Posted: 3/16/2011 6:13:14 PM EDT
|
Not trying to start a Beretta vs. Sig debate, or 9 vs .45. My question is...did the Browning Hi Power compete in the selection for the M-9 pistol, and if so, why was it not selected? |
|
No. A double action variant I believe was entered, but didn't make the 3 pistol down select. Double action was a requirement, as was an ambi safety Even in 1982, the GP-35 was approaching a 50 year old design. I say this as a person who believes that it took the G19 to knock the GP-35 off the "greatest combat handgun" pedestal, and feels its still in the top 5, easily. |
| as mentioned single action designs were not part of the process. in the context of what was available in the early 1980's really the dominant designs of that time in high cap 9mm's were the beretta 92 series sig 226 and the smith and wesson 59 series. alot of other companies jumped in and tried to compete but the only guns to make the cut were the beretta 92 and sig 226. I do not feel having owned both that one is vastly superior to the other. Considering the constraints under which a handgun is selected, I see the beretta 92 series being the U.S. issue standard for the next 30 years.They recently got the largest pistol production contract since ww2. |
|
The USAF tested the BHP in the 70s in SA, DA and FA (Fast Action) modes, along w the Beretta 92S-1, Colt SSP, HK P9S/VP70/PSP, Star M28, and S&W M459. Those tests led to the JSSAP (Joint Services Small Arms Program) in 1981.
The FN DA pistol was not in the final M9 trial, and and ambi safety was not a requirement ... The final five were the Walther P88, HK P7M13, S&W459, Beretta 92 SB-F, and SIG P226. Only the Beretta and SIG were left standing and deemed technically acceptable. SIG was the initial low bidder and "apparent winner". Then the number of parts and magazines in the package was changed. SIG kept the same price w the added stuff, Beretta actually lowered theirs. Beretta's "best and final offer" clinched the contract. BTW, SIG's price per pistol price was lower too, but Beretta's total new package price was lower. Some suspect bid info was leaked to Beretta so they could clinch the 1985 contract and we could keep fighter bases in Italy, but try proving that. The CZ75 was/is a good pistol, but the reliability stats from recent testing done by the PCR were not as good as the stats generated by the M9 and M11 in QC tests done about the same time. In 2009 Beretta won an IDIQ (Indefinite delivery/indefinte quantity) contract for up to 450,000 more M9 pistols. Numerous attempts at replacing the gun/caliber have been made (FHS, SOF-CP, JCP, CP, AFH, AFFH, MHS) but stalled. I heard something about a revival of the MHS (Modular Handgun System) w testing in 2013, and a new gun in 2014, but who knows? |
|
Quoted:
The USAF tested the BHP in the 70s in SA, DA and FA (Fast Action) modes, along w the Beretta 92S-1, Colt SSP, HK P9S/VP70/PSP, Star M28, and S&W M459. Those tests led to the JSSAP (Joint Services Small Arms Program) in 1981. The FN DA pistol was not in the final M9 trial, and and ambi safety was not a requirement ... The final five were the Walther P88, HK P7M13, S&W459, Beretta 92 SB-F, and SIG P226. Only the Beretta and SIG were left standing and deemed technically acceptable. SIG was the initial low bidder and "apparent winner". Then the number of parts and magazines in the package was changed. SIG kept the same price w the added stuff, Beretta actually lowered theirs. Beretta's "best and final offer" clinched the contract. BTW, SIG's price per pistol price was lower too, but Beretta's total new package price was lower. Some suspect bid info was leaked to Beretta so they could clinch the 1985 contract and we could keep fighter bases in Italy, but try proving that. The CZ75 was/is a good pistol, but the reliability stats from recent testing done by the PCR were not as good as the stats generated by the M9 and M11 in QC tests done about the same time. In 2009 Beretta won an IDIQ (Indefinite delivery/indefinte quantity) contract for up to 450,000 more M9 pistols. Numerous attempts at replacing the gun/caliber have been made (FHS, SOF-CP, JCP, CP, AFH, AFFH, MHS) but stalled. I heard something about a revival of the MHS (Modular Handgun System) w testing in 2013, and a new gun in 2014, but who knows? Insightful post. 
|
|
Wait, there's more!
When the M9 slides started breaking (IIRC, 18 between 87-92) there was a call for a new pistol so we actually had several M10 trials as well. A CZ clone made by Tangfolio was considered in one of those. More litigating than testing was done, and when the smoke cleared and the paper stopped flying Beretta won again. FWIW, when a dozen military and commercial Berettas were tested to failure in 1988, the slides all failed by 30,545 rounds, w the lowest at 4908 rounds. By 1998, the M9 slides were averaging over 75,250 rounds w a range from 55K to 90K. Between 88 and 98, somebody fixed sumthin' : the guns, the ammo, or the testing? 
