Beretta 92F also cost less than the P226.

[57K]

I watched the events as they unfolded because I intended to buy a copy of the winner. This is the first I've heard of the P-226 failing "mud" tests. Both the P-226 and the Beretta M92 were the clear winners, but the 226 graded out slightly higher than the M92. After the tests and announcement that the M92 had won the contract, S&W initiated a lawsuit because they had learned that Beretta had wined, dined and gifted enough GAO and Army personnel involved in the bidding process to learn what the competitions bids were. This led to the second round of testing which SIG refused to take part in because they knew their pistol had scored the highest and felt they should have one the contract. The second round tested the M92, the S&W 459 and Ruger entered with the P-85. Meanwhile, the SEALs were doing their own testing which led them to adopt the P-226 as their PDW. Beretta was announced as the winner after the second round of tests. Then the rumors started about slide breakage with the M9 because some SEAL members put some very high pressure loads through them (near proof level) that had been previously fired without issues in the P-226. This caused Beretta to make a major effort to find the result of the problem. They found a FEW cases, pulling pistols off the assembly line where slide metallurgy wasn't up to spec which led to them adding the slide block even though they corrected the metallurgy issues.

None of this had anything to do with where the plants were located because the contract specs required the successful bidder to build all pistols in the US. Beretta had sold their plant in Brazil to Taurus in advance of the testing process and opened their plant in Maryland. SIG/Sauer had already planned to build a plant in Exeter, NH. We can at least give the GAO and the Army credit for that because when the FBI adopted the G22/23, they're was no stipulation that the pistols had to be US manufactured, nor was there a testing and competitive bid process.

Both are excellent pistols but early on there was much ado about nothing concerning the P-226 slides that were formed in halves on a mandrel and then welded together. The 226 never failed with any of the near-proof loads the Seals had put through them. IMO, examining both both pistols, the 226 has a better trigger and IMO, they're a tad more accurate in stock configuration. The Army Marksmanship Unit has turned out some extremely accurate M9s for use by their competition teams and the original pistolsmith responsible for most of the accurrizing left the unit and went into business for himself. The mods required are available from several pistolsmiths including Jarvis.

SIG/Sauer felt that they won a victory of sorts in the SEALs selection of the P-226, which was later followed by the Texas DPS adopting the .357 SIG cartridge and the P-229/226 with the Secret Service following suit. They felt pretty good about the advertising potential that their pistol attained with the best Special Ops units in the world as well as the Texas DPS/Rangers and the Sedret Service. The US Navy adopted the P-228 as the M11 for Naval Aviators and Marine Corps pilots. The P-226 was also adopted by the prestigious unit that put Special Ops on the map and trained the original SEAL teams and later, Army Delta Force. That of course being the British SAS who like the SEALs continue to use the P-226 to this day as their PDW. In my case, I bought neither for quite a while but ended up buying a P-226 in 1998.

[ClydeFrog]

To my knowledge, the 92F won the selection bids & T&Es because they cost less per unit than the SIG Sauer P226 models.
Walther's well engineered P88 9mmNATO was cut due to problems with hard use T&Es.
The new(for the era) Smith & Wesson 459/5904 pistol was a well made robust design but fell out early due to a # of issues.

SIG did earn the M11 contract over the M type compact 92F & the compact 92F.
Those compacts never picked up in the US.

ClydeFrog

[LockedBreech]

Couldn't agree more, Gats. The 226 is an excellent gun, but it got beaten by the 92 in the areas the DoD cared about and some Sig fans can't handle a second-place finish.

I truly love both designs, but if two were lying on a table and I could grab only one, it'd be the Beretta.

Sidearms are a very, very small part of modern military logistics. The idea that there was some sort of palm-greasing conspiracy for a sidearm contract is absurd.

[57K]

Sidearms are a very, very small part of modern military logistics. The idea that there was some sort of palm-greasing conspiracy for a sidearm contract is absurd.

Google it. You're giving an opinion where I stated historical fact. The only area where the Beretta surpassed the P-226 was by cost per unit. S&W initiated a lawsuit over the palm greasing that Beretta did which forced a second round of trials where SIG declined to participate because they thought they'd won in the first place. What's absurd is you offering opinion denying the facts that DID occur. This has nothing to do with being a fan of one over the other, just the facts.

[loose_holster_dan]

who cares? shoot what you like.

