Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Sometimes with the passage of time you can get a better grasp of the big picture. The U.S. military adopted the Beretta M9 in 1985 and there was more than just a little grumbling when that happened. With the adoption of the SIG M17 & M18 in 2017, Beretta’s military career headed towards retirement. So, we are now 38 years beyond that 1985 adoption date of the M9 and way beyond 40 years from the start of that process.
In 1985 the adoption of the Beretta 92 was met with a great deal of opposition. There were two camps of resistance and some people belonged to both camps. There was the “Never 9mm” camp and there was the “No foreign manufacturer” camp. Both camps put up stiff but futile opposition to the new pistol.
The U.S. membership in NATO combined with Standardization Agreements [STANAG] made the selection of a 9mm chambering a forgone conclusion. This has nothing to do with opinions about calibers and everything to do with what was going to happen. No amount of wailing, whining, screaming, pouting, or complaining was going to alter that outcome. The U.S.A. had been moving towards the adoption of the 9mm NATO round for decades but as long as there was no replacement looming for the 1911A1, there was no urgency to that caliber change. This inevitable change became real in the early 1980’s and the predictable wailing got louder. This was futile opposition from the beginning, any new pistol would be chambered in 9mm, end of discussion.
The other camp was the “No foreign pistol” camp. This opposition was slightly different because regardless of the pistol selected, it would, by law, eventually be made in the U.S.A. Now that doesn’t mean the company would be U.S. owned but there were some that thought only U.S. companies need apply.
There’s an old saying that a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on. That saying has been attributed to many people from Mark Twain to Winston Churchill and no one really knows the original author. But it certainly applies to some of the early criticism of the Beretta 92 series.
There were some documented slide failures early on. The number of actual failures were few and greatly exaggerated (no doubt fueled by the Beretta haters). Beretta made changes to address both the future prevention of the failure and to ensure there would be no injury if the failure occurred. But as always, once there was a drop of blood in the water, the feeding frenzy would occur. *
There were also some reports that the pistols were intentionally sabotaged with high round counts of overpressure ammunition. In any event, the handful of failures and resulting stories were not enough to stop the adoption of the pistol. Not surprising, once the adoption was fait accompli, most of the opposition faded away.
The pistol was not without flaws but overall, it proved to be a good pistol.
The Beretta 92 is very “Old School” by today’s standards. The Beretta 92 has lots of parts, many of them forged and machined. Aluminum frame, hammer fired, lots of machining, and more springs than a Swiss chronometer. But despite its complexity, it functions reliably.
History has shown the initial criticism was overblown. The adoption of the pistol by the military certainly helped improve sales in the civilian and LE markets. The 92 series has proven to be a very successful design.
*
https://sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm
In 1985 the adoption of the Beretta 92 was met with a great deal of opposition. There were two camps of resistance and some people belonged to both camps. There was the “Never 9mm” camp and there was the “No foreign manufacturer” camp. Both camps put up stiff but futile opposition to the new pistol.
The U.S. membership in NATO combined with Standardization Agreements [STANAG] made the selection of a 9mm chambering a forgone conclusion. This has nothing to do with opinions about calibers and everything to do with what was going to happen. No amount of wailing, whining, screaming, pouting, or complaining was going to alter that outcome. The U.S.A. had been moving towards the adoption of the 9mm NATO round for decades but as long as there was no replacement looming for the 1911A1, there was no urgency to that caliber change. This inevitable change became real in the early 1980’s and the predictable wailing got louder. This was futile opposition from the beginning, any new pistol would be chambered in 9mm, end of discussion.
The other camp was the “No foreign pistol” camp. This opposition was slightly different because regardless of the pistol selected, it would, by law, eventually be made in the U.S.A. Now that doesn’t mean the company would be U.S. owned but there were some that thought only U.S. companies need apply.
There’s an old saying that a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth gets its pants on. That saying has been attributed to many people from Mark Twain to Winston Churchill and no one really knows the original author. But it certainly applies to some of the early criticism of the Beretta 92 series.
There were some documented slide failures early on. The number of actual failures were few and greatly exaggerated (no doubt fueled by the Beretta haters). Beretta made changes to address both the future prevention of the failure and to ensure there would be no injury if the failure occurred. But as always, once there was a drop of blood in the water, the feeding frenzy would occur. *
There were also some reports that the pistols were intentionally sabotaged with high round counts of overpressure ammunition. In any event, the handful of failures and resulting stories were not enough to stop the adoption of the pistol. Not surprising, once the adoption was fait accompli, most of the opposition faded away.
The pistol was not without flaws but overall, it proved to be a good pistol.
The Beretta 92 is very “Old School” by today’s standards. The Beretta 92 has lots of parts, many of them forged and machined. Aluminum frame, hammer fired, lots of machining, and more springs than a Swiss chronometer. But despite its complexity, it functions reliably.
History has shown the initial criticism was overblown. The adoption of the pistol by the military certainly helped improve sales in the civilian and LE markets. The 92 series has proven to be a very successful design.
*
https://sightm1911.com/lib/history/true_story_m9.htm