Only pistols iconsidered for the M11 contract in 1992 were the Beretta and SIG, SIG won that one. Some thought that was a foot in the door to replacing the Berettas w SIGs, but that never happened. SIG has not been w/o probs; they've cracked frames and slides in service and testing too. During the final XM9 trial, two SIgs cracked frames under 7K rounds (only had to get to 5K to pass) The Baltimore County PD had 52 of their 1300 P226s crack for example. P229s in service w Swiss cops have cracked slides... stuff happens to everybody sooner or later. |
|
Quoted:
The USAF tested the BHP in the 70s in SA, DA and FA (Fast Action) modes, along w the Beretta 92S-1, Colt SSP, HK P9S/VP70/PSP, Star M28, and S&W M459. Those tests led to the JSSAP (Joint Services Small Arms Program) in 1981. The FN DA pistol was not in the final M9 trial, and and ambi safety was not a requirement ... The final five were the Walther P88, HK P7M13, S&W459, Beretta 92 SB-F, and SIG P226. Only the Beretta and SIG were left standing and deemed technically acceptable. SIG was the initial low bidder and "apparent winner". Then the number of parts and magazines in the package was changed. SIG kept the same price w the added stuff, Beretta actually lowered theirs. Beretta's "best and final offer" clinched the contract. BTW, SIG's price per pistol price was lower too, but Beretta's total new package price was lower. Some suspect bid info was leaked to Beretta so they could clinch the 1985 contract and we could keep fighter bases in Italy, but try proving that. The CZ75 was/is a good pistol, but the reliability stats from recent testing done by the PCR were not as good as the stats generated by the M9 and M11 in QC tests done about the same time. In 2009 Beretta won an IDIQ (Indefinite delivery/indefinte quantity) contract for up to 450,000 more M9 pistols. Numerous attempts at replacing the gun/caliber have been made (FHS, SOF-CP, JCP, CP, AFH, AFFH, MHS) but stalled. I heard something about a revival of the MHS (Modular Handgun System) w testing in 2013, and a new gun in 2014, but who knows? There were eight entries in the 1984 XM9 trials. The FN DA was indeed in it. The XM9 trials of 1984 started with a Request for Test Samples in November 1983. Eight manufacturers sent 30 samples each for testing, along with an additional ten samples each for troop training. The test was adminstered by Army Armament Munitions and Chenical Command (AMCCOM). The eight (alphabetically) were: Beretta 92SB-F Colt SSP FN DA HK P7M13 Sig P226 S&W 459 Steyr GB Walther P88 While only the Sig and Beretta were deemed acceptable by the Army, both HK and S&W filed suit, and appealed to the GAO. The courts dismissed both suits, but the GAO found that S&W had indeed passed and was acceptable and should have been able to bid. This decision, and other factors, lead to the XM10 trials. The XM10 trials themselves were full of drama. The Army first said that since Sig and Beretta passed before, that they didn't have to compete in trials. S&W brought up the fact that since they were deemed acceptable, they shouldn't have to compete either. The Army said they'd have to anyway, and in Feb 88 the GAO agreed with S&W that if the Army insisted on a S&W retest, then the Beretta and Sig would have to retest as well. The Army appealed in March, but in April GAO reaffirmed it's decision. During this time the Army actually tested various handguns such as the TZ-75, the CZ-75 (yes, the Czech one), and the Ruger P85. The Army further managed to get some samples of the CZ-85 and the Glock 17. The Czech guns obviously wouldn't work due to being Commies at the time, and the Glock 17 was deemed unacceptable on techincal grounds for several reasons. The guns in the XM10 tests were: S&W 459 Ruger P85 Beretta M9 (Beretta refused to submit samples on the grounds that they had already won and they would be submitting accepted production sidearms against possibly hand built test samples which would not be a fair test. The Army used off-the-shelf M9s for the test). To avoid the political problems, at the end of the test the Army released no details about the tests themselves. They simply stated that both S&W and Ruger failed and Beretta passed. Neither Ruger nor S&W have comeout publicly as to why they lost. Supposedly the Ruger failed the mud test and S&W failed the accuracy and corrosion tests, but that can't be confirmed. Sig did not participate. They made the decision not to based on the cost of setting up a US plant, and the fact that they were doing fine with the police market as it was. Because the M9 had already been type classified as the "M9", the "M10" designation was dropped from the list which is normal procedure. If Ruger or S&W had won, they would be the "M10", but since the Beretta was the M9 already, it just stayed that and "M10" disappeared. |
|
Thanks for the corrections.
Yep, M9 and M10 trials were a real fandango... The M11 went much smoohter, but we seem to have bogged down again Special Operations Forces Combat Pistol (SOF-CP). Future Handgun Sytem (FHS), Joint Combat Pistol (JCP), Combat Pistol (CP), Air Force Handgun (AFH), Air Force Future Handgun (AFFH), and Modular Handgun System (MHS)... They come and go, merge and unmerge, come again... been hard to get everybody on the same page as to what it really needs to do/be. Not that we have been any clearer on what we want the next rifle/carbine to be either... |
|
Quoted:
Sorry, but he lost credibility not only when he called the Hi Power a POS but also when he referred to the 92FS as a marvelous pistol in an obvious comparison with the Hi Power.
Quoted:
I personally can't stand the BHP. There are so many far better choices to carry out there than that POS. I've had my 92FS for almost 10 years and it has been a marvelous pistol. The BHP a POS. 
Blasphemy. The 92 is and always has been a way oversized pistol for the 9mm Para round and the slide mounted controls are not even remotely comparabel to a Hi Power from an ergonomic and human factors standpoint. I won't even get into the M9 slide breakage history. Saying the 92 is a "marvelous" pistol is absolutely fine - everyone has a right to an opinion and to personal preferneces. But saying it as a comparison and put down to a Hi Power is just a display of ignorance. |