carpe vinum said:
The bright side is a metric crap ton (technical term) of Beretta surplus will soon be on the market.
Well -- I hope you are young and have a ways to go, as the USAF can be rather slow about such things. My old unit was still using 4" .38sp revolvers as late as 2005. Those were my first "concealed carry"..........CharlieBrown17 said:
With no real basis for this, I'd guess it initially drops the availability but overall increases the P320 market share and availability over time.
Personally I'm really hoping the USAF also adapts the P320 over the M9 by the time I'm active duty...
carpe vinum said:
The bright side is a metric crap ton (technical term) of Beretta surplus will soon be on the market.
Funny story on this.Naveronski said:carpe vinum said:
The bright side is a metric crap ton (technical term) of Beretta surplus will soon be on the market.
Hopefully.
It should mean a bunch of low round count guns that have been sitting in arms rooms for years.
Army (GPF) handgun training is abysmal.
Doubt it will get much better with a new pistol, but we can hope.
There is a reason that the 1911 has been a proven combat pistol for over 100 years.trip said:Funny story on this.Naveronski said:carpe vinum said:
The bright side is a metric crap ton (technical term) of Beretta surplus will soon be on the market.
Hopefully.
It should mean a bunch of low round count guns that have been sitting in arms rooms for years.
Army (GPF) handgun training is abysmal.
Doubt it will get much better with a new pistol, but we can hope.
My Dad was a JAG officer in 1985 and was tasked with evaluating the M9 versus the 1911 because the general in charge of this decision was bad at writing. He wanted it written well so he went to get a Lawyer. It got on my dads desk because he was on the pistol team at Fort Meade (close to Washington).
My dad evaluated them and ended up writing a paper say how the M9 was an inferior gun. Main points were
1.Double action versus single action causes the aim to wander through the length of the pull.
2.Longer trigger pull
3.A vertically hung trigger versus the straight pull of the 1911
4.9m versus 45 cal.
He turned it in and then found out the general already made his mind up on Berretta and was looking for a pro Brerretta paper. Obviously the paper was never released.
He also believes this is why the pistol teams suck now.
Mr. Dubi said:
If my math is correct, it's $1,100 plus per pistol. That sounds a little steep to me.
powerbelly51 said:Mr. Dubi said:
If my math is correct, it's $1,100 plus per pistol. That sounds a little steep to me.
IIRC the price is for more than just the pistols. It is everything needed from sig.
MonkeyKnifeFighter said:
If this gets me a cheap 92G eventually, I'm all for it.
My impression is they wanted a better pistol, not to get away from 9mm.JJMt said:
The linked article says that the Army's buying the Sig in 9mm. Is that accurate? If so, why would the Army do that? I thought that the reason that the Army started the new procurement was to get away from the 9mm?
NATO.JJMt said:
The linked article says that the Army's buying the Sig in 9mm. Is that accurate? If so, why would the Army do that? I thought that the reason that the Army started the new procurement was to get away from the 9mm?
Quote:
I would doubt there are 100 people in conventional force units that have actually needed to fire a pistol over the past 15+ years of war.
I don't agree in this context. Especially with the way the Beretta safety works.Quote:
The Beretta is the better pistol.
They're nice.powerbelly51 said:
It is dumb that the army requires a external safety.
I also really want a Beretta 92G, I like the platform, just not the execution.
That includes extra parts and support. It's always crazy per gun on the mil contracts.Mr. Dubi said:
If my math is correct, it's $1,100 plus per pistol. That sounds a little steep to me.