[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by 57K

Google it. You're giving an opinion where I stated historical fact. The only area where the Beretta surpassed the P-226 was by cost per unit. S&W initiated a lawsuit over the palm greasing that Beretta did which forced a second round of trials where SIG declined to participate because they thought they'd won in the first place. What's absurd is you offering opinion denying the facts that DID occur. This has nothing to do with being a fan of one over the other, just the facts.

An official investigation into the process showed no undue influence by Beretta. Please show me the official report, not secondhand or anecdotal but from a reputable source, alleging and finding proof of your allegation that "wining and dining" gave Beretta access to competing bids. Since you claim this is historical fact, citing the source of that claim should be easy.

Most of what you posted was historical fact. The part with the "wining and dining" claim most certainly was not.

Since I asked you to provide sources, here is mine: http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf - Page 2, Paragraphs 1-4 of the official report-critique of the XM9 process that stated an inability to prove or disprove that any bids had been leaked. In this report, the Sig is referred to as the "SACO", but they are referring to the Sig. "Back then, SIG-Sauer did not have a US importer, and so they entered into a deal with Saco Defense, Inc. of Maine to supply the pistols used in the US military testing." (Source: http://www.cybershooters.org/dgca/sig-sauer_p226.htm)

Our investigation disclosed only one instance, the 1978 Air Force testing, where the perception of bias toward Beretta appears warranted. All candidates failed the 1981-82 Army test, and therefore the competition was canceled. In the 1984 Army testing of candidate weapons, we do not believe that the Army exhibited any deliberate bias toward Beretta. However, we do believe that one competitor, Smith & Wesson (S&W), was unfairly excluded from the competition.

We found no evidence to suggest that secret testing had been conducted,
and we were unable to prove or disprove that a competitor’s price had
been “leaked” to Beretta.

We found nothing to indicate that the selection of Beretta was influenced by any secret international agreement. The interest in and lobbying for the contract by the Italian government on behalf of Beretta was widely known and not unusual. Our analysis indicates that the economic impact of the Beretta sale on U S. industry will be limited.

These findings and conclusions are discussed below.

Originally Posted by 57K

This is the first I've heard of the P-226 failing "mud" tests

This document also references on page 38 and 39 the dry mud test Sig failed. This both proves the dry mud test failure and disproves your claim that Beretta only beat Sig in price. Beretta passed the dry mud test. When the Sig failed it (the only pistol in the XM9 trials to fail it), the evaluating team decided the test was probably "unrealistic". If anything, favoritism was shown to the Sig in this instance since it had done well in other testing areas.

Just the facts.

Straying away from the realm of fact and into the realm of my opinion, I'd say that while the German XM9-era Sig might have been superior by a nose to Beretta (I don't think that but acknowledge the possibility), the modern Cohen-run, cost-cutting Exeter Sig would have a much harder time with those trials.

[ClydeFrog]

I agree with LB & the post.
Beretta USA went thru 2 T&Es for the M9 service contract.
The process was even a Smithsonian exhibit in the early 1990s.
The P226 was IMO, the better sidearm BUT the 92F cost less & was more ready to start up with the procurement process.
It can be agreed by all that the SIG P228 did fairly earn the M11 sidearm contract.
The hype & silly rumors about every type of duty pistol from the Ruger P89 to the Taurus 24/07 to the Glock 17 to the XD being awarded new DoD contracts is wrong.

CF

[btmj]

Well what really upsets me is the Army's contract to Colt for the 1873 single action army revolver... Without a competitive bid that followed Federal Acquisition Regulations.... Remington and Smith&Wesson Schofield got short changed on that one..... where is the outrage!

[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by btmj

Well what really upsets me is the Army's contract to Colt for the 1873 single action army revolver... Without a competitive bid that followed Federal Acquisition Regulations.... Remington and Smith&Wesson Schofield got short changed on that one..... where is the outrage!

What this thread has made me want more than anything is to pick up a 92FS and a P226 and, to borrow the term from OilTheGun on YouTube, "shoot the fire out of them". Despite extensive range time with both I don't actually own either. Wherever the debate tracks, they are two of the finest 9mm handguns ever fielded.

