Pistols with a shot at replacing the M9

[Ulmus]

I don't know guys.  Given the future economy, I think they'll pick the HiPoint as the new side arm.    (As a point of honesty, I do own a HP 9 mil carbine and like it a lot, so down HP fans.)

Seriously, I hope they pick the S&W M&P.  It's a qulity firearm and I like the fact that Americans would be building it for our military.  As an "outside choice" I'd like to see Ruger give it a try.  I'm sure they want to replace the P-345 with a SR variant and here's a chance to make it "Military friendly" for the trials.

[billt]

Seriously, I hope they pick the S&W M&P.  It's a qulity firearm and I like the fact that Americans would be building it for our military.

They already build the M-9. That was the main reason Beretta got the contract in the first place. They agreed to build the Accokeek, Maryland plant, and build the pistol here if they got chosen. They did. It involved..............drum roll please......creating JOBS! This gets to be a lot like "Buying an American car". You don't really know what constitutes "buying American" to begin with?

Would it be better to have Beretta employ American workers in Accokeek, Maryland to build military sidearms here, or go to Sig or H&K who will employ Germans to build them there? As Tom said, this amounts to more political wrangling than anything else. I often wonder just how many of our enemies the M-9 has killed since it's introduction? Probably not as many as Martini's that have been drunk by Appropriation Committee members flapping about it.   Bill T.

[MikeO]

While the Accokeek MD Beretta plant actually predates the M9 contract, not all the M9s were made and/or assembled there.

The first year of the original M9 contract the guns were made and assembled in Italy. The second year they were made in Italy and assembled in the USA. Since then M9s have been made and assembled in the USA.

The US divisions of Glock, SIG, HK, and FN are considered "American" companies as far as the Buy America Act is concerned (as is BUSA - Beretta USA). All of them have production facilities in the US that have been making frames and/or complete pistols for several years now too.

[billt]

While the Accokeek MD Beretta plant actually predates the M9 contract, not all the M9s were made and/or assembled there.

Correct, but Beretta would not have gotten the contract if they did not have the plant here. It gave them a lot of political leverage. My 92 FS was made in Italy, but many of them are made here as well.  Bill T.

[MikeO]

Correct, but Beretta would not have gotten the contract if they did not have the plant here.

Having an existing plant here was not a contract requirement. None of the foreign M9 competitors (Steyr, FN, Walther, HK, SIG, Beretta) had plants here producing the pistols submitted for testing. All of them were capable of doing what Beretta did, which was shift production of that pistol to the USA by the final 2 years of the initial 5 year contract.

Beretta didn't really have a "plant" here either. They had a small facility that assembled parts for pistols made in Italy. A handful of US employees is not a "lot" of political leverage.    

The US had "memorandums of understanding" w all our NATO allies to consider each others defense equipment for contracts since the 70s. Italy had some leverage w US military bases in their country, but so did Belgium (FN) and Germany (HK, Walther). The SIG pistol was a joint effort between Switzerland's SIG and Germany's Sauer, and Germany had more US troops and bases by far than Italy did if those levers were to be pulled to make a difference.

The "errornet" keeps coughing up that small Accokeek facility and Italian bases as major players in Beretta getting the M9 contract, but the facts don't really support that.

The biggest reason Beretta got it and SIG didn't was some of the SIGs broke during extended (5K+) endurance testing and none of the Berettas did. If there was any funny business on our end during the final bidding, that was why. If the funny business was on the other end, then Beretta just had better spies than SIG.

Kinda funny considering what happened later (catastrophic Beretta slide failures) eh?

OTOH, the reason SIGs broke and Berettas did not during the testing could be due to... whatever you say, saying so isn't proving so. Numerous lawsuits and govt investigations after the slide fractures could not prove a thing. Why we bought 200,000 more Berettas after the first 300,000, and why we have options on 450,000 more. Things that make ya go hmmmm?

[Sponsor]

[billt]

Having an existing plant here was not a contract requirement. Beretta didn't really have a "plant" here either. They had a small facility that assembled parts for pistols made in Italy. A handful of US employees is not a "lot" of political leverage.

It was not contractual, but political, as these things always are. You have to realize this has as much to do with getting "the best gun" as Solyndra has to do with "financing the best green company". The Accokeek plant was developed into one of the largest, most modern firearm facilities in the world, that is capable of running lights out for up to 48 hours on a skeleton crew. That would have never happened had they not gotten the M-9 contract.

[TAB]

I would say the sig is the most likly,  

Several gov. agencys, the coast guard, and operators already use it.

The only question is which exact model.

[MikeO]

It was not contractual, but political, as these things always are.

Politics and economics favored SIG/Sauer, not Beretta, even w the Accokeek facility factored in.

If lobbying by the govts involved in favor of the competing companies is taken into consideration, the Accokeek plant simply doesn't matter.

Germany (SIG, Walther, HK) had more political leverage (troops and bases) than Italy did. Germany had more economic leverage (US jobs and trade) than Italy did too.

The Accokeek facility is not the leverage you think it was. Beretta would not close it if they lost, that would be cutting off their nose to spite their face; it's an empty threat. Expanding it is no leverage either. No M9s were made and/or assembled in Accokkek for several years. In that 2-3 years SIG, HK, or Walther would have built a plant as big as Beretta ended up w for the same reason Beretta did.

SIG and Beretta made the final M9 cut. The Beretta had the edge because none broke during testing while several SIGs did. Despite that, SIG was in fact declared the apparent winner w their initial low bid. Then the contract was modified (10% more pistols) and there was another round of bidding. SIG kept their same low bid, essentially throwing in the extra guns for free. Beretta dropped their bid 18% and won.

Lottsa funny stuff during M9 testing and bidding going on. The political and economic leverage favored SIG/Germany, not Beretta/Italy. Politics explains why they won at first, even though their guns broke during testing? Better industrial espionage by Beretta during the final bidding explains how they pulled the rug out from under SIG and sealed the deal more than anything else IMO (if you have to explain it any other way than straight up). We'll have to agree to disagree.

[tombogan03884]

What ever they pick will probably work well enough.
Will it be the best ?  No, it will be the least expensive of the best.
Will every one be happy with the choice ?
Of course not, most likely no one will be completely happy about it.
Will it happen in the immediate future ?
With congress looking to cut about 50% of the defense budget what do you think ?

[Timothy]

What ever they pick will probably work well enough.
Will it be the best ?  No, it will be the least expensive of the best.
Will every one be happy with the choice ?
Of course not, most likely no one will be completely happy about it.
Will it happen in the immediate future ?
With congress looking to cut about 50% of the defense budget what do you think ?

Amen....remember the M16 and McNamara?

Men died, McNamara should have been shot!  Has anything really changed politically in the last fifty years?