Is it me or is Beretta going hard in the paint?

[himurax13]

What they should do is pay hollywood to make Lethal Weapon 5.

Or fund more Chow Yun Fat movies.

Or they could make more all stainless steel versions with a better beavertail, smaller grips, wider magazine release, dovetail mounted front sights, and a frame mounted safety/decockers.

[SoberClurichaun]

I am assuming Beretta will no longer be the military sidearm so Beretta needs to step it up with the non-military market. I am fine with Beretta stepping it up I shoot Beretta better then anything else I own.
BERETTA REALLY NEEDS A .45 ACP ON THE M9/92FS FRAME.

This!

[pterrell]

I think they have a Vertec frame too. It could just be a smaller option for smaller hands along with the M9 frame.

I think that's too inside the box. Is it good? Sure, but they really need to make a true improvement on the platform in order to stay competitive. Doing what everyone else is doing just isn't going to cut it.

I don't think they're going to lose the military contact all at once. I think that the M9 is going to continue to be phased out by different groups withing branches to the point that it makes more sense to drop it entirely. That process will take years.

[JackRydden224]

What they need is a 1911 and a polymer framed striker fired weapon.

I mean, who isn't doing that already?

I want to see VP 9 vs Beretta striker fired pistol thread.

[ke6guj]

Or fund more Chow Yun Fat movies.

Or they could make more all stainless steel versions with a better beavertail, smaller grips, wider magazine release, dovetail mounted front sights, and a frame mounted safety/decockers.

exactly, my 92 Steel-I almost fits that to a T except for the nickle-finish . All steel frame, vertec grip, dovetailed front sight and the frame mounted safety (no decocker but can run cocked&locked or hammer down and locked). I've seen other versions with an enlarged beavertail.

[himurax13]

exactly, my 92 Steel-I almost fits that to a T except for the nickle-finish . I've seen other versions with an enlarged beavertail.

Well if they used this for the military contract years ago, they probably would not be losing it.

[viet4lifeOC]

. Or they could make more all stainless steel versions with a better beavertail, smaller grips, wider magazine release, dovetail mounted front sights, and a frame mounted safety/decockers.

This

[riftol]

I am assuming Beretta will no longer be the military sidearm so Beretta needs to step it up with the non-military market. I am fine with Beretta stepping it up I shoot Beretta better then anything else I own.
BERETTA REALLY NEEDS A .45 ACP ON THE M9/92FS FRAME.

I'd like a stainless Vertec with a plain dust cover.

[drpepper]

Yeah I was a little underwhelmed by beretta arx100 considering I waited 3 yrs. it was a fine weapon but not a scar killer or ar killer

[riftol]

Largest, oldest, gun manufacture in the world. They will be just fine.

I think Beretta is also the world's oldest corporation.

[Che762x39]

After a divorce, years ago, I sold all my 9mm pistols except a BHP. Recently I have been thinking about getting a modern 9mm and I am thinking Beretta M9 Commercial especially since Turners has them for $469.98 this week.

[dgax65]

I personally don't understand the issue with the slide-mounted safety. Is it really that common for it to be accidentally moved to the SAFE position while racking? I've racked an M-9/92FS thousands of times and have never hit the safety. I was surprised to see that this was cited as a major contributing factor in the Army's decision to look for a new pistol.

I would think that Baretta's proposed changes to the safety/decocker on the A3 would alleviate any concerns over this issue. I am actually looking forward to the M9A3. I have always liked the 92FS/M-9. My only problem with it is the grip size. It looks like they are addressing this as well.

Given the time and money wasted on the ill-fated M-4 replacement program, I would think that the Army would realize that replacing the M-9 is similarly pointless. Are there better handguns available? Probably. But you have to ask some very important questions:

1) Is the performance of the M-9 so poor that it absolutely must be replaced?

2) Do the inadequacies of the M-9 have a significant impact on mission performance? Are troopers dying because of its inadequacies?

3) Does it function adequately to perform the mission?

4) Is maintaining the M-9 inordinately expensive?

5) Are the performance improvements of a new handgun worth the cost of transitioning to a completely different platform?

The Army answered those same questions when looking for an M-4 replacement. You would think they could do the same with the M-9 without the waste of a lot of money. I hope the Army realizes this and sticks with the M-9A1 or orders the A3. It's nice that Beretta is looking at expanding their civilian market, but I think they will continue to provide handguns for the military.

[roger1022]

I personally don't understand the issue with the slide-mounted safety. Is it really that common for it to be accidentally moved to the SAFE position while racking? I've racked an M-9/92FS thousands of times and have never hit the safety. I was surprised to see that this was cited as a major contributing factor in the Army's decision to look for a new pistol.

I would think that Baretta's proposed changes to the safety/decocker on the A3 would alleviate any concerns over this issue. I am actually looking forward to the M9A3. I have always liked the 92FS/M-9. My only problem with it is the grip size. It looks like they are addressing this as well.

Given the time and money wasted on the ill-fated M-4 replacement program, I would think that the Army would realize that replacing the M-9 is similarly pointless. Are there better handguns available? Probably. But you have to ask some very important questions:

1) Is the performance of the M-9 so poor that it absolutely must be replaced?

2) Do the inadequacies of the M-9 have a significant impact on mission performance? Are troopers dying because of its inadequacies?

3) Does it function adequately to perform the mission?

4) Is maintaining the M-9 inordinately expensive?

5) Are the performance improvements of a new handgun worth the cost of transitioning to a completely different platform?

The Army answered those same questions when looking for an M-4 replacement. You would think they could do the same with the M-9 without the waste of a lot of money. I hope the Army realizes this and sticks with the M-9A1 or orders the A3. It's nice that Beretta is looking at expanding their civilian market, but I think they will continue to provide handguns for the military.

Don't forget about the XM8 trials and Joint Combat Pistol and how those programs went nowhere (after much time, effort and $$ was spend).

Recently the Army stated they wanted a new .40 pistol could be the reason the M9A3 was not considered. Also Beretta was awarded a contract for new pistols back in 2012.

Performance wise, there was a report on soldier's low satisfaction with the M9in general. Most soldiers didn't like the stopping power, magazine issues and sometimes the gun failed function. Then again, those were probably old pistols that were beaten over the years and possibly neglected.

[GlennG31]

After a divorce, years ago, I sold all my 9mm pistols except a BHP. Recently I have been thinking about getting a modern 9mm and I am thinking Beretta M9 Commercial especially since Turners has them for $469.98 this week.

If you're referring to the blemished M9's that Turner's had on sale starting last week, you're a little late to the game. All 450 they had in stock sold out by the end of the day last Saturday.

[Che762x39]

If you're referring to the blemished M9's that Turner's had on sale starting last week, you're a little late to the game. All 450 they had in stock sold out by the end of the day last Saturday.

Yes I was. I never had a chance to look. Was it a serious blemish?