[57K]

Since I asked you to provide sources, here is mine: http://archive.gao.gov/d4t4/130439.pdf - Page 2, Paragraphs 1-4 of the official report-critique of the XM9 process that stated an inability to prove or disprove that any bids had been leaked. In this report, the Sig is referred to as the "SACO", but they are referring to the Sig. "Back then, SIG-Sauer did not have a US importer, and so they entered into a deal with Saco Defense, Inc. of Maine to supply the pistols used in the US military testing." (Source: http://www.cybershooters.org/dgca/sig-sauer_p226.htm)

S&Ws accusations of bid leaking were directly responsible for the second round of testing. Whether the GAO found anything conclusive in coducting an in-house investigation or not is pretty much irrelevant to the fact that the second round of testing was the direct result of S&W initiating legal action. It doesn't matter that SIG didn't currently have a plant in the US because the specifications required the successful bidder to manufacture all pistols in the US. The spec made no such requirement for sample pistols used in the testing process and SIG wasn't the only European co. to submit pistols to the trials. SIG knew full well that if they won the contract they would have to build the P-226 in the US. The second round of testing caused by S&Ws allegations is a matter of fact and my sources go back to articles that were written as events unfolded. So any in-depth source you've found should have explained why the second round of testing was required after Beretta had been announced as the successful bidder after the 1st test.

[LockedBreech]

You stated that:

Originally Posted by 57K

S&W initiated a lawsuit because they had learned that Beretta had wined, dined and gifted enough GAO and Army personnel involved in the bidding process to learn what the competitions bids were.

You stated that like it's a fact, but there was no proof that ever happened. You should have phrased it "S&W believed" or "S&W alleged", because the way you have it phrased, "learned", sounds like you think S&W based their suit on a proven fact, when that's not the case. It is also not the reason S&W was determined to have been treated unfairly by the report I linked. The fairness issues were procedural.

To clarify, do you think, factually, that Beretta unduly influenced decision-making parties? If so, what do you base that claim upon? If you base that claim solely off S&W's accusations, just know that those were never substantiated and might as well be opinion or hunch.

I never disagreed that S&W's allegations started the second round. In fact, the report I provided as a source goes into heavy detail about how S&W was treated unfairly, and backs up S&W. Did you read it? You're moving the goalposts, I never disputed that fact.

You also were incorrect about Beretta only beating Sig in price, do you want to walk that back?

I am the one who has provided reputable sources, with page cites and quotes, for every claim I have made. Saying your sources are "articles" is meaningless without those articles. This is the internet, it's anonymous and I have no way to judge your credibility. You could be pulling that out of thin air. Burden is on the person making the statement to back it up.

[Skans]

...yet the P226 is always about $150-$200 more per example on the market.

That's because Sig makes a better gun - well worth $200+ more than Beretta's 92. Catastrophic locking block failures plagued this gun until they changed the design by beefing up the locking block sometime after year 2000. FYI, if the locking block fails, often the only way to get the gun apart without destroying the frame is to cut the barrel.

As far as I'm concerned, the debate over which one was better was absolutely decided in Sig's favor when Beretta sneakily admitted its problems with the locking block when suddenly around 2003 (estimating) their guns had a completely redesigned block.

And, for those who say "it only fails after 5000 rounds" - are you kidding me??? A part that can lock up a gun requiring the barrel to be sawed into 2 pieces should NEVER fail. That's like saying its ok if the barrel blows up after 5000 rounds.

And, for those who say "my 92 has over 10,000 rounds through it with no problem..." Well, my Jennings J-22 has over 1,000 rounds through it and nothing has broken so far....

[Tactical Jackalope]

The link LockedBreech posted is dated on mybirthday.

I tend to agree with Dan though. Just shoot what you like. We always misconstrue things we hear, it happens everyday in the media.

I personally prefer the SIG P226 over the Beretta whether is "won" or didn't. It won me over.

[Noreaster]

Real quick on the above. The Navy at the time were testing firearms until complete failure. They would shoot whatever gun until it broke. The Navy Special Warfare torture test if you will. The M9 had a slide come back after the frame twisted and broke (as do all frames when they break.) The fix was piece to prevent the slide coming back if it broke. Over the years the M9 had some bad reports that have been attributed to improper maintenance (replacing parts as required,) and non Beretta parts. When the DOD adopted the M9 they got the right to have whatever company supply them with parts, DOD owned the patent so to speak. One such company supplied the US army with thousands of replacement grips, the problem was the grips were left side only. When the company did a cookie cutter job on the new grips then only did one side and shipped them that way with two left sides in every box. There was also a crappy magazine replacement. The M9 is a fine weapon but needs standard maintenance, same as the Sig.

[ClydeFrog]

I was issued a M9 9mmNATO(aka 9mm Luger or 9x19mm) from 01/1991 to 07/1993.
The only problems I had was the grip had 1/one missing screw & a few scuffs/nicks.
The Beretta M9 also had issues with rust & wear in hot, humid weather.
The Bruetion(check spelling) treatment & the anodized alloy frame didn't perform that well in real US military conditions either. Break-Free the DoD/milspec CLP didn't do the M9 any favors. This was about 10-15 years before LPX, Gunzilla & Weaponshield.
Troops today have a lot more choices for gun care & basic maintance.
SIG's Nitron has many supporters & its good for sidearms.

[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by Skans

As far as I'm concerned, the debate over which one was better was absolutely decided in Sig's favor when Beretta sneakily admitted its problems with the locking block when suddenly around 2003 (estimating) their guns had a completely redesigned block.

How, exactly, does a gun manufacturer "sneakily admit" something? Wouldn't it be sneaky to deny the change, or hide it? Has Beretta done either? Beretta even sells locking block replacement kits on their website. Should they have printed full-page ads when they made the modification? Exactly how was it "sneaky"?

Are any improvements of faults in designs an admission the old design was faulty? Is FN's FNX line replacing the FNP line admitting that the FNP was a bad pistol? CZ just discontinued the CZ-75 Compact. Are they admitting it was a bad gun? When Glock added more pins to newer-generation .40 S&W Glocks, were they admitting that the lower number of pins in older Glocks was dangerous and/or unreliable? Or is it possible that small, incremental improvements in products are a part of the process or developing and selling a product?

As far as I know, catastrophic locking block failures only ever impacted a small percentage of Beretta 92s. Do you have any support for the proposition that these problems "plagued" the platform? It is well known by those familiar with the pistol, as well as police and military armorers, that the locking block in the 92 should be replaced on a timeframe roughly along with the springs, but is there proof that there was ever a time that massive swaths of 92s were jamming and falling apart? I have only ever heard of any significant number of failures with the 92 when talking about older military-issue M9s that were beyond their designed service life parameters and/or maintained poorly. I have a hunch that had the P226 been subjected to the same bargain-basement magazines (Checkmate) and subpar maintenance as military 92s, it would not enjoy the reputation it does now. Military-issue M9 failures were the fault of the military for pushing equipment beyond what it was designed for with subpar parts.

As for being worth $200+ more, well, we'll have to agree to disagree there. The price has stayed the same, but the quality has not. MIM part breakages and quality assurance/finish issues have cropped up much more frequently in Cohen-era Sigs and are at least as big an issue as 92 locking blocks. Given current production with Beretta's 3rd-generation locking block design, the Sig issues are probably even bigger. Not as bad as a few years ago, but still a far cry from the West German days. Good guns, but $800-900 good? I'm not convinced, and I even like Sig.

Sigs are good, I'd like to own a few, and the Beretta 92 is not without its past and present flaws, but I often hear the brand criticized like it is Taurus or Hi-Point. I absolutely do not understand the Beretta hate I encounter on some gun forums, particularly The High Road and often TFL. They might not be a given person's favorite, but they are unquestionably one of the higher quality brands on the market. I'd put the Beretta up against any other firearm from any other manufacturer to fire multiple thousands of flawless rounds when properly maintained.

[simonrichter]

btw, does anybody have any news about the proposed "Modular Handgun System"? (long-term replacement for the M9) Or has this program been cancelled, finally?

[57K]

You stated that like it's a fact, but there was no proof that ever happened. You should have phrased it "S&W believed" or "S&W alleged", because the way you have it phrased, "learned", sounds like you think S&W based their suit on a proven fact, when that's not the case. It is also not the reason S&W was determined to have been treated unfairly by the report I linked. The fairness issues were procedural.

What I posted was from the facts that occurred at the time of testing because I was shooting handguns well before the trials ever occurred and stayed current of the events as they unfolded, not as an afterthought from some web search. Dig deeper into your web search, because there is no other logical explanation why a second round of testing was ever necessary after Beretta won the contract in the first place which was entirely based on cost per unit while the P-226 graded out higher and the S&W 459 was rejected based solely on performance and the P-226 and the M92 were the only 2 pistols that satisfactorily met the Army's testing protocol. It's not because I started shooting 5 years ago and am basing opinions that are purely based on insufficient reporting from someone's website.

Furthermore, the near proof loads at near 50,000 PSI that the SEALs never found to be an issue with the P-226 were directly responsible for slide breakage with the M9 that more than a few military shooters lost a few teeth because of. DIG DEEPER new shooter.

[Gats Italian]

The factual distortions continue unabated I see.

S&W argued in court that the Army gave them the wrong firing pin energy figure to meet. Somewhere between metric and English, the Army goofed the number and then penalized S&W for using their own math mistake. The Army then resorted to saying S&W wasn't going to meet frame service life requirements anyways to which S&W objected because no cracks were found prior to 5k rounds fired but were discovered before 7k. S&W had sued because their leadership thought the Army was biased against their entrant more so than biased for anyone else's entrants.

The charges of fiscal impropriety or international backscratching in the bidding process were lodged politically by a Mass. congress critter to the Government Accounting Office via a letter that triggered the GAO report.

The failed Beretta slides were a debate over the firing of possibly overpressure ammo versus Beretta's "faulty open slide design." The Phrobis closed slide prototype was commissioned by NSW as a result of the controversy.

Turned out to be faulty metallurgy in one batch of slides left over from supplying the French National Police. The alloy contained traces of the element tellurium, introduced to control sulfur laden French steel in license built slide blanks made by French defense contractor MAS. The tellurium made the steel less shock resistant as a result, unfortunately discovered at failure by the high volume firing SEALs. The "S" in 92FS is for the addition of an oversized hammer pin that retains the rear of the slide in the event of catastrophic slide failure, which hasn't been an issue ever since.

Odd isn't it that the SEAL slide failures were an isolated incident if the problem was a design flaw? It was a previously undetected steel contaminant that was the culprit.

And for fans of the "critical locking block," it's a designed wear item. It only rarely required depot level service and in any event has been redesigned.

Was it any more "destructive" than when SIG "sneakily" redesigned how the trigger bar spring in the 226 was mounted so that it wouldn't chew its way across the right side of the grip frame, thus prematurely ending that frame's service life?

All issued sidearms develop over time. SIG and Beretta were no more immune to that than was Colt before them.

[LockedBreech]

Originally Posted by 57K

What I posted was from the facts that occurred at the time of testing because I was shooting handguns well before the trials ever occurred and stayed current of the events as they unfolded, not as an afterthought from some web search. Dig deeper into your web search, because there is no other logical explanation why a second round of testing was ever necessary after Beretta won the contract in the first place which was entirely based on cost per unit while the P-226 graded out higher and the S&W 459 was rejected based solely on performance and the P-226 and the M92 were the only 2 pistols that satisfactorily met the Army's testing protocol. It's not because I started shooting 5 years ago and am basing opinions that are purely based on insufficient reporting from someone's website.

Furthermore, the near proof loads at near 50,000 PSI that the SEALs never found to be an issue with the P-226 were directly responsible for slide breakage with the M9 that more than a few military shooters lost a few teeth because of. DIG DEEPER new shooter.

Yeah, you can write "dig deeper" all you want, the fact remains that you have provided exactly zero sources. I'll dig deeper once you have shown any interest in providing proof beyond "I was there, I promise."

Also, I've been shooting for over 20 years and thanks to well-equipped friends and family have fired literally hundreds of weapons ranging from .17 HMR plinkers to belt-fed machine guns. This includes significant time with both the 226 and 92, and decent time with the 220, 229, 92 Compact, 92A1, and several 96 models. Stop being condescending and throwing out irrelevant jabs at me in lieu of backing up what you say. You ought to provide sources for your claims, especially when they're trashing a quality gun. I reject the "experience = wisdom" truism. I've heard some of the most inane gun counter chatter from lifelong shooters.

I'm done wasting my time trying to debate you and I'm out of this thread before you turn it into a flame war and get it closed. Debates only work when both sides present evidence. You're presenting sourceless claims, which might as well be opinion statements.

You haven't been posting here long, so let me be the first to tell you that personal jabs, such as calling me 'new shooter', are frowned on here. I'm not a moderator or claiming that I am, but TFL is the best forum on the net because we debate facts, we don't take shots when we disagree.

I have asked only that you back up what you say. You have not. This concludes my participation.

[btmj]

You have more patience than I do LB... I would have quit about post number 12

[Mystro]

Remember that politics are also a equal force in military equipment selection.

[Mike Irwin]

As far as I can tell, there were a total of 5 injuries from slide separations - none of them particularly severe or (as rumor had it) fata - in the first 160,000 handguns delivered. The issue was dealt with and, as was noted above, was something of a "perfect storm" combination of bad slides and POSSIBLY high-pressure ammunition.

That said, numerous requests have been made to provide sources to back claims that have been presented as fact.

None have been forthcoming, just more claims to counter the numerous rebuttal sources that have been provided.

That's not how it's done. Claims made as "fact" need to be backed up.

Lacking that, there's no point to this thread.

Closed